Proving Islam incompatible with Article 18 of the ICCPR

ICCPR

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Umdat as-Salik

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Shari'ah clearly reflects the congruent pattern of the Qur'an & hadith. Where Allah's writ runs, there is no freedom of religion. Where Allah's writ does not run, it eventually will. Take note of the terminal condition for Jihad against pagans in Al - Anfal 39.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

The war ends when all resistance ceases and Allah has a global monopoly of faith & practice. It is obvious that war of religious compulsion and executing apostates violate the provisions of Article 18.

Proving Incompatible with Article 9 of the ICCPR

ICCPR

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

I added bold emphasis to one clause in the ayeh and one in the hadith. Each of them is sufficient to demonstrate how Islam contravenes Article 9.1. Islamic law requires that a minimum of one military expedition be mounted against Kuffar in every year and that captive women and children are enslaved.

I hope that Shari'ah is not the sort of law the authors of the ICCPR were contemplating when they wrote Article 9.

Don't Honor John Murtha!

Gabe Ledeen of Vets For Freedom has created an excellent petition in protest against the awarding of the Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award to Congressman John Murtha.

I have no doubt that, after reading this sample of the text of the petition, true patriots will join the 46,464 who have endorsed it as of the time of this writing.

We the undersigned are appalled that the Secretary of the Navy would bestow the Department's highest award for a non-employee to John Murtha after his vile and despicable attacks against U.S. servicemen. This petition is a vehicle to express our bitter disappointment at this betrayal of our combat veterans. Congressman John Murtha should apologize for slandering the Marines of 3/1, and for undermining the efforts of those servicemen and women who fought in Iraq. If he does not, the Secretary of the Navy should rescind this award as a sign of his unwavering support for those who served in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Petition for Immigration Law Enforcement

Numbers USA is organizing a petition drive to demonstrate our will to see current immigration laws enforced. To date, 11,491 people have signed their petition, which states:

Petition to President: It is not 'UN-AMERICAN' to open jobs for jobless Americans through immigration enforcement

At a San Francisco rally against immigration laws, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that it is un-American to use types of enforcement to drive illegal aliens out of U.S. jobs. She has also called for an end to ICE's worksite operations. Coming from one of the nation's highest ranking public officials, this is very disturbing. The small amount of worksite enforcement over the last 18 months has proven itself especially effective in providing jobs for unemployed Americans, including by frightening non-targeted businesses into hiring only legal workers.

We call on you to affirm that a primary purpose of immigration laws is to protect American workers -- particularly our most vulnerable citizens. And we urge you to re-state your oath to carry out these laws of our country to your fullest ability. Please show your commitment to putting especially low-skill American workers back on the job by giving your full support to ICE agents and adopting regulations requiring all federal contractors to use E-Verify.

I have signed the petition. I urge my fellow citizens to sign it and to join Numbers USA and actively express their desire to support legal immigration. Given the current balance of political power, the fence won't be built, many more illegal aliens will join the millions already here, accompanied by terrorists crossing the open border and they will be given citizenship and become a permanent part of the Democrat's voting block. That outcome can only be prevented if we apply intense political pressure. I view this petition as a good start.

Faultline USA: Conservative Bloggers Now Labeled “Domestic Terrorists”?

Faultline USA: Conservative Bloggers Now Labeled “Domestic Terrorists”?

Islam vs ICCPR Article 8

ICCPR

Article 8

1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.

4:3. And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan­girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice.

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allâh ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allâh is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

Sahih Muslim book 008, Number 3373:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them. We then asked Allah's Messen- ger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judg- ment must be born.

Umdat as-Salik O9.13

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

• that your right hands possess
• We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them.
• When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture

This evidence speaks for itself, requiring no elaboration. Allah sanctions conquering people and enslaving captives. That sanction is reflected in Islamic law. The reference to azl in the hadith relates to the withdrawal method. Several related ahadith are more explicit; click the link and scroll up to read them if you want the details.

While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia officially outlawed slavery about 1964, it is still practiced with impunity. Daniel Pipes relates the details of a case of Saudis importing a slave to America in 2000.

Defamation of Religions Vote

Eye on the UN reports the results of the UNHRC vote on the "Revised Draft Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions". The resolution is a 357KB Microsoft Word document. Its purpose is to forward the OIC agenda of imposing Islam's blasphemy laws upon the entire world.

Roy W. Brown, IHEU representative in Geneva, provides history and context to this issue in "The Slow Death of Freedom of expression" at Index of censorship.

Partial vote talley from a UN Watch press release;. list of member nations obtained from Wikipedia. I was only able to obtain the No votes and three abstentions. This table tells us who our friends are: the elleven in the middle column. We should reconsider alliance with and aid to the others listed.

For or Abstain	Against	Abstain
Angola	Canada	Bosnia
Argentina	Chile	Brazil
Azerbaijan	France	Mexico.
Bahrain	Germany
Bangladesh	Netherlands
Bolivia	Slovakia
Burkina Faso	Slovenia
Cameroon	Ukraine
China	Switzerland
Cuba	United Kingdom
Djibouti	Italy
Egypt
Gabon
Ghana
India
Indonesia
Japan
Jordan
Madagascar
Malaysia
Mauritius
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
South Africa
Uruguay
Zambia
23	11	13

Those UNHRC members listed in the first column failed to vote against the resolution which contains these and other egregious statements.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;

13. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

14. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness‑building;

15. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

Since Council members are elected on a regional basis, its membership will always be dominated by Islamic nations and those sympathetic to them. It is therefore impossible for justice, reason or common sense to prevail in the UNHRC. There is no nothing to be gained by seeking membership in that body. I will therefore urge President Obama and my Senators to abandon plans to seek election to the UNHRC and urge them to reject it and its resolutions.We should take no part it its deliberations or its financing.

Readers are urged to use the email form provided by http://www.congress.org/ to send emails to President Obama and their Senators and to include therein this html code which will create therein a link to this blog post.

Defamation of Religions Vote

This is the first in a series of posts comparing the doctrines of Islam to existing international conventions.

This is the first in a series of posts comparing the doctrines of Islam to existing international conventions.
ICCPR:

Article 6

6. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

• I have been ordered to fight the people till they say...
• then their blood and property will be sacred to us
• then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have
• and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law
• When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them.

Three hadith cited make it clear that our lives are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims; until then its open season and we are targets of opportunity.

Umdat as-Salik O1.2

• The following are not subject to retaliation:
• [...]a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;[...]
• [...]a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);[...]

The life of a non-Muslim is not sacred to Islam; it becomes sacred only by conversion or protected only by a treaty of dhimmitude. An apostate may be killed with impunity. It is clear that Shari'ah is incompatible with international law in regard to the right to life.

Islam vs ICCPR Art. 6

This is the first in a series of posts comparing the doctrines of Islam to existing international conventions.
ICCPR:

Article 6

6. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

• I have been ordered to fight the people till they say...
• then their blood and property will be sacred to us
• then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have
• and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law
• When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them.

Three hadith cited make it clear that our lives are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims; until then its open season and we are targets of opportunity.

Umdat as-Salik O1.2

• The following are not subject to retaliation:
• [...]a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;[...]
• [...]a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);[...]

The life of a non-Muslim is not sacred to Islam; it becomes sacred only by conversion or protected only by a treaty of dhimmitude. An apostate may be killed with impunity. It is clear that Shari'ah is incompatible with international law in regard to the right to life.

NGO Joint Statement on Defamation of Religions

UN Watch has posted a press release revealing the details of the Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign and listing its 187 co-endorsers.

The joint statement urges nations to reject the "defamation of religions resolution", the proposed protocol to ICERD and the Durban II conference. The list of signatories includes a few surprises.

• Muslim Council of Canada
• The International Quranic Center (IQC)
• American Islamic Congress

As a lover of liberty, particularly freedom of expression, I visited http://congress.org/ and used their email form to send my personal endorsement of the joint statement and a link to the UN Watch press release to President Obama and my Senators.

The Censorship Protocol

This is what the IHEU is warning about in their press release, as the second of three listed threats to liberty.

Call upon all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;.

This draft complementary international standards in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance has been prepared for the implementation of paragraph 199 of the Program of Action(A/CONF.189/12).

199. Recommends that the Commission on Human Rights prepare complementary
international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects;

Article 4 of the proposed protocol to ICERD is titled: Prohibition of Incitement to Racial Hatred.
This article contains several notable provisions.

1. States Parties condemn all propaganda, practice or organization to justify or encourage any form of hatred or discrimination against persons belonging to groups such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, people displaced, stateless persons, migrants and migrant workers, descent-based communities such as people of African descent, indigenous peoples, minorities and people under foreign occupation.
2. States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to such hatred or discrimination, including:

1. to declare an offense punishable by law all dissemination of ideas to such discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts directed against persons belonging to particular groups;
2. to declare illegal and prohibit organizations and propaganda activities organized and any other type of propaganda which incites hatred or discrimination or who encourages, and to declare punishable by law the involvement in such organizations or activities;
3. not permit public authorities, national or local, to incite hatred or discrimination;
4. not to allow political parties to incite hatred or discrimination.
5. to strengthen their laws or take the legal provisions necessary to prohibit and punish racist and xenophobic platforms and discourage by a democratic debate vigilant the integration of political parties promoting these platforms in Government to legitimise their implementation alliances.

This protocol to ICERD would become International law, binding on signatories, and a provision in Article 17 prohibits reservations. We need a definition of terms:

• justify or encourage any form of hatred or discrimination
• incites hatred
• racist and xenophobic

Here is a clue from Article 6.

The fundamental characteristic of all the events to certain religions and descriditer to insult people or groups who share the religion, commonly called "defamation of religions" and all the fear and religious discrimination is inciting racial hatred For religious and address the issue of defamation of religions in a universal, it is essential to bring this discussion to the international instruments on human rights.

According to that, anyone who says or writes anything negative about Islam incites racial hatred. Is that clear yet? Examine what U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about Geert Wilders' Fitna:.

"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."[Reuters]

Geert Wilders quoted the Qur'an and displayed images of rabble rousing Imams and their followers, along with some of the results of their preaching. Ban Ki-moon says that constitutes hate speech and incitement to violence.

Masood Khan quoted Ban Ki-Moon's representative to the Alliance of Civilizations as declaring Fitna to be " a deliberate incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred on grounds of religion, aimed at provoking and promoting social unrest". [Masood Khan's statement of 04/01/08]

If we accurately describe Islam's doctrines & practices, quoting its canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence, we are automatically convicted of hate speech; inciting violence. This is part of an Orwellian campaign to dis-arm us, to render us incapable of warning against Islamic aggression.

This protocol would outlaw two American and two European political parties for their anti-Islam platforms. Muhammad, claimed to be the best and greatest of men, worthy of emulation as a role model was a murderer, pedophile & terrorist. For genuine hate speech and incitement to violence, read the Qur'an, don't stop there, read the next six verses. Is cursing Jews & Christians hateful enough for you? How about genocide? He killed all the men of a Jewish village after they surrendered, then he examined the boys for pubic hair and slaughtered those who had it.

Islam seeks to criminalize its critics because it has no defense against the facts contained in its own canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. Moe had good reason for forbidding his followers to carry the Qur'an into Dar al-Harb: "That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it."

Don't just sit there waiting for the noose to be placed on your neck. Send an email to your Senators, and to President Obama. Tell them that the proposed protocol is unacceptable. Tell them that you consider support for it to be tantamount to treason. You can send your email through the Federal Officers link at http://www.congress.org/ . Include a link to this blog post in your email so that your Senators can become informed.

Urgent Appeal to NGOs

Dear Readers,

Reproducing blog posts written by others is not my usual habit, I usually do so only when the authors explicitly request it. I make an exception in this extremely important case because of the urgency of the issue and the short time line required for an effective response.

If you are an officer or member of any NGO which speaks out on issues of Liberty, I urge you to give careful and rapid attention to the following appeal from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Please bring this matter to the immediate attention of the leaders of your organization and exhort them to endorse the appeal immediately.

The statement reproduced below brings two new attacks upon liberty to my attention. I intend to make contact with the author in hopes of receiving links to the documents involved so that I can make them the subject of future blog posts.

As a member of the United American Committee, Act! for America and Center for Vigilant Freedom, I exhort the leaders of those organization to add their official endorsement.

An urgent appeal to Humanist organizations: support freedom of expression, oppose "defamation of religions"

Submitted by admin on 22 March, 2009 - 14:19.

• UN Geneva

In conjunction with Freedom House, UN Watch and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, IHEU is seeking Humanist orgnizations' support for the statement below, urging all states to reject UN resolutions "combating defamation of religion" - a concept which has no validity in international law. The statement is self explanatory. If your organization is in agreement with the statement, please endorse it on behalf of your organization by emailing me personally at . Please indicate in your reply the full name of your organization (which does not need to be accredited to the UN).

We plan to circulate the statement early next week to delegations at the Human Rights Council, prior to the Council vote on the "defamation of religion" resolution. The deadline for replies is 4pm CET (10am EST) on Tuesday 24 March.

Do not delay! Please add your organization's voice to this important statement in defence of human rights.

With kind regards

Roy W Brown
IHEU Main Representative, UN Geneva
Immediate Past President of IHEU

---

Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations,

Deeply concerned by the pervasive and mounting campaign by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to produce U.N. resolutions, declarations, and world conferences that propagate the concept of “defamation of religions,” a concept having no basis in domestic or international law, and which would alter the very meaning of human rights, which protect individuals from harm, but not beliefs from critical inquiry;

Deeply concerned by the attempt to misuse the U.N. to legitimize anti-blasphemy laws, thereby restricting freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press;

Deeply concerned that “defamation of religions” resolutions may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters, and other independent voices;

Alarmed by the resolution on “defamation of religions” recently tabled at the current 10th session of the UN Human Rights Council;

Alarmed by the draft resolution on freedom of expression circulated by Egypt, whose amendments seek to restrict, not promote, protections for free speech;

Alarmed by the recently-announced initiative of the U.N. “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to amend the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by adding a protocol on “defamation of religions”;

Alarmed by provisions in the latest draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference that, through coded language and veiled references, endorse and encourage these subversive and anti-democratic initiatives;

1. Call upon all governments to oppose the “defamation of religions” resolution currently tabled at the UN Human Rights Council, and the objectionable provisions of the freedom of expression resolution;
   
2. Call upon all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;
   
3. Call upon all governments not to accept or legitimize a Durban Review Conference outcome that directly or indirectly supports the “defamation of religions” campaign at the expense of basic freedoms and individual human rights.

Initial Signatories:

• UN Watch
• International Humanist and Ethical Union
• Freedom House
• The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty