Defamation of Religions: Preliminary Vote

WND reports that the Third Committee held a preliminary vote Nov. 12 on the Defamation of Religions resolution: 81:55:43. Support declined by 5 votes, opposition increased by 2 and abstentions increased by 1. The present level of support indicates that the General Assembly will pass the resolution.

The good news is that, while the resolution will pass, it will not become enforcible law. The bad news is that it will give the UN stamp of approval to blasphemy laws used by Pakistan and other nations to suppress and persecute Christians and other minorities. The resolution calls on member states to enact and enforce legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Department of State expresses opposition to inclusion of references to defamation of religions, but it supports inclusion of negative stereotypes, as included in the recent Freedom of Belief and Expression resolution. Examine the relevant text from that document. [Emphasis added.]

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

This sample is from last year's draft resolution.

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

The following sample is from Pakistan's submission to the Ad Hoc Committee for Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language in matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,

What are they really complaining about? We can get a hint from their latest Islamophobia report, which contains a list of "Islamophobic incidents".

Political and Social Campaigns against Islam and Muslims

Campaign Warns Americans about Looming Shariah Code – Detroit billboard said religious law imposed by Islam threatened rights. Members of the United American Committee (UAC) stated that Shariah might be spreading around the world, but it was not going to be established in the United States without opposition. Officials had reportedly erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.


Danish Muhammad Cartoonist Returns with New Work – Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist forced into hiding after the publication of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was set to return with a new set of potentially controversial drawings. According to a Report in the Copenhagen Post, Westergaard was expected to have 26 illustrations in a new book that compiled the
sardonic columns by Danish writer Lars Hedegaard for the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

Wilders plans second anti-Islam film – Rightwing MP Geert Wilders has told De Telegraaf newspaper that he was planning to make a follow-up to his controversial anti-Islam film, Fitna. The new piece, expected to be released in 2010, will deal with the negative effects of what Wilders called the advance of Islam in Western countries.

If those examples do not make it clear to you, examine this quote from a letter sent by the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Cmte. in October.

For instance, the British National Putty leader Nick Grffin has referred to Islam as a "a vicious and wicked religion"; some in Switzerland are strongly opposed to the construction of minarets on mosques as symbols of Islam; while in Denmark and the Netherlands the personality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been deliberately ridiculed with the intention to violate the sentiments of Muslims. These are only some of the clear examples not just of discrimination against Muslims as individuals but of Islam as a religion as well as well as its revered personalities and sacred symbols. Accordingly, the contention that human rights standards should apply only to individuals is not credible. Therefore, the OIC ls advocating the need to address these concepts in a holistic and legal manner: to avoid their negative impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by the individuals, groups of individuals and communities. [Emphasis added. ]

It becomes clear that Islam will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. Islam seeks to criminalize all criticism, regardless of the truth thereof. The obvious references to Fitna and the Danish cartoons leave no doubt. Fitna displayed the hate speech & violence which fill the Qur'an along with their effects in the Arab street. The Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was even though he never possessed a bomb. He said that he was "made victorious with terror."

What can we do about this situation? Nothing directly, but we can sign and promote two on line petitions opposing the resolution and one that counter attacks.

• Open Doors has a Free To Believe campaign.
• ACLJ has a petition campaign of their own and is lobbying the European delegations.
• The International Qur'an Petition is a good counter attack. Sign it send it to everyone you can influence. Exhort the recipients to sign and forward the petition.
• A sense of the House resolution opposing the OIC censorship campaign languishes in the Foreign Affairs Cmte. It has gained two more co-sponsors, but it needs to be voted on before the final vote in the General Assembly.
• H.Res. 763: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the "defamation of religions" are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

Sign those petitions and solicit the support of everyone you can hope to influence. Urge your Congressman to sign onto H. Res. 763 as a co-sponsor and work to get it to the floor for a vote. If you know your Zip Code, you can use the email form at http://www.congress.org/ .

Veto the Goldstone Report!

Honest Reporting is sending emails to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council urging them to veto the Goldstone Report. For further information about the travesty of justice, click here.

For the love of justice and the right of self defense against Islamic aggression, click this link, watch the promotional video and sign the petition. The biased and polemical report falsely accuses Israel of war crimes, flying in the face of the facts. The enemy of all mankind must not be allowed to put Israel in the dock for defending herself against terrorism by rockets & mortars.

Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee.

Religion Clause, the blog of Professor Howard M. Friedman, published an article revealing the existence of a letter from the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. The letter was issued coincident with the introduction of the current draft of the Defamation of Religions resolution in the Third Committee. It is an attempt to reinforce the supposed necessity of protecting Islam from criticism.

The blog post also reported the existence of a U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom publication: The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from "Defamation": A Threat to Universal Human Rights Standards.


There is a clear contrast between the OIC's letter and the USCIRF's report. Reading both of them will help you to understand the necessity of defeating the Defamation resolution in the General Assembly.

Dr. Nidal Hasan's Outline of Islam and Andrew Bolt's Questions

The Herald Sun published an article by Andrew Bolt in which he stated critical facts which had been ignored by some journalists and propounded certain rhetorical of a most critical nature. The article included a link to his blog, where I discovered a link to Dr. Hasan's slide show at the Washington Post.

It has been reported that Dr. Hasan's assignment was to deliver a lecture on a medical topic. Instead, he lectured about Islam and its potential effect on servicemen and the Army. In retrospect, the advice given in the last slide should have been applied in his case.

The slide show presents a basic outline of Islam, hitting the most essential highlights. Most of the slides display Qur'an verses or hadith. I have no doubt that the lecture elaborated upon the military application of those slides.

The information presented in the slide show is basically accurate, with the exception of two areas where error has crept in. Slide #36, pertaining to peace & forgiveness, overlooks the fact that those verses have been abrogated by Surah At-Taubah. #38 & 39 misrepresent 9:38 & 9:39 as relating to defense though they are contained in a Surah dedicated to excoriating Muslims who refused to join the ghazwat against Tabuk. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir confirms the obvious.

I hope that you will click the link to the slide show, view it and consider its contents carefully. Its implications for military recruitment & retention policy are clear. Neither the Muslim who shrinks from conflict with fellow Muslims nor one who anticipates an opportunity to turn against friendly forces should be recruited or retained. I doubt the possibility of accurately identifying all members of those two classes of Muslims.

The critical questions propounded by Mr. Bolt are listed below, followed by my answers.

• How much of a threat is Islam to a secular, multi-ethnic society like America's - and ours?
• How sure can we be of the loyalty of Muslim troops in a war against a Muslim country?
• Have we become so fearful of asking such questions that even a Hasan, with his record for hate-preaching, is not just allowed to serve in the US military, but is promoted to the rank of major by people apparently too scared to seem racist to object?
• And can you trust journalists to even tell you the facts you need to reach the right answers?

Islam is an existential threat, immediately to random individuals as in the massacre of '02 in Metropolitan Washington D.C. and to the nation in the long term if we don't wise up and defend ourselves adequately and effectively by eliminating it. We can no more tolerate Islam in our midst than rattlesnakes and copper heads in our homes. All three are venomous, aggressive and predatory.

We can be sure of the past loyalty of Muslim troops after the war is ended without treacherous behavior on their part. We can never be sure of their future loyalty. We now know that Dr. Hasan is extremely disloyal.

The question about fearing accusations of hate/racism answered itself, it does not require amplification.

Journalists can only report what they know. In the early hours of any incident, that knowledge base will be small, growing over time as new information comes to light . But many journalists have agendas, as do the publications that employ them. We can not trust all of them all of the time; we must not become dependent on a single source of information about current events.

Major Hasan's act of Worship

In an article at NewsMax cites an FBI estimate saying that 10% of American Mosques teach jihad, Ron Kessler made the following statement.

On the other hand, those who condemn Muslims in general because of the actions of Hasan and others like him are engaging in prejudice that has no place in America. Indeed, such stereotyping sets back the war on terror, because we need moderate Muslims on our side.

The problem is not the Quran, which is no more incendiary than some passages in the Bible. (Deuteronomy, for example, prescribes stoning to death for those who “served other gods and worshipped them.”) The problem is the radical element that uses the Quran as an excuse to engage in terrorism and the failure of many moderate Muslims to condemn the extremists.

It is Islam we condemn in general, not Muslims. Most Muslims are victims of Islam. There are Muslims in name only, who do not practice Islam, but there are no moderate Muslims because there is no moderate Islam. Those who assert otherwise are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance.

Islam has a standard set by Moe's preaching and practice. Islam is what he said and did in Allah's name. The Qur'an's Surah Al-Anfal contains an imperative to fight disbelievers, specifically the Pagan Meccans, until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. Hilali & Khan offer this bracketed clarification: "[in the whole of the world ]". Abdullah Yusuf Ali uses a different expression: "faith in God altogether and everywhere".

Surah At-Taubah has an imperative to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and extorted. Those imperatives are outcome oriented, with neither chronological nor geographic limits.

The Old Testament enjunctions to fight were limited to particular people and places, they were not unlimited. Jesus Christ neither preached nor practiced warfare. Jews and Christians are not engaged in wars of conquest. While Judaism and Christianity have reformed and become passive, Islam is not reformed nor can it. Islam is aggressively attempting to conquer or reconquer on several battlefronts.

The Qur'an is given as Allah's word, transmitted to Moe by Jibril. Allah's religion is perfected for Muslims; perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word can not be changed. When Allah abrogated a verse, he replaced it with something better; Surah At-Taubah was revealed next to last, it abrogates earlier, more tolerant and passive verses. Since Moe was Allah's final and greatest 'Prophet', Allah has no messenger, his word is immutable, fixated in the 7^th century.

Moe testified that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'", confirming the imperatives cited above. Muhammad fought in 19 battles. Muslims assert that those battles were defensive, not offensive but only two of them were. Moe dictated and dispatched extortion letters, which he followed up with his army if the recipients did not comply with his demands. His letter to the Chiefs of Aqaba is the most explicit, it leaves no doubt about his intentions.

Allah described his relationship with Muslims as that of master: slave, the slave's mission being to fight in his cause, killing and being killed. Jihad is mandatory, "ordained" for Muslims. The penalty for refusing to fight is "painful torment", a hint of Hellfire. The "commerce that will save you from a painful torment" is "that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives". According to Allah, any step the believers take to anger or injure disbelievers will be "written to their credit as a deed of righteousness.".

Islam's canon of jurisprudence is the ultimate confirmation. Reliance of the Traveller, is the handbook of fiqh. Its Book O is the book of Justice. Its ninth chapter lays down the law of Jihad, defining it, describing its obligatory nature and explaining the obligation: "Jihad is a communal obligation, meaning upon the Muslims each year. ". Al-Shafi'i clarified the issue with this ruling.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

I will quote the first sentence from each of the two sections which confirm the obvious.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9:29).

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) .

Islamic law clearly confirms Allah's Jihad imperatives and Moe's testimony that he was ordered to fight. The caliph has a duty to make war on Kuffar in every year, if possible, until the entire world is conquered. Of course, the caliph's order or permission is required to mount an attack, unless there is no caliph. (O9.6).

Contrary to Mr. Kessler's assertion, condemnation of Islam is not prejudicial and the Qur'an is the root of the problem. Muslims whose personal morality conflicts with orthodox Islamic doctrine should remove Allah's yoke of slavery from their necks and become freemen. If you do not want to kill Kuffar, rape their widows and enslave their orphans, why are you Allah's slave? Emancipate yourself and rejoin humanity.

In remarks uttered at a memorial service for the servicemen slain at Fort Hood, President Obama said this.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next.

A Muslim is not permitted to fight and kill another Muslim except in the authorized enforcement of Islamic law. Major Hasan was reluctant to go into battle against his brethren, but not to go into battle against his comrades. Muslims chant Allah-hu Akbar when slaughtering sacrificial animals and attacking Kuffar. Major Hasan shouted takbir because he was engaging upon the slaughter of his enemies, transferring his fear from himself to them and praising Allah

Murder can not be justified, it is unjust, but Islam rationalizes it. We learn from Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 that the blood of Kuffar is not sacred to Muslims. Kuffar are considered rebels against Allah, and therefore not innocent. They are fair prey, targets of opportunity. . Islam divides the world into Dar ul-Islam where Allah's writ runs, and Dar ul-Harb, where Kuffar rule. Dar al-Harb is the land of war. It must be attacked until the entire world is Dar al-Islam.

Allah is sovereign over the world, its divine ruler because, as its creator, he owns it all. Where men are governed by man made law, they are in rebellion against Allah, depriving him of his divine right to rule. Allah has commanded Muslims to overthrow the rebels and extend Allah's rule over the entire world. Allah has promised them success in that mission. You can verify these facts by reading 13:41, 14:15, 40:51 and 61:9.

We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.

Major Hasan chose to worship Allah by sacrificing 13 Kuffar soldiers. That is his right because Jihad is a mandatory sacrament, being ordained by Allah. Allah said "Slay them wherever you find them'". Is that cherry picking? Is that out of context? If it is, tell it to the Shafi'ite jurists who wrote Reliance of the Traveller; that quote is part of the scriptural basis of jihad given in O9.0.

Ground Broken for Terrorist Memorial Mosque

With the media, politicians and bureaucrats thoroughly in thrall of the enemy, this seems to be a lost cause, but Alec has not given up yet. I admire his persistence and perseverance. The heroes are about to be rolled over again. What a travesty!
The desecration has begun. A ground-breaking ceremony was held at the Shanksville crash site on Saturday. Bulldozers will start reshaping the land this week. Never mind that the only rule for the Flight 93 memorial's design competition was that the landscape had to be left as it was. In order to complete the full arc of the Crescent of Embrace (now called a broken circle, but still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent), an earthen causeway will have to be built across the wetlands that lie about 50 vertical feet below the crash site.

A contractor posted recently about his decision to turn down work on the memorial, despite economic hard times. Our friend Jeff just could not stomach the idea of helping to build a tribute to the enemy, a sentiment that is easy to understand and much appreciated. To anyone else who might find themselves in this situation, just be aware that there are other options. Someone is going to do the work, and if the pay is lucrative, it could be better for our cause to have that money go to someone who is on our side.

Blogburst author Alec Rawls has succeeded in driving driving quite a bit of Western Pennsylvania news coverage through the purchase of a half-dozen half-page full-color ads in the local Somerset paper. If anybody wants to fund another, Alec will gladly put the ad together. Call it anti-dhimmi jiu-jitsu. We can use the Park Service's own money against them. If we don't succeed, then you have to live with knowing that you helped to build an abomination. There is no simple answer.

On the subject of worthy causes, long-time blogburst participant Curt at the excellent Flopping Aces blog is helping to orchestrate fundraising for Project Valour-IT, which helps provide voice-controlled computers and other technology to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries. Soldiers Angels, which hosts Valour-IT, is also fundraising for the victims of the jihad attack on Fort Hood. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

DHS and Friends: Blog Views

One computer in the DHS office at Laredo, #153, performed 54 page loads from 6th November 2009 13:05:01 to 9th November 2009 18:48:00.
besides visiting the article about al-Nafisi, they visited snooper.wordpress.com/2009/11/, gaining direct access to the following posts:

• Homeland Security or Insecurity?
• Defamation || Negative Stereotyping
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09
• Defamation of Religions: Background Info.

They also viewed:

• snooper.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/obamination-ramadan-treason/
• snooper.wordpress.com/no-amnesty/ .

A second computer in the same office, #152, performed 51 page loads from 6th November 2009 12:48:05 to 9th November 2009 15:55:01. They also viewed snooper.wordpress.com/no-amnesty/.

One computer in the DHS office at La Pryor, # 151, performed 72 page loads from 6th November 2009 12:37:48 to 9th November 2009 18:36:36.
They also viewed:

• snooper.wordpress.com/ , giving them access to the November'09 archive listed above
• snooper.wordpress.com/about/
• snooper.wordpress.com/2009/11/
• snooper.wordpress.com/no-amnesty/

One computer in a DHS office in Washington D.C., #160, logged on at 9th November 2009 09:32:49 and remained connected for 8 hours, 39 minutes. They confined their viewing to snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/.

Another computer in that office, #161, performed one pageload 6th November 2009 14:05:10.

One computer in another DHS office in Washington D.C., #155, performed 34 page loads from 6th November 2009 13:08:53 to 9th November 2009 17:47:12.
They also viewed snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/.

A second computer in that office, #152, performed 42 page loads from 6th November 2009 12:54:54 to 9th November 2009 20:29:58. There is no indication that their interest extended beyond the post about al-Nafisi.

One computer in the Springfield office of DHS, # 81, performed 1 page load 6th November 2009 18:21:15.



It appears that the DHS shared their curiosity with a few friends. Someone at the office of the City Of Harlingen viewed snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/., joined by someone at the Texas Department Of Information Resources.

The FBI office in Mcallen read snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/, logging in 9th November 200914:46:02.

There may be a connection, however tenuous, most likely coincident nomenclature. I found this near the top of a results page for a compound search.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
Dr. Abdelrazak Al-Nafisi. Permanent Delegate, Ambassador .... Dr. Abdul Azeez Al Babtain (Saudi Arabia). Dr. Nidal Hassan (Syrian Arab Republic) ...
portal.comnat.free.fr/Repkuwait08.d

But that was a meeting of UNESCO national councils, the Dr. Hasan was a Syrian bureaucrat and the al-Nafisi from Kuwait had a different first name. In any case, the article they've been viewing is relatively short, requiring much less than eight hours to read.

Homeland Security or Insecurity?

Freedom Ain't Free welcomes the Department of Homeland Security, who began reading snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/ shortly after noon Nov. 6, '09 and hung around through 3am Nov. 8.

The Washington D.C. office loaded that single post 33 times while the Laredo TX. office made 45 page loads, reading a few other posts in addition to the post about Sheikh Nafisi.

In April, when the post was fresh, it was viewed 62 times. It had 9 hits in August, 7 in September and 9 in October, with 124 hits in November. Why did a post which averaged less than one hit per day in recent months suddenly spike to 77, 41,2 three days in November? What accounts for the multiple page loads? Did multiple staffers load the page in succession?

A search for the Sheikh's name did not turn up any relevant news using Google and Bing. Searches for recent crop duster and anthrax related stories also came up empty. There were two search engine referrals involving al-Nafisi. There was one page load for that post that was not directly attributable to the DHS. I assume that DHS had some reason for searching for that name. What I do not understand is why they did not click through to MEMRI to view the source of the material I posted.

Is there some indication of a renewed potential for an anthrax attack? That is just what we need with a flu epidemic under way; if every cough and sneeze raised fears of anthrax inhalation, the emergency rooms would be swamped with panicked patients.

Our government needs to come clean with us, drop the pretenses and admit the fact that Islam is our enemy, having declared and prosecuted war against us. The Bush / Obama blather about a "great religion of peace, hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" is counterproductive, as is their policy of leaving our southern border wide open to a flood of illegal immigrants, including a substantial number of "other than Mexicans". .

If I recall correctly, several GIs were killed in Iraq by a grenade tossed by a Muslim colleague. The Fort Hood Massacre was perpetrated by a Muslim whose conduct and expressions had raised red flags. Two cases do not form a clear pattern, but they do present a warning sign. Our servicemen must not be placed at risk by mixing enemy forces into their ranks.

The time has come to purge our armed forces of Muslims. The time has come to weed them out of clerical, administrative and decision making positions in the federal bureaucracy. A Muslim is one who submits to and obeys Allah. What did he command them to do? What did Muhammad exemplify for them to emulate? Expressions such as "fight them", "fight those who" and "cast terror" come to mind immediately. Regular readers of my posts are familiar with them and their sources. The shooter was praising Allah while murdering his comrades. Once is enough.

Did the army enlist American Nazis in WW2? Why not? Weren't they harmless moderates, patriotic Americans? Would ANP members have experience conflict if sent to Europe to fight the Germans? Who would they have aimed at? Maj. Hasan was conflicted about fighting his Muslim brethren. Who did he aim at?

The time has come to drop the pretense & fantasy and observe the facts in the cold clear light of reason. If the Congress & President we elected won't do what is right, then we need to replace them in the next election cycle.