Combating Religious Hatred and Vilification

I had seen reports that the draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions had been edited to substitute vilification for defamation but I had not seen substantive details prior to last night.  One of my Google Alerts linked to an article which included a link to the amended resolution. 

   What is the big deal?  The State Department asserts that the USA rejects resolution on the basis of the concept of defamation of religions.  I presume that the edit is an attempt to throw a lifeline to Obamination.  Recall that while Obamination rejects defamation, he accepts negative stereotyping, which was substituted for defamation in the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution.  The OIC is tinkering with the semantics in hopes of sinning over some of the nay sayers and obstainers to their side. 

    None of the resolutions define the crucial terms, so I checked the on line dictionaries. A Google search turned up fifteen definitions of defamation.

• Seven definitions specify that the victim  is a person.
• Four definition specify that the statement must be false.
• Six definitions list slander as an element.
• Five definitions list libel as an element.
• Two definitions list calumny as an element.
• One of the definitions lists vilification as an element.
• Three of the definitions list malicious as an element.

    Next, I looked up vilification, receiving four results.

• Two definitions listed defamation as an element.
• One definition listed calumny as an element.
• One definition listed slander and libel as elements.

    Next, I looked up negative stereotyping , striking out. Removing the adjective resulted in fifteen definitions.  These are the best of the lot.

• A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
• stereotype - pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European"
• stereotype - a conventional or formulaic conception or image; "regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding"
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    To determine the meaning of those terms, as used in the resolutions, we must examine their context. 

• Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Who is defamed?  Is Islam a human person?  How does illustrating the cause--effect relationship of Islam to terrorism affront human dignity?  If Muslims find their dignity affronted by exposure of the truth about Islam, they can restore their dignity by converting to a pacifist religion.
   
    How does defamation lead to illicit restriction of freedom of religion?  The reference is obviously to the Swiss minaret ban and the French Burqa ban.  What do minarets have to do with freedom of religion?  In ancient times, they were watch towers. Muslims adopted them for the call to prayer. They also serve as a powerful symbol of Islamic supremacy.  But they are not mentioned in the Qur'an or hadith as religious requirements. 

    Visit Open Burhan to verify the literal translation and compare the other translations of 33:59. You can check the entry in an Arab/English dictionary to verify it.

• You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers' women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

If you want to know the real deal, read Sahih Bukhari 1.4.148. Its about Umar hassling Sauda, one of Moe's wives when she went out to answer a call of nature.

• 14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [Emphasis added.]
  

    That paragraph contains two key phrases which, when compared to certain relevant public statements, give us the final clue.

The Secretary-General is concerned over the controversy that has been created by the publication of the Danish cartoons.  He believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10334.doc.htm

In plain language, Kofi Annan would have prevented the publication of the cartoons if it was in his power. That is the power they are seeking.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about 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.”

    The Secretarys General told us that the Danish Cartoons did not respect Islamic religious beliefs and that Geert Wilders' documentary constituted hate speech and incitement to violence.

The cartoon of greatest concern depicts Moe with a bomb in his turban, implying that he was a terrorist.  Moe never had a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder. But he was a terrorist, by his own admission:

• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331, Emphasis added.]
• I have been made victorious with terror [ Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220, Emphasis added.]

The hate speech and incitement in Fitna come from the Qur'an and clerics, not from Geert Wilders.

    Lets get down to the real issue of defamation, negative stereotyping. ¶ 24 contains a 28 item enumerated list. The seventh item is of interest.

• 7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Fitna and the Motoons display that association; what is wrong with it?  Re-examine the quotes from Bukhari's collection of authentic sayings. Moe said that he won by terrifying his victims.  The Qur'an is not silent about this issue.

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

We shall terrorize the disbelievers. Click the link and read the context, it is one of aggressive conquest. 

• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he order the angels to do? After reading this appetizer from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, click the link and read the entire passage.

• Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, "In the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.''
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

Compare the last clause in 8:57 to the last clause in 59:2.  The objective is to build a reputation for brutality; you will see the application in 59:13.

• [8:60]
  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

Build the biggest army you can to strike terror.  What is the "cause of God"? [hint]  Now we get down to the practical application of those verses.

• 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.

  33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things. 

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he do?  What resulted?  Moe and his army killed the men of one tribe and enslaved their widows and orphans. But, of course, Islam has no connection to terror and human rights violations. Its the religion of peace.

• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

What did Allah do to the Bani An-Nadir?  What is the meaning of the admonition?  Can you relate that to the lesson of 8:57?

• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh). 

The Jews fear Muslims more than they fear Allah. Why is that?  Can you make the connections with 8:57 & 59:2?  How did Allah cast terror into their hearts?

    Those Muslims are supremely arrogant; they assume that we are ignorant, gullible fools who will believe anything if it is repeated with sufficient frequency. "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".  Islam's scripture and tradition inform us that the statement from ¶ 24.7 is an accursed lie. They want to base international law on that lie, criminalizing  revelation of the fact that it is a lie!

    The true source of Islamic blasphemy law is Reliance of the Traveller.  Observe the penalty for apostasy.

• 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.

Apostates are killed. What acts warrant their death?  Reliance lists twenty, these are particularly relevant.

• o8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

  (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

  -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

  -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

  -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
  

  -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

  -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

  -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

  -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

  -20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

    How do those rules apply to us as disbelievers?  When disbelievers are conquered and subjugated as dhimmis under Islamic supremacy, they are obligated by a treaty of protection. That treaty is violated if they perform certain acts listed in Reliance. Guess what the penalty is.

• o11.10

  The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
  

  -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

• o11.11

  When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). 

• o9.14

  When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

    When the resolution is voted out of the third committee and passed in the General Assembly, it will not have the force of law, but it will add unwarranted legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in several Islamic nations.

    Unfortunately, that is not the real threat to our liberty. This is:  Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards.  The cmte. will meet at the end of November for a week and a few days. Its purpose is to insert the resolution into ICERD through a binding protocol, giving it the force of  international law.  Last year, the cmte. bogged down in procedural matters. We have no way of knowing when it will finish its work, but when it does, we will be outvoted and the protocol will become law.

    Several blog posts about the ad hoc cmte. have been compiled.

• Ad hoc cmte Draft Document
• Ad hoc cmte on complementary standards:

    The resolution will be voted on in the cmte., the vote is expected to happen Monday or Tuesday.  The General Assembly vote should happen in December. Several human rights organizations are lobbying against it, but with little hope of success.   Besides signing the petition posted by Open Doors, there is not much we can do about it.

    Our best tactic is a counter attack: to raise the political cost of censoring us above Islam's threshold of pain.  As I showed you their egregious lie and proved it above, you can share that information with others.  Copy and cross post this blog post. Paste it into emails. Tell everyone who will listen about the injustice being perpetrated by the OIC. 

    Three international human rights covenants contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The purpose of the International Qur'an Petition is to bring the vital facts to the attention of the public and the World Court. Please sign it and spread it. Cross post it on your blog or web site. Send it by email to  everyone you can hope to influence.