Hillary Clinton's big lie: Combating Discrimination...

Our secretary of State, SCIRI and Human Rights First are prancing about with excrement faced grins, chortling over their great victory, how they put one over on the OIC and defeated a resolution inimical to our right of free expression.

    No, we have no victory; we have a defeat, engineered by those sworn to protect us. Instead, they bent down, lifted Satan's tail and planted a big wet kiss.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State  

Washington, DC

March 24, 2011

Adoption of Resolution at Human Rights Council Combating Discrimination and Violence

---

The United States welcomes today’s action by the UN Human Rights Council to further the international community’s efforts to combat religious intolerance. The consensus resolution adopted by the Council today represents a significant step forward in the global dialogue on countering intolerance, discrimination, and violence against persons based upon religion or belief. We appreciate the leadership shown by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and member states on today's landmark achievement.

The United States strongly supports today’s resolution, which rejects the broad prohibitions on speech called for in the former "defamation of religions" resolution, and supports approaches that do not limit freedom of expression or infringe on the freedom of religion. This resolution demonstrates a desire to move the debate on these shared challenges in a constructive and affirmative direction. Our divides can be bridged through an effort to listen to each other and to seek common ground. This resolution is a direct result of this type of engagement with the global community.

Today’s adoption of this resolution by the UN Human Rights Council is an important statement that must be followed by sustained commitment. At a time when violence and discrimination against members of religious minorities is all too common, we urge the international community to continue to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I said last month in Geneva, we must support those who are willing to stand up on behalf of the rights we cherish.

 

religious intolerance

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.

3:118. O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

    Please show me exactly how the resolution combats that; post relevant, verifiable facts in the comments.

discrimination

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

    Please show me exactly how the resolution reduces discrimination against Jews & Christians living under the heel of Islam in Pakistan & Egypt.  Who shall enforce it and how?

violence against persons

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

    Please show me exactly how the resolution combats Allah's jihad imperatives. Does it repeal Allah's words? Who will enforce it, and how?

landmark achievement

    Instead of having an honest debate and roll call vote which would probably reflect diminished support for the "defamation of Islam" construct, you accepted a dishonest "compromise" which altered the language without changing the meaning and effect of the resolution.

Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can
play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,

    Kindly elaborate on the positive role of free expression in combating intolerance. Under the first amendment, I have a right to truthfully write and publish the fact that Islam snctifies rape, pillage & plunder in the process of world conquest. The Secretary General of the resolution's sponsor will tell you that my truthful expression defames Islam and negatively stereotypes Muslims and that you must pass laws to prohibit it.

    When Geert Wilders uttered & published the same fatal fact in his short documentary, Fitna, Ban Ki-moon declared it to be "hate speech" & "incitement of violence", not involving the right of free expression.  

    If the general public knew the full truth about Islam, they wound not tolerate it. Truthful expression about Islam militates against tolerance of the intolerable.  The intent of the paragraph quoted above is to stifle free expression, not encourage it.

in addition to the negative projection of the followers of religions

    That excerpt, properly viewed, reveals a great deal.  What is uttered about  the  war cult reflects on its membership, jointly and severally.  If Islam  mandates genocidal conquest, then what of Muslims?  Perhaps  the Qur'an will enlighten you.

9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

    Believers fight in Allah's cause (world conquest) killing and being killed. Any step they take to enrage or injure a disbeliever is imputed to them as a good deed.  We can not expose the evil at the core of Islam without exposing Muslims as the agents of Satan who do and applaud evil acts.

Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups  aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments;

    Exactly what are they complaining about?  I highlighted the crucial clauses, read it again, read it repeatedly until it sinks in.  They express  deep concern about  "creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups".  To fully comprehend the enormity of the resolution, you need to recall a boiler plate  expression from previous resolutions: "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations."  Does that ring a bell?  Can you connect the dots?

• negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
• creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups

    Those arrogant, condescending Muslims, bureaucrats & politicians are convinced that we are too stupid to comprehend the big lie they are putting over on us.

Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to  address and combat such incidents;

 

• incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence
• negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief
• advocacy of religious hatred
  • constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
• urges States to take effective measures

    "Religious intolerance" is a code phrase for criticism of Islam; "negative stereotyping..." is a parallel  code phrase. "Advocacy of religious hatred" is another. "Incitement  to discrimination, hostility or violence" is gilding the turd. "Effective measures" is a code phrase for prohibitive legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;

    Recall what they said about Fitna and the Motoons. Recall what they said and are saying about burning the Qur'an.  It is not possible to tell the truth about Islam without violating their resolution.

Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief;

    Recall what the Secretary General  of the United Nations said about Fitna. 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."

    By the U.N.'s own definition of terms, exemplified by the Secretary General, the resolution demands that revelation of facts about Islam be criminalized. There is no real, effective difference between the stated offenses:

• defamation of Islam
• denigration of Islam
• vilification of Islam
• negative stereotyping of Islam
• negative stereotyping of individuals based on religion.

The primary demand was and remains the criminalization of all criticism and questioning of the doctrines & practices of Islam.

Combating Defamation of Islam: only the name changed

In the wake of negative publicity over two high level assassinations in Pakistan, the OIC switched tactics, adopting a style suggested by Article 19 and other NGOs.  This new style replaces the 'defamation of Islam' concept with 'negative stereotyping', 'stigmatization', 'discrimination' & 'incitement to violence' against 'persons' based on their religion.

   If anyone can find a significant difference between 'defamation' and 'negative stereotyping', please post it in the comments.

   Recall what Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders which put the Qur'anic imperatives and Islamic actions side by side for easy comparison. Ban said it was 'hate speech' & "incitemen'; that the right of free expression was not involved. 

   Whenever we bring up the fact that Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal conquest featuring terrorism as a victorious battle tactic or the fact that its 52 year old founder consumated marriage to 9 year old  Aisha, we will be accused of 'negative stereotyping' and 'inciting' 'hatred' & 'violence'.  The name has changed, the strategy has not: cut the watchdog's throat to prevent him from warning of impending danger.

   On March 24, the Human Rights Council passed two resolutions by acclamation:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/combating_intolerance_neg_steretyping.pdf 

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/A_HRC_16_L.10.pdf

My analysis of those resolutions is in these blog posts:

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

    Article 19 & SCIRI hail those resolutions as a great victory. In fact they represent a tragic defeat for truth, justice & liberty.  They represent victory of al-Taqiyya over truth.  A skunk dyed solid color still stinks. A rattlesnake with its rattles cut off remains deadly.  These resolutions continue the outrageous demand that Islamic blasphemy law be imposed upon us, making these blog poswts illegal. 

   If you have any doubts about this fatal fact, consider the statement of  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, concerning International Judge the Koran Day. Here are some highlights.

• “the worst example of extremism”
• need for a normative approach to discourage such practices
• Prof. Ihsanoglu urged the international political elite to take the necessary steps with a view to avoiding recurrence of such acts of extremism that could inflame religious sentiments with grave repercussions towards interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security and stability.

  Those are code phrases for international and national blasphemy laws, backed up by intimidating threats of riot and war.

    The whole ball of feces is predicated upon two false premises:

1. "Islam is a religion of peace" and an "equally valid path to God".
2. "Muslims have a right to practice Islam".

    In fact, Islam is jihad. Jihad is offensive warfare.  Jihad is established as the 'original religion' of Islam; commerce & agriculture are stipulated as alternatives to jihad.  Abandoning jihad for commerce or agriculture is cursed by Allah. 

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Therefore, the right to practice Islam includes a right and demonic mandate to conquer us. It is not possible for such an egregious evil to be a right!  If we have a right to live, secure in our persons, property and liberty, then there is no right to practice  manifest  and propagate Islam.  Choose one, the two can not coexist.

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization This three page draft resolution is dated 03/21/11, considerably post deadline. The database shows it as being submitted on the 18th, one day late.
Despite its length and due to the target rich environment it presents, I reproduce the entire draft resolution, with superscripts linked to my commentary which follows the text of the draft.    To read my comments in coordination with the text, click the superscript and use your back button to return to the text.

    Article 19 & CHRS have published a call for member states to vote for this resolution.  The resolution represents a change of tactics, not strategic objectives. It is designed to deceive human rights activists, and it appears to be a success.

    It is probable that the resolution will be debated and adopted Thursday or Friday of this week, too soon to mount an effective opposition. This blog post will stand as a model for rebuttal when the resolution is repeated next year.  Please follow the links and take maximum advantage of the information provided.

A/HRC/16/L.38

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence
against persons based on religion or belief

Human Rights Council
Sixteenth session
Agenda item 9
Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
form of intolerance, follow-up and implementation
of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference): draft resolution 16/…

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence
against persons based on religion or belief¹

The Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the United
Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia, religion or belief,

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective protection
of the law,

Reaffirming further that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his
choice², and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice³ and teaching,

Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can
play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,⁴

Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance⁵, discrimination⁶ and violence
against persons based on their religion⁷ or belief in all regions of the world,

Deploring any advocacy of discrimination or violence on the basis of religion or
belief,⁸

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion
or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties,
schools, cultural centres or places of worship,⁹

Concerned about actions that willfully exploit tensions or target individuals on the
basis of their religion or belief,

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of
violence in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by discrimination against
persons belonging to religious minorities, in addition to the negative projection of the
followers of religions and the enforcement of measures that specifically discriminate
against persons on the basis of religion or belief,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of people of all religions or beliefs to
humanity and the contribution that dialogue among religious groups can make towards
improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,
Recognizing also that working together to enhance implementation of existing legal
regimes that protect individuals against discrimination and hate crimes, increase interfaith
and intercultural efforts, and to expand human rights education are important first steps in
combating incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against individuals on the
basis of religion or belief,

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization¹⁰ of persons based on their religion or
beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups¹¹
aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular
when condoned by Governments;

2. Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination
and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence¹², and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to
address and combat such incidents;¹³

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;¹²

4. Recognizes that the open public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and
intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels can be among the best
protections against religious intolerance, and can play a positive role in strengthening
democracy and combating religious hatred, and convinced that a continuing dialogue on
these issues can help overcome existing misperceptions;¹⁴

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights
Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic
environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

(a) Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual
understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy
goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of
education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education;

(b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within the government to, inter alia,
identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious
communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;
(c) Encouraging training of government officials in effective outreach strategies;

(d) Encouraging efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities causes of
discrimination and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief;¹⁵

(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious
stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter
alia, education¹⁶ and awareness-building;

(h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as
well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels,
can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence;

6. Calls upon all States:

(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct
of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or
belief;

(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of
members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly
and on an equal footing to the society;

(c) To encourage representation and meaningful participation of individuals,
irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

(d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is
understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings,
searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;¹⁷

7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this
regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights;

8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect
and protection for places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take
measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the
promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human
rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on
this issue at its seventeenth session within existing resources

---

1. This sentence contains the main change: from combating defamation of Islam to Muslims; from the institution to its members. That is a change in tactics, not strategic objective.  The goal remains unchanged: to erect a legislative shield to protect Islam from all questioning and criticism, consistent with Shari'ah, which prescribes the death penalty^A for 'reviling' Allah, Moe & their war cult. ^B   Muslims are supposed to be stigmatized individually by accurately describing the accursed doctrines of the war cult which enslaves them to Satan.  Thus, every exposure,questioning & criticism of Islamic doctrines will be held to 'stigmatize' Muslims, an act to be prohibited by law.

        'Incitement' will be defined broadly, as in Ban Ki-moon's condemnation^C of Geert Wilders' short documentary, Fitna, which exposes, but does not constitute incitement to violence. The Motoons^D a graphic depiction of Islamic jihad-terrorism also exposed incitemenht, but are themselves, not an example of incitement.

2. ICCPR, Article 18, ¶2 implies, but does not clearly state, the right to disaffiliate from one religion and adopt another. International consensus on that right is impossible because Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. Refer to the relevant Islamic law.^A
3. Manifestation & practice of Islam is problematic because participation in offensive wars of conquest^E is ordained for Muslims^F and is their essential life mission^G.  Islam is inseverable, Muslims are not empowered to select what they like and reject the violent parts.^H  It is not possible to practice Islam peacefully in the long run.
4. "Combating religious intolerance" is assumed to be a good thing. Why should anyone tolerate a 'religion' that asserts a demonic mandate--right & duty to conquer him and enslave his widow & orphans^I?  Why should anyone tolerate a 'religion' that imputes any step taken to "injure" or "raise the anger of" a disbeliever to the believer's credit as a "deed of righteousness"^J? 

        The citation of the right to freedom of expression is deliberately deceptive because the intent of this resolution is to criminalize any and every expression that questions or criticizes the doctrines & practices of Islam.  How, exactly, will freedom of expression combat intolerance?  The unstated premise of this and all similar resolutions, including the preceding resolutions "combating defamation of religions" is that all questioning & criticism of Islam constitutes incitement, intolerance & hate speech. 

5. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about 'intolerance" that its holy scripture declares it intensely intolerant of all rival religions so that if anyone chooses another religion, "it will never be accepted of him"^K. 
6. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about 'discrimination' that their Shari'ah dictates that conquered Christians living under Islamic domination are prohibited from making public processions, prayers or funerals, ringing bells, displaying crosses and building churches.^L
7. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about violence based on the victim's religion that their holy scripture , oral tradition & Shari'ah mandate & exemplify offensive wars of conquest against pagans, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.^M
8. How can you be a Muslim while deploring Islam? This is the Acme of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance! ^M
   
9. If you deplore the burning of homes & churches and the killing of Christians & other minorities in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt, why do you remain affiliated with the war cult that inculcates hatred and incites those acts? 
10. Deep concern about "derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization"? Are you concerned about your own scripture and Shari'ah? ^N 
11. They are complaining about the Dutch PVV and similar political parties in Austria, Germany Switzerland and elsewhere. They want such parties outlawed.
12. They just condemned Islam's own canon of scripture, tradition, biography & jurisprudence!
13. That is a demand for legislation outlawing "negative stereotyping', which translates to all questioning and criticism of Islamic doctrines and practices, including this blog post informing you about their outrageous arrogant demands.
14. If the interlocutors had sufficient knowledge of Islamic doctrine and courage to expose it, such dialogue might disabuse a few people of the mis-perception that Islam is the "religion of peace".
15. This is derived from the boilerplate demands for criminalization of 'defamation of Islam'. It encompasses all negative expression about Islam. Review the exemplary statement by Ban Ki-moon quoted below.^C
16. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers, a process that is already  underway. 
17. Consider the most recent mass casualty attacks, both successful and interdicted. What was the affiliation of the perpetrators? How many of them were not Muslims?  Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence. It promises participants admission to a celestial bordello^O and threatens shirkers with eternity in Hell^P.  Muslims are commanded to wage war against us and rewarded for any injury they inflict.  Of course it is unreasonable to be suspicious of them. Yeah, right.

---

1. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶1.
2. ibid, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶7.
3. 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.”

4. View the Motoons
5. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶0 pg. 617
   ibid, ¶1, pg. 618
   ivid, ¶8, pg. 620
   Al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, pg. 141
6. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 216.
7. ibid, Surah At-Taubah, ayah 111
8. ibid,Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 85
9. ibid, Surah Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 26
   Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶13
10. Noble Qur'an, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 120
11. ibid, Surah Al-Imran , Aya 85
12. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11 , ¶5
13. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 39
    ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 29
    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387
    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶8
14. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Baiyyinah, Ayah 6
    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11, ¶5, items 2-7
15. Noble Qur'an, Surah As-Saff, Ayat 10-12
    ibid, Surah Surah An-Naba' , Ayah 31
    
16. Ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayat 38-39
    ibid, Surah an-Naba', Ayah 21

Freedom of Religion: Only for Muslims

My email subscription to UNHRC documents turned up an interesting letter from the representative of Cyprus. I keep telling you hat freedom of religion is a one way street, few pay any attention.  

    Turkey is interfering with Greek Orthodox services in occupied Cyprus. As I keep telling you, if you ain't Muslim, you have no rights. Perhaps this will give you a clue.  Turkey is violating the rights of Christians in occupied Cyprus, interfering with church services, arbitrarily and with outrageous regulations.

Upon instructions from my Government, I would like to bring to your attention a
grave human rights violation that occurred on 25 December 2010 in the Orthodox church of
Saint Synesios, in the town of Rizokarpaso located in the part of Cyprus under the military
occupation of Turkey. This issue is directly related to the mandate in accordance with
which the yearly reports on the question of human rights in Cyprus are prepared, as
provided for in Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXXI) and General Assembly
resolution 3450 (XXX).
As confirmed by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), on
25 December 2010, security forces of the subordinate local administration of Turkey
interrupted an ongoing religious service, forced the priest to remove his liturgical vestments
and to terminate the liturgy, ordered the churchgoers, mainly Greek Cypriot enclaved
persons, to evacuate, then sealed the church on the pretext that no “permission for the
conduct of mass” had been obtained. At the same time, the occupation regime did not allow
for a Christmas mass to be held in the Church of the Holy Trinity (Ayia Triada) in the
nearby town of Yialoussa. Subsequently, the occupation regime informed UNFICYP that a
new “procedure” had been established, whereby prior authorization should be sought 30
days in advance for all scheduled religious services, except those celebrated on Sundays.
These acts contravene the third Vienna agreement of 2 August 1975, which, inter
alia, explicitly provides that the Greek Cypriots who remained enclaved behind the military
lines in their villages in the north-eastern Karpass peninsula in the aftermath of the Turkish
invasion would be “free to stay” and that they would “be given every help to lead a normal
life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as
medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement”. Even more serious, these
acts constitute a clear violation of international and European human rights law, including
article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 3 and 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

    Lets review the fatal facts:

• Muslims are commanded to wage war against us.
• Our blood is not sacred to Muslims.
• Our property is not sacred to Muslims.
• We have no rights until we become Muslims.

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."

    We know blessed well that the Human Rights Council will not do anything to remedy this situation, which will continue to be ignored. They are occupied with more important matters such as condemning Israel for defending itself. 

Fort Hood Benefits Act

I received an email from the Wake Up America movement reminding me of an important issue which I should not have forgotten. I raise it here to remind you of it and urge you to take action.

Fort Hood massacre was November 5, 2009 -  Now it's 2011 and these bills sit in committee - with no decision nor action yet taken.

 

Senate bill: Fort Hood Protection Act S316

House bill:  Fort Hood Benefits Act  HR625

 

Both these bill are sponsored by Republicans  (with 1 Democratic and 1 Independent cosponsor each)

Both bills make the same request - click bill # above to see clear, brief contents. 

 

MAKE YOUR VOICE heard - to move this measure forward now - by contacting your Congressman and Senators. All of US are aware, by now, Congress drags their feet if not prompted to act. So, your voice will matter. Please draw their attention to this overdue resolution in support of HR 625 and S316. The young soldier listed above died when he dived in front of a nurse and saved her life. Surely his, and the families, of others struck down deserve recognition these losses were a result of an act of war.   Please FORWARD. BLOG & TWITTER this action and post ON YOUR FORUMS. Thanks!   www.WAMaction.org

    If  the bills are not enacted into law, the victims and their survivors will suffer an unwarranted injustice, receiving minimal benefits instead of what they justly deserve.  Please go immediately to http://www.congress.org/ and send emails to your Representatives & Senators urging them to get into gear and get the legislation out of cmte. and onto the floor for a vote.

    At congress.org, you don't need to know your Rep's name or district number. If you know your zip code, you know enough. Signup is free and easy. If I can do it, so can you. 

International Judge the Koran Day: Execution

nternational Judge the Koran Day: Execution

This video of the sentencing & execution of a Koran was posted on Facebook.  I was not able to view the judgment with Firefox.  I was able to log on with Internet Explorer, but the audio quality was poor, and  the prosecutor was speaking in Arabic.  I did not hear the promised translation.  When I attempted to reload the page, the server timed out, which it continues to do more than four hours after the event.

    I suspect that the site which streamed the video might have suffered a distributed denial of service attack, but one source asserts that they went off line voluntarily.  I will continue to try the site periodically in hopes of finding video of the trial.  If and when I obtain more information about the trial I will write a new post about it.

    At present, there are two news stories about the trial and execution fo the Koran.

• Straits Times
• All Voices

The Straits Times story should guarantee adequate coverage in Asia.  It is just a matter of time until the hot heads learn of the execution, then the rabble rousing will begin.  How much Hell they will raise is anyone's guess, the less the better.    Any violence which might ensue must be blamed on those who incite it and carry it out, not on the acts of judging and burning the Koran.

    I will be watching for reaction in and from the Human Rights Council as it enters its last week of deliberation for its 16^th session. The council has a full calendar and can not afford to waste time on trifling matters. I doubt that the OIC will view the issue my way.

    While I do not disagree with the verdict, I dislike the idea of burning the Koran inside a church.  Even though it was well contained and isolated from flammable surfaces, the issues of fire hazard, liability, insurance and air pollution  would lead me to do it outdoors, in a burning barrel, covered with a fine screen to prevent fly ash from starting brush fires.

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/viewer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash