You've Been Mooned: Combating Defamation of Religions
The Secretary General of the United Nations issued his annual report on combating defamation of religions [Islam] September 23. I present a link to the report below, along with several important excerpts. I have also included a list of links to various documents referenced in the report.
A/66/372Combating defamation of religions
Report of the Secretary-General This issue came to the front burner in 1999 when the HRC passed the original resolution combating defamation of Islam. Because of the ensuing controversy, subsequent resolutions substituted religions for Islam in their titles but their contents belie the distinction without a difference. My sources confirm the original title, but the document linked above lacks it; I presume it has been bowdlerized. It is difficult to find the resolution; in my search for it, I found an important quote attributed to Masood Khan, representing Pakistan at the UN.
"Stereotyping of any religion as propagating violence or its association with terrorism constitutes defamation of religion. It unfortunately breeds a culture of hatred, disharmony and discrimination,"
There is one little problem: the element of falsity.
nnoun
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the goodreputation of another, as by slander or libel;
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]
"Islam promotes violence"
"Islam promotes violence" is not defamatory if it is true. "Terrorism is an Islamic tactic" is not defamatory if it is true. Those statements do not defame Islam or stereotype Muslims unless they are false. "Islam promotes violence" is either true or false. The veracity of the statement can be verified by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence. Allah said that he ordained jihad for Muslims.2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
Hilali & Khan included a definition of jihad in a parenthetical expression. They give a fuller definition in their footnote to 2:190. Islamic law defines jihad as "to war against non-Muslims". Islamic law declares annual military expeditions against disbelievers to be a "communal obligation". Al-Shafi'i put it this way:
Al-Ghazali said something similar:
Islamic law says that the caliph "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... " In the next section (O9.9) it says that the caliph "fights all other peoples until they become Muslim". Why would Islamic law make such statements? Only because of what Allah & Moe said and did. "Ordained" was not Allah's last word on the subject. "Fight them", "fight those who", "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you" . Moe said that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." What did Moe do to implement those jihad imperatives? He dictated and dispatched extortion letters, and followed up with his army. See. for example, the letter to the Jews at Khaibar, and the oral tradition about his raid on them. Examine the critical quote again, because I have a prime example for you: "Islam promotes violence". This is the heading from Book 21 of Malik's Muwatta: "Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad" The title of Riyad us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234 is "Obligation of Jihad". It quotes the relevant ayat & ahadith with commentary. Islam is intrinsically violent, by design. It has not been perverted, distorted nor hijacked; it promotes violence because violence was Moe's source of income. Doubt this? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? This is not defamation of Islam because it is truthful, proven so by Islam's own canon. This is not stereotyping of Muslims because Allah stated their obligations, defined believers as those who "fight in" his cause, promised them Paradise if they do and Hell if they don't. Islam is all or nothing, Muslims are not allowed to select the verses they like.
"Terrorism is an Islamic tactic."
Most of the Qur'anic references to terror are concerned with what Allah will do to when the world ends. Those are not important to this discussion; the others are. Allah said that he would cast terror. He said that he cast terror. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than of him. Islam Awakened presents a table of 37 parallel translations. Here are some interesting samples from 8:57.- to strike fear
- then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear
- deal with them in such a manner that those that follow them should abandon their designs and may take warning
- use them to frighten off anyone who comes in their rear
- set an example of their humiliation serving as a deterrent
- make a fearsome example of them
- disperse thou through them those behind them,
- make a harsh example of them
- deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them
- (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them
- make them a fearsome example
- so as to strike terror among them
- then thereby strike fear in those that are behind them
- strike terror in those that are behind them
- make of them a fearsome example
- to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
- to strike terror into the hearts and minds of Allah's enemy
- you terrorize/terrify with it God's enemy
- to strike terror thereby
- so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy
- Cause terror with this (war readiness) amongst the enemy of Allah
- so that you strike terror into the enemies of Allah
- to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
- that you may strike terror in (the hearts of) the enemies of God
- whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
- to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
- you shall strike terror through it
- to threaten the enemy of Allah
- that you may overawe the enemies of Allah
- whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God,
- whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God
Back to the report, this paragraph quotes from another big title officer. [Emphasis added.]
79. In March 2011, the Office was informed that church members of the Dove
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.
Qur'an burning
Pastors Terry & Sapp hosted a moot trial of the Qur'an, conducted in Arabic and spanning four hours prior to the burning. The trial included a qualified Imam and several expert witnesses, at least two of whom are converts from Islam to Christianity. Why would they find the Qur'an "guilty" of inciting violence? The violent reactions did not result from the trial & burning of the Qur'an, they resulted from rabble rousing Imams spewing hatred at Jumah Salat. Check out the day and time of those riots. They occurred after Friday prayers. UN staff had nothing to do; no connection to the trial & burning of the Qur'an in Florida. There is no logical relationship between the two acts. Peoples and societies are divided by the belief of some that they have a divine obligation to conquer the rest. What did Allah & Moe say that might give them that conceited idea? Qur'an burning is an act of outrage, not intolerance. The Qur'an does not tolerate the existence of disbelievers. Our right to live and worship as we choose or not is the primary issue at stake. Islam's canon denies those rights, inciting outrage which is expressed by incinerating Qur'ans. The trial & burning of the Qur'an was not condoned by Christianity, it was performed by two pastors and their congregation. They burned the book which curses them, condemns them to Hell and commands Muslims to wage war upon them. ¶79 is an obvious demand for legislation to prohibit criticizing Islam & burning Qur'ans. It blames the innocent for the independent criminal actions of the guilty.81. General Comment No. 34 recognizes that “freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person ...
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person ...
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.
I do not see any sign that Ban Ki-moon shares the opinion of the committee of experts who composed Comment 34.
88. The Special Rapporteurs emphasized the principle that individuals rather than
religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.
I presented sufficient evidence to establish the fact that Islam is not defamed by describing its jihad imperatives & promotion of war through carrot and stick doctrines. If a Muslim goes to war, he goes to Paradise; if not, he goes to Hell. Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory because it is truthful, based on Surah At-Taubah 38-39 & Surah As-Saff 10-13. At the time of its publication, Ban Ki-moon described Fitna, Geert Wilders' short documentary exposing the nexus between the Qur'an & terrorism as "hate speech" & "incitement". It is the Qur'an, not Fitna which constitutes "hate speech" & "incitement" to hatred and violence. religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.
Negative stereotypes
If a Muslim is a believer, he "fights in Allah's cause", "killing others and being killed". That definition of believer is contained in Surah At-Taubah 111. Muslims are commanded to "Obey Allah and the Messenger". Allah commanded them to fight us until only Allah is worshiped; until we are subjugated and submit to extortion. Are they then Muslims who sit at home? Surely they are hypocrites, not believers who are only those who join the jihad. Allah said "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. " How is a Muslim to obey Moe without emulating his exemplary conduct? What did he say about how he was made victorious? How did Allah make him wealthy?? You can not be Muslim without being evil. That is a fatal fact, not a negative stereotype. Allah commands obedience, which he rewrds with gardens flowing with rivers of wine and punishes with the fire. What did he command Muslims to do? Was there something about cutting off our heads, fingers and toes? 8:12 What did Moe do to the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah? He besieged them for two weeks, when they surrendered he slaughtered them in beautiful downtown Medina. How in Hell does a Muslim obey Allah and his Messenger without engaging in terrorism & genocide?? This is a fact, not a negative stereotype. "It is not for a Prophet" that he should hold prisoners for ransom until he has made great slaughter. This is not negative stereotyping, it is stating the fatal facts as contained in Islam's canon. If Allah's slaves are offended by revelation of these fatal facts, they should break his yoke of slavery and rejoin the human race.89. The contributions received indicate that States are addressing the upsurge
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.
incitement, intolerance and hatred
On what day of the week and at what time of day do riots, bombing & burning of churches and the homes & business of Christians occur in Africa, Arabia & Asia? Why on friday? Why after Jumah Salat? There is no innocent explanation. What does Allah tell Muslims to do? What did Moe do that they must emulate? Do expressions such as "fight them until" and "be harsh against them" have any meaning for you? Do you have a brain? Can you obtain a clue??freedom of religion
Where in domestic or international law is the right to conquer enshrined? Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Muslims are commanded to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to perpetual extortion. We must not build or repair churches, display crosses, ring church bells, hold public processions or funerals. If there is no right to conquer, then there is no right to practice Islam. Show me, by God, exactly where the right to invade & conquer is enshrined in law other than in Reliance of the Traveller, Hedaya & Risala. Where in domestic or international law is the right to rape enshrined? Show me, by God, exactly where it is written that Muslims have a right to sexually exploit capive women except in the Qur'an, hadith, and Shari'ah compiled there from! God bless you, can you read and comprehend? What is the meaning of this:4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. ...
Moe did not just say he was ordered to fight us, he said that until we become Muslims our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights. Exactly how in Hell can there be a right to believe that, propagate it and act upon it? If there is any such right, then all our rights are null and void. It is therefore impossible that there can be any right to propagate and practice Islam. I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [Bukhari 5.59.459]
freedom of expression
The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech. It therefore remains legal for me to reveal the fatal facts of Islam as documented by its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence. This is exactly what Ban Ki-moon & co. seek to outlaw. If we can not accurately name and describe the enemy and his doctrines & practices, then we will be rendered defenseless. That is their objective. If you harbor any doubts about this, crack open the Risala & Reliance of the Traveller and start reading. If the expression "anything impermissible" is too vague for you, turn to O8.7 to see the detailed list of prohibited speech.91. A number of other actions and measures have been highlighted in the
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.
¶91 promotes indoctrination, not education.
