Speaking Out Against Intolerance

A/C.3/68/L.48 Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief continues by calling all states to take actions based on remarks by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu addressed to the HRC before their vote on one of the previous resolutions. Eight points were outlined in the speech, and included in the current draft.

Calls upon all States to take the following actions, as called for by the
Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to foster a domestic
environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect by

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

speaking out

    This suggestion from the OIC was included in HRC Res 16/18 and implemented in September of  '12 by Obamination's bitching about The Innocence of Muslims, which they falsely blamed for the  Benghazi  Attack.  Obamination condemned the video without contesting the validity of its conceptual content, which has been verified from authentic sources.

intolerance

    The intolerance displayed in the video comes from Moe: his intolerance of Christianity, Judaism & Pagans. The video itself is not intolerant.

advocacy

    The video does not advocate violence against persons or property. Moe advocated and engaged in violence, which the video accurately portrays.

religious hatred

    The video accurately portrays Islamic religious hatred, it does not advocate hatred.

incitement

    The video accurately portrays Moe preaching military conquest, it exposes incitement without engaging in it.  The rioting resulted from rabble rousing kutbah in mosques during Jumah Salat, not from the video. Christians who viewed the video were not incited to violence by it.

violence

    The violence realistically depicted in the video emanates from the damnable doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the sunnah.   The riots blamed on the video came from mosques, not from churches.  The video does not suggest that anyone should engage om vop;emce. the Qur'an commands it, Moe exemplified it and the Imams preach it.

Condemning Advocacy Of Religious Hatred That Incites Violence

A/C.3/68/L.48 Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief continues by condemning advocacy of religious hatred that incites violence.

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

    The condemnation is highly abstract and so broad as to be devoid of meaning. Precisely what are they bitching about?  The United nations bitch about any and every criticism and exposure of the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has an example for you, please pay close attention. 

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for or hate speech incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

Please watch the video, carefully noting the source of each and every incidence of hate speech and incitement. 

The following quotes and links provide ample documentation for the validity of the video's conceptual content.

Each of the above listed ayat is linked to ten parallel translations.

The text of the violent ayat in the list above: [Links to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir supplied when available.]

• 2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
  • Righteousness comes from Taqwa
  • Fighting in the Sacred Months
  • This is the Ayah of the Sword
• 3:139-141 So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that God may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And God loveth not those that do wrong.  And that Allah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers. [Hilali &Khan]
  • The Encouragment to Do Good for which Paradise is the Result
  • The Muslim believes in all that Allah `revealed and all the Prophets
• 4:91 Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms or peace to you nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them, wherever ye find them. Over these have we given you undoubted power.[Rodwell]
• 8:39  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[Hilali & Khan]
  • The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
  • The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
  • Righteousness comes from Taqwa
• 9:29  Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.[Rodwell]
  • The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• 47:4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do. Were such the pleasure of God, he could himself take vengeance upon them: but He would rather prove the one of you by the other. And whoso fight for the cause of God, their works he will not suffer to miscarry;[Rodwell]
  • Muslims invoke Allah for Help, Allah sends the Angels to help Them

Riyad us-Salaheen, Book 11, Ch. 234 cites  many ahadith in proving the obligation of Jihad. It does not mention the above cited ayat, but does cite several others.  Reliance of the Traveler specifically offers 9:29 as justification for declaring war on Jews and Christians.

The Reliance of the Traveller. BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter O-9.0: Jihad

O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) 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: o-11.4) -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)

Note the use of fitna in 8:39 as casus belli. It is also mentioned in 5:33 Muslims love to cite 5:32, but never quote its successor to Kuffar. Why is that?

5:32  Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!
5:33 The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Ibn Kathir's tafsir of  5:33 has a blood curdling implication. Note the emphasized phrases.

`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.

Mere disbelief in Allah is sufficient to subject you to the hudud listed in the ayeh above cited! Now you rightly understand that Geert Wilders is not exaggerating in his video presentation.

    Without exception, the hate speech and incitement displayed in Fitna flow from Islam's canonical texts and the mouths of rabble rousing Imams, not from Geert Wilders.  The Secretary General does not condemn Allah, his Book, his Messenger or his rabble rousing preachers, he condemns the video which exposes them.

    Fitna is neither hate speech nor incitement, it is objective and factual; an exposure of the damnable doctrines of Islam and accursed practices which flow from belief in  them.

    The sentence quoted from the draft resolution is a lie: the UN does not condemn "any advocacy of religious hatred", instead, they condemn and seek the criminalization of any exposure of it, including this blog post.

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

 Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination's Islamophilia.

    While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo's position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3^rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

    I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations -- Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

  Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

intolerance

    I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.

stereotyping

    Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe's Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

    So most Muslims "don't do that / don't believe that". Oh, don't they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: "Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. ".

    If Muslims "don't do that", then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City? 

    Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah's cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam "will not exceed their throats." [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

    Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365? 

    You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with "boots on the ground".  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity. 

    The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims? 

    Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger. 

education

    The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

    I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

defamation	stereotyping
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.	Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet.	Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned. 

defamation	stereotyping	no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terror	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro
Islamic doctrines incite terrorism.	Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe.	Islam = terrorism.

    No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

    In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders' Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned 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."

incitement ? 

Fitna

 Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur'an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.

Motoons

    The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was "made victorious with terror". He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

    Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur'an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of '11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur'an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur'an guilty of inciting violence, burned it. 

    Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=239]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? [http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=39]

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's speech to the HRC Session 15.]

legal foundation

    Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Shari'ah

    Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: "or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam."  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: "to revile Allah or His messenger ", "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 ", "to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat",  "to deny any verse of the Koran ", and "to revile the religion of Islam".

    In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?
Last March, the HRC passed a new resolution which was said to abandon the nefarious "defamation of religions" concept, substituting "negative stereotyping" & "incitement".  That is the official position; divergent from objective factual reality. The distinction is without difference, and the amended verbiage is persiflage.

    That fact is exposed by a March 24 address to the HRC by Mr. Zamir Akram, Pakistan's Ambassador.   He made it clear that the new resolution does not abrogate previous resolutions, instead, it confirms them.  His speech is dissected in detail here.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating  defamation. which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion or belief.

    The Secretary General of the OIC also addressed the HRC on the subject of the new resolution. 

OIC has a principled postition against defamation of any  religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of symbols  sacred   to  all     religions.    The  developments  including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts towards burning of Qur'an and the use of Islamophobia
as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term as ‘preventive  cultural    diplomacy’.   We   need  to  move beyond  event based calls for action to create spaces for structured engagement   The Human Rights   framework provides with a concrete basis for this engagement.   We believe that tbe workshops on incitement to hatred under the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.

    The Secretary General has spoken out again, this time uttering & publishing a lie so egregious that it must be refuted immediately.  It is necessary to rub his snout in his mess of deception.

 "The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. "

•  never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content.[Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh]
  • Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax. [http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/] 
  • "Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."[BBC News]

    For the benefit of those suffering from anal cranial juxtaposition, I will clear away the chaff:

• never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • urging the Danish government to stop the publication
  • pressure Norway to stop publication
  • told the Dutch ambassador
    • to prosecute Mr Wilders

    From the viewpoint of a rational and honest person, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is a damned liar, having deliberately made an egregiously untrue statement.  From the Islamic point of view, he is not a liar because Islam does not recognize disbelievers as human, denying our rights. They can not violate our freedom of expression because we have none. Human rights do not apply to us in their point of view.  The sanctity of life is conditioned on being Muslim.

[...]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[...] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

    Having exposed the most egregious deception, I will continue fisking this screed, which is being widely propagated. I perceive that this and related articles are the first wave of a tsunami of pressure focused on the next General Assembly session beginning September 20. 

    As is my habit with target rich environments, I will link my comments to superscripts in the text. Click the superscripts to read the comments and use your Backspace key to return to the text. 

Norway attacks reinforce need for united stand against intolerance Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Istanbul, Turkey - The horrific and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the importance of combating religious intolerance1 and promoting cultural understanding2. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities3, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing4 political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant5 and anti-multiculturalism6 policies, as was evident in the manifesto of the Norway killer7. Their views8 are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression9 while claiming that Muslims do not respect that right. A few days before the Norway attack, on 15 July in Istanbul, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the United States agreed to a united stand on “[c]ombating intolerance10, negative stereotyping11 and stigmatization of12, and discrimination13, incitement to violence14, and violence against persons based on religion or belief15” through the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The meeting – co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and myself, with the attendance of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs together with the foreign ministers and officials of OIC member states and Western countries, as well as international organisations – reaffirmed the commitment of the participants to the effective implementation of the measures set in the resolution.16 This was a major step towards strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity17 as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world18. The OIC, which was the initiator of Resolution 16/18, worked in close cooperation in the drafting process with the United States and the European Union in bringing about a breakthrough on 21 March. The 2011 HRC resolution is a genuine effort to usher in an era of understanding on the issue of religious intolerance. It gives the widest margin of freedom of expression, and reiterates the rejection of discrimination, incitement and stereotyping used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions. 19 The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. The Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, colour or faith20. It falls on all the OIC member states as a sacred duty to protect the lives and property of their non-Muslim citizens and to treat them without discrimination of any form. Those elements who seek to harm or threaten minority citizens must be subjected to law. Our strong stand condemning violence perpetrated against non-Muslims whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan has been consistent. No one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice. That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised. We also cannot overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western perception on certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need to be sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to criticising or expressing views on issues related to religion and culture. 21 The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred22 that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility23. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally. It is not enough to pass resolutions and laws against religious incitement. We should also be diligent in launching more initiatives and measures towards better intercultural dialogue and understanding at all levels – the political, social, business, media, academic and religious. Resolution 16/18 includes an eight-point approach that calls for various measures to foster tolerance, including developing collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and constructive action, creating appropriate mechanisms within the government to identify and address potential areas of tension between members of religious communities, and raising awareness at the local, national and international levels on the effects of negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred. The implementation of the 2011 HRC Resolution 16/1824 would take us a long way in making our world a more peaceful and harmonious place to live in. ### * Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference), an international organisation consisting of 57 member states. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication.

• Search: "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu"+ "stop publication"
  • Results: 35
    •   Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh [Emphasis added.]

      2 October 2010 JEDDAH — The Organisation of the Islamic Conference has condemned the publication of the book Tyranny of Silence in Denmark.
      The book, containing blasphemous caricatures, hit the stores in Denmark on Thursday amid concerns over a backlash from the Muslim world.

      The cartoons were first published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, resulting in condemnation from Muslims around the world.

      OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content. [...] Emphasising the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark, Ihsanoglu said the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudice and animosity. This would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community to promote understanding and peaceful coexistence among people of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

    • http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax.

---

1. Religious intolerance indeed. We must tolerate Islam, but Islam is not obligated to tolerate Judaism or Christianity. Tolerance is a one way street 
* whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted [3:85}
* fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. [8:39]
* those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind[2:161]
2. Cultural understanding, yeah, right. They do not want us to understand Islam, they want us to accept a false image; a web of lies spun by Islam and its apologists. What passes for cultural understanding is really kitman: deception by obfuscation.
3. Translation: resistance: Kuffar attempting to defend themselves and their culture. Phobia implies irrational fear and loathing. There is nothing irrational about loathing an institution which has a 1400 year track record of genocide, murdering an estimated 270*10⁶  people. 
4. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear tactic.  
5. The Immigrants in question are primarily Muslims, living as parasites on the state and breeding like rats. They tend to rape, riot and block the streets raising their butts to the moon. Whats not to oppose about that?
6. Multiculturalism is the idea that an inferior culture which dominates women, assaults Queers, rapes indigenous girls, declares superiority, refuses to assimilate, threatens war, supports terrorism and constantly escalates its demands is equal to Western Civilization. Whats not to oppose about suicidal idiocy?
7. Breivert's Manifesto discusses 'martyrdom operations'. "Yes, for certain religious members,
   certain measures are obviously in violation to biblical teachings but the amount of grace
   and divine goodwill generated at the point where you sacrifice everything (in the
   martyrdom operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more than
   nullify any minor or serious sins committed prior to operation." [pg. 846] On page 849 he lists three pieces of music to be played during 'martyrdom operations'.  It is obvious that Breivert adopted enemy doctrine & tactics. It is obvious that he is not sane. While objective facts reproduced in the manifesto remain true and accepted by others, the manifesto is his alone. The manifesto is violent, see pages 1028 & 1344; rational resistance is educational and political, not violent. Ihsanoglu is engaging in smear tactics, attempting to tar others with Breivert's violence.
8. Our views of Islam are founded on facts discovered in Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Check out ICCPR, Article 19. §1 guarantees the right to hold opinions. §2 guarantees freedom of expression.  The spewers of feces assert that rights are interdependent and cling bitterly to exaggerated ideas of Article 20.
9. In America we have the Declaration of Independence; God gave us the right to live;  & Bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." If prohibited from truthfully communicating warning of approaching danger, we would be rendered defenseless. We perceive Islam to be a threat because of its declaration & prosecution of perpetual war.
   • 2:216
   • 8:39
   • 9:29
   • 9:111
   • 9:123
   • 47:4
   • 61:4
   • 61:10-11
   • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386
   • Tafsir Ibn Kathir  The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
   • Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8
   • Risala
   • Hedaya


10. If they were sincere about combating intolerance, they would outlaw the Qur'an because it inculcates intolerance.  Is there anything more intolerant than declaring us the worst of living creatures, cursing us and declaring perpetual war against us? 
11. When we share the facts outlined in point 9 above, we are accused of negative stereotyping. Exposing the fact that Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us, Moe confirmed the imperative & implemented it and Islamic law codifies it is not negative stereotyping, it is revealing objective factual reality. It does not mean that every Muslim is violent, it means that Islam requires every Muslim to pray for, pay for and or participate in aggressive conquest. 
12. Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma? Why then should membership in Moe's war cult not carry a stigma? 
13. Should members of the Mafia be subject to discrimination? Should they be closely observed; suspected of criminal activity? Why then should members of the cult which sanctifies & celebrates terrorism not be suspected, observed and excluded from our societies? 
14. If incitement were to be combated, the Qur'an would be outlawed. Of course, that is not the intention of the resolution's authors and few will read 8:65, 9:38-39, 9:123 & 61:10-12 to learn why it should be. The Motoons simply depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. They did not suggest that viewers should assault or wage war upon Muslims. The associated violence was incited by Imams in Mosques, not by the cartoonists or publisher.  Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, displayed the incitement contained in the Qur'an, which flows through Mosques.  Fitna did not incite violence, Imams did, resulting in riots.  They are demanding that all criticism of Islam be outlawed, twisting and perverting language in the process.

CNN.Com's European outlet has a reminder of what the Secretary General said about Fitna, the documentary video by Geert Wilders.

• "The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance,"
  

BBC News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

"Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

After the release of the film, a number of international organizations released statements or otherwise responded to the film. United Nations' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated on on March 28, 2008 that

I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.^[133][134]

1. If they really gave a damn about violence against persons based on their religion, they would be acting to protect Christians in Muslim dominated areas of Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and other places where Christians are bombed, shot, burned and hacked to death with impunity.  
2. If there was any possibility of balanced & effective implementation the resolution, no Muslim would vote for it because it would require the outlawing of Islam. 
3. Tolerance respect for diversity? Really? Yeah, right. "Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm". "Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), "
   

   -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.

4. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?  "then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush." "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land." Get a clue: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
5. The sentence is unmitigated hypocrisy. What did Ban Ki-moon say about Fitna? Something about "hate speech" & "incitement". Oh, yes, he said that freedom of expression was "not involved:.   Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  called it a "deliberate act of discrimination"  intended to "provoke unrest and intolerance.  Reality check: Fitna shows the  violent Qur'an verses side by side with the Imams who  invoke them and the resulting riots.  Describing is not doing.  
6. Like most Muslim screeds, this one is redundant. One lie must be pointed out: discrimination. Reliance of the Traveller is Islamic law. This provision affects conquered Jews & Christians.

   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.

   O11.6

   They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

   O11.7

   A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

7. Diversity, yeah, right.  Because there is more than one "religion" in the world, we must not mention the fact that one of them is a war cult, hellbent on conquering us, not a legitimate religion. 
8. Incitement to hatred? Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror. Allah declared that he would cast terror. Allah declared that he cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish settlement and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. The fatal facts of Islam are truly worthy of hatred and contempt but exposing them is not incitement.  
9. Those of us who have become familiar with the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam have a responsibility to share our knowledge with our fellows and to encourage them to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  There is no responsibility to be silent or soft pedal the truth. 
10. Examine the resolution's call to action :

    5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference 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 Governments 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 the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities the 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; {Review the definitions implicit in criticisms of Fitna and the Motoons!!!}
    

    (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, education and awareness-building;  {Indoctrination.}
    

    (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 society;

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

    (d) To make 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;

    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 for and protection of 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.