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.

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of 'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism. I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an translation. I find no reference to the construction of minarets in the four top hadith collections & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.
3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons. Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence. The riots which followed publication of the Motoons were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.