Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory

 I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the "debate" takes two hours. 

    This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided "gotcha" questions.  Civility prevailed. 

    There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

    What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers. 

    The final question: "Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off ...Their pride in their country and their fear for their child...what is--can you define the moral justification for war? ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria --what is the moral justification? "

• Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don't go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic-- it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so ... added ten billion dollars to our national debt, ...Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don't need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life --there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says "I lost too many buddies and I don'd know why we were there. " And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says "now I'm losing my buddies to suicide."  The wars destroy the family, I'm the ...as does the economic climate-- the bad economics  -- war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can't concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path. 
• Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I've called mothers and I've called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: "So what is the definition--the moral justification for war?"]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. ... have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don't have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don't have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I'm not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
• Cain: In the declaration where it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights",  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why --the mission and the definition of victory... And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter. 
• Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I've been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America's interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don't let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.  
• Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history-- is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West's great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They've attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to ...their proxies in Beirut.  They've attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust-- in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn't really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make ... to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that's the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period. 
• Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways... much more ruthless and much tougher ... is we don't send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically ...the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question ...this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends-- you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum--I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve ... and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we're gonna get it done. 

    In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end. 

    Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

    As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

    Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

     Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

    I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!".  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran's nuclear ascension.

    Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian's perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said "whatever it takes".

    We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win. 

    In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh's powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

    President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

    I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in '84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan's suicidal blunder.

    Sending the Marines to save Arafat's bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

    President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

    Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express. 

    In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required. 

    Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah's promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more "virgins" & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 

    Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

    The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

    So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands "great slaughter".

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?

Defamation Meme: Shifted and Substituted, Not Removed!

 Article 19 tells us that states should support the draft resolution against belief based discrimination. I quote one of their arguments.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the draft resolution’s complete omission of the ambiguous “defamation of religions” – a term incompatible with international human rights standards on the right to freedom of expression - and the focus on combating discrimination against persons. The draft is in line with General Comment No 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee of July 2011 that states that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant”.

    Note the citation of General Comment No. 34; the next paragraph contains a significant contradiction.

However, ARTICLE 19 suggests that the title and subject of the draft resolution should be shortened by omitting the vague terms of “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization”. The resolution should simply concern “combating discrimination, violence and incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief”.  Notwithstanding this weakness, states should support the draft resolution

    After stating that the draft resolution omits the "defamation of religions" meme, they complain of the inclusion of "negative stereotyping".   What significant difference is there between the two expressions?

    Whereas Article 19 is half way rational, Human Rights First steps in the steaming pile with their headline: "U.N. Third Committee Makes Decisive Break from “Defamation of Religion” ".

“If this text is adopted by the full General Assembly, it would mark a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke. “Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously-motivated violence, discrimination, and other forms of intolerance, while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression.”   

    A "decisive break"?  Sorry, suckers. Evidently you did not read the next draft resolution in sequence.  The NGOs want us to believe that the OIC and UN have abandoned the "defamation of Islam" meme which was introduced in 1999 through the Human Rights Commission.

    At the opening of the HRC session in March of '11, Pakistan's Ambassador made it clear that the defamation meme has not been abandoned. The HRC ratified that fact by adopting the resolution without a vote.

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

    The new resolutions merely rope in votes by shifting an objectionable paragraph out of the draft while including it by reference to past resolutions.  Flip the calendar back one year.

A/C.3/65/L.46 Combating defamation of religions

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and
manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still
evident in the world;

[...]

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

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general,
[...]
Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious
hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights,
and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the
resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions,

    Exactly how is Islam defamed?  The obvious answer is found in ¶7 on page 4 of the resolution.

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

    While that concept is missing from A/C.3/66/L.47,  it  is  included in  A/C.3/66/L.48 titled "Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief". It is in ¶10 on page 3, slightly disguised.

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

    Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism, or do the two go together hand in glove?  Perhaps you should decide after reading the most relevant ayat & ahadith. Or maybe there is one more piece of evidence you should consider in your deliberations.

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

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

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.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.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

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

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

59:13. Verily ye [are] stronger [than they], by reason of the terror [cast] into their breasts from God. This, because they [are] not people of prudence.

  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

    Of course those are old, musty books with no modern relevance, right?  But during the regime of Zia ul-Haq  in Pakistan, Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for Pakistan's Army. The Qur'anic Concept of War is modern, relevant and based on Islam's canon. Pay close attention. The source is page 59 of the text, page 50 of the pdf.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.  Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heat is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.  It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge.  Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. [Emphasis original.]

    Malik's book confirmed what we already knew: terrorism is an intrinsic tactic of Islam. The association is well founded, not false; exposing it is not defamatory because it is true. 

    In the weeks before the General Assembly's adoption of these resolutions, NGOs, politicians and experts will chortle with glee about the "great victory for free speech"  now that the  "defamation of  religions" concept is eliminated.  But we have no victory, we are suffering defeat, our liberty is being eroded  and we are being told to celebrate and embrace it. 

    Instead of being eliminated, the defamation meme, while relocated to another resolution, remains in the guise of  "negative stereotyping".

UN Censorship: Outlawing Criticism of Islam

 On October 27, '11, the United Arab Emirates, acting on behalf of the OIC, submitted a draft resolution entitled "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief".

    With the exception of one additional conjunction and preposition, the title is identical to that of   A/HRC/RES/16/18 passed this spring. A/C.3/66/L.47, currently in the 3^rd Committee,  is two pages longer and has one more enumerated paragraph.
    There are major problems in the list of affirmations.

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,

The OIC  is not acting in good faith; they can not simultaneously base their domestic legislation on Shari'ah and reaffirm the obligation to guarantee equal protection of the law because Shari'ah:

• Subjects indigenous Jews & Christians to a punitive, humiliating tax called jizya.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.4
• Disqualifies Jews & Christians from testifying against Muslims. O24.2(c)
• Prohibits construction & maintenance of churches.  O11.5-7
• Prohibits public manifestation of non-Muslim religions. O11.5-6
• Sets the indemnity for wrongful death of a non-Muslim as a fraction that paid for a Muslim.  O4.2
• Prohibits a divorced non-Muslim woman from obtaining child custody if her children are Muslims because their father was. M13.2(c).

Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

  The right to life is primary, without it, all other rights are null and void.  Islam implicitly denies the right to life: "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" Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Islamic law explicitly permits killing non-Muslim men taken captive. O9.14

    On page 218 of al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, we find the clearest statement of the fatal fact of Islam.   "Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels,".

    My First Amendment right of free speech which prohibits the government from criminalizing the truthful declarations made above, does not in any way or to any extent detract from a Muslims 'right' to 'practice his religion'.  Free speech does not prevent or impair Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat.  It simply permits uttering & publishing truthful statements about an institution inimical to our lives & liberties.

    The problem is that the practice of Islam entails jihad, which is defined as "to war against non-Muslims" O9.0.  "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, " 9:123. Islam is all or nothing, inseverable "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." 2:85.  Jihad is a communal obligation binding on all eligible adult male Muslims and must be performed in every year. O9.1

    Islam can not be practiced in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe without voiding the human rights of kuffar.  It is therefore impossible that a right to practice Islam can exist.   Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it inciting violence. It is a simple statement of fact, which, if acknowledged by the legislative and executive branches of our government, must result in removal of the umbrella of First Amendment protection from Islam. 

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,

    I hope that I am not the only one who perceives the irony in that sentence.  The authors intend that sentence to mean what it says in the Orwellian sense, they do not intend it to have the meaning the words denote.  To the authors of the resolution, "combating religious intolerance" means  combating resistance to Islam.

    If religious intolerance is to be combated then it is necessary that Islam be combated, because Islam is  so extremely intolerant that it mandates perpetual war to establish a global monopoly for itself in 8:39.  The Qur'an refers to Jews & Christians as the "worst of living creatures" in 98:6, and curses us in 9:30.    Since the Qur'an is perfected 5:3 & immutable 10:64, Islam can not be reformed, it must be eliminated. 

Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

    Look below the surface of that run on sentence, to the embedded false premise: promotion of tolerance of Islam.  Text books used in schools throughout Arabia quote 3:85 and the infamous genocide hadith Sahih Bukhari 4.53.177. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers.

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, 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;

    To discover the real meaning of that run on sentence, read this annual Islamophobia report published by the OIC: 4th OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2010 to April 2011) .  See what they complain about most in their monthly reports. Note the prominent mention of anti-Islamic political parties in Europe. 

2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world, 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 the present resolution and consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

    "Advocacy of religious hatred..incitement to... violence" describes the Qur'an, as anyone knows who has read Surahs Al Fatiha, Al-Ma'idah , Al-Anfal and At-Taubah.    Does anyone believe that Islam seeks to enforce Article 4 of ICERD against itself?

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

    Is the prima facie meaning of that sentence valid?  Only if the organ of cognition is the anus, not the brain!  U.N. documents favor the term "inter alia", meaning between the words. In this case, it is necessary to refer to previous statements. Ban Ki-moon's statement about the short documentary by Geert Wilders speaks volumes.

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."

According to Ban, Fitna is "hate speech" and  "incitement to violence".  The hate speech displayed in Fitna has three sources: the Qur'an, hadith & raving Imams. The violence displayed in Fitna is Islamic violence.  At no point does Wilders express hatred or incite violence in his documentary. 

    On March 1 of '11, Ekmeleddin Ishanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, addressed the HRC.  I will add emphasis to make a few significant phrases stand out.

OIC has a principled position 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 Quran 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 the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council,
for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions
or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international
level. Let me also recall that I had outlined eight areas of
action for consideration by states, at both the national and
international level, with a view to dealing with defamation
issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some
resonance.

The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our
partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity. The perception that supporting
the resolution would throttle one's right to freedom
expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will
always be upheld but it cannot be allowed to be a tool to
use for inciting fear and hate.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt
encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there
is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I
am confident that we can achieve a consensus.

    Another speech to the HRC, by Pakistan's Ambassador, reveals even more, with greater clarity. I reproduce it here, from an earlier blog post in which I took it on point by point.

Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC)
Mr. Zamir Akram

03/24/11

Thank you Mr. President. On behalf of the OIC countries, I have the
honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled “combating
intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of and
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons
based on religion or belief contained in document L.38.

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.

At the heart of this resolution are a series of practical steps
which need to be taken by states in order to address
this problem. This resolution addresses the core issues in a manner
that is acceptable to all including in  a legal sense, thus
seeking to bring all stake holders on board.  The OIC has gone
the extra mile to maintain a spirit of constructive engagement with all
partners during this process of consultation.

Our primary objective is to ensure that this text,
which will hopefully be adopted by consensus, will bind us all to the
commitments contained therein and oblige us all to ensure compliance
with its decisions.

Mr. President: Muslims around the world continue to be confronted
with ever increasing instances of intolerance, negative stereotyping,
 stigmatization, discrimination  and violence on the basis of their religion; Islam.
 Objective academic studies reveal that following the end of the cold war, the
 pernicious doctrine of a clash of civilizations signaled the start of a narrative that required
the construction of a new enemy  to replace the global threat of
Communism with the so-called menace of Islam.

The reprehensible acts of terrorism on September 11,
2001 provided the trigger to unleash the clash of civilizations to the
forefront of global politics.  In the general Western view, no
distinction was made between a handful of extremists and terrorists  and
the overwhelming majority of peaceful and law abiding Muslims
living around the world. To make matters worse, against the backdrop of
the recent global economic crisis, these fears of Islam and Muslims are
now being manipulated by irresponsible and bigoted Western politicians
to gain political mileage  in their countries, unfortunately, with
remarkable success.

Terms such as Islamofascists have become common.
Even the Qur’an has not been spared;  it has been compared to Hitler’s
Mein Kampf. More recently, it was tried for religious crimes and
burnt.  Minarets at mosques deliberately depicted on posters
as missiles, have been banned. There have even been restrictions on
shops selling halal food, while no such restrictions exist on kosher
food outlets which are similar.

There is also increasing discrimination against Muslims in various
parts of the world.  They are being subjected to racial profiling
which confronts them with intractable problems at every border where
they are checked and re-checked.  Their businesses are repeatedly
scrutinized and their places of worship disallowed or desecrated.
They are made to feel unwelcome in societies where they live as
minorities.

One prominent politician has recently organized
hearings that seek to put on trial the entire Muslim community and are
obviously designed to stoke fears against Muslims in that
country.

Mr. President, the efforts by the oic to defend
our religion, our holy book and our prophet  and our people have
often been misrepresented as being contrary to international human
rights principles and laws, and in particular, rejected as undermining
the freedom of expression or opinion. The reality is different.
It is therefore appropriate in such a position, for us to try and
explain our faith and our principles. I hope, Mr. President, you will
give me a bit of extra time to do so.

Mr.  President: the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the
need for religious tolerance  as well as freedom of thought and
opinion.  In chapter 2, verse 256, the Qur’an states there is no
compulsion in religion.  In chapter 18, verse 29, the Qur’an
maintains that truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe
and him who please disbelieve.  As regards freedom of
thought and opinion in Islam, the Qur’an states, in chapter 16, in verse 125 invite
all to the way of your creator with wisdom and arguments that are the
best and most gracious.  The Qur’an and the traditions of the holy
prophet also lay emphasis on the treatment of non-Muslims.
According to Prophet Muhammad, (PBUH), he who hurts a non-Muslim
citizen of a Muslim state I am his adversary and I shall be his
adversary on the day of  judgment.

Mr. President: it is also instructive for us to know
that we Muslims are not only bound by temporal laws to respect human
rights but by divine enjunctions contained in the Qur’an.  The
basic human rights as ordained in the Qur’an  include the
rights to life,  individual freedom, justice, equality, privacy, association
and basic necessities of life or minimum standard of living. These
obligations also include respect for women,  equality among human
beings, freedom of expression, protection from arbitrary imprisonment
and the right to oppose tyranny and injustice.  the last sermon of
the prophet (PBUH) is, in itself, a comprehensive charter of human
rights.  Islam has even established a complete code for the right
of combatants in war. Measures for the protection of all combatants as
well as homes and property belonging to them.

Mr. President: I have dwelt at length on these characteristics of Islam
because I want to underscore the common principles that underlie our
faith and the requirements of international law including international
human rights and humanitarian law.  Indeed, given the tremendous
contributions by Islam in various fields of human activity over
the  years, these principles have contributed to the evolution of
the very principles that we are trying to uphold today.

Mr. President, we sincerely believe that that irrespective of our
different cultural backgrounds and traditions, there is a shared
interest for all of us to show respect for each other’s religions and
beliefs  as well as to prevent any advocacy of religious hatred and
intolerance, discrimination and incitement  on the basis of religion or
belief.

The resolution under consideration seeks to achieve
these laudable objectives through a range of actions by states
including administrative steps, measures to criminalize imminent
violence, training and awareness programs, promotion of dialogue and
understanding at all levels.   The resolution also calls for
a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace
and in this context it decides to convene a panel discussion in the
Human Rights Council.  We hope that this resolution will be
adopted by consensus.  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would
like to place on record my appreciation for the support and cooperation
of all my colleagues in the oic  and in particular, members of
the core group of ambassadors that we set up to work out this
resolution.  I have truly benefited from the wisdom and advice and
without their support this text would not have been possible.  I
would also like to thank the Secretary General of the oic whose
support and guidance made this resolution possible.  In addition I
would like to express my appreciation — my sincere appreciation to all
our partners in the various groups, especially the ambassadors of the
U.S. and the U.K. on behalf of the European Union for their cooperative
and constructive approach.  Let me also thank the ambassadors from
the African group, grulac and Croatia for their cooperation and
engagement in this effort. I am glad that this oic initiative has
met with broad cross regional support which will send out a strong
message of unity from this council. Finally I would  like to thank
the experts from Pakistan, the U.S., the U.K. and other countries for
their tireless efforts to work out the text of this resolution. I thank
you Mr. president.

    Burning a Qur'an after a mock trial is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence.  Congressional hearings on "radicalization" are not hate speech, neither are they incitement to violence. 

    This blog post is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. It is a warning to American citizens about a clear, proximate and persistent threat to our right of free speech.  The OIC, acting through the United Nations, seeks to impose its blasphemy law on the entire human race.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O8.7 lists 20 "acts that entail" Apostasy.  Any and all criticism and questioning of Allah, Moe & Islam is prohibited under penalty of death. 

    Previous resolutions expressly condemned association of Islam with "terrorism and human rights violations". But Allah said that he would and did cast terror and Moe said that he was "made victorious with terror".   The expressions have changed, the agenda has not. We have won no victory, we have misinterpreted a defeat. 

    Please visit http://wwwcongress.org/  and send a message to Obamination, your Representative & Senator demanding a NO! vote on this vile resolution.

Related blog posts:

•  United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam
• U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context
• Defamation of Islam: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
• Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
• Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!
  
• U.N.: Resolves to Outlaw PVV
• Defamation of Religions Resolution Passed in Third Committee
• Combating Religious Hatred and Vilification
• Parallel Tracks to Censorship
• Combating Defamation of Religions 
• Elimination of Religious Discrimination
•  Why the Defamation of Religions Resolution is Unacceptable
• Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10
•  Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions
• “Defamation” Resolutions: Restricted Liberty Impaired Rights
• Combating Defamation of Religions: Vote Trend
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance
  
• H.R. Clinton: Free Speech
• Defamation || Negative Stereotyping
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09
• Defamation of Religions: Background Info.
• Unfairness Doctrine Goes Global
• Freedom of Opinion and Expression
• Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!
  
• Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised
• UN Renews Censorship Demand
• U.N. Resolving to Silence Islamophobes
  
• Moe’s Legacy of Violence
• UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religion
• More UNHRC AssWholliness
  
•  Syria Spews al-Taqeyya
• Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
• AdHoc Committee: African Submission
• AdHoc Cmte USA Submission
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards
• Islam vs CPPCG
• Islam vs ICCPr Article 20
• Proving Islam Incompatibile with Article 18 of the ICCPR
• Proving Islam Incompatible with Article 9 of the ICCPR
  
• Islam vs ICCPR Article 8
  
• Islam vs ICCPR Art. 6
• The Censorship Protocol
  
• How Censorship Could Become Binding