Rally Against Radical Islam

The following was received in an email from the United American Committee.

Rally against jihad in NYC this Sunday

Please tell anyone you know in the New York City area to attend the Rally for Human Rights & Freedom this Sunday in honor of our defenders: the U.S. Military, Homeland Security, and First Responders.

MEMORIAL TO VICTIMS OF RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR

Sunday, May 3rd 2009
at high noon (12:00PM)
Times Square
(42nd St. and 7th Ave) New York City


Be there!

For more info contact info@hrcari.org

Please share this with your friends.

---

We need your support to continue our efforts.
Contribute to the UAC online and securely by clicking here.

United American Committee is a 501c(3) non-profit organization and contributions are fully tax deductible.
United American Committee - P.O. Box 80325 - Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

---

According to an earlier email, which I am presently unable to find, a new organization has been formed: the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam, whose new web site will launch on the 3rd.

Evidently Robert Spencer did not delete the email; he published it at Jihad Watch. Read his post for a list of the featured participants and members of the coalition.

If you live near enough to N.Y.C., please consider joining the rally. You can find details at HCRI and JW linked above.

Regular readers of my postings will understand that I look at the title with a Calvin fish eye, because I disapprove of attaching qualifiers to the name of the enemy. Expressions such as "Radical Islam" falsely imply the existence of an anodyne standard Islam. In reality, Islam is defined by Moe's recitation and exemplified by his Sunnah, both of which are exposed and documented in What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims?, which exposes what Moe said and did documented by links to authentic sources. Let doubters and dissenters turn to it first.

There is no human right more fundamental than the right to live free from predation by our fellows. Islam denies that precious right. Consider what Moe said about the order he received to fight with men until they recite Shehada.

"I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Bukhar 1.8.387

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims; that says it all.

Cap & Trade

Freedom Works sent an email over the signature of Dick Armey, urging me to send an email to my Senators condemning the Cap & Trade carbon tax scheme. I did not need much urging to comply with his request.

The email form is set up to send messages to President Obama, Vice President Biden, your Senators & Representative. It is free, quick and easy. And one more thing, it is estimated that the Carbon Tax will cost the average family $3900.00 per year.

• top ten reasons to oppose Cap & Trade
• email form

Morality in a Totalitarian State: A Personal Revisionist History

Opinions, in my opinion, unlike principles, are not sacred possessions to be protected, locked away and defended from all intruders. Rather, they are, or should be, living and evolving attitudes, constantly subjected to rigorous revision and adjustment — or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.-- Wrestling With Mohammed - 12/9/0

'-- or, when necessary, quickly abandoned for some more plausible or cogent truth.'

The Third Reich. Hitler's Germany. World War Two and the good German volk. Mein Kampf. How many books have I read on this immense subject? How many documentaries have I watched? Too many to remember but enough to form an opinion. In thinking back over all these books, over all these years, perhaps one of the most influential books I have ever read on this subject -- after Mein Kampf -- was Daniel Goldhagen's blockbuster bestseller "Hitler's Willing Executioners". His research was so thorough, his arguments so compelling, that they proved irresistible. He had statistically proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the 'good German people' were not only cognizant of the prosecution of the Holocaust, but had either directly or indirectly participated in its ghastly mission.

The Germans voted Hitler into power and sanctioned his every move enthusiastically. They continued in their loyal support for Der Fuhrer from the heady victories of 1940 to the horrid devastation of 1945. The idea that the German people had somehow been held hostage, that Germany had in effect been hijacked by some small fanatical gang of Nazis, was therefore ludicrous and self-serving. In short, the German people got what they had asked for in WWII. Despite our own post-war government wanting to quickly change the subject, more interested in building up a strong ally in Western Germany to offset the Communist takeover of the East than in pointing fingers -- despite all of their efforts, it was, in my opinion, the German people and not just the Nazis, who were deeply complicit in their own fate. This was perfectly obvious.

I have just come away from watching "Hitler's Germany: The People's Community 1933-1939", from the award-winning television classic "The World at War". I was riveted to the screen. I was especially moved by the personal interviews of Germans who lived under the Third Reich, people who had survived, who had made whatever accommodations were necessary. Their stories were compelling. They were straight-forward, apparently completely sincere. Could I have been wrong all these years? Was it possible that an entire nation could be held captive? Was it really possible that they just didn't know what Hitler had planned for them, and that by the time they did know, it was too late?

The German people were propagandized daily, in every conceivable form. But did the average German really live in fear? Could they really not protest? I had come to accept the theory that 'people get what they deserve' in a government. Especially if they voted that government into power, and continually ratified that power. It made sense. They loved Hitler and they loved his bloodless conquests of 1938-1940. They loved him until the bombs started falling on Berlin. Many love him still.

How easy it's been to sit here comfortably in my living room and pass judgement on a whole people, a whole generation. And how arrogant. Never having experienced all the small daily terrors of tyranny, I felt assured in the wisdom of my opinions. Assured of the veracity of the many articles I had written on this subject. The German people were guilty as hell.

But now?

Just a few days ago I wrote about longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip of the Left. Perhaps these thoughts recurred to me while watching that powerful documentary. Perhaps my previous strongly-held opinions were shaken. Perhaps all these years I had got it wrong. Not wrong about the horrors of Nazism or the inconceivable tragedy of the Holocaust. But wrong nonetheless. Wrong in that favorite maxim -- that people get the government they deserve.

What I learned.

I believe that I seriously underestimated the trauma of the post WWI chaos in Germany. The Great Depression. The roaming street gangs and the violent and deadly clashes between political rivals. Chaos and anarchy. Getting worse every day. Perhaps it's just that I'm getting older, but today I seem to have a deeper appreciation of how desperately people would want peace and order restored. It's understandable. It's human.

'...longing for a strong leader. A brave, manly patriot who could save this imperilled nation from the disastrous grip the Left.' Isn't that what I/we are longing for? Someone to follow? Someone to finally confront and defeat these leftists who are bound and determined to ruin this great country of ours? Am I suggesting that America would welcome a Hitler, or a dictator of any stripe? No. We've already flirted with Fascism during our own Great Depression but the Union survived. Besides, we have guns and we're too damn independent.

What I am suggesting is this.

The Third Reich was a near-perfect example of a totalitarian state. Something which I think Americans have great difficulty imagining. Can we imagine a nation under the iron rule of one party? Every facet of the media tightly controlled by Goebbles' nearly impregnable propaganda juggernaut. No Internet. All newspapers tightly controlled, all radio -- to be caught listening to a foreign broadcast could mean a trip to the concentration camp -- all movies, all schools. (Aren't we dealing with some embryonic form of this oppressive propaganda right here in America today? Only this time the controllers are on the left). The infamous Gestapo, though proportionately small in number, enjoyed a vast network of spies and informers -- only to be matched by Stalin's murderous USSR.

This moving documentary told the story of a German woman who had a deep interest in spirituality, who felt that she could at times predict the future. On the day that an unsuccessful attempt was made on Hitler's life, in Munich, she commented to her ten year old daughter, 'I knew that was going to happen.' Proud of her mommy, the little girl couldn't wait to tell her friends at school. One her classmate's father was in the Nazi Party. That day the Gestapo came to the mother's house. Fortunately, this particular victim was spared. But what of those who were not? What kind of fear was this? How much more real could it get?

So how has my watching this classic documentary changed my opinion of WWII Germany and the Germans? I think it's humbled me a bit. I'm a little less sure of myself. How would I have managed my life under the iron grip of the Third Reich? Would I have been a brave member of some courageous but ultimately impotent Resistance? Or would I have played the game like everybody else? Would I find my right arm uncontrollably raised in that familiar 'Sieg Heil'!?

Still, the German people voted Hitler into power. And when Hitler finally pushed the allies into war it wasn't just the Nazis who had to be defeated: it was Germany. But considering the deadly milieu in which they lived during the Third Reich, is it fair that so many Germans had to die for the Cause?

No, of course it's not fair. It is what it is.

Finally, how is all of this history relevant to our current crises, our current threats from this ever-growing Islamic jihad?

We must, I believe, carry two thoughts in our hearts simultaneously. First and foremost the realization that Islam is indeed evil, as evil as Nazism, maybe more so, and it must be either conquered or destroyed. Not just 'radical Islam" or 'fanatical Islam', but the very core of this universal menace. Secondly, we must understand that 'All is fair in love and war'. Is it fair to destroy an enemy who is determined to destroy you? Absolutely. Is it fair that the soldiers or terrorists whom we destroy are often products of a system over which they have no control? If a child is propagandized from birth, whether it be in Germany's Hitler Youth or in a Pakistani madras, is it fair that he should pay the price for those deadly ideologies?

No, it isn't fair. It is what it is.

So how has this film changed me, changed my opinion? I think I'm a little broader now perhaps. A little more empathetic for the people of Germany, the volk who, fairly or not, ultimately paid the price for the system that they had became a part of. I hope I am a little less judgmental after today, a little more careful.

That skinny ten year old boy in the Pakistani madras, incessantly bowing up and down, like some robotic toy, endlessly reciting the Arab Mein Kampf, learning all he needs to know, who his enemies are, enemies he will most likely never meet, except perhaps in violence and in blood. He is the enemy. He is the victim. Simultaneously. And he must be conquered or destroyed. There's no other way. It's either us or them. And the sooner we understand this the better.

But is it fair? Of course not. It is what it is. - rg

FDR and the Case of the Captured Enemy Combatants

From World Net Daily
Opinion by Ellis Washington.

FDR and the Nazi saboteur case
"I only wish President Bush and now President Obama would have taken the approach FDR took in the Nazi saboteur case, Ex Parte Quirin (1942), where in the midst of World War II eight Nazi terrorists were captured on the coasts of New York and Florida. After a summary trial in July 1942, six were summarily executed one month later after the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal. FDR, though a liberal socialist, was decisive in quickly and summarily punishing Nazi spies. Hitler did not try that stunt again".

-------------------------------------------------------------
Here, courtesy of The History Channel are the basic facts of the case.
In June 1942, eight German saboteurs were delivered to the east coast of the United States via U-boats, with the intent to attack, destroy and terrorise. But they were apprehended almost immediately, and six of the eight were executed... From their training to the aftermath of their botched mission... [these]trained saboteurs doomed themselves through mistrust, conflicting allegiances, and betrayal.

The first group of four saboteurs left by submarine in May 1942 from the German base at Lorient, France, and on May 28, the next group of four departed the same base. Each was destined to land at points on the Atlantic Coast of the United States familiar to the leader of that group. Four men, led by George John Dasch, age 39, landed on a beach near Long Island, New York on 13 June, 1942. Accompanying Dasch were Ernest Peter Burger, Heinrich Harm Heinck, and Richard Quirin. On 17 June, 1942, the other group landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The leader was Edward John Kerling, with Werner Thiel, Herman Otto Neubauer, and Herbert Hans Haupt. Both groups landed wearing complete or partial German uniforms to ensure treatment as prisoners of war rather than as spies if they were caught.

The Trial
The eight were tried before a Military Commission, appointed by President Roosevelt. They were all found guilty and sentenced to death. Appeals were made to President Roosevelt to commute the sentences of Dasch and Burger. As a result, Dasch received a 30-year sentence, while Burger received a life sentence. The remaining six were executed by electric chair on 8 August, 1942. The eight men had been born in Germany and each had lived in the United States for substantial periods. Burger had become a naturalised American in 1933. Haupt had entered the United States as a child, gaining citizenship when his father was naturalised in 1930. Dasch had joined the Germany army at the age of 14 and served about 11 months as a clerk during the conclusion of World War I. He had enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1927, and received an honourable discharge after a little more than a year of service. Quirin and Heinck had returned to Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and the six others subsequent to September 11, 1939, and before December 7, 1941, apparently feeling their first loyalty was to the country of their birth. In April, 1948, President Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on condition of deportation. They were transported to the American Zone of Germany, where they were freed.
-----------------------------------------------------
A note from Radarsite: If ours is a nation founded on laws, and if these laws are founded on precedents, I offer the above article to acknowledge an important precedent in American jurisprudence. The very first objection raised by our pacifist/liberal Dems will most likely be that this was in a different time, under different circumstances. Obviously, this took place in a different -- and some would say, more exemplary -- time in our nation's history. But were the circumstances really all that different? Or, as I suspect, is it America that is different? In both cases we were viciously attacked, without warning, on our own soil by a ruthless alien power determined to defeat us. If anything, today's enemy poses an even greater existential threat to our nation.
How then do we explain the startling contrast between our ambivalent reactions to the horrors of 9/11 and the almost immediate display of visceral anger in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941; even though it could be argued that, though admittedly dishonorable and treacherous, the Japanese attacks were in fact a military attack against a military target, that actually resulted in less fatalities (2,403 compared to 2,986) than were incurred on 9/11—while virtually all of the 2,749 victims in New York City were innocent civilians. Where, we implore our leftist friends, is that righteous anger? What has happened to that steely resolve which we so courageously sustained throughout those terrible war years? How did we lose our way? And, most importantly, are we capable of regaining that 'steely resolve'? The travesty of the current trial of the captured Somali pirate in a NYC courtroom -- complete with ambitious defense attorneys, the impending release of enemy combatants from Gitmo, the Congressional investigations into allegations of torture of captured jihadis -- and a thousand more miserable examples answers the question, doesn't it?

Like it or not, we are at war, a war that our inexperienced and morally-conflicted new president and his leftist cabinet refuse to name or acknowledge.

But, today's Friday, and it's a beautiful day, and tomorrow's going to be even more beautiful. And I'm alive and breathing in the cool fresh air, and these days that's a major victory.
God bless America - rg

Algiers Accords: Submission to Injustice

An article posted at Islam In Action cited an Associated Press article: US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out which alerted me to the existence of the Algiers Accords, which President Carter 'ratified' by executive order. Examine the provisions made in general principle B of the Algiers Accords.
[Emphasis added.]

It is the purpose of both parties, within the framework of and pursuant to the provisions of the two Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, to terminate all litigation as between the Government of each party and the nationals of the other, and to bring about the settlement and termination of all such claims through binding arbitration. Through the procedures provided in the Declaration, relating to the Claims Settlement Agreement, the United States agrees to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration.

President Carter agreed to:

• terminate lawsuits
• nullify judgments
• prohibit litigation
• end claims by binding arbitration.

That is cemented in Point 10.

Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice and will thereafter bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any pending or future claim of the United States or a United States national arising out of events occurring before the date of this declaration related to (A) the seizure of the 52 United States nationals on November 4, 1979, (B) their subsequent detention,

The accord clearly bars suits against Iran arising from the hostage taking. Next we discover that the parties to the accord are not on equal terms: Iran is guaranteed the right to recover assets from the Shah and his family.

Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will freeze, and prohibit any transfer of, property and assets in the United States within the control of the estate of the former Shah or of any close relative of the former Shah served as a defendant in U.S. litigation brought by Iran to recover such property and assets as belonging to Iran. As to any such defendant, including the estate of the former Shah, the freeze order will remain in effect until such litigation is finally terminated. Violation of the freeze order shall be subject to the civil and criminal penalties prescribed by U.S. law.

Further details are provided by a CNS article: Carter Era Agreement Again Cited in Bid to Block Iran Hostage Lawsuit That article quotes Senator Tom Harkin on this issue.

“The Algiers Accord is not a treaty and was never submitted to the Congress for ratification,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in a late 2001 statement. “It is a kidnapping and ransom agreement that was entered into under duress while the Ayatollah was threatening to put the Americans on trial as ‘spies’ and execute them.”

Summary of the House version of P.L. 110-181, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

[..].or (4) the claim is related to a specified case concerning the taking of American hostages by Iran in 1979. [...]

Sec 1083 specifically denies immunity to Iran for causes arising from the seizure of hostages.

According to CNS, the litigants cited P.L. 110-181, Sec. 1083, to which the Department of Justice countered with a statement that the act did not repeal the accord.

In this writer's opinion, the hostages, injured previously by the Ayatollah's gang, are suffering at the hands of their own government, which is denying their right to seek indemnification.

Flight 93 Terrorist Memorial

Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave. Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:

We all know who the enemy is. It's Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy¹. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" as their guiding principles.²

Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business³:

Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.

In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims⁴ want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:

What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.

Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be? Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismi sses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains comp letely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far." We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque. Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:

The shape of the "broken circle" resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you're using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you'll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.

Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile. According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag. (Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.) Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93! This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish. How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims⁴ reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed. Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest⁵, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses. The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace." This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106)⁶. Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation. The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims. Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire." Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam⁷ is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet. What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? No helping hand from the land of the free If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions. That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad. The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary. Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

---

The text above the horizontal line originated at errortheory, without the superscripts, which I added. The superscripts are linked to my comments in the following enumerated list.

1. Islamic supremacy is intrinsic to Islam, established by the Qur'an: 9:33 and Sunna: Bukhari 4.52.65 . Offensive Jihad, genocide and terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam: standard, off the shelf, Islam, not some imagined radicalism. The Banu Qurayzah knew who the enemy was: "Muhammad and his army".
2. The Qur'an is given as a guide to mankind. In it, Allah issued clear commands, which are to be believed and implemented. 8:39 says "Fight them until..." ; 9:29 says:"Fight those who...until:. Why did Moe say "I have been ordered to fight the people till..."?
3. Islam can not be reformed because the Qur'an is Allah's perfected word which can not be changed. Supremacism and conquest are intrinsic to Islam, permanent parts of it.
4. Oxymoron: "moral Muslims". A moral man who adheres to Islam suffers from the most severe cognitive dissonance. He worships a blood thirsty demon as the Almighty Creator. Allah set making "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. He worships a genocidal war lord as the greatest and best of men.
5. No such conversion occurred. Moe's preaching evolved as he accrued an army and gained strength. In Mekkah, vastly out numbered, he preached forbearance and tolerance. In Medina, after building an army, he preached conquest.
6. 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things? For confirmation, see The Meaning of Naskh. Surah At-Taubah, which contains the commands to fight Jews & Christians, was among the last to be revealed, it abrogates the earlier, more tolerant verses.
7. Traditional Islam is what Moe said, speaking for Allah, and what he did, in obedience to Allah's word. Traditional Islam is authentic Islam, the real thing. The "reformers" seek to create a new religion and call it Islam.
   
   

The Real Attack on the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment is Under Siege

posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:30 PMBy Jonathan

Selected excerpts interspersed with my comments.

A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs.

In February of '07, Pedestrian Infidel proposed a 28^th Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that blog post to be the first such concrete proposal I encountered on the web. Others had suggested a need for legislation, some had suggested the need for an amendment, but, to the best of my knowledge, there were no concrete proposals. Concern about Islam's threat to our liberties dates back more than two years, it is not a novelty.

The proposed amendment is a counter attack against Islamic supremacism, not an attack against the Bill of Rights. An outline of the proposal follows.

1. Islam is not recognized as a religion, it is stripped of First Amendment protection.
2. Declares Islam an enemy of the United States of America and prohibits its public practice.
3. Muslim institutions are to be closed and propagation of Islam prohibited. Muslim immigration is terminated.
4. Discrimination, assault & impairment of individual rights (as limited by Art. 3) of Muslims prohibited.

The threat to liberty issues from Islam, not from 'Islamophobes'.

• Islam denies freedom of conscience.

3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

• Islam denies freedom of speech.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam [If you leave Islam, you must be executed: O8.1 -.2]
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- 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 (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

• Islam denies freedom of religion.

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:
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-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.

Source:: Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Islamic law.

• Allah's word is law, once Allah and Moe have decided a matter, there is no right to question their decision and no appeal.

Concerning proposals to write Islam out of the First Amendment, deport Muslims and close Islamic institutions, Jonathan responds: " These attitudes are intolerable." Either Jonathan's value system varies greatly from ours or he perceives Islam through a fact filter that prevents him from perceiving Islam's intolerance & violence, which make it intolerable to lovers of life and liberty.

Allah's word must be "made superior", as specified in 9:33 and 48:28. Supremacism & triumphalism are interwoven throughout Islam's canon of scripture. This fatal fact becomes clear when one reads the titles of related topics in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

How will Islam conquer us? By Jihad: "Holy fighting in Allah's cause, "ordained" for Muslims,. as the price of admission to Paradise. Jihad continues from the beginning of Moe's prophetic career until Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim's "original. religion". Islamic law requires that offensive Jihad be performed at least once in every year[Umdat as-Salik O9.1]. That is confirmed by Al-Shafi'i: "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn't "qualify" as a religion at all.

The establishment clause precludes establishing a national church. The founders wisely decided against allowing the government to decide which church, if any, we will join.

The worst course of action is that which has been followed for the last 220 years, giving a piracy cult undeserved constitutional protection. Islam has theology, cosmology, prayer, ritual & charity and it binds men permanently to Allah, so it must be a legitimate religion, right? Wrong! Islam has a mercenary mission! When reading a book one third as long as the Bible, it is difficult to perceive certain patterns. Isolating a few critically important ayat makes the pattern perceptible by removing the chaff which otherwise occludes the pattern.

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. 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. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Who gets the spoils? Allah and his Messenger, who takes the top 20% with right of first selection. Since Allah is an impotent idol, Moe got the best of the loot. What did Moe want? "the good of this world" . What does Allah want? "great slaughter"! Making a great slaughter was the price of Moe's ticket to Paradise.

The clear pattern formed by the ayat cited above is confirmed and reinforced by several of the oral traditions of Moe's companions.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 [...]Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils [...]

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).

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 [...]When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, [...]

Allah made spoils lawful for Moe because of his weakness and humility. Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. Allah allocated the spoils to Moe, who kept the top 20% for himself.

How did Allah make Moe victorious? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? Is it possible that Moe was an arrogant, belligerent narcissist, unworthy & unqualified to be a Prophet? Aisha Bewley translated part of Sahih Bukhari which Khan Bowdlerized.

Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

Those are the words of a pirate, not a Prophet. Moe founded a piracy cult, which wears a false mantle of religion as a camouflage and motivational tool. What legitimate religion says 'go to war or go to Hell'?

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.

Those clear and obvious ayat are confirmed by an equally clear hadith.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".

We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read.

We are judging an institution, not individuals. We must judge it by its doctrines and its fruits. What legitimate religion sanctifies aggressive conquest, genocide & terrorism ? What legitimate religion enslaves people?

O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn't anyone's place to judge their neighbor's religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American - including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America's imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II - among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called "relocation centers." Haven't we grown up since then?

What we believe about the tenets of Islam is irrelevant. The reality is relevant, and it is evident on the face of the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah, which form a congruent pattern of violent, genocidal aggression. In a state of weakness, with numerical inferiority, Islam is relatively docile. As its numbers increase, it becomes increasingly aggressive. In Mekkah, vastly outnumbered, Moe preached forbearance. In Medina, when he amassed an army, he preached Jihad.

A 1400 year death toll of 270 million tells us that objection to Islam is not paranoia. Muslims form a fifth column on our own soil. Trusting them is not possible. A bullet or bomb can come from any direction at any time, as thirteen victims discovered in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area a few years ago. Since that attack, there have been several shootings, vehicular assaults and one attempted bombing.

What's the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.

Most Muslims do not read the Qur'an, the last statistic I saw showed a Qur'an literacy rate of 17% among men and 13% among women. They get their ideals from the Mosque, and most Mosques in America are run by Wahhabis. The fact is that Jihad is a mandatory Islamic sacrament, not an option. A Muslim can not be absolutely assured of avoiding Hell & admission to Paradise without participation in Jihad.

If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I'm saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone's right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.

While Jonathan accuses Islam's critics of paranoia, his penultimate paragraph is a clear example of paranoia. Why should anyone be next? Do they worship a blood thirsty demon who demands human sacrifice? Do they make sacraments of conquest, genocide & terrorism? Do they constitute a security threat? Are their doctrines inimical to liberty? Do they demand that their scripture be substituted for our Constitution?

"Sinners in the hands of an Angry God"

Right-Wind Extremism Report Issued Despite Objections
Fox News

WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department did not agree with some of the language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway.

The intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week said some military veterans could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans' groups.

--------------------------------------------

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usuallydoes, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.

How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?

But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.

With their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy?
The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.

Excerpted from Elect Obama, Destroy America.

------------------------------------------

It appears that we, we traditional Americans, are in dire straits. We're on the wrong side of history. Through our selfishness and rampant imperialism we have put ourselves at odds with the rest of the world. But fear not, although we have greatly sinned, salvation is at hand. We must be prepared however to undergo a painful national catharsis. But, thankfully, we are not alone; we will be led though this cultural upheaval by the mighty hand of Obama. Although the above quote refers to the undeniable social, cultural and political achievements of the sixties, it is I believe equally applicable to the present Obama Administration. Carried to victory on an almost hysterical tidal wave of revolutionary rhetoric, calling for drastic social and governmental change ,"Change we can believe in", it would hardly be a stretch to call the Obama victory a bloodless revolution, a monumental effort to create an entirely new America. If we accept this reasonable analogy, then the above criteria fits like a glove. ‘And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one‘. Should we really be surprised that the Administration is now in the process of producing a putative national enemy, Right-Wing subversives hell-bent on the destruction of the State.

This necessity of the nascent revolutionary state to produce a viable enemy has, as we have seen, played itself out on history’s stage many times in many eras. Let us just examine one: Hitler Third Reich.

The Burning of the Reichstag and Hitler’s Enabling Act

Reichstag fire

The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933, which was blamed, somewhat incredulously, on the Nazi's most formidable foe, the Communists. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazi, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

Obama's Great Stretch

Oklahoma City bombing

Unfortunately for the Obama gang there have been no significant Right Wing attacks on the government since Timothy McVeigh's bloody Oklahoma City Bombing of April 1995. No matter. The fact that it happened once establishes precedent. Now all you have to do is drag out all those FBI photos of Skinhead Neo-Nazi groups marching with swastikas to effectively construct a viable 'enemy'. Having established this existential threat to the government, the next logical steps would be to begin prosecutions and internments, while simultaneously building up a large paramilitary force, swearing allegiance to President Obama himself, a force considerably larger than the regular standing army. This cynical act of totalitarian prestidigitation is called usurpation, or even more to the point, tyranny.

My friends, if you were beginning to feel subsumed by an omnipotent Nanny State before, just you wait. Your most preposterous nightmares are standing at the door.

Question: Given this undeniable historical precedent, are we going to just stand by mute while the Obama Administration pulls off this blatant power grab? Or are we going to fight back? Perhaps the Tea Parties are just the beginning. Perhaps we're stronger than we realize.
God bless America. - rg

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" Jonathon Edwards sermon. 1741

Durban II Draft 4/15/09

As the Durban II Draft evolved, its redundancy has been reduced, but its objectionable elements remain intact. It singles out Israel for unwarranted condemnation and demands criminalization of truthful criticism of Islam. For those reasons, I urge President Omama and Secretary of State Clinton to stand by the decision to stay away from the Racism Conference We must not lend any legitimacy to that travesty. I urge the House & Senate to pass resolutions condemning the Durban II Draft Document and to refuse to subsidize it with our tax dollars.


Draft outcome document as at 15 April 2009 at 9:00 am as amended by the Chair (4/15/2009)

1. Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001; [adopted ad ref]

Paragraph one is unacceptable because the referenced text singled out Israel for condemnation, ignoring the human rights violations, genocides & racism of other nations. It is also unacceptable because it demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. President Obama recently cited this paragraph as his main reason for deciding not to participate in the conference.

7. Reiterates that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities as well as foreign occupation are closely associated with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty;

"Foreign occupation" is a code phrase for Israel bashing. The "racist attitudes and practices" which produce poverty flow directly from the Qur'an & hadith.

11. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions resulting in denial or undermining the rights of persons associated with them and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism and urges all the UN Member-States to implement the paragraph 150 of the DDPA ;

Paragraph 11 is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. It complains, by code words, of the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. The cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own admission. FITNA displays quotes from the Qur'an, juxtaposed with their practical application. The only right impaired by FITNA was the cartoonist's copyright because one cartoon was used without permission. The intolerance and violence belong to the adherents of Islam, who, stirred up by rabble rousing rants at Friday prayer service, rioted in the streets.

The referenced paragraph from the DDPA reads as follows.

150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities;

Thus paragraph 11 demands, by reference, that national laws be passed and executed to criminalize criticism of Islam. This demand, which is incompatible with our First Amendment, is another reason for non-participation cited by President Obama.

12. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;

The first sentence of paragraph 12 is aimed directly at the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. In actual fact, the Qur'an, Islam's canon of sacred scripture, is replete with "religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence".

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's condemnation of FITNA makes the matter absolutely clear, leaving no doubt. The last clause in par. 12 is an obvious lie. The intent is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, including its mandates of perpetual war, genocide and terrorism. If we can not discuss the doctrines and practices of our enemy, we can not effectively advocate national defense against Islam's campaign of terror.

15. Expresses its appreciation for progress made in addressing the situation of the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance identified in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, while regretting that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their contemporary forms and manifestations, still persist;

"Contemporary forms and manifestations" is a code phrase for criticism of Islam. Take note of this declaration contained in the preliminary document. [Emphasis added.]

4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

Objection to Islam's continual aggression is conflated with racism. You can substitute objection to Islam wherever "racism" or "contemporary forms and manifestations" is printed in the Durban Draft.

16. Acknowledges that there should be no hierarchy among emerging and resurgent forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and that all victims should receive the same necessary attention and protection, and accordingly appropriate treatment;

Paragraph 16 is part of the effort to wrap Islam in the false mantle of victimhood. In their view, Muslims offended by the Danish Cartoons suffer equally with the Jews murdered by Hitler.

38. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations;

The quote below comes from Wikipedia. It describes our reservation to ICERD.

The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty's restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.^[20][21]
[Wikipedia]

SECTION 5: Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives at all levels for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to foster the implementation of the DDPA and to address challenges and impediments hereto, including in light of developments since its adoption in 2001

Remember that "related intolerance" means criticism of and objection to Islam's perpetual aggression.

52. Stresses the need for mobilizing the political will of relevant actors at all levels which is essential to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Paragraph 52 is a code expression demanding legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam, in clear contravention of the First Amendment.

53. Reaffirms the positive role that the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Paragraph 53 praises the condemned man before executing him. The expressions are Orwellian in the extreme.

54. Calls on States to undertake effective media campaigns to enhance the struggle against all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, inter alia, by disseminating and giving adequate visibility to the DDPA and its follow-up mechanisms; [adopted ad ref]

55. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations; [adopted ad ref]

Paragraph 54 demands a propaganda campaign. Paragraph 55 demands national legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

56. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to secure expeditious access to justice, and to provide fair and adequate redress for victims; [adopted ad ref]

Paragraph 56 translates into a demand for punishment of the cartoonists and Geert Wilders, with legislation allowing Muslims to sue them for "damages".

57. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;

Paragraph 57 shows us how clever the OIC thinks they are;. giving faint praise before wielding their sword.

59. Urges States to punish violent, racist and xenophobic activities by groups that are based on neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and other violent national ideologies; [adopted ad ref]

Paragraph 59 is obviously a coded attack upon the Dutch Freedom Party and a similar party in Belgium.

66. Calls upon States to ensure that any measures taken in the fight against terrorism are implemented in full respect of all human rights, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and in this context urges all Member-States to implement relevant provisions of the General Assembly resolutions 60/288 and 62/272;

Paragraph 66 is a coded condemnation of our half hearted attempts at homeland security subsequent to 9/11.

67. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;

Paragraph 67 is redundant; restating paragraph 12 above.

68. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures;

Paragraph 68 is redundant, restating paragraph 12 above.

98. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;

If paragraph 98 were sincere and enforced, Islam would be outlawed.

101. Calls upon States not to resort to profiling founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic, and religious grounds and prohibit it by law;

Paragraph 101 is redundant, restating paragraph 66.

133. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize as a follow-up to the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art.19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;

Art. 19 of ICCPR declares rights to "hold opinions without interference" & "freedom of expression" and outlines certain limitations thereon. Art. 20 prohibits "propaganda for war" and "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence".

What is the big deal about the "Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards"? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize "defamation of religions", as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.