Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization This three page draft resolution is dated 03/21/11, considerably post deadline. The database shows it as being submitted on the 18th, one day late.
Despite its length and due to the target rich environment it presents, I reproduce the entire draft resolution, with superscripts linked to my commentary which follows the text of the draft.    To read my comments in coordination with the text, click the superscript and use your back button to return to the text.

    Article 19 & CHRS have published a call for member states to vote for this resolution.  The resolution represents a change of tactics, not strategic objectives. It is designed to deceive human rights activists, and it appears to be a success.

    It is probable that the resolution will be debated and adopted Thursday or Friday of this week, too soon to mount an effective opposition. This blog post will stand as a model for rebuttal when the resolution is repeated next year.  Please follow the links and take maximum advantage of the information provided.

A/HRC/16/L.38

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence
against persons based on religion or belief

Human Rights Council
Sixteenth session
Agenda item 9
Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
form of intolerance, follow-up and implementation
of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference): draft resolution 16/…

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence
against persons based on religion or belief¹

The Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the United
Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia, religion or belief,

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,

Reaffirming further that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his
choice², and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice³ and teaching,

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,⁴

Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance⁵, discrimination⁶ and violence
against persons based on their religion⁷ or belief in all regions of the world,

Deploring any advocacy of discrimination or violence on the basis of religion or
belief,⁸

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion
or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties,
schools, cultural centres or places of worship,⁹

Concerned about actions that willfully exploit tensions or target individuals on the
basis of their religion or belief,

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of
violence in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by discrimination against
persons belonging to religious minorities, in addition to the negative projection of the
followers of religions and the enforcement of measures that specifically discriminate
against persons on the basis of religion or belief,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of people of all religions or beliefs to
humanity and the contribution that dialogue among religious groups can make towards
improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,
Recognizing also that working together to enhance implementation of existing legal
regimes that protect individuals against discrimination and hate crimes, increase interfaith
and intercultural efforts, and to expand human rights education are important first steps in
combating incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against individuals on the
basis of religion or belief,

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization¹⁰ of persons based on their religion or
beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups¹¹
aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular
when condoned by Governments;

2. Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination
and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence¹², and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to
address and combat such incidents;¹³

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;¹²

4. Recognizes that the open public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and
intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels can be among the best
protections against religious intolerance, and can play a positive role in strengthening
democracy and combating religious hatred, and convinced that a continuing dialogue on
these issues can help overcome existing misperceptions;¹⁴

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights
Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic
environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

(a) Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual
understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy
goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of
education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education;

(b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within the government to, inter alia,
identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious
communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;
(c) Encouraging training of government officials in effective outreach strategies;

(d) Encouraging efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities causes of
discrimination and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

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

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief;¹⁵

(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious
stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter
alia, education¹⁶ and awareness-building;

(h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as
well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels,
can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence;

6. Calls upon all States:

(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct
of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or
belief;

(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of
members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly
and on an equal footing to the society;

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

(d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is
understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings,
searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;¹⁷

7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this
regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights;

8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect
and protection for places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take
measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the
promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human
rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on
this issue at its seventeenth session within existing resources

---

1. This sentence contains the main change: from combating defamation of Islam to Muslims; from the institution to its members. That is a change in tactics, not strategic objective.  The goal remains unchanged: to erect a legislative shield to protect Islam from all questioning and criticism, consistent with Shari'ah, which prescribes the death penalty^A for 'reviling' Allah, Moe & their war cult. ^B   Muslims are supposed to be stigmatized individually by accurately describing the accursed doctrines of the war cult which enslaves them to Satan.  Thus, every exposure,questioning & criticism of Islamic doctrines will be held to 'stigmatize' Muslims, an act to be prohibited by law.

        'Incitement' will be defined broadly, as in Ban Ki-moon's condemnation^C of Geert Wilders' short documentary, Fitna, which exposes, but does not constitute incitement to violence. The Motoons^D a graphic depiction of Islamic jihad-terrorism also exposed incitemenht, but are themselves, not an example of incitement.

2. ICCPR, Article 18, ¶2 implies, but does not clearly state, the right to disaffiliate from one religion and adopt another. International consensus on that right is impossible because Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. Refer to the relevant Islamic law.^A
3. Manifestation & practice of Islam is problematic because participation in offensive wars of conquest^E is ordained for Muslims^F and is their essential life mission^G.  Islam is inseverable, Muslims are not empowered to select what they like and reject the violent parts.^H  It is not possible to practice Islam peacefully in the long run.
4. "Combating religious intolerance" is assumed to be a good thing. Why should anyone tolerate a 'religion' that asserts a demonic mandate--right & duty to conquer him and enslave his widow & orphans^I?  Why should anyone tolerate a 'religion' that imputes any step taken to "injure" or "raise the anger of" a disbeliever to the believer's credit as a "deed of righteousness"^J? 

        The citation of the right to freedom of expression is deliberately deceptive because the intent of this resolution is to criminalize any and every expression that questions or criticizes the doctrines & practices of Islam.  How, exactly, will freedom of expression combat intolerance?  The unstated premise of this and all similar resolutions, including the preceding resolutions "combating defamation of religions" is that all questioning & criticism of Islam constitutes incitement, intolerance & hate speech. 

5. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about 'intolerance" that its holy scripture declares it intensely intolerant of all rival religions so that if anyone chooses another religion, "it will never be accepted of him"^K. 
6. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about 'discrimination' that their Shari'ah dictates that conquered Christians living under Islamic domination are prohibited from making public processions, prayers or funerals, ringing bells, displaying crosses and building churches.^L
7. Muslims are so "deeply concerned" about violence based on the victim's religion that their holy scripture , oral tradition & Shari'ah mandate & exemplify offensive wars of conquest against pagans, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.^M
8. How can you be a Muslim while deploring Islam? This is the Acme of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance! ^M
   
9. If you deplore the burning of homes & churches and the killing of Christians & other minorities in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt, why do you remain affiliated with the war cult that inculcates hatred and incites those acts? 
10. Deep concern about "derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization"? Are you concerned about your own scripture and Shari'ah? ^N 
11. They are complaining about the Dutch PVV and similar political parties in Austria, Germany Switzerland and elsewhere. They want such parties outlawed.
12. They just condemned Islam's own canon of scripture, tradition, biography & jurisprudence!
13. That is a demand for legislation outlawing "negative stereotyping', which translates to all questioning and criticism of Islamic doctrines and practices, including this blog post informing you about their outrageous arrogant demands.
14. If the interlocutors had sufficient knowledge of Islamic doctrine and courage to expose it, such dialogue might disabuse a few people of the mis-perception that Islam is the "religion of peace".
15. This is derived from the boilerplate demands for criminalization of 'defamation of Islam'. It encompasses all negative expression about Islam. Review the exemplary statement by Ban Ki-moon quoted below.^C
16. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers, a process that is already  underway. 
17. Consider the most recent mass casualty attacks, both successful and interdicted. What was the affiliation of the perpetrators? How many of them were not Muslims?  Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence. It promises participants admission to a celestial bordello^O and threatens shirkers with eternity in Hell^P.  Muslims are commanded to wage war against us and rewarded for any injury they inflict.  Of course it is unreasonable to be suspicious of them. Yeah, right.

---

1. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶1.
2. ibid, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶7.
3. 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.”

4. View the Motoons
5. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶0 pg. 617
   ibid, ¶1, pg. 618
   ivid, ¶8, pg. 620
   Al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, pg. 141
6. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 216.
7. ibid, Surah At-Taubah, ayah 111
8. ibid,Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 85
9. ibid, Surah Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 26
   Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶13
10. Noble Qur'an, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 120
11. ibid, Surah Al-Imran , Aya 85
12. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11 , ¶5
13. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 39
    ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 29
    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387
    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶8
14. Noble Qur'an, Surah Al-Baiyyinah, Ayah 6
    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11, ¶5, items 2-7
15. Noble Qur'an, Surah As-Saff, Ayat 10-12
    ibid, Surah Surah An-Naba' , Ayah 31
    
16. Ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayat 38-39
    ibid, Surah an-Naba', Ayah 21

Freedom of Religion: Only for Muslims

My email subscription to UNHRC documents turned up an interesting letter from the representative of Cyprus. I keep telling you hat freedom of religion is a one way street, few pay any attention.  

    Turkey is interfering with Greek Orthodox services in occupied Cyprus. As I keep telling you, if you ain't Muslim, you have no rights. Perhaps this will give you a clue.  Turkey is violating the rights of Christians in occupied Cyprus, interfering with church services, arbitrarily and with outrageous regulations.

Upon instructions from my Government, I would like to bring to your attention a
grave human rights violation that occurred on 25 December 2010 in the Orthodox church of
Saint Synesios, in the town of Rizokarpaso located in the part of Cyprus under the military
occupation of Turkey. This issue is directly related to the mandate in accordance with
which the yearly reports on the question of human rights in Cyprus are prepared, as
provided for in Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXXI) and General Assembly
resolution 3450 (XXX).
As confirmed by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), on
25 December 2010, security forces of the subordinate local administration of Turkey
interrupted an ongoing religious service, forced the priest to remove his liturgical vestments
and to terminate the liturgy, ordered the churchgoers, mainly Greek Cypriot enclaved
persons, to evacuate, then sealed the church on the pretext that no “permission for the
conduct of mass” had been obtained. At the same time, the occupation regime did not allow
for a Christmas mass to be held in the Church of the Holy Trinity (Ayia Triada) in the
nearby town of Yialoussa. Subsequently, the occupation regime informed UNFICYP that a
new “procedure” had been established, whereby prior authorization should be sought 30
days in advance for all scheduled religious services, except those celebrated on Sundays.
These acts contravene the third Vienna agreement of 2 August 1975, which, inter
alia, explicitly provides that the Greek Cypriots who remained enclaved behind the military
lines in their villages in the north-eastern Karpass peninsula in the aftermath of the Turkish
invasion would be “free to stay” and that they would “be given every help to lead a normal
life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as
medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement”. Even more serious, these
acts constitute a clear violation of international and European human rights law, including
article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 3 and 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

    Lets review the fatal facts:

• Muslims are commanded to wage war against us.
• Our blood is not sacred to Muslims.
• Our property is not sacred to Muslims.
• We have no rights until we become Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "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." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

    We know blessed well that the Human Rights Council will not do anything to remedy this situation, which will continue to be ignored. They are occupied with more important matters such as condemning Israel for defending itself. 

Fort Hood Benefits Act

I received an email from the Wake Up America movement reminding me of an important issue which I should not have forgotten. I raise it here to remind you of it and urge you to take action.

Fort Hood massacre was November 5, 2009 -  Now it's 2011 and these bills sit in committee - with no decision nor action yet taken.

 

Senate bill: Fort Hood Protection Act S316

House bill:  Fort Hood Benefits Act  HR625

 

Both these bill are sponsored by Republicans  (with 1 Democratic and 1 Independent cosponsor each)

Both bills make the same request - click bill # above to see clear, brief contents. 

 

MAKE YOUR VOICE heard - to move this measure forward now - by contacting your Congressman and Senators. All of US are aware, by now, Congress drags their feet if not prompted to act. So, your voice will matter. Please draw their attention to this overdue resolution in support of HR 625 and S316. The young soldier listed above died when he dived in front of a nurse and saved her life. Surely his, and the families, of others struck down deserve recognition these losses were a result of an act of war.   Please FORWARD. BLOG & TWITTER this action and post ON YOUR FORUMS. Thanks!   www.WAMaction.org

    If  the bills are not enacted into law, the victims and their survivors will suffer an unwarranted injustice, receiving minimal benefits instead of what they justly deserve.  Please go immediately to http://www.congress.org/ and send emails to your Representatives & Senators urging them to get into gear and get the legislation out of cmte. and onto the floor for a vote.

    At congress.org, you don't need to know your Rep's name or district number. If you know your zip code, you know enough. Signup is free and easy. If I can do it, so can you. 

International Judge the Koran Day: Execution

nternational Judge the Koran Day: Execution

This video of the sentencing & execution of a Koran was posted on Facebook.  I was not able to view the judgment with Firefox.  I was able to log on with Internet Explorer, but the audio quality was poor, and  the prosecutor was speaking in Arabic.  I did not hear the promised translation.  When I attempted to reload the page, the server timed out, which it continues to do more than four hours after the event.

    I suspect that the site which streamed the video might have suffered a distributed denial of service attack, but one source asserts that they went off line voluntarily.  I will continue to try the site periodically in hopes of finding video of the trial.  If and when I obtain more information about the trial I will write a new post about it.

    At present, there are two news stories about the trial and execution fo the Koran.

• Straits Times
• All Voices

The Straits Times story should guarantee adequate coverage in Asia.  It is just a matter of time until the hot heads learn of the execution, then the rabble rousing will begin.  How much Hell they will raise is anyone's guess, the less the better.    Any violence which might ensue must be blamed on those who incite it and carry it out, not on the acts of judging and burning the Koran.

    I will be watching for reaction in and from the Human Rights Council as it enters its last week of deliberation for its 16^th session. The council has a full calendar and can not afford to waste time on trifling matters. I doubt that the OIC will view the issue my way.

    While I do not disagree with the verdict, I dislike the idea of burning the Koran inside a church.  Even though it was well contained and isolated from flammable surfaces, the issues of fire hazard, liability, insurance and air pollution  would lead me to do it outdoors, in a burning barrel, covered with a fine screen to prevent fly ash from starting brush fires.

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/viewer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash

International Judge the Koran Day Update

Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4p.m., the trial will start, lasting for four hours.  I doubt that is sufficient time, but it is not up to me.  Since Chowderhead backed out, Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan has been recruited to defend the Koran.

    The prosecution team is loaded with apostates. Ahmed Abaza, the prosecutor, is a convert to Christianity. Mr. Ahmed Paul is an expert witness, another apostate.  Sheikh Abdulla Al Sabah, another expert witness, also knows Islam from the inside, being an apostate.

    According to the press release, the poll is running 69% in favor of immolation.  That should make for some fun, because Dr. Jones previously promised that he would not burn the Koran.  How will he resolve that conflict?  Is he secretly hoping for an acquittal? 

    One of the charges could be difficult to prove: the Koran is accused of inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities. The Koran commands Muslims to engage in perpetual warfare but I am not convinced that meets the legal definition of murder.  It does sanction sexual exploitation of slaves and commands terrorism.  If you doubt this, visit http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for right hands possess; you will find plenty of evidence of rape.  A search for strike terror will bring up direct evidence of the last charge. 

    The event appears to be drawing little attention from the print media, with only two articles showing up this week in a Google search, but it fares far better in the blogs. I know that there is some government interest because my blog posts about it have been read by the local police and the Department of Homeland Security.  Even a local television station read my most recent previous update post.  There is also some international interest: the OIC Islamophobia Report for February mentioned International Judge the Koran day.

    For those of us who can not travel to Gainsville, Florida for the event, it will be broadcast live on the internet at www.truthsat.tv. 

Universal Periodic Review: High Treason

Now comes the response of the United States to the U.N.H.R.C Universal Periodic Review, delivered orally by the State Department's legal counsel. I would vomit, but I am loath to waste a good meal.  Words lack the capacity to express the depth, breadth & intensity of my disgust, but I will give it a good try.

    The response appears to be carefully crafted by skilled lawyers,  yet it can not pass close examination in the light of objective factual reality.

Completion of the First UPR of the United States: Statement by Harold Hongju Koh

In the context of counter-terrorism, a number of U.S. civil society groups, and countries – such as Egypt and Algeria – have raised concerns regarding discrimination against Muslims. The United States agrees that the problem of terrorism is not unique to members of any religious or ethnic group. Our government does not support attempts to treat entire communities as a threat to our national security, based solely on their race, religion, or ethnicity.

    So, atheists & Catholics have committed acts of terrorism. Over what timeline?  On what scope & scale?  How does their recent engagement compare to that of Islam?  Where in the holy scripture of any other 'religion' do you discover the functional equivalent of the following listed abominations?

• Intention  & sanctification of terrorizing
  • 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."
• Effective imperative to terrorize
  • 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.
• Celebration of the effects of terrorizing
  • 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 Bani An-Nadir) 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 Allah! But Allah'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, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
    • Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
    • Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),
• Eternal reward for terrorism
  • 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah's Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah'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 Allah, 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, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun.
• Terrorism as life's mission
  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

    Islam, having declared and prosecuted perpetual war against us, is a clear, imminent and persistent threat to our lives, property, prosperity & liberty.  Islam, without Muslims, would be harmless. Muslims; believers as defined in 9:111, 49:15 & 8:2 , constitute an imminent threat and should be removed and excluded from our territory. 

Periodic Review » Releases » US Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report
U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report

March 10, 2011

Report of the United States of America
Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review
Response to the U.N. Human Rights Council Working Group Report

A/HRC/IWG.6/9/L9

85. The United Slates delegation responded to a number of questions and concerns regarding
discrimination against Muslims, Arab Americans, and South Asians. The United States is committed to
addressing negative stereotypes, discrimination and hate crimes through measures such as the creation
of a 911 1 backlash task force, litigation to protect religious freedom including the right of school girls to
wear the hijab, nationwide community outreach, and enforcement of employment discrimination
laws. The United States is taking concrete measures to make border and aviation security measures
more effective and targeted to eliminate profiling based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

10. The following enjoy our support:

• 85.

    "The United States is committed to addressing negative stereotypes,"  The highlighted expression refers directly to the connection between Islamic doctrine/practice and terrorism. In a previous paragraph I outlined the Qur'an ayat which establish terrorism as an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and two hadith which exemplify it.  Why is my government "committed to" denying objective factual reality?  The policy is a token of suicidal treachery.

    While they claim to support the first amendment's free speech clause, they declare a policy directly opposed to it; an excellent exemplar of cognitive dissonance.

101. Ban, at the Federal and state levels, the use of racial profiling by police and immigration officers (Bolivia);
Prohibit expressly the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of immigration legislation (Mexico);

102. Revoke the national system to register the entry and exit of citizens of25 countries from the Middle-East, South
Asia and North Africa, and eliminate racial and other forms of profiling and stereotyping of Arabs, Muslims and South
Asians as recommended by CERD. (Sudan);

5. The following recommendations enjoy our support:

• 68, 101, and 219, in that profiling — the invidious use of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion — is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution and numerous pieces of national legislation.

    What is invidious about recognition of the fact that all of the perpetrators of recent mass casualty acts of terrorism were Muslims, acting in Allah's name?  What can be more insane than scrutinizing innocent citizens while ignoring the obvious threat of Islamic affiliation? 

    Only those are believers who fight in Allah's cause, which is global domination; tho "kill others and are killed" and take steps to enrage or injure disbelievers.  The policy of Obamination is suicidal treachery!

190. Take effective measures to counter insults against Islam and Holy Quran, as well as Islamophobia and violence
against Moslems, and adopt necessary legislation (Iran);

191. Continue to create an enabling climate for religious and cultural tolerance and understanding at the grass roots
level (Indonesia);

6. The following enjoy our support, in part:

• 190. We take effective measures to counter intolerance, violence and discrimination against all members of all minority groups, including Muslims. We cannot support this recommendation, however, to the extent that it asks us to take legislative measures countering insults. Insults (unlike discrimination, threats, or violence) are speech protected by our Constitution.

    ¶190-191 reflect boilerplate from recent U.N. resolutions "combating defamation of religions". Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, his Profit & their damnable system of intra-species predation.  For the benefit of those who value knowledge over prejudice, I present links to the evidence on which the statement above is based. Rational people will follow them, read the relevant Shari'ah and curse Islam.

• O8.1-2: the penalty for apostasy. 
• O8.7: the list of 20 acts entailing apostasy.
• O11.10: applicability of O8.7 to conquered Christians.
• O9.14: the penalty imposed on a Christian who says something "unmentionable" about Islam and its sanctities.
• O9.0-9.9:   predation upon the human race. 

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil"  It is impossible for a rational and informed person to tolerate Islam and our government should not be attempting to impose irrationality upon us.

---

Related documents from Eye on the UN:

3/10/2011	"U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report"
11/9/2010	"Response of the United States of America to Recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Opening Statement by the U.S. Delegation"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on National Security Issues"
11/5/2010	"Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on rights and interests of indigenous peoples"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Cuba during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Iran during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by Israel during the United States Universal Periodic Review"
11/5/2010	"Statement by the DPRK during the United States Universal Periodic Review"

Blasphemy Laws Counter to Islam? Malignant Malarkey!

Salam Al Marayati , President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council--DC risked exposure of Islam with an article in the Huffington Post.  Google alerted me to it. 

Blasphemy Laws Are Against Islam

Blasphemy laws or laws prohibiting defamation of a religion are incompatible with Islamic thought and philosophy. The concept of Defamation of Religions denies a person their free will to choose -- one of God's greatest gifts to humanity -- and deprives individuals of their right to free speech and expression. It also creates a climate of intolerance that can breed discrimination and violence.

 

Islam does not conceive of free will, it operates on paradigm of predestination.  I refer doubters & dissenters to Malik's Muwatta 46.1.2

The climate of intolerance springs from the Qur'an. 3:85 is extremely intolerant.  Likewise the violence: from Surahs 8 & 9.

Its implementation would illustrate Muslim suppression of Western standards of freedom of speech 

Like Reliance of the Traveller O11.5 & O11.10 ?

The Quran mandates "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:256). This Quranic injunction is meant to protect freedom of religious belief and expression for all people; it is also meant to prohibit any government or group of people from intruding on the private lives of its people. Islam calls for the freedom, not for the suppression, of free speech and it condemns violations of fundamental human rights.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

3:112. Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allâh, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allâh) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh's disobedience, crimes and sins).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

In fact, the Quran documents the criticism of Islam by poets and political leaders at the time of its revelation. Though the Prophet was accused of sorcery and mania, in each and every case, God did not order him to punish the blasphemers. Instead, His order to the Prophet was to respond to their hate speech with good speech and good work. In other words, Islam calls for freedom of speech and for competing freely in the marketplace of ideas. No one has the right to play the role of God on this earth.

The hadith, Tabari's Tahrik and Ishaq's Sira document what Moe did to those critics. Here is one sample for your edification.

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.

When Rep. Peter King held a hearing on "radicalization of American Muslims" attempting to stereotype all American Muslims,

Rep. King investigated "radicalization", not Islam; not Muslims.  He heard testimony from the father of a terrorist, who was converted in a Mosque. Converted, not radicalized.  Terrorism is an Intrinsic Sacrament of Islam contains the details from the Qur'an & hadith for those who want them.

The proposed U.N. resolution on "Defamation of Religions" will certainly not prevent discrimination against Muslims, nor will it fight religious intolerance. Its passage would only further fuel anti-Muslim stereotyping and hatred.

Every time those idiots propose one of those resolutions, I exploit it as an opportunity to expose the rotten core of Islam, as I did in another post earlier this morning. This time they called it "freedom of religion and belief".

We must seek essential reforms that, along with our own honorable actions, will protect and exalt the name of Islam.

 

Islam can not be reformed, it is perfect already, and Allah's word can not be changed.

"Good and evil are not equal; so repel evil with something good and better so that the one with whom there is enmity will become a close friend."

Yeah, right. 23 & 28 were "revealed" in Mekkah, 8 & 9 were "revealed" later at Medina, so  those relatively tolerant verses are abrogated by 8:39 & 9:29. 

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

With one day remaining for submission of a new draft resolution on combating defamation of religions, none having appeared and two days of private OIC meetings, now comes  the "Draft Resolution "Freedom of Religion and Belief"  which does not identify its sponsors.  This document appears to reflect the American delegation's stated rejection of the defamation concept. I suspect a clever scheme resolving to subvert our right of free expression by consensus, without a vote.

    Although slightly sanitized, the draft remains obnoxious to life and liberty.  It seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam, subordinating our right of free expression to the Muslim's imaginary 'right' to shield their damnable doctrines from critical examination and exposure.  It demands tolerance of the intolerable.  It demands that our schools be turned into Islamic indoctrination centers.

    Like most U.N.H.R.C.  resolutions, this draft leans heavily on references to previous documents, those I could locate are listed and linked at the end of the post.

PP4  Reaffirming that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and
interrelated (PP5/HRC/RES/10/25)

    This is a clever ruse: conflating our right to free expression with the freedom of belief.  Their freedom to believe must not in any measure diminish our right to express our opinions about their belief system and practices.

PP5  Stressing that persons belonging to religious minorities should be able to live
safely and to exercise freely their freedom of religion or belief; (NEW)

    The right to live, safely, free from threat and assault is a given, already stated in existing human rights covenants.  The problem is in the last clause: asserting the right of free exercise of religion or belief.  

    It is not possible that anyone can have a right to exercise their demon's mandate to invade and conquer us, to rape our widows and enslave our orphans. Such a 'right' abrogates our right to live free from attack. 

    Islam imposes fard al-kifaya which binds all eligible adult  male male Muslims to engage in a minimum of one military attack against disbelievers in every year. The obligation is discharged against the community when a sufficient number have answered the call to jihad.  This fard is codified in Reliance of the Traveller O9.1  The fard is more clearly expressed in this quote from the founder of the Shafi'ite school of fiqh.

"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."

    Jihad is mandatory, not optional.  Jihad is the "original religion" of Islam. Jihad is "holy fighting" in "Allah's cause",  Islamic law defines it as "to war against non-Muslims,".

    Islam is inseverable, all or nothing; not cafeteria Catholicism.  If Muslims have a right to practice Islam, then we have no right to live, no right to be secure and no right to be free. All of which are confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387: "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 ".  Our blood is not sacred to Muslims until we join them in slavery to the demon.

    Rights must be reciprocal and global.  But Islam denies our rights to believe and practice or not as we see fit. Nothing in this resolution alters that fatal fact. 

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.

    If only Allah has the right to be worshiped, then we have no right to worship any other deity. Let that sink in for a moment before examining a crucial part of Shari'ah. 

O11.5 [...]

-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.

    Under Islam, rights are a one way street; only Muslims have them.

PP9 Underlining further that schools may offer unique possibilities for constructive
dialogue among all parts of society and human rights education in particular can
contribute to the elimination of negative stereotypes that often adversely affect
members of religious minorities (new, inspired from HRC/16/53 558);

    They want our schools to indoctrinate our children to tolerate the intolerable.  Note the key phrase I have highlighted. "Negative stereotypes" is an equivalent alternative to "defamation".  That is an indirect reference to knowledge of the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. They want that knowledge erased.

Stresses that everyone has the right to freedom of belief, which includes the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one's
choice and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance, including the right to change one's religion or belief; (PP6/UNGA 64/164)

    The restatement of the free practice demand is redundant, but not the highlighted clause in the last sentence.  I suspect that clause was inserted as a poison pill because it directly contradicts Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. 

OP2 Emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are
interdependant, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses further the role
these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief (OP4, UNGA resol 651122)

    Tolerance of Islam is not possible; the demonic mandate to terrorize & conquer is absolutely intolerable, as are rape, pillage & plunder.  Freedom of expression includes the right to speak and write the truth about Islam.  That right must not be diminished by any law, national or international or any U.N . resolution!  The trials of Elizabeth Sabaditch-Wolff and Geert Wilders for speaking truthfully about Islam  are proof of the existing abrogation of the right of free expression.

OP4 Condemns all forms of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on or in the
name of religion or belief, as well as violations of the freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or belief; (OP1, RES/14/11) as well as any advocacy of religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the
use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means; (OP3, RES 14/11)

    The first highlighted clause is redundant, look to the second.  What is the definition of "advocacy of religious hatred"?  The Secretary General let the cat out of the bag when he remarked about the short film by Geert Wilders. 

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.”

Fitna describes and demonstrates hate speech & incitement; it is not hate speech neither is it incitement; it is proof of the fact that the Qur'an & hadith are hate speech and incitement.    In a just world, it would not be possible to prevent or punish publication of Fitna.  The U.N. intends, with high sounding but excessively broad terms, to proscribe truthful expression about Islam. That egregious violation of free speech can not be accepted!

OP5 Condemns recent attacks of terrorism targetting individuals belonging to religious
groups across the world. (NEW)

    What is terrorism?  There is no official definition because Muslims reserve attacks on Jews  as "justified resistance"

OP6 Emphasizes that States have an obligation to protect persons belonging to religious
minorities and should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish actsof
violence against them, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may
constitute a human rights violation (inspired from OP9, UNGA65/211)

    Why restate the obvious?  Governments have no other purpose; they are for protection from attack.  If they do not protect their citizens, they are worthless; part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt can burn churches, attack and kill Christians with impunity. Everybody knows it and nobody will do anything about it, this resolution to the contrary not withstanding. OP6 is an egregious insult.

a) To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and
effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief to all
without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of access to justice and effective remedies
in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, or the
right to freely practise one's religion, including the right to change one's religion or
belief, is violated ;

    Which freedom is missing from that section?  Which constitutionally protected right does A/RES/65/199 demand be abrogated?  Get a clue!

To ensure in particular the right of all persons to worship, assemble or teach in
connection with a religion or belief and their right to establish and maintain places for
these purposes, and the right of all persons to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas in these areas;

    They postulate a right to build mosques, so that we can not proscribe their construction. In reality, mosques are being constructed as outposts from which to mount new attacks.

h) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in conformity
with internationa human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members of groups
to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully
respected and protected;  

   
    That section is a thinly veiled attack at proscription of fund raising for terrorism, an attempt to reverse the convictions in the Holy Land Foundation case.

(j) To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international
standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of
violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief,
as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to members of
religious minorities in all parts of the world;

    This section is redundant but it needs to be addressed again. Islam is intolerable, it is impossible for an informed lover of liberty to tolerate it. "Incitement to hostility and violence", as defined by the Secretary General, is far too broad; unacceptably so as it would outlaw all truthful expression about Islam. 

---

References:

• A/RES/36/55
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• A/HRC/RES/14/11
• Resolution 10/25.
• A/HRC/16/53
• A/RES/64/164
• A/RES/64/164
• A/HRC/14/L.5
• A/65/211
• A/HRC/16/53