Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

intolerance

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

stereotyping

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

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

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

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

protects individuals

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

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

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

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

education

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

concrete details

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

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

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

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

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

concrete examples

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

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

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

incitement ? 

Fitna

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

Motoons

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

Quran burning

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

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

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

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

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

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

legal foundation

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

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

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

Shari'ah

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

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

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

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


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

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

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

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

Defamation of Religions: Preliminary Vote

WND reports that the Third Committee held a preliminary vote Nov. 12 on the Defamation of Religions resolution: 81:55:43. Support declined by 5 votes, opposition increased by 2 and abstentions increased by 1. The present level of support indicates that the General Assembly will pass the resolution.

The good news is that, while the resolution will pass, it will not become enforcible law. The bad news is that it will give the UN stamp of approval to blasphemy laws used by Pakistan and other nations to suppress and persecute Christians and other minorities. The resolution calls on member states to enact and enforce legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Department of State expresses opposition to inclusion of references to defamation of religions, but it supports inclusion of negative stereotypes, as included in the recent Freedom of Belief and Expression resolution. Examine the relevant text from that document. [Emphasis added.]

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

This sample is from last year's draft resolution.

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

The following sample is from Pakistan's submission to the Ad Hoc Committee for Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language in matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,

What are they really complaining about? We can get a hint from their latest Islamophobia report, which contains a list of "Islamophobic incidents".

Political and Social Campaigns against Islam and Muslims

Campaign Warns Americans about Looming Shariah Code – Detroit billboard said religious law imposed by Islam threatened rights. Members of the United American Committee (UAC) stated that Shariah might be spreading around the world, but it was not going to be established in the United States without opposition. Officials had reportedly erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.


Danish Muhammad Cartoonist Returns with New Work – Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist forced into hiding after the publication of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was set to return with a new set of potentially controversial drawings. According to a Report in the Copenhagen Post, Westergaard was expected to have 26 illustrations in a new book that compiled the
sardonic columns by Danish writer Lars Hedegaard for the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

Wilders plans second anti-Islam film – Rightwing MP Geert Wilders has told De Telegraaf newspaper that he was planning to make a follow-up to his controversial anti-Islam film, Fitna. The new piece, expected to be released in 2010, will deal with the negative effects of what Wilders called the advance of Islam in Western countries.

If those examples do not make it clear to you, examine this quote from a letter sent by the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Cmte. in October.

For instance, the British National Putty leader Nick Grffin has referred to Islam as a "a vicious and wicked religion"; some in Switzerland are strongly opposed to the construction of minarets on mosques as symbols of Islam; while in Denmark and the Netherlands the personality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been deliberately ridiculed with the intention to violate the sentiments of Muslims. These are only some of the clear examples not just of discrimination against Muslims as individuals but of Islam as a religion as well as well as its revered personalities and sacred symbols. Accordingly, the contention that human rights standards should apply only to individuals is not credible. Therefore, the OIC ls advocating the need to address these concepts in a holistic and legal manner: to avoid their negative impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by the individuals, groups of individuals and communities. [Emphasis added. ]

It becomes clear that Islam will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. Islam seeks to criminalize all criticism, regardless of the truth thereof. The obvious references to Fitna and the Danish cartoons leave no doubt. Fitna displayed the hate speech & violence which fill the Qur'an along with their effects in the Arab street. The Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was even though he never possessed a bomb. He said that he was "made victorious with terror."

What can we do about this situation? Nothing directly, but we can sign and promote two on line petitions opposing the resolution and one that counter attacks.

• Open Doors has a Free To Believe campaign.
• ACLJ has a petition campaign of their own and is lobbying the European delegations.
• The International Qur'an Petition is a good counter attack. Sign it send it to everyone you can influence. Exhort the recipients to sign and forward the petition.
• A sense of the House resolution opposing the OIC censorship campaign languishes in the Foreign Affairs Cmte. It has gained two more co-sponsors, but it needs to be voted on before the final vote in the General Assembly.
• H.Res. 763: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the "defamation of religions" are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

Sign those petitions and solicit the support of everyone you can hope to influence. Urge your Congressman to sign onto H. Res. 763 as a co-sponsor and work to get it to the floor for a vote. If you know your Zip Code, you can use the email form at http://www.congress.org/ .

Defamation || Negative Stereotyping

Examine these definitions of defamation & stereotyping:

Definitions of defamation on the Web:

• a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
• aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Definitions of stereotyping on the Web:

• A stereotype is a phrase relating to all the members of class or set. The term is often used with a negative connotation when referring to an ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
• stereotype - pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European"

Defamation involves factual falsity. Stereotyping involves broad generalization. What is the big deal; what is the significance of these concepts? Both are included in the latest edition of the UN's Defamation of Religions [Islam] resolution tabled in the Third Committee by Syria for the OIC on October 29, 2010.

The Department of State of the United States of America opposes the defamation clause and supports the negative stereotyping clause.
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

What's the big deal? When accused of defamation, we have a defense: truth. When accused of stereotyping, what defense do we have? Consider the example of Danish Cartoons. Moe was depicted with a bomb in his bonnet, implying that he was a terrorist and, by inferrence, that all Muslims are terrorists Moe died long before the invention of gun powder, so he never possessed a bomb. Does that preclude him from being a terrorist?

Speaking for Allah, Moe said: "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)[3:151] He was speaking for Allah when he said: (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.” [8:12]

So Moe talked tough. Did he carry out those threats? Yes, he did; the evidence is found in the Qur'an.

• 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.
  • 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.

Is there any confirmation? Of course there is, in the hadith.

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

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

Terror made Moe victorious. What more proof do you need? Moe was a terrorist. What of the Ummah? Are they all terrorists? They are if they emulate Moe.

• 33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

To understand these issues, one needs to read the Qur'an & hadith and observe the context as a whole. Our misleaders want us to accept a false description of Islam as a "religion of peace". They want us to believe that Islamic aggression is a deviation from the standard, performed by a tiny minority who have hijacked a great religion.

Only those who will expend the time and effort needed to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence will fully comprehend this issue. Aggression is foundational to Islam. Read Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah. Turn back and read 9:111 again.

• 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 .

What is the relationship between Allah and the Muslims? What do the Muslims do for Allah? They are his slaves who fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Return to Al-Anfal and read from ayeh 2 to 42. What is the meaning of "spend out of that We have provided them"? What is the meaning of ":to go out from your home with the truth,"?

• 9:88. But the Messenger (Muhammad ) and those who believed with him (in Islâmic Monotheism) strove hard and fought with their wealth and their lives (in Allâh's Cause). Such are they for whom are the good things, and it is they who will be successful.

• 9:89. For them Allâh has got ready Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.

• 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.
• 9:91. There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend [in holy fighting (Jihâd)], if they are sincere and true (in duty) to Allâh and His Messenger. No ground (of complaint) can there be against the Muhsinûn (good-doers - see the footnote of V.9:120). And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Spending, in the context of 8:3, is a reference to Jihad.

• 9:83. If Allâh brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say: "Never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind."
  
  

Go out, in the context of 8:5, is a reference to Jihad.

• 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);
• 8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided them.
• 8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
• 8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;
  
  

It is clear from the context, that those who do not participate in Jihad when called are not believers. Believers are only those who participate in Jihad. If they do not emulate Moe, they are not believers. Those who neither participate directly in genocidal Jihad nor finance it, support the families of men at the battlefront, pray for victory nor engage in propaganda to support the Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Hypocrites are to be fought and killed along with Kufar. [4:89]

What does this boil down to in the context of the '10 version of the Defamation of Religions resolution?

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

The context is one of a demand for national and international legislation to criminalize all criticism of Islam. When we counter "religion of peace" with exposure of Allah's imperatives and Moe's razia & ghazwat, we are accused of "defamation of Islam" and "negative stereotyping", the very acts the resolution seeks to outlaw.

11. Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,15 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

12. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic,
religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where applicable, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts;

13. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

They are demanding that member states enact and enforce legislation prohibiting all criticism of Islam. In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 '08, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

The Danish Cartoons & Fitna are the targets of their scorn because the cartoons accurately describe Moe as a terrorist and Fitna exposes the true source of Islamic violence.

Big deal? Blessed right it is!!! Under the proposed legislation, the next Hitler need only disguise his war machine as a religion, and nobody can question or criticize it without being persecuted. That is precisely what Moe did 1399 years ago. The OIC, their factotums in the UN and the Obama administration seek to shield Islam from all questioning and criticism.

We can counter attack.

• International Qur’an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ
• H.Res.763

Sign the petitions and urge your family, friends and associates to sign and promote them. Visit http://www.congress.org/ , enter your Zip Code and send your Congressman an email demanding that H.Res.763 be brought to the floor and passed before the final vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution.

The resolution will not become binding, enforcible international law, but it adds an aura of moral authority to local blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous Christians. The proposed protocol to ICERD, being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, will become binding international law, enforcible in court. Eternal vigilancemeta is the price of liberty. Sign the petitions and exhort Congress to pass H.Res.763. Remain alert and keep the pressure on.

Durban II Sham Revision

Anne Bayefsky reports in Forbes: "Obama Should Denounce Durban II ".

She reports that a revised draft of the Durban II resolution drops certain offensive language, but commences with a reaffirmation of the DDPA of '01.
Inclusion of that reaffirmation brands the revision as an unacceptable sham. While she gives us some paraphrases and brief quotes, no link to the revision is provided in her report or any of the available news reports of the revision.

In the absence of authoritative text, I reject the revised draft on the basis of what it affirms. Bear in mind while reading the following quotes from the DDPA,, that wherever "racism" is printed, you must read "Islamophobia". The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference [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;

DDPA
pg 12

59. We recognize with deep concern religious intolerance against certain religious
communities, as well as the emergence of hostile acts and violence against such communities
because of their religious beliefs and their racial or ethnic origin in various parts of the world
which in particular limit their right to freely practise their belief;

60. We also recognize with deep concern the existence in various parts of the world
of religious intolerance against religious communities and their members, in particular limitation
of their right to practise their beliefs freely, as well as the emergence of increased negative
stereotyping, hostile acts and violence against such communities because of their religious
beliefs and their ethnic or so-called racial origin;

61. We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on
racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities;

62. We are conscious that humanity’s history is replete with terrible wrongs inflicted
through lack of respect for the equality of human beings and note with alarm the increase of such
practices in various parts of the world, and we urge people, particularly in conflict situations, to
desist from racist incitement, derogatory language and negative stereotyping;

pg. 15

79. We firmly believe that the obstacles to overcoming racial discrimination and
achieving racial equality mainly lie in the lack of political will, weak legislation and lack of
implementation strategies and concrete action by States, as well as the prevalence of racist
attitudes and negative stereotyping;

80. We firmly believe that education, development and the faithful implementation of
all international human rights norms and obligations, including enactment of laws and political,
social and economic policies, are crucial to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance;

81. We recognize that democracy, transparent, responsible, accountable and
participatory governance responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, and respect for
human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential for the effective prevention
and elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. We
reaffirm that any form of impunity for crimes motivated by racist and xenophobic attitudes plays
a role in weakening the rule of law and democracy and tends to encourage the recurrence of such
acts;

85. We condemn political platforms and organizations based on racism, xenophobia
or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination, as well as legislation and practices
based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as incompatible with
democracy and transparent and accountable governance. We reaffirm that racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance condoned by governmental policies violate
human rights and may endanger friendly relations among peoples, cooperation among nations
and international peace and security;

86. We recall that the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or
hatred shall be declared an offence punishable by law with due regard to the principles embodied
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

pg. 48

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;

Those expressions are absolutely unacceptable to lovers of liberty; they should never have been uttered, published & promulgated and must not be affirmed because they constitute a thinly veiled demand for the global imposition of Islam's blasphemy law.

Paragraph 150 calls for all states to criminalize Islamophobia through effective legislation. There is no such entity! Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Islam has earned fear & loathing; the former intentionally, as celebrated in 33:26 and 59:13. A war cult responsible for 270 million deaths over the last 1384 years is worthy of loating.

Shari'ah is unacceptable, whether it is imposed by force, legislated directly or sneaked in through the back door. It plainly states that we may be executed for saying anything "impermissible" about Islam.

Yes, indeed, President Barack Hussein Obama should denounce the sham revision of the Durban II draft. I doubt that he will, I expect him to accept the sham as an opportunity for "engagement". I will be pleasantly surprised if he does permanently denounce it.