260 posts tagged “islam”

President Obama said some interesting things in Oslo, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.  Some will kill, and some will be killed.  And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Some of those young men will die because of idiotic rules of engagement which you imposed upon them.  The relationship between war and peace is that of polar opposites. Replacing peace with war is relatively easy, replacing war with peace requires victory; an overwhelming victory that breaks the will of the aggressor so that they will not soon repeat their imperialistic adventure.

Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Individual terrorists may be motivated by rage or revenge, but Jihad is driven by doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the sira & sunna.  What does it matter to the innocent victims whether they were killed by one, ten or a thousand men? What does it matter to them what weaponry was used in their murder? The fact of killing innocents is important, not the scope, scale, method or manpower involved. Islamic doctrine requires "great slaughter"; killing "many of them". 

There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

For Islam, imperialistic conquest is required by Allah and justified by our status as kuffar, rebels against Allah.  If you search for O9.1,  O9.8 and O9.9, and add my byline as a qualifier, you will find posts in which I have quoted Islamic law which requires annual attacks upon Jews & Christians and pagans.

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies.  Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.  To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

A violent movement could have preempted Hitler's aggression. Nobody had the requisite courage, will & resolve to take action.  Nothing short of death can convince mujahideen to lay down their arms. They seek death, and when one is killed, another steps forward to take his place. 'Martyrdom' is their their ticket to Paradise.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct.  And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.  That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.  That is a source of our strength.  That is why I prohibited torture.  That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.  And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.  We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend.  (Applause.)  And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

Torture was already prohibited. Water boarding as practiced by the CIA is not torture. What is the difference where you confine unlawful combatants?  Gitmo or Thomson; what is the moral difference?  Our adversaries are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions nor do they abide by them. They are not entitled to  the protection of conventions they do not recognize. Geneva Conventions are not the ideals we fight to defend. Those ideals are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.  Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable.  Sanctions must exact a real price.  Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

What sanction would have stopped Hitler? What sanction will stop Iran? When an enemy is dedicated and devoted to genocide; when they believe that genocide pleases their demon, they will engage in it, regardless of sanctions. Only death will deter them.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them.  In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear:  All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament.  I am committed to upholding this treaty.  It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy.  And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

Unilateral disarmament is suicidal.  Dreaming of a world without nuclear weaponry is suicidal idiocy.  Avaricious dictators are constantly probing for weakness, seeking opportunities for exploiting those unable or unwilling to defend themselves.  Pandora's box has been opened, the demons are loose, and they can not be recaptured.  Public expressions of suicidal insanity such as Obama's present temptation to aggressors, inviting war.

Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

They want nukes, give them a few, like we gave them to Japan.  Nothing less will stop those who dream of ruling the world. The megalomaniacs and their supporters must be eliminated.  What if Hitler had developed the bomb first?  Any weapon loses its deterrent effect if those who possess it lack the will to use it.

And yet too often, these words are ignored.  For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development.  And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

Case in point: Somalia; President Clinton sent our armed forces, with suicidal rules of engagement and insufficient material. He pulled them out when too many got killed, telegraphing weakness and lack of resolve to the enemy. The results ain't pretty.  Predation is not entirely about the biggest fangs, it is also about attitude: the will to kill.  If you don't have it, don't get involved!  A Security Council resolution said that Hezbollah would be disarmed. How did that work out? The 'peace keepers' are too timid to disarm Hezbollah.  The meek will inherit the earth; only if the aggressive kill each other without first killing the meek.

America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.

Hitler was elected. The Roman Empire had a Senate. Some people just can't get a clue. Form and substance are not the same. Hamas won an election a few years ago; majority rule decided to perpetuate terrorism. The result would have been the same if their rival had won the election.

Let me also say this:  The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone.  At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.  I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation.  But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo.  No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

So, what did you do to aid the dissidents in Iran? How effective were your efforts?  If those dissidents had prevailed, would their regime be any better than that of the Mullahs?  Most revolutions do not produce liberal democracies, they replace one tyranny with another.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity.  For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

President Obama will be surprised to discover that a few people can analyze his statements and determine their true meaning. He is demanding re-distribution of wealth & income on a global scale.  He is demanding that we submit to global taxation  for that purpose. President Kennedy's economic development policy had a consequence: foreign competition cost American jobs. Got a clue yet?

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity.  It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change.  There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.

I will use two words most others won't: International Socialism.  That is what President Obama is up to,  in plain, direct language. He intends to impoverish us and ruin our standard of living for the benefit of others, so that they can build up great armies and conquer us.  Islam does not wage war  because it is poor, it wages war to get more. It was founded for the purpose of enriching its founder through accrual of spoils.  It is now known that the 'scientists' fudged their data to establish a lie as  'scientific fact' for political purposes.  We can't educate our own children & care for our own sick, but President Obama has decided that we must pay to educate and heal the rest of the world.  He is a prime example of cranial-rectal juxtaposition.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion.  In some places, this fear has led to conflict.  At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards.  We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden.  We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Tribal & religious conflict long preceded globalization & modernity.  Islam has been engaged in it for nearly 1400 years. President Obama slyly puts the onus on Europe for slowly awakening to the fact that Muslims are taking over their continent.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.

  How many times will he repeat that damn lie? Islam has not been defiled, nor has it been distorted. It was designed for genocidal warfare using terrorism as a tactic.  Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial.  Read Surah al-Anfal, paying particular attention to verses 1, 39,  41 & 67.  What does Allah want? What did Moe want? To whom do the spoils belong?  What did Allah command Muslims to do?  President Obama assumes that nobody will recognize and point out his deception.

Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

When I see a Gd'd lie, I call it, without fear or favor. I don't care who is offended! President Obama is a liar! Islam is a war cult, not a religion. The purpose of Islam is to enrich its founder through the professional practice of piracy. This fatal fact is fully documented in Islam's Mercenary Mission.  Here is the concluding paragraph from that blog post. It summarizes the major points documented therein.

What keeps a war from being holy? Embezzling the spoils.  That says it all!  A summary follows in the form of an outline.

• The spoils belong to Allah and Moe.
• Allah & Moe get the top 20%.
• Allah granted special dispensation to take spoils.
• Allah promised abundant spoils.
• Embezzling the spoils:
  • condemns the embezzler to Hell
  • makes war unholy.
• Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.
• Allah made Moe wealthy through conquests.
  • Moe got his income by his spear.
• Moe wanted the spoils & ransom; Allah wants genocide.
• Rome & Persia will be defeated and their treasures spent in Jihad.

    Each of those points is based on explicit text in an ayat or hadith. Links are provided so that you can verify the quotes and explore the context. Next time, do due diligence and examine the ideology, character & associations of the candidates before voting. We can not afford to repeat the mistake we made in '08!

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I waste few opportunities to blast Islam with facts. They must be wondering why I have not written about the Nov. 29 referendum which banned new minarets in Switzerland.  There are two primary reasons. First, I am not entirely in agreement with the concept. Second, I wanted to let others write first so that I could take the role of clean up writer.  

    First and foremost, I am opposed to superficial, symbolic attacks which accomplish nothing beyond the counter productive stimulation of Islamic resentment.  Beards, burkas & hijabs  are symbolic, but they are not more important to the wearer as they are to us. Their value is more than symbolic, they are warning signs. Like a skunk's stripes and a rattle snake's noisy tail, they serve to alert us to the proximity of danger.

    Second, I perceive the vote to be a temporary victory.  I have little doubt that the result will be overturned in the courts. The vote serves mainly as a signal of rising public awareness of Islam's true nature and the existential threat it poses to Western Civilization.
   
    My readers know that I will take on anyone, without fear or favor.  While other writings have been more deserving of criticism, My choice did a better job of clarifying some of the issues involved.  Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote an exclusive for Family Security Matters:  Minarets are Symbols of Bigotry. I will quote some good parts, but you really should click the link and read the entire article because the quotes which follow are taken out of context. .

It is also true that huge lavish mosques funded by petrodollars are being constructed to prove that Islam is omnipresent everywhere and Islam – the best religion on earth! – is increasingly being accepted and practiced all over the world.

The huge mosques & soaring minarets are symbols of Islamic supremacism & domination.  

Minaret construction is an exhibition of political power spearheaded by Islamists. These “towers” are simply aggressive symbols of fanatic defying power. 

Minaret construction has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It is a symbol of bigotry.

If we allow the erection of minarets without offering resistance, our silent acquiescence is a token of surrender. The Swiss electorate decided not to surrender, but they stopped short of effective resistance. They attacked symbolism, not substance.

But when it comes to referendum, the majority in the Western world would also reject Islam as a stone-age “religion.” I am pretty sure that if the Swiss referendum were held in other European countries, the majority would also vote in favor of banning the construction of minarets. The European public is better informed than their self-appointed defenders of Islam.

I am not yet convinced that a majority are fully aware of the nature of Islam. But the Swiss vote may indicate a trend of increasing awareness.  Lapidation may be a stone age execution method, but Moe had weapons made of more advanced materials. 610 was hardly part of the stone age.

It is also true that the Swiss and the rest of the world are not against Muslims practicing their own religion in peace like all followers of other religions.

Islam can not be practiced in peace. Jihad is an intrinsic and inseverable part of Islam. Al-Anfal & At-Taubah are permanent parts of Islamic scripture. If we are not against the practice of Islam, then we are passively surrendering.

If, however, people around the globe, especially in the West, read the Koran and Hadith and realize how this religion incites to hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and discrimination against women, they would classify it as an extremist ideology, as politically incorrect and demand banning it like all extremist organizations. Check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

 Nevertheless, the world community, including Switzerland, accepts Islam as a “religion” and allows its followers to practice it under the principle of religious freedom.  

We accept Islam as a "religion" and allow its practice, but if we read Islam's canon of scripture and tradition we would reject it. Will anyone get a clue from those vital paragraphs?

Before the West accepts Islam as a religion it must demand that Muslim states reform Islam; accept/apply universal human rights and religious freedom in their societies.

Preaching hatred and violence must be banned and their perpetrators must be punished. Additionally, the free civilized world must demand from Muslims and their religious institutions and states: Drop all those atrocious passages from your Koran and Hadith if you want to be part of the civilized world.

So Islam must be reformed; the violent passages must be removed from its canon of scripture & tradition. You forgot one, Dr. Alrabaa :  Shari'ah.  Islamic law reflects Islamic scripture & tradition.  How many of those texts exist in book stores and in libraries all over the world?  How many exist in computer hard disks and web pages?  How do you hope to edit all of them?  Who will edit all the copies of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and Riyad us-saliheen?

    Allah tells us in 5:3 & 11:1 that Islam and its scripture are perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah tells us in 6:115,  10:64 and  30:30 that the Koran and the  "religion" of which it is the foundation can not be changed. In Sahih Bukhari 9.78.174 Moe is on record cursing anyone who changes Islam after his death, saying that they will be far removed from mercy.  Abu Dawud 23.3455 has Moe saying that if Muslims abandon Jihad in favor of agriculture, "Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion." [Emphasis added.]
 

    Muslims who would reform Islam risk fatwa as apostates. Muslims Against Sharia is a prime example.  Their Koran revision leaves As-Saff 10-13 intact.  while Surah At-Taubah has been entirely excised. Surahs 8 & 47  lose context & continuity when the violent ayat are removed.  

    Perhaps you'd prefer to re-interpret the Koran. But the gates of ijtihad have been closed for 900 years. They are not about to spring open.  Who knows the interpretation better than the one who revealed it?  His Sunna & Sira show us what the Koran means.  What does this mean?

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Moe will tell you what it means!

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."  [Emphasis added.]

    Allah's jihad  imperatives mean exactly what they say. They can not be edited, and if they were, they would eventually be restored.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4278:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

    The Swiss initiative is symbolic, with no effect beyond giving visibility to the rising tide of rejection of Islam. Islam is an intolerable predator which can not be reformed. That leaves Western Civilization  one alternative: Islam must be prohibited by law. Ban the substance, not its symbols.  

    Dr. Sami Alrabaa asserts that we would reject Islam and favor banning it if we understood it from reading the Koran & hadith.   You can test that hypothesis without slogging through thousands of pages of musty text. The ayat most relevant to Islamic aggression, the tafsir which explain them and the ahadith which confirm them are contained in EgregiousAyat.chm, along with the most important part of Shari'ah which codifies them into law.

    The practical application of those texts is found in fiqh: rulings by Islamic jurists. FOMIJihad.chm's Jihad in Fiqh chapter presents a significant sample of relevant rulings.  For those who prefer the hard slog method, the Muslim Student Association at USC maintains a data base containing  three parallel translations of the Koran and four of the six canonical hadith collections.

    For those who need the look, feel, permanence & aroma of printed text:

• The Meaning Of The Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Hardcover - May 2004) Buy new: $24.95 $20.60 
• The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text (9 volume set) by Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Hardcover - Oct 1996) 2 new from $158.98 2 used from $169.23
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (10 Volumes; Abridged) by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Hardcover - Sep 1, 2000) Buy new: $279.50
• Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller (Hardcover - Jul 1, 1997) Buy new: $29.95 $25.60

In remarks at West Point, President Barack Hussein Obama laid out his plan for the surge in Afghanistan.  As is my usual practice, I will present excerpts in block quote format interspersed with my comments.

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

In this paragraph, President Obama  begins to set up his pretext, one shared by his predecessor.  Any sentient American  more than  17 years old must be very sheltered  to be unaware of the fact that the abomination was planned  by Muslims in Afghanistan.  Sure, we needed to retaliate. But the next paragraph contains egregious deceptions which must be refuted in detail.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Al-Qaeda means "the base", it is equivalent to Ummah al Islamiyya: the set whose members are Muslims.  Taliban means "students of the Qur'an". Those are Muslims. There is nothing special about them except the fact that they are believers who obey Allah and emulate Moe. They are normal, not exceptional.  They have not "distorted and defiled Islam".  Islam remains what it was when Moe died in 632, a damnable war cult, not a religion of peace.  There is nothing great about Islam. It conquered half the known world. Is that greatness?  In the process, it murdered 270*10⁶, what is great about that? Great slaughter, is desired by Allah, Islam's demon, who established it as a prerequisite for releasing hostages for ransom. That is genocide; if genocide defines greatness, then  morality has been inverted.

    Islam does not recognize "innocents" outside Ummah al;-Islamiyya. Only Muslims can be innocent, all others are rebels against Allah, who must be defeated and gathered together into Hell.     Jihad against disbelievers is not an optional extra added by extremists; it is not bida, it is standard Islamic doctrine laid down in Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah.  8:39 contains Allah's command to fight pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. 9:29 contains Allah's command to fight Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and extorted.  Moe confirmed the command to Jihad, which continues until the last day. Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against kufar in every year, failing only when there is insufficient strength. Doubters & dissenters should open Reliance of the Traveller to O9.0 and continue reading through O9.9.  O9.1 is explicit about the communal obligation to attack disbelievers in their own countries in every year. O9.8 & 9.9 reveal what the caliph does as a regular practice, aggressively, not defensively: he makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslims or pay extortion, he fights all other people until they become Muslim or dead.  How is it possible that a religion has such a law in its canon?  

America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

The terrorist network is Islam. It consists of every Mosque, Madrassa & Muslim wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth. Destroying al-Qaeda is not possible without destroying Islam!  No effort is being made to accomplish that necessary objective. Both President G.W. Bush and President Obama deny the fact that Islam is at war against us. Our elected leaders will not acknowledge the fact that Islam is intrinsically inimical to life, liberty & representative government.

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

You can not scatter what is dispersed globally: Islam. President Bush lacked the courage to attack Tora Bora with sufficient force to eliminate bin Laden. Even eliminating him would not end the Jihad.

    Neither were Taliban driven from power. Taliban are only Muslims who study the Qur'an. Afghanistan's new constitution makes the Qur'an the source of its law. Umdat as-Salik O9.8, which requires warfare against us, is part of Afghanistan's law. This nation and the world are being misled by morons and traitors.  It is not possible to bring peace to a nation whose culture is war.  The only peace Afghanistan can have is the peace of the grave, when the graveyard is full and the surface is empty.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.

There is no responsible end to the war in Iraq while it remains populated by Muslims, our sworn enemies. When our troops leave, Iraq will revert to war between Shiia & Sunni, when that warfare ends, it will resume status quo ante as a sponsor of terrorism. No other outcome is possible while its population remains Islamic.  The pull out on a set timetable is a testimony to the stupidity and treachery of our elected leaders.

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

No legitimate government can be composed of Muslims!  Islam requires theocracy, one man rule by the Qur'an, not man made legislation. While Afghanistan remains Islamic and tribal, it will be corrupt and violent, neither well governed, peaceful nor stable. The problems listed by President Obama are not members of the set of soluble problems. Even if they could be solved, Afghanistan would revert to status quo ante: a state sponsor of terrorism.

I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

The "extremist allies" are every Muslim on the face of the earth. Will you kill them all?  Will you convert them to a peaceful religion? No, you will do neither, and the terrorism will continue because you are a cowardly fool.

And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. 

"Afghan security forces" is an oxymoron. Those forces are composed of Muslims. Muslims are warriors, not security forces. To Muslims, peace is the condition of the world after they have completed their conquest of it.  No matter how much you train them, they will shoot you in the back when given the opportunity, and they will betray your plans to the mujihideen.

I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.

Any strategy that leaves live Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is a total waste of blood and treasure, a fool's errand of the worst sort. No good outcome is possible.

After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

When will our forces leave Bosnia? When will our forces leave Germany?  When will our forces leave Japan?  You have presented our enemy with a time line telling them how long they must wait before they can seize power and restore the status quo ante. I call it treason.

I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.

How do you win a war with restraint?  How do you win a war without identifying and killing the enemy? What are the long term consequences of allowing Islam to continue to exist on the face of the earth, accruing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which it will not long hesitate to use? What were the consequences of ignoring Hitler's military buildup, substituting appeasement for preemption?

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.

You are asking them to die for a lie. You are sending them to defeat, wasting their blood and the taxpayer's treasure.

If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Our security is at stake wherever Islam exists; wherever Zakat is collected and sent to Hamas, Hizbollah & al-Qaeda; wherever Muslim satrapies are stockpiling missiles and rushing to construct nuclear warheads.

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Strike al-Qaeda, insert Islam. The danger will grow no matter what, unless you eliminate Islam from the region. Then, the danger will come from another region where Allah's writ runs and his slaves reside.

    No Muslim is our partner!  Muslims who claim to be our partners are  practicing al-taqeyya and kitman; they are deceiving you. Allah explicitly forbids Muslims to be friends or partners of kuffar. Muslims must be in a dominant, not equal or subordinate relationship with  kuffar.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

Islam has bases in Iran, Syria & Lebanon. There are Islamic bases and training camps right here in America. What will you do about them?  You say "al-Qaeda" when the correct word is Islam. Why can't you name the enemy? How do you hope to defeat an enemy you can not identify?   Weak or strong, Afghanistan's government, like that of Pakistan, is in the hands of Muslims, our enemies. In the end, they will attack us and our allies. There is no benefit in strengthening them.

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

To win, you must seize and hold territory 24/7/365.  You must kill enemy combatants. No more catch and release. You must deny sanctuary, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. You must deny human shields. Your rules of engagement are costing our soldiers their lives. The word is treason. Like Lindon Johnson, you are murdering our service members for political gain.  More troops is not a strategy, it is feeding the meat grinder, filling coffins.

They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Afghans are the enemy, idiot. They are not our allies nor partners, they are Muslims. You are training them to fight against us, just like Arafat's "security forces".

We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.

.Stupid statements like that make my blood boil! Muslims do not abandon violence without abandoning Islam! Muslims do not respect human rights!  They never did and never will!! Allah does not, Moe did not and they will not. Being a Muslim, President Obama knows that. There is only one possibility: treason.

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.  But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

Strike cancer, insert Islam. Otherwise the statement must remain false. No strategy can work unless it causes Islam to be eliminated from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any outcome that leaves them Islamic is a defeat.

And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

Islam is the enemy of all mankind. Pakistan is our enemy.  Is Obama too stupid to comprehend objective factual reality or a traitor. I don't believe its stupidity.

Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.

 Imbecility, maundery & treachery; what a combination!  We have no mutual interest with Muslims. They do not respect us. We can not trust them. They support those groups, they do not combat them. Pakistan was, is now and will continue to be a safe haven for terrorists. Muslim and terrorist are synonymous terms.

To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

A single drop of truth in a river of lies. It stands out like a  carp swimming upstream  in a sewer.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.  But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there.  It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

The same is true of Obama's strategy.

Now, let me be clear:  None of this will be easy.  The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.  And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

Shrub failed the test. Obamination is failing the test. We need leaders who can measure up, men like Churchill, McArthur &  Truman.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction.  And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

Nukes are in the world. There is no possibility of ensuring that our enemies have eliminated their inventories and won't make more. The dream of a nuke free world is impossible. Continuing to harbor it is evidence of insanity, or is it treason?
   
    Like Shrub, Obamination refuses to identify and accurately describe the enemy. He falsely ascribes to the enemy objectives that it does not have. He falsely characterizes our relationship with certain enemy powers as an alliance or partnership. He postulates a non-existent  dichotomy between the enemy, which he calls a partner, and a subset of the enemy, which he mislabels as the enemy.   Obamination's strategy is a house of cards founded on a lie. It can not stand in the storm of reality.

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment
November 24, 2009

    Since the horrific Fort Hood Massacre of Nov. 5, '09, suggestions that Islam should be outlawed increased in frequency and intensity.  The latest call for delegitimization of Islam does not come from a blog or comment, it comes from a freelance writer and think tank fellow,  published by New Media Journal. 

    I found three interesting quotes in the preamble; they are reproduced below, in block quotes, followed by my commentary.

But it is the violent and criminal acts of Muslims...acts which they see as religious imperatives, while to Christians and Jews they are repugnant acts of violence...that concern us most. We are told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace. Although this may be true in most cases, it is entirely irrelevant so long as peace-loving Muslims fail to stand up and expose the radicals in their midst. The Muslim who claims to love peace, but who ignores the radicalism he sees and hears in his mosque is just as guilty of terrorism as those who carry out terrorist attacks against innocents.

    I am not concerned as much by the violent acts as by the immutable, intrinsic doctrines of Islam which motivate and perpetuate a succession of violent acts. The violence prone zealots who obey Allah & emulate Moe have the weapons and will to use them.  The meek wind up dead in a ditch. 

    The Muslim who knows, believes and tacitly accepts the demonic doctrines which sanctify and mandate conquest, genocide & terrorism are just as guilty as those who carry out those evil acts. The ignorant or peace loving Muslim of good will who goes along with the flow is almost as much a victim of Islam as those the terrorists seek to harm. 

 

Today, it is the fanatics who rule Islam; who war against non-Muslims; who slaughter Christians and Jews around the world; who bomb, behead, murder, and honor-kill; who take over mosque after mosque and radicalize its members; who stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals; and who teach young men that they will have eternal joy in paradise...to say nothing of seventy-two virgins...if only they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them in crowded marketplaces. These are the things that the Koran teaches.

    Because the Koran teaches those things, the men who preach & practice them are not fanatics, radicals or extremists;  they are believers.  Those who do not preach  & practice Jihad are hypocrites, not good Muslims.

If Islam, as we know it today, had existed in the day of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and had Muslims been present in large numbers during the early years of our Republic, religious liberty would today be an entirely different matter.

     Islam, as we know it today, existed in  Thomas Jefferson's day. It plundered American merchantmen, killed or enslaved the crews and demanded tribute, which the new nation paid until 1805 when Jefferson summoned his resolve and sent the Marines to Tripoli. Anyone who doubts this should read about the Barbary War.

    Jefferson's contemporary, J.Q. Adams  understood Islam, as demonstrated by this quote. 

“In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combing the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the characters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” John Adams, 1830

–John Quincy Adams, “Christianity—Islamism.” “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (New York, 1830), Chs. X-XIV: 267—402. (source)

    The text of Paul R. Hollrah's  proposed amendment follows. 

“The right of the People to be secure in their persons and property shall not be abridged, and no person, or group of persons, may interfere or attempt to interfere in the right of others to pursue life, liberty, religious practice, or freedom of expression. No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship.”

   Unfortunately, that text would be in conflict with the existing First Amendment. In my view, it is necessary to exclude Islam from membership in the set of recognized religions.  An institution which is not a religion is not protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause and may be proscribed by law. 

    Closing Mosques, Islamic Centers & Madrassas is not sufficient action to solve the problem. So long as individual Muslims are present among us, free to indoctrinate their children and proselytize, the threat will not be reduced, it will increase.  Resident Muslims constitute a fifth column, each one a sleeper cell of one, capable of activation at any time, unpredictably.  We remain at risk until they die, emigrate or sincerely & finally abjure the doctrines of Islam. 

    Islam is what Moe preached and emulated, enshrined in the Koran & hadith; codified in Shari'ah.  Until you will read a sufficient sample of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence, your knowledge of Islam is speculative and probably false.  Islam is not moderate, it is aggressive, intolerant and violent by design.  

    A Muslim described as moderate, who neither participates in nor approves of Jihad, is one whom Islam's founder described as a hypocrite, whose Islam goes no deeper than his throat. 

    Shari'ah requires Muslims to participate in annual attacks against disbelievers; neglecting to do so when it is possible is sin. I refer doubters & dissenters to Reliance of the Traveller, O9.1   It is the duty of the caliph to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or pay the jizya as prescribed in 9:29. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.8.  It is the duty of the caliph to fight all other people until they become Muslim as prescribed in 8:39. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.9.  Once you have opened and loaded the file, you can use the Windows search function to find the reference letter & numbers  using the Ctrl f key combination. 

    Islam is supremely intolerant. 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.    Islam denies your right to live and own property.  Let doubters & dissenters read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. "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."

    Given the fact that Islam is intolerant & violent, dedicated to the destruction of our system of government & economy and Hellbent on enslaving us,  tolerating Islam is suicidal idiocy. 

    The first corrective measure known to me was proposed by Pedestrian Infidel in the spring of '07: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment.  Although I disagree with the fourth article of that proposal, I  have endorsed it, because it was the first and  remains the best option. 

    The Outlaw Islam! petition languishes with 124 signatures. I urge lovers of life & liberty to sign it, copy it and send it to everyone they can hope to influence with an exhortation to forward it.  When you have signed the petition, use the facilities of http://www.congress.org/ to send a link to the petition to your Representative & Senators. 

 

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D.,Va., issued  the following statement  in regards to comments made by Rev. Pat Robertson. 

“In the week since Mr. Robertson’s statement that Islam is ‘not a religion’ but a ‘violent political system’ whose adherents should be treated like members of the communist or fascist party, I have heard from hundreds of outraged Northern Virginians – Muslim and non-Muslim. Here in the 11th Congressional District of Virginia and, in fact, across our Commonwealth, Muslim-Americans are a vibrant part of our communities. They serve in our nation’s military, contribute to our economic growth, and in myriad other ways, help form the diverse tapestry that is Virginia in the 21st century.

“Some will dismiss Mr. Robertson’s comments as the strange ramblings of a man stuck in a bygone era. But when a prominent Virginian chooses to engage in hate-filled rhetoric that divides us and has the potential to fuel real discord in our polity, leaders cannot remain silent. That is why I am calling on Mr. Robertson to apologize to my constituents – Muslim and non-Muslim – for the hurt he has caused and the damage he has done. It is a week overdue.”

.

The following is my own rough transcription of Rev. Robertson's statement.

Worry about backlash but the truth is this guy was off his trolley and they should have gotten him out but nobody wanted to go after him because of political correctness.

    We just don't talk about somebody's  "religion" even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats. But he wasn't hiding it.

    I tell ya what should happen and I think is going to happen is the families of those soldiers who were killed have an absolute major lawsuit for damages against the United States government.

    There was a failure there was a failure, they should have -- as Senator Lieberman said, this man should have been gone -- he should have been out of the service. 

    But just imagine, how a young man, brave defenders of the freedom we enjoy, having to sit in psychological evaluation in front of this man.   Just think what that means, think what this would do to their psyches.  

    It was a horrible chapter, but if we don't stop covering up what Islam is--Islam is a violent-- I would say religion but its not a religion, its a political system, its a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. That is the ultimate aim and uh, they talk about infidels and all this but the truth is, that's what the game is so you're dealing with  a political system and I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

    Well, its a tragedy, our hearts go out to the families who suffered but those in the army should be held to account for the fact that they let this man loose.
   
   

    I will proceed to take  on Rev. Robertson point by point.

• "this guy was off his trolley"

I do not agree; Major Nidal Hasan  is a Muslim, not insane. His act was motivated by the ideology of Islam imparted in the Mosque. If you doubt that fact, view  the slide show with which he illustrated a lecture on Islam. Muslims shout takbir when slaughtering sacrificial animals and going into battle. Nidal Hasan shouted it when he opened fire on unarmed colleagues. That cinches the matter.

• "they should have gotten him out"

Blessed right; Hasan should have been cashiered and deported!

• "even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"

Decapitating  disbelievers is Islamic, but drenching them with boiling oil is a reference to  one of the torments of Hell, not something to be done in this world.

• "Islam is a violent"

An estimated 270*10⁶  people have been slain by Islam in the last 1386 years. Is it peaceful or violent?  Allah commanded warfare against pagans and people of the book. Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". One of his 86 wars was defensive, the rest were aggressive, on his initiative. Because of what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified, Shari'ah requires a minimum of one military expedition against Kuffar in every year. Islam is violent, Rev. Robertson is right.

• "its not a religion, its a political system"

Islam is  not a religion,  neither is it a political system. Islam is a deen: a way of life. Islam prescribes everything from conception to burial. Its religious component: theology, cosmology, iman & salat are parts of a control mechanism used to motivate mujahideen to kill and be killed fighting, ostensibly to propagate Islam, in reality, to finance Moe's lifestyle. If you doubt that fact, then read Islam's Mercenary Mission.
   
    Islam's religion is jihad. Jihad is "to war against non-Muslims" [Reliance O9.0].  "Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated."  [Noble Qur'an, Hilali & Khan, footnote to 2:190.]

• "bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.  The former is where Allah's writ runs. The latter is every where else; the land of war. In Al-Anfal 39, Allah commands Muslims to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped, on a global scale. If any doubt remains, read these tafsir.

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

• "treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group"

Muslims are not equivalent to Communists. Islam is at war against us, that makes them equivalent to the Barbary pirates of the 18^th century or the Waffen SS of the 20^th . They should be expelled, not recruited and promoted in the armed forces, FBI & CIA.

• "that they let this man loose"

That is not what they did, they retained and promoted him to the rank of Major, enabling him to slaughter unarmed  enlisted men in a place where they had a right to feel secure. He should have been cashiered and  deported. 

    Muslims residing in Virginia complained to Rep. Connolly, who, in turn issued his statement, which was reported by the Augusta Free Press, where you can read a sampling of public opinion on the issue. From my point of view, complaining to a Member of Congress was the wrong response. Offended  viewers should have responded to Rev. Robertson or through blog & forum posts or CAIR.

    Rev. Robertson's truthful statement of fact is not the proper subject of government action. He has a First Amendment right of free expression, which entitles him to speak the truth about Islam. 

    In  making his inappropriate statement, Rep. Connolly was acting as a follower, not a leader. In doing so, he pandered to a vocal and demonstrative minority which does not have this nation's best interests at heart.  I do not find any "hate-filled rhetoric" in Rev. Robertson's remarks. Instead, I found truthful statements of fact. Instead of division and discord, Rev. Robertson spoke truth: adherents of radical Islam should be discharged from our military services before they  take the opportunity to murder our servicemen.  The same truth was spoken by Major Hasan in his lecture to fellow students.  Evidently someone was not paying proper attention before the fact. Rep. Connolly should have paid proper attention after the fact.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Christopher L. of Islam In Action.

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/ .   

The Herald Sun published an article by Andrew Bolt in which he stated critical  facts which had been ignored by some journalists and propounded certain rhetorical of a most critical nature.  The article included a link to his blog, where  I discovered a link to Dr. Hasan's slide show at the Washington Post.  

    It has been reported that Dr. Hasan's assignment was to deliver a lecture on a medical topic. Instead, he lectured about Islam and its potential effect on servicemen and the Army.  In retrospect, the advice given in the last slide should have been applied in his case.

    The slide show  presents a basic outline of  Islam, hitting the most essential highlights. Most of the slides display Qur'an verses or hadith.  I have no doubt that the lecture elaborated upon the military application of those slides.  

    The information presented in the slide show is basically accurate, with the exception of two areas where error has crept in. Slide #36, pertaining to peace & forgiveness,  overlooks the fact that those verses have been abrogated by Surah At-Taubah.  #38 & 39 misrepresent 9:38 & 9:39 as relating to defense though they are contained in a Surah dedicated to excoriating Muslims who refused to join the ghazwat against Tabuk.  Ibn Kathir's Tafsir confirms the obvious.

    I hope that you will click the link to the slide show, view it and consider its contents carefully.  Its implications for military recruitment & retention policy are clear.  Neither the Muslim who shrinks from conflict with fellow Muslims nor one who  anticipates an opportunity to turn against friendly forces should be recruited or retained.  I doubt the possibility of accurately identifying all members of those two classes of Muslims.

    The critical questions propounded by Mr. Bolt are listed below, followed by my answers.

• How much of a threat is Islam to a secular, multi-ethnic society like America's - and ours?
• How sure can we be of the loyalty of Muslim troops in a war against a Muslim country?
• Have we become so fearful of asking such questions that even a Hasan, with his record for hate-preaching, is not just allowed to serve in the US military, but is promoted to the rank of major by people apparently too scared to seem racist to object?
• And can you trust journalists to even tell you the facts you need to reach the right answers?

    Islam is an existential threat, immediately to random individuals as in the massacre of '02 in Metropolitan  Washington D.C.  and to the nation in the long term if we don't wise up and defend ourselves adequately and effectively by eliminating it.  We can no more tolerate Islam in our midst than rattlesnakes and copper heads in our homes.  All three are venomous, aggressive and predatory.

    We can be sure of the past loyalty of Muslim troops after the war is ended without treacherous behavior on their part. We can never be sure of their future loyalty. We now know that Dr. Hasan is extremely disloyal.

    The question about fearing accusations of hate/racism  answered itself,  it does not require amplification.

    Journalists can only report what they know. In the early hours of any incident, that knowledge base will be small, growing over time as new information comes to light . But many journalists have agendas, as do the publications that employ them. We can not trust all of them all of the time; we must not become dependent on a single source of information about current events.

In an article at NewsMax cites an  FBI estimate saying that 10% of American Mosques teach jihad, Ron Kessler made the following statement.

On the other hand, those who condemn Muslims in general because of the actions of Hasan and others like him are engaging in prejudice that has no place in America. Indeed, such stereotyping sets back the war on terror, because we need moderate Muslims on our side.

The problem is not the Quran, which is no more incendiary than some passages in the Bible. (Deuteronomy, for example, prescribes stoning to death for those who “served other gods and worshipped them.”) The problem is the radical element that uses the Quran as an excuse to engage in terrorism and the failure of many moderate Muslims to condemn the extremists. 

    It is Islam we condemn in general, not Muslims. Most Muslims are victims of Islam.  There are Muslims in name only, who do not practice Islam,  but there are no moderate Muslims because there is no moderate Islam.   Those who assert otherwise are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance. 

    Islam has a standard set by Moe's preaching and practice. Islam is what he said and did in Allah's name. The Qur'an's Surah Al-Anfal contains an imperative to fight disbelievers, specifically the Pagan Meccans, until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. Hilali & Khan offer this bracketed clarification: "[in the whole of the world ]". Abdullah Yusuf Ali  uses a different expression: "faith in God altogether and everywhere".

    Surah At-Taubah has an imperative to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and extorted.  Those imperatives are outcome oriented, with neither chronological nor geographic limits.

    The Old Testament enjunctions to fight were limited to particular people and places, they were not unlimited.  Jesus Christ neither preached nor practiced warfare. Jews and Christians are not engaged in wars of conquest.  While  Judaism and Christianity have reformed and become passive, Islam is not reformed nor can it. Islam is aggressively attempting to conquer or reconquer on several battlefronts.

    The Qur'an is given as  Allah's word, transmitted to Moe by  Jibril. Allah's religion is perfected for Muslims; perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word can not be changed. When Allah abrogated a verse, he replaced it with something better; Surah At-Taubah was revealed next to last, it abrogates earlier, more tolerant and passive verses. Since Moe was Allah's final and greatest 'Prophet',  Allah has no messenger, his word is immutable, fixated in the 7^th century.

    Moe testified that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'", confirming the imperatives cited above. Muhammad fought in 19 battles. Muslims assert that those battles were defensive, not offensive but only two of them were.  Moe dictated and dispatched extortion letters, which he followed up with his army if the recipients did not comply with his demands. His letter to the Chiefs of Aqaba is the most explicit, it leaves no doubt about his intentions.

    Allah described his relationship with Muslims as that of master: slave, the slave's mission being to fight in his cause, killing and being killed.  Jihad is mandatory, "ordained" for Muslims.  The penalty for refusing to fight is "painful torment", a hint of Hellfire.  The "commerce that will save you from a painful torment" is "that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives".    According to Allah,  any step the believers take to anger or injure disbelievers will be "written to their credit as a deed of righteousness.".

    Islam's canon of jurisprudence is the ultimate confirmation. Reliance of the Traveller, is the handbook of fiqh. Its  Book O is the book of Justice. Its ninth chapter lays down the law of Jihad, defining it, describing its obligatory nature and explaining  the obligation: "Jihad is a communal obligation, meaning upon the Muslims each year. ". Al-Shafi'i clarified the issue with this ruling.

"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."

    I will quote the first sentence from each of the two sections which confirm the obvious.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9:29).

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) .

    Islamic law clearly confirms Allah's Jihad imperatives and Moe's testimony that he was ordered to fight. The caliph has a duty to make war on Kuffar in every year, if possible, until the entire world is conquered. Of course, the caliph's order or permission is required to mount an attack, unless there is no caliph. (O9.6).   

     Contrary to Mr. Kessler's assertion, condemnation of Islam is not prejudicial and the Qur'an is the root of the problem.  Muslims whose personal morality conflicts with orthodox Islamic doctrine should remove Allah's yoke of slavery from their necks and become freemen.  If you do not want to kill Kuffar, rape their widows and enslave their orphans, why are you Allah's slave? Emancipate yourself and rejoin humanity.

    In remarks uttered at a memorial service for the servicemen slain at Fort Hood, President Obama said this.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next.

A Muslim is not permitted to fight and kill another Muslim except in the authorized enforcement of Islamic law.  Major Hasan was reluctant to go into battle against his brethren, but not to go into battle against his  comrades.  Muslims chant Allah-hu Akbar when slaughtering sacrificial animals and attacking Kuffar.  Major Hasan shouted takbir because he was engaging upon the slaughter of his enemies, transferring his fear from himself to them and praising Allah

    Murder can not be justified, it is unjust, but Islam rationalizes it. We learn from Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 that the blood of Kuffar is not sacred to Muslims. Kuffar are considered rebels against Allah, and therefore not innocent. They are fair prey, targets of opportunity. . Islam divides the world into Dar ul-Islam where Allah's writ runs, and Dar ul-Harb, where Kuffar rule. Dar al-Harb is the land of war. It must be attacked until the entire world is Dar al-Islam.

    Allah is sovereign over the world, its divine ruler because, as its creator, he owns it all. Where men are governed by man made law, they are in rebellion against Allah, depriving him of his divine right to rule. Allah has commanded Muslims to overthrow the rebels and extend Allah's rule over the entire world.  Allah has promised them success in that mission. You can verify these facts by reading 13:41, 14:15, 40:51 and 61:9. 

We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.

Major Hasan chose to worship Allah by sacrificing 13  Kuffar soldiers.  That is his right because Jihad is a mandatory sacrament, being ordained by Allah. Allah said  "Slay them wherever you find them'".  Is that cherry picking?  Is that out of context? If it is, tell it to the Shafi'ite jurists who wrote Reliance of the Traveller; that quote is part of the scriptural basis of jihad given in O9.0. 

Freedom Ain't Free welcomes the Department of Homeland Security, who began reading snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/  shortly after noon Nov. 6, '09  and hung around through 3am  Nov. 8.

    The Washington D.C. office loaded that single post 33 times while the Laredo TX.  office made 45 page loads, reading a few other posts in addition  to the post about Sheikh Nafisi.

    In April, when the post was fresh, it was viewed 62 times. It had 9 hits in August, 7 in September and  9 in October, with 124 hits in November. Why did a post which averaged less than one hit per day  in recent months suddenly spike to 77, 41,2  three days in November?  What accounts for the multiple page loads?  Did multiple staffers load the page in succession?  

    A search for the Sheikh's name did not turn up any relevant news using Google and Bing. Searches for recent crop duster  and anthrax related stories also came up empty.  There were two search engine referrals involving al-Nafisi. There was one page load for that post that was not directly attributable to the DHS.  I assume that DHS had some reason for searching for that name. What I do not understand is why they did not click through to MEMRI to view the source of the material I posted.

    Is there some indication of a renewed potential for an anthrax attack?  That is just what we need with a flu epidemic under way;  if every cough and sneeze raised fears of anthrax inhalation, the emergency rooms would be swamped with panicked patients.

    Our government needs to come clean with us, drop the pretenses and admit the fact that Islam is our enemy, having declared and prosecuted war against us.  The Bush / Obama blather about a "great religion of peace, hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists" is counterproductive, as is their policy of leaving our southern border wide open to a flood of illegal immigrants, including a substantial number of "other than Mexicans". .

    If I recall correctly, several GIs were killed in Iraq by a grenade tossed by a Muslim colleague.  The Fort Hood Massacre was perpetrated by a Muslim whose conduct and expressions had raised red flags.  Two cases do not form a clear pattern, but they do present a warning sign.  Our servicemen must not be placed at risk by mixing enemy forces into their ranks.  

    The time has come to purge our armed forces of Muslims. The time has come to weed them out of clerical, administrative and decision making positions in the federal bureaucracy.  A Muslim is one who submits to and obeys Allah.  What did he command them to do?  What did Muhammad exemplify for them to emulate? Expressions such as  "fight them", "fight those who" and "cast terror" come to mind immediately. Regular readers of my posts are familiar with them and their sources.  The shooter was praising Allah while murdering his comrades.  Once is enough.

    Did the army enlist American Nazis in WW2?  Why not?  Weren't they harmless moderates, patriotic Americans? Would ANP members have experience conflict if sent to Europe to fight the Germans?  Who would they have aimed at?  Maj. Hasan was conflicted about fighting his Muslim brethren. Who did he aim at?  

    The time has come to drop the pretense & fantasy and observe the facts in the cold clear light of reason. If the Congress & President we elected won't do what is right, then we need to replace them in the next election cycle.

United Nations A/C.3/64/L.27  Combating defamation of religions tabled in the third committee. by Belarus, Syrian Arab Republic* and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of):  
{A/C.3/64/L.28    Combating defamation of religions is embargoed, I can not determine if it is a competing draft or whether it is related in any way. }

*for the OIC.
The draft resolution is in the form of a 7 page, 56kb pdf  consisting of an enumerated list of 25 items, the substantial parts begin on page 2.

    Since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in remarks introducing the current Religious Freedom Report, rejected the concept of defamation of religions and accepted the concept of negative stereotyping:

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

I will begin with references to those concepts.

    Defamation  occurs twelve times in the draft resolution, beginning with the title.

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

That section implies a cause : effect relationship between defamation of religions, restriction of freedom & hatred and violence. Did Christians who viewed the Danish Cartoons subsequently assault Muslims and destroy their property as a result?

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

How do they plan to combat the defamation of Judaism and Christianity in the Qur'an wherein Allah expresses anger toward us, curses us and declares perpetual war against  us?  Is that really part of their program of action?

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

"Inaction of some states" is a vague term; what does it mean? Is it a reference to Denmark allowing publication of the cartoons and Holland allowing the publication of Fitna?  What discrimination against Muslims resulted from those publications?

...sessions, in which the Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious nature of the defamation of all religions and the need to complement legal strategies...

"Legal strategies" is a reference to national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

"Overall campaign of the defamation of religions" ; is one single source defaming more than one religion and inciting religious hatred?  Where is religious hatred incited other than in Mosques Madrassas and the state run media of Islamic nations  where Jihad against Jews & Christians is preached?  Was it Muslims or Mormons who perpetrated that attack and those in London & Madrid?  Because Muslims perpetrated those attacks and others in the name of Allah, we are unable to trust Muslims. Failure to profile would be suicidal.

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;

Does anyone else recognize the non sequitur in that item?

8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of religions; [Emphasis added.]

Take a good long look at the emphasized clause in item 8. Terrorism is associated with Islam because it is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, sanctified & exemplified in the Qur'an and confirmed in Moe's sunnah.

• 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."
• 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.
• 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).

But we must not say or write that: to do so constitutes "defamation",  "negative stereotyping",  and " incitement to religious hatred & violence", according to the OIC and their factotums at the UN.  Debate must be closed and silence imposed by law, even of truthful expressions which expose Islam's intrinsic evils.

    Does anyone recognize the subsequent non sequitur? Promoting tolerance for the intolerable does not promote peace or justice.  Islam is infamous because of its own canonical texts and its continuing history of rapine. Peace & justice would be promoted by recognizing and eliminating aggressive evil.

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;

Item 15 asserts that accurate description of the doctrines and practices of Islam incites hatred, intimidation & coercion. It demands the passage & enforcement of national laws to prevent & punish truthful criticism of Islam, including Fitna and this blog post.

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;

19. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising, and urges all States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;

To make item 19 honest, indoctrination should be substituted for "education".

25. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session.

    Negative stereotyping occurs twelve times.

2. 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;

They are concerned about Fitna & similar videos, the Danish Cartoons and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal warfare & terrorism.

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;

Truthful exposure of Islamic doctrines & practices does not diminish freedom of religion. Where Allah's writ runs, as in Egypt, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, Islam diminishes freedom of religion.

23. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

According to the OIC and their UN factotums, Fitna and the Danish Cartoons are advocacy of religious hatred constituting incitement  of violence. The Cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. Fitna exposed the relationship between Allah's Jihad imperatives, the hatred preached by Muslim clerics and the violence done by their congregants.  In reality, that is not defamation neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it incitement.

    The draft resolution is a demand for national and international enforcement of Islam's blasphemy law, which punishes any negative statement about Allah, his messenger or his book with death.

Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant  items in that list.

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

Another provision prescribes the penalty. 

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive.  What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe?  According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

    The passage of these Defamation of Religion resolutions gives an unwarranted aura of legitimacy to the blasphemy laws enforced in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. Those laws are frequently used to persecute innocent victims, including indigenous Christians, converts to Christianity and missionaries.

    Canadian, British, Australian and European critics of Islam have been persecuted, jailed and fined for truthful expressions about Islam. The policy of the Obama administration places our First Amendment right of free expression at risk. The Secretary of State condemns the defamation clauses but supports those alleging negative stereotyping. Both clauses have the same effect: criminalizing accurate description of Islamic doctrines and practices.  

    We must therefore resist and counter attack. Please sign, support and publicize the following on line petitions.

• International Qur'an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ

    For a long list of links to previous resolutions, related documents and blog posts, refer to Defamation of Religions: Background Info.

External References in the resolution: superscripts refer to footnotes in the draft resolution. 

• ¹ICERD
• ²ICCPR
• For detailed documentation of  how Islamic doctrines violate these international covenants, refer to Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts.
• ³Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
• ⁴Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live
• ⁵Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
• Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
• None specified; assuming the reference is to previous defamation resolutions. 
• E/CN.4/1999/167
• E/CN.4/2005/135
• E/CN.4/2004/127
• E/CN.4/2002/200
• E/CN.4/2001/167
• E/CN.4/2000/167
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/C.3/60/L.29
• A/RES/60/150
• A/RES/61/164
• A/RES/63/171
• A/C.3/60/SR.45
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev
• ⁶United Nations Millenium Declaration
• ⁷Durban Declaration A/CONF.189/12 
• Durban Declaration - A/CONF.189/12 Chapter I - UN Documents
• ⁸Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009 A/CONF.211/8
• ⁹Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
• A/HRC/4/19 
• A/HRC/6/6 
• A/HRC/9/12 
• A/HRC/12/38
• ¹⁰Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, A/RES/56/6
• ¹¹Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007 A/62/464, annex.
• ¹²A/62/18
• CERD/C/63/CO/11, para. 20 (10 December2003)
• CERD/C/63/CO/6, para. 14 (10 December 2003)
• CERD/C/NGA/CO/18, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/TZA/CO/16, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/IRL/CO/2,para. 18 (14 April 2005)
• CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, paras. 16 and 17 (20 August 2008)
• resolution 63/171 of 18 December 2008
• ¹³report of the Secretary-General A/64/209
• ¹⁴United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, A/RES/60/288 General Assembly
• ¹⁵general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect. B.
• ¹⁶World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004 resolutions 59/113 A and B.