An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.The committee's mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started.
The Iranian submission begins on page 12 of the pdf. and ends on page 17. Although capturing the attitude & meaning of the document through excerpts is not satisfactory, I will not reproduce the entire five page submission here. You can click through to the pdf file and enter 12 in the page window to go directly to the full text of the submission.
The pdf is a scanned document, requiring the use of ocr to cull excerpts. Unfortunately, the printer which created the document needs a head cleaning, and the plate on which it was scanned is dusty, so that ocr was extremely difficult. I have therefore run the spelling checker on the excerpts, they may deviate slightly from the original, but care has been taken to avoid changing the meaning of the text. [Emphasis added.]
The Iranian submission is not novel, it rehashes malicious malarkey from previous resolutions. The following documents were referenced in the text.
- General Assembly resolution 62/154 on combating defamation of religions
- General Assembly resolution 55/23 on Dialogue Among Civilizations
- security Council resolution 1624(2005)
- International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
- Special Rapport on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (AIHRC/6/6)
The growing trend of defamation of religions is arising from the following factors: the conflation of race, culture and religion, concept of clash of civilizations and religions, all these provides fertile soil for the defamation of religions.Note the clause which I emphasized. Who is it that conflates race with religion? If you can't answer that question, re-read the initial post in this series :
And also on the fight against terrorism, based on defense of national identity and security, it is reduced to religious
Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, paying close attention to the quote from the report of the African Regional Conference in preparation for the Durban Review.
Unfortunately, insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholarsThis paragraph inverts cause and effect. We developed anti-Islamic agendas precisely because of Islam's anti-Christian & anti-western doctrines, agendas & actions. Our accurate descriptions of Islamic doctrines & practices are labled insults and intolerance. Accurate and well documented descriptions of Islamic sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest and terrorism are labled "insults" and "intolerance".
and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against
Muslims. Sophisticated slogans are used to provoke systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects
the Islarnophobia which afflicts segments of western society.
The last paragraph of the introduction is severely overloaded by implicit reference to the documents listed and linked above.
Lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilizations. [Links added.]It should now be clear to you that the Iranian agenda includes criminalizing criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons and Geert Wilders' Fitna.
The cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. He never threw a bomb, because explosives were invented after he died. he used the primitive weaponry available in the seventh century to terrorize his victims with ruthless slaughter. If you do not comprehend this fact, open your Qur'an to 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 and read them carefully.
Fitna demonstrates the obvious connection between Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur'an. This fact is documented in another blog post. It is extremely unlikely that anyone else will reveal to you the source of Islam's intense determination to criminalize criticism of itself. I will: It comes from Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller. Book O, which treats of "Justice", includes an outline of the conditions imposed upon dhimmis, who were "people of the book" subjugated by Muslims under a "treaty of protection". Chapter 11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of protection and subject the dhimmi to immediate execution. Here is the fifth item in that list.
-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
The perceptive reader will want to know what is impermissible to mention. O8.7 lists 20 items which entail apostasy, and describes the list as nearly endless. Here are a few relevant items from that list.
-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;
-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
-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;
-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;
-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). )
By now you must be wondering about the penalty. Islamic law has that covered, too.
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
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.
Islamic law is clear on its face: any criticism of Allah or his Messenger gets you killed. The Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards is only the latest tool developed in pursuit of that objective.
Under the heading of "Legal Aspects", Iran describes the cartoons & Fitna as "inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter" and various resolutions.
The elimination of discrimination and the protection against Intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection.
They jabber on with quotes about universal freedom, equality and dignity, without finding anything relevant to the matter at hand. The next paragraph is mired in excrement.
Crucially, according to- article 20, paragraph.2 of the ICCPR, " any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law" This provision represents a clear limitation to-the night to fee speech which according to article 19 of the ICCPR carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
The cartoons do not advocate hatred, nor do they incite discrimination, hostility or violence. The same is true of Fitna. Few will perceive the irony in Islam's specious assertion: it is their own scripture, tradition & jurisprudence which advocates hatred and incites violence. If Article 20 were to be enforced, the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah would be banned as incitement to violence!
The committee on civil and Political Rights in its general comment 11 provided that these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This is clear indication that human rights instruments recognize provisions against incitement to religions hatred as being a completely legitimate- safeguard against the abuse of the right to free speech.
Iran is asserting that accurately describing Allah's genocidal Jihad imperatives which are found in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari's Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and codified in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9 must be legally prohibited as "incitement to religious hatred". Islamic obedience to those imperatives has resulted in 270*106 premature deaths in the last 1400 years but we must be prevented, by judicial penalties, from mentioning it.
Identifying the enemy and describing his doctrines is characterized as an abuse of free speech. This is nothing less than the aggressor's program for depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves against his aggression.The last section of the submission is under the heading of Programme of Action.
In sum, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations as prescribed by law. The international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity and urges states, NGOs, religious bodies and media to support and promote such a dialogue. Developing the human rights language to address emerging issues such as defamation of religions was an important step forward that is of interest not only to Muslims but to all the internatioual community.
Our freedom of expression must not include mention of Islam's aggressive doctrines & practices: conquest, genocide & terrorism. A culture of tolerance and peace means being led, dumb like sheep, to the slaughter.
Islamic Republic of Iran urges the Ad hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to call upon the States to stop the publication of blasphemous caricatures, Elms and media as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam.
They want to add wording to ICERD to criminalize every criticism of Islam. How in Hell does anything we write or say impinge on the liberty of Muslims? Why must they be allowed to continue in the arrogant assumption that they have a divine right and mission to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder us?