Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 '10The UN Human Rights Council has once again debated and passed their annual Defamation of Religions Resolu

The UN Human Rights Council has once again debated and passed their annual Defamation of Religions Resolution.
The Revised Draft has stricken some words and phrases from the first draaft, but relies on the old boilerplate.

Optimists will assert that there is a positive trend in the votes. After charting the votes, I find little cause for optimism.


The no votes have come at the expense of abstentions, not yes votes. Since the members are elected by regional blocks, there is little chance of reducing the OIC representation on the council.

The current resolution, like its predecessors, consists of itemized lists of boilerplate references to previous documents interspersed with emotive catchwords designed to inculcate guilt in the innocent.

If you want to read four pages of polemical crap, be my guest, I provided links to it. I will present here only the most important segments of the screed which was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC.

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

What the Hell has Islam contributed to civilization other than the legacy of genocidal conquest? Men conquered and enslaved by Muslims translated ancient manuscripts, preserving Greek and Asian mathematics and science during the Dark Ages, preserving but not creating the foundation of the enlightenment.

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths occurring in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, in addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of l l September 2001 , and that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Note how careful they are to universalize the concept of defamation by including anti-Semitism & Christianophobia, which they later negate by emphasizing the supposed effects on Muslims. Who, other than Islamic texts and sermons, is negatively projecting Judaism & Christianity?

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

"Defamation of religions" is a nebulous and undefined term without intrinsic meaning. It derives meaning only from the specific examples frequently cited, particularly Fitna and the Motoons. In civil defamation. truth is a defense. Fitna is true, how can it be defamatory?

Human dignity is affronted by adherence to immoral and fallacious beliefs and doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal conquest, not by exposing those doctrines. How the Hell is there human dignity in Islam, which venerates the barbarian warlord who made the statements in this traditional saying?

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."

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights; so much for human dignity!!! What is incitement to violence if not Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah in the Qur'an?

Noting with concern that 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 and, in this context, stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

So they are concerned with defamaition and incitement. Have they read the Qur'an?

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

If their concern about defamation & incitement were sincere, they'd start with their own scripture instead of trying to criminalize exposure of their doctrines and practices.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these
religions;

President Obama prefers "negative stereotyping" to "defamation". I'd enjoy hearing him explain the difference. The OIC used both expressions in one sentence.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

This is an obvious veiled reference to certain European political parties that oppose Islamization of Europe.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of` the overall campaign of 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 ll
September 200l;

Were the Magnificent Nineteen Jews? Mormons? What were they? How about the perpetrators of the London, Madrid and Bali bombings? And the numerous hijackers; were they Lutherans? They were young Muslim males, but we shouldn't be suspicious of young Muslim males, should we?

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,

Earlier I quoted Moe, who said that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and his companion who added that we have no rights until we become Muslims. If that ain't a human rights violation, what is? Waging war against people who simply maintain their own religious beliefs in the face of your demand to convert violates the rights to life and freedom of conscience in the most profound way.

What the Hell is wrong about the association of Islam and terrorism???

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.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

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).

Wrongly associated with terrorism? Yeah, right.

8. Strongly condemns in this regard the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures, which are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations
concerning freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and expression, and stresses that such discriminatory measures would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences;

: Help me out with this; banning minarets in Switzerland threatens social cohesion and may lead to violence but prohibiting the construction and maintenance of churches in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is perfectly harmless. What twists of illogic will they take to explain that away?

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and
reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Like its predecessors, this resolution is redundant, as if repetition converts fallacy into truth.

10. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

Who does that? Various terrorist groups have web sites that glorify and incite acts of terrorism, most recently Adam Gadahn uploaded a video in which he urged Muslims to terrorize America. Do they really deplore that, or is it only Fitna and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines that they deplore?

11. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare;

They are trying to set up a legal basis for restricting our right of free expression. Truthfully describing the doctrines and practices of Islam and its founder is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded venue. Nor is it defamatory. Linking the violent acts of Muslim mobs with Allah's imperatives to genocidal conquest is not defamation, it is truth. Truthful political speech, even if it offends those whose peccadillos are exposed, must be protected by law, as it is by our First Amendment, in order to preserve liberty. Islam is a predator which seeks complete domination of the world. If we can not expose that fact, we can not defend ourselves. It is Islam's intention to render us defenseless in the war of ideas.

12. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

Race, religion and culture are not equivalent concepts. Opposition to Islamic conquest is not racism. Wanting to maintain our own culture is not racism nor is it evil.

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."

Got a clue yet?

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

They are demanding that laws be passed and enforced to punish us for exposing Islam's doctrines & practices to public view.

14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

Re-read the clauses I emphasized in ¶14. How in Hell can any sentient and informed person tolerate and respect Islam?? It is not possible for a rational and moral person to tolerate and respect a system of perpetual war! Tolerance and respect must be reciprocal.

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.

What did Allah command Moe to do? What did he say about the sanctity of our blood and property? Got a clue yet?

16. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, in accordance with their
national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian
law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration
or destruction;

How do you define symbols? Stretched far enough, that concept covers Islam's scripture and founder. Remember how they rioted over depiction of Moe in those cartoons? We are supposed to respect a man who, at 52, married a six year old girl; a man who had an elderly poet torn apart by camels?

19. Takes note with appreciation the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence.

If you think that paragraph is innocuous, then take a good close look at Fitna and at what the Secretary General said about it.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The only incitement in Fitna comes from Allah and his slaves, not from Geert Wilders.

---

External documents referenced in the resolution:

• resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005 (World Summit Outcome Res.A/RES/60/1 )
• United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000¹
• Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (ACONF.189/12) ???
• http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/DDPA_full_text.pdf
  
• World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001²
• Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009,³
• A/HRC/4/19
• A/HRC/6/6
• A/HRC/9/12
• l GA Resolution 55/2
  2 A/CONF.l89/12
  3 A/CONF.2l1l1
• resolution 10/22 of 26 March 2009
• General Assembly resolution 64/156 of 18 December 2009
• report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
  possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement,
  intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world (A/HRC/13/57)
• report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
  related intolerance (A/HRC/12/38)
• General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006⁴
• resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008
• general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination⁵
• 4 Resolution 60/288
  5 Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect, B.
• article 20 of the ICCPR
• the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence⁶,
• 6 High Commissioner's Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011
  7 High Commissioner's Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011

Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions

Two new draft resolutions have been submitted by Nigeria and the United States

. The Nigerian draft (Microsoft Word document) outlines four points, the first of which advocates a final outcome consisting of protocols to ICERD. Other points call for the creation of a draft resolution on cyber crime and scheduling the committee's third session for November 30--December 10 of 2010.

The American draft, though highly abstract and vague, hints at shifting the focus from "defamation" & "negative stereotyping" of Islam to acts of intimidation and assault, including those performed or sponsored by governments.

Noting with deep concern continued evidence of intolerance and discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion and belief, including government - endorsed discrimination, violence, exclusion and bias.

The draft urges states to put a high priority on ratifying ICERD & ICCPR. It calls on states to strengthen and enhance actions against discrimination and hate crimes. Then, as I anticipated, it slides down the slippery slope of ambiguity toward the swamp of deceit.

Welcomes the role the Ad Hoc. Committee. has played in helping to identify specific proposals for concrete steps to combat racial and religious discrimination, intolerance, and hated.

"Racial and religious discrimination" and "intolerance" do not have common meanings crossing the civilizational divide between Western Civilization and Eastern Barbarism. Used by the West, they should refer to the persecution of indigenous Christian minoritys in Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. Used by Muslims, they conflate the terms with criticism & mockery of Islam.

In its final paragraph, the American draft drowns in the swamp of deceit.

Decides to request the Ad Hoc Committee, as an immediate positive step forward, and without prejudice to its mandate, to focus on determining which of those proposals enjoy the consensus necessary for their successful implementation with a view to their adoption by the Human Rights Council at its 16^th session.

Our State Department has endorsed the committee's mission: disarming the defenders in the war of ideas by criminalizing criticism & questioning of Islam.

Related posts:

• Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee
• Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
• Ad Hoc Committee: African Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
• Ad Hoc Cmte USA Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards

To My Loyal Readers

I regret to inform you that due to circumstances beyond my control, my blogging will be interrupted, perhaps permanently. I obtained my telephone and internet access through my employment Due to economic conditions beyond our control, my employer is closing the business.

It is expected that I will be incommunicado as of Wednesday, March 17. '10. I will investigate the possibility of obtaining a high speed wireless connection , which may be beyond my reach economically.

Facebook Boycott Canceled

While I was composing a new post about the proposed boycott, a message came in announcing the Restoration of the Ban Islam Facebook Groups. Facebook has sent the group's creators a message stating that the closure resulted from a technical glitch.

"Ban Islam!!" & "Ban Islam" have been back for several days, much to the relief of the membership. The latest news is that the creator of "Ban Islam " is closing the group due to time constraints, it seems that he is overloaded.

Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie?

Alec Rawls has issued another blogburst, this one reports on an interview with the parents of another native born mujahid. Unfortunately, the WSJ interview which serves as Alec's source is not entirely clear. We don't know the circumstances surrounding either conversion involved in the story nor do we have clarity on when Ms. Paulin-Ramirez broke off contact with her family and left town.

Unlike Alec, I am not comfortable in judging the sincerity of Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's mother and step father with the limited information available. I pass this through to you, and will let you make your own judgment in the fullness of time as more information becomes available.

There is a moral to this and other militant convet stories. Anyone who is dabbling in Islam with a view toward adopting it should read the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari so as to become sufficiently familiar to understand the cult's doctrines and practices. Anyone who has a female relative who is socializing with male Muslims should make certain that she is aware of the Islamic attitude toward women. I suggest downloading and sharing this flyer: Islamic Misogyny.

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/BlogburstHTML_3-13-10.htm

Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie? Alec Rawls noticed something not quite right about Jihad Jamie's mother and father. Compare these two snippets from their Wall Street Journal interview:

Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's interest in Islam "came out of left field," said her mother, Christine Holcomb-Mott, in an interview at her home Friday, wearing a blue sweatsuit with a silver cross around her neck.

How out of left field?

Mr. Mott, a convert to Islam himself, says he went to Denver to find his stepdaughter but couldn't track her down.

This woman is married to a Muslim, but neither she nor her husband can grok where in the world their murder-plotting daughter/step-daughter ever got exposed to this worrisome religion that subducts so many of its followers into terrorism. Their disgust at daughter Jamie sounds sincere, but their blatant dishonesty about how she could have gotten interested in Islam suggests otherwise. It is possible, however, that the Journal's paraphrase is not precise. If put on the spot, Holcomb-Mott would likely clarify that she has no idea how her daughter ever got interested in murder-cult Islam. There is a way that this could actually happen: if Mr. Mott is some kind of multiculturalist do-gooder who converted to Islam in sympathy with the idea that "Islam was hijacked too" on 9/11. Such a person could have converted without comprehending the well established Islamic pedigree of violent aggressive jihad. Don't scoff. This same "Islam is a victim too" sentiment is right now allowing a giant Mecca oriented crescent to be built on the Flight 93 crash site. After all, it would just be too horrible to reject the Crescent of Embrace memorial simply because it is in the shape of a giant Islamic crescent, not when Islam itself was amongst the victims on that terrible day. No, we must do the opposite and embrace Islam. If Mott is thinking the same way, he has hardly gone any further than the Memorial Project. But then it seems that his step daughter took one step further still and actually read the Koran, with its endless commands to slaughter the unbelievers. Thus did an unhappy misfit finally find a home for the vicious vindictiveness that the religion of her birth had kept in check. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse

From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House, and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities. An editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take "concrete and substantial steps" to stop the abuse of "religious freedom in Indonesia". The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement. The specific reference is to " article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of "defamation of religion" resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD. The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23. Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Answering Ima Muslim

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces

That blog post drew a series of comments from Ima Muslim, the most recent of which deserves a post of its own. Due to the target rich environment, I have reproduced the comment in a block quote. I will mark selected important points with superscripts, linking them to my responses in an enumerated list below.

War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them. ¹

the Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and compel people to embrace Islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

Another of the more repeated fallacies by those who hate Islam, and by those who do not understand.Jizyah is a tribute paid by non Muslims under the rule of the Muslim nation; be that direct or indirect rule.

Like any country, the Muslim territories require money for facilities and running of people's affairs. What we know today as taxation. Those who hate Islam though make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary, and that Islam is unjust because it taxes non Muslims! That is like calling every country in the world unjust because people pay taxes for the running of the country!

Non Muslims on the other hand, pay Jizyah according to the following rules:

1. The non Muslims that will pay Jizyah are only those capable of fighting. The Muslim army is made of Muslims. Therefore non Muslims will not be enlisted -unless they want to- in case of war. So the Jizyah here is to equip a replacement for this fighter.

2. Jizyah is not collected from elderly non Muslims, women, children or anyone who is unable to fight.

3. Jizyah is taken only from freemen and not from slaves .

Successive Muslim scholars and Caliphs made sure this was the case during their lives. Imam Al Qortoby says about Jizyah:"Our scholars said: What the Quran stated is that Jizyah is to be taken from fighters... This is a unanimous opinion of all scholars that Jizyah is to be only collected from free, mature men who are capable of fighting, not women, children, slaves, crazy, dumb or the weak old men".²

Albert Einstein wrote: Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance...

---

1. That statement is the most malignant maundery possible. There are three Islamic dispensations of warfare: forbearance, defensive and offensive. While Moe and his companions were in Mekkah, few in number and overpowered, he preached tolerance & forbearance. In Medina, as he began to accrue an army, he preached defensive jihad. Later, as his army grew in numbers and skill, he preached offensive warfare. These three dispensations are exemplified by 2:256, 2:190 & 8:39 respectively. Download Moe's biography, turn to page 221 and read the first paragraph very carefully. The assertion that Islam only fights defensively is extremely false and malicious. Al;-Baqarah 190 was cited in Ima's first paragraph. Although that ayeh relates directly to defensive jihad, the translators of the Noble Qur'an included a footnote there which defines jihad.

   Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln AlIah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (His Word belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.[...]

   Would defensive jihad establish Islam and make Islam dominant? What will? Offensive jihad!! That is why Moe revealed al-Anfal 39 & at-Taubah 29.

   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.
   
   9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

   Those fight until loops are confirmed by this hadith and several variants.

   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."
   

   Those fight until loops are codified into Shari'ah, as proof of which I submit these quotes from Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.
   

   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),
   
   the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
   
   "I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
   
   this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
   
   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) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).
   
   

   Those offensive jihad imperatives are amplified by two relevant rulings. the first is from O9.1, which describes the obligation of Jihad.
   

   In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

   The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

   The Muslims are obligated to attack their peaceful neighbors, on Islam's initiative, annually. Did you miss the last clause in the last sentence of the quote? Is its meaning obscure? This ruling from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you.
   

   "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."

   O25.9 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest because it explicitly defines an obligation to attack neighboring kuffar.
   

   -8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

   
   Allah commanded Muslims to engage in offensive warfare. Moe confirmed that order. It is codified into Islamic law. Islam invaded and conquered nearly half the world. Denial is a token of insanity and/or dishonesty.
   
2. The tax on Dhimmis is called Jizya. Muslims attempt to distract us by falsely equating Jizya with ordinary taxation or taxation in lieu of military service. There is one vitally significant fact which they don't want us to perceive: Jizya is only levied on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who have been conquered or intimidated. Without conquest or intimidation, there would be no Jizya. Scroll up to the quotes from Reliance and re-read them carefully. Jizya is only imposed upon victims with scriptural religions. The polytheists are converted, killed or enslaved. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's footnote to 9:29 is an excellent example of the diversion tactic.

   v.29 : Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi’i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able- bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note.
   * ’An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note.
   

   Complete clarity requires reference to another hadith which describes the orders Moe gave to his commanders in the field I will provide a link to the hadith and quote only the most relevant part.
   

   Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294: [...]If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. [...]
   

   Moe hired scribes to whom he dictated extortion letters which he dispatched by private courier. This excerpt from his letter to the rulers of Aqaba says it all. [Emphasis added.]
   

   I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me. These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived. If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners.

While composing my response, I became suspicious; sensing plagiarism, I entered "Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam" into the Google search bar. Google returned 16 matching records. A search for "War is waged only to defend the religious community" turned up 21 matching records. This is one of them.

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces!

Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued a 600 page fatwa, written in Urdu, which he hopes to have translated and published in English.
The fatwa is entitled: FATWA ON SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND TERRORISM. I have linked the title to an 88 page English summary in pdf format. It is likely that when published in English, the fatwa will appear on or near this minhaj books page.


Taken at face value, the fatwa appears to condemn violence against civilian populations without reservation. It places the greatest emphasis on condemning attacks against Muslims, particularly against Mosques. Unfortunately, I can not accept the fatwa at face value.

Cherry Picking: quote out of context

Beware of trickery: quoting the Qur'an out of context to distort the meaning of an ayeah, giving it a false application.
This occurs on page 52 of the description & summary where, writing about the terrorists, this citation is made:

The Holy Qur’an has vividly described them in this verse:
“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18: 104)

In fact, that verse describes disbelievers; Jews & Christians. Observe the context. [Hilali & Khan quoted, linked to Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali; links below to Hilali & Khan and ten parallel translations Emphasis added for clarity.]

18:100. And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,

18:101. (To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Qur'ân), and who could not bear to hear (it).

18:102. Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allâh's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism).

18:103. Say (O Muhammad ): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

18:104. "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!

18:105. "They are those who deny the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.

18:106. "That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.

Hilali & Khan
Qur'an Browser

Al-Taqeyya

On page 33, a new section begins, entitled "THE QUESTIONS THAT SPRING TO MIND AND THEIR BRIEF ANSWERS"

Q: The first question in this connection that concerns all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: is it lawful for a group or organisation to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people because of ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?.

A: Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies a fundamental place in Islamic law. Taking anyone's life for nothing is an act that is forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity.[...] [Emphasis added, spelling original.]

Is it lawful for Islam to use force to promote and establish itself'; to make it superior over all other religions? Let us consult Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari'ah.

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),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). [Emphasis & link added.]

Does Islam allow killing people because they are not Muslims and seizing their property? Once again, we turn first to Shari'ah for the answer. Book O, Chapter 9, Section 25 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest to us.

O25.9

-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

Of course that could only refer to established enemies of Islam who have been harassing & attacking Muslims, right? Wrong!

O9.1The Obligatory Character of Jihad

[...] In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. [...]

Muslims have an annually recurring communal obligation to attack disbelievers even though they are in their own countries, peacefully attending their own domestic affairs. Allow killing people and taking their property? No, it is required, not allowed.

According to the Sheikh, " Islam is a religion of peace...at whose hands the lives and properties of all ...innocent non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt". The truth is that Allah issued imperatives to wage jihad against pagans until resistance ceases and Allah has a monopoly; against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. When we read Surahs al-Anfal & at-Taubah, we learn that Islam is permanent war.

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.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

So all innocent people remain safe and secure in their property? Caution! Words spoken by Muslims do not mean what you want them to mean, their meaning is assigned by the Muslims who speak them. Innocent means Muslim. If you are not Muslim, you are a rebel against Allah, waging war against him.

Another question and answer, found on pages 36 & 37 respectively, provides more proof that the fatwa is malignant maundery.

Q: The third question arises: does Islam offer clear commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to
kidnap and assassinate foreign delegates and innocent and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the
injustices and disruption of the non-Muslim global powers?

A: The importance Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that
Islam does not allow indiscriminate killing even when Muslim armies are engaged in war against enemy
troops. The killing of children, women, the old, infirm, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor
can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone
be killed. The public cannot be massacred. Likewise, places of worship, buildings, crops and even trees
cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on
the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people,
children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion or identity. It is a pity that such
barbaric people still refer to their activities as Jihad.

Lets see what Muhammad, the founder of Islam said about the sanctity of human life.

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."

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslim. Now let us examine the proscription on killing women and children; surely it must be founded on morality?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. [...]

Note the acts which would defile and profane a holy war; two of them are relevant to our quest for truth.

• Make a holy war
• do not embezzle the spoils
• do not kill the children

What do embezzlement and killing children have in common? Our first hint will come from Shari'ah.

O9.13

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

Is it clear to you yet? If not, Ibn Taimiyyah has the final clue for you, from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad.

As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].

Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

I emphasized the most critical clause in case there might be some readers with limited comprehension skills. The proscription on killing women and children is economic, not moral.

In the matter of those who surrendered; the Sheikh asserts that they must not be killed. Muhammad's excellent companions reveal the truth.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

So, what did Muhammad do?

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

They surrendered after a long siege, Muhammad decapitated them and threw them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Can you say genocide? Can you recognize the fact that, like all Muslims, the learned Sheikh is a liar; that his fatwa is malignant manure? If not, then do the nation a favor, burn your voter registration card.

How to Find UN Documents

This blog post results from the discovery of the following search through Google.ca: A/64/439/Add.2 (Part II), proj. de rés. XV someone at the Canada Council for the Arts inquired about a United Nations document. The link to the Crusaders Armory blogspot was near the bottom of the first page of results. It is safe to assume that the searcher went through several other results before visiting my blog.

Many, if not most UN documents contain references to other UN documents. Tracking down those references can be extremely difficult unless you have the right search engine. Most of the search engine results will be to documents which reference the one you seek, few if any of them will provide a link to the desired document.

United Nations Publications has several interesting categories to check and a search window at the top of the page. That search produced irrelevant results. It did, however, display a link to another General Assembly Document Search. which produced a report declaring that there is no matching document.


By removing the suffix from the search term, I got this result, a 151 page pdf. file; a report on the Third Committee's Human Rights Protection & Promotion efforts.

If you can not find the document you need with that search engine, and it is directly related to human rights, there is another search engine you can tap. It is not my first choice because its output is in the form of a multi page table of descriptions and links. If you have the document symbol, try using it first to narrow the search results.


I recently discovered this resource: United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library which offers a wide variety of search categories but requires omission of all punctuation from the search phrase. I was not able to find the Third Cmte. report there. By back checking the link to the main library, I discovered a new resource: UN Pulse, which alerts users to newly released documents. This may prove to be an extremely valuable resource for those who are interested in specific issues before UN bodies.

Someone jumped the gun with the link to UN Pulse. The page is blank; there is nothing within the body tags. I will check it periodically and issue a new post about it after it goes live.