Hedaya 2.140 Annotated

Hedaya 2.141 Annotated

Preserve the First Amendment from Attack by the OIC!

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Clinton: Ways to Fight Religious Intolerance

A Bloomberg article by Nicole Gaouette exemplifies the fine art of turning a press conference into "news" without scratching the surface to discover relevant facts.  Use the link below to read the entire article, I am taking exemplary excerpts out of context.

Clinton Works With Allies on Ways to Fight Religious Intolerance

By Nicole Gaouette - Jul 15, 2011

The U.S. and allies are seeking better responses to acts of religious intolerance such as burnings of the Koran and cartoons that mock theProphet Muhammad.

Define "acts of religious intolerance".  How does burning a Koran after a four hour mock trial equate to burning churches with the congregants inside?   How do the Motoons equate to telling Christians to leave their homes or die? 

    Exactly why should we tolerate intolerance?  Islam curses us, lets tolerate it. 

  • 2:89...So let the Curse of Allâh be on the disbelievers
  • 2:159. Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers
  • 2:161. Verily, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind, combined
  • 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.
    Exactly why should we tolerate incitement & incentivization of violence against us?  Islam declares war on us, lets tolerate it.
  • 8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. 
  • 8:65. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand. 
  • 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
  • 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. 
  • 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

    9:121. Nor do they spend anything (in Allâh's Cause) - small or great - nor cross a valley, but is written to their credit, that Allâh may recompense them with the best of what they used to do (i.e. Allâh will reward their good deeds according to the reward of their best deeds which they did in the most perfect manner). 

Why stop with toleration; lets all convert to a "great religion" that rewards any step taken to injure or enrage a disbeliever. 

    Why should there be any governmental response to Koran burning or cartoons?  Aren't there some more pressing and substantive problems requiring immediate attention?     

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed with religious and political leaders today in Istanbul how to build on a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution passed March 24, which calls for promoting tolerance and respect for diversity of beliefs, without restricting legitimate free speech.

    Those who write about UN resolutions would do well to read them before reaching for their keyboards. 

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

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

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

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

Exactly what do those high sounding, apparently innocuous phrases mean?  What is their real world application?  For the answer, we must turn to the immortal words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who condemned Fitna as "hate speech" & "incitement", declaring that Geert Wilders had no right to express 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."

According to the Secretary General, there is no justification for demonstrating the nexus between Islamic doctrine and practice.  This is the equivalent of an organization of snakes lobbying to prohibit lifting rocks.

But all the pressure is off, the HRC has turned a new leaf, abandoning the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.  Yeah, right.  Pakistan's U.N. Ambassador had remarks on the resolution March 24, 2011.  I took it apart in detail here:  http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2011/04/oic-islamic-hypocrisy-on-parade.html

The new resolution supplements & confirms but does not supplant earlier resolutions neither does it preclude further resolutions of the same kind.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues1 over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating  defamation.2 which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensus3 on an issue of vital importance not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of religious incitement4 and discrimination and incitement to hatred5 and violence6 based on religion or belief.

Amb. Akhram was not the only one to speak to this issue. He was joined by the Secretary General of the OIC.

OIC has a principled postition against defamation of any
 religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of
 symbols    sacred    to    all     religions.    The    developments                                              `
 including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts
 towards burning of Quran and the use of Islamophobia as
 an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an
 urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term
 as    'preventive   cultural    diplomacy'.   We   need   to    move
 beyond   event   based   calls   for   action   to   create   spaces   for
 structured   engagement.    The   Human   Rights   framework
 provides   with   a   concrete   basis   for   this   engagement.   We
 believe that tbe workshops on incitement to hatred under
 the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
 synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.
http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/9429hrc16sessionoic.pdf  page 9

Human rights belong to individual humans, not to collectives neither to institutions.  Is there a right to be completely shielded from all criticism & questioning?  Is there an absolute right to have anyone who criticizes your cherished beliefs thrown into prison?

    I have a clue for you; a clue which few others will share. Reliance of the Traveller is the handbook of Shaffi'ite fiqh, the most widely accepted version of Shari'ah. It imposes the death penalty for apostasy, which it defines with a list of twenty acts & attitudes.

  • O8.1

    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.

  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

    (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are: ...

  • -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;

  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam
Now what is it the OIC & HRC seek to criminalize? 

aiming to implement responses to defamation that includes education, government outreach and dialogue rather than restrictive measures.

They want to substitute indoctrination for education.  "Dialogue": form over substance. Do any of those dialogues include detailed discussion of the Koran verses quoted above, Ibn Kathir's exegesis of them or Muhammad's excellent example of how to implement them?  Just one did, March 20, in Florida, the UN & Department of State condemn the outcome of that four hour dialogue, which was conducted in Arabic.

“Together, we have begun to address the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression,” Clinton said today.

What false divide?  Islam and the HRC declare that Islam is a protected person, to be shielded from all criticism, which is to be criminalized; its perpetrators to be punished by fines and imprisonment.   Ban Ki-Moon denied  Wilders' right to publish Fitna.  A Dutch panel of jurists reached a different conclusion.

She noted that even as countries in the Middle East and North Africa make the “inspiring” transition to democracy, there has also been a rise in ethnic and religious intolerance.

Secretary of State Clinton draws inspiration from strange places and events; from bloody insurrection which exchanges one tyrant for another.  There is no democracy in Islam and can be none because only Allah and his regent, followed by the latter's successors, have the right to rule. 

Clinton said the Human Rights Council’s resolution “calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.”

How do you define & measure incitement?  What did Ban say about Fitna?  Who is to gainsay his definition & metrication?  Fitna is not incitement, it exposes incitement. Politicians are too dishonest to acknowledge the difference. 

In the United States, Clinton said, “we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people” can create “wide ripples of intolerance.”

How is anyone to make sense of such ambiguous and amorphous expressions?  My first response is to assume that "incendiary actions" is a reference  to  9/11/01; the "very few" to the "Magnificent 19"  and the "wide ripples of intolerance" is a reference to increased awareness of and public expression about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam.   They could as easily be applied to the Koran burning and riots in Pakistan.

...protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor,” she said.

Is there a right to worship as they choose, when war is their cheif sacrament?  How is it possible that there is a right to fight disbelievers until they are subjugated?  How is it possible that there is a right to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped?   How is it possible that there is a right to make "great slaughter"; to take "any step" to "injure" or "raise the anger of" disbelievers? 

    Obedience to Allah and emulation of Muhammad  are foundational to and inseverable from the practice of Islam.  What do believers do? C;inton has no clue; I have one for her.

  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success . 
What do believers do? They wage war and kill disbelievers; war is a primary sacrament of Islam. Am I cherry picking?
  • 49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.

 Of course, that must be an anachronism. Yeah, right.
  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

        Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

        The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad continues until the last day. Exactly what is this holy sacrament of Islam?
  • O9.0: Jihad

    (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.

  • O9.1 ...
  • If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. 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. ...

Does any sane person desire to promote tolerance of a war cult which seeks to destroy or enslave and dominate us?  Does any sane person advocate a right to wage war against us, to kill us, seize our property, rape our widows and sell our orphans into slavery?   For the deluded fools who believe that it is possible to practice Islam peacefully, I present one more hadith. Get a clue, for Chrissake.
  • Sunun Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

    Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

    I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Jihad is war; their "original religion".  Commerce & agriculture are alternatives to jihad: it iss economic; its mission is mercenary. If Muslims abandon it they will be cursed until they resume it.  If you can not comprehend this clue, you are probably too stupid to live, do the world a service by removing yourself from the gene pool.


Anonymous said...

You don't have to reference Traveller to find the DEATH TO APOSTATES bit; it's right in the qur'an, 4:89 - where it states: "If they do not (repent of their apostacy) seize them wherever they are, and do away with them."

Simple, clear, and direct!


Anonymous said...

You don't have to reference Traveller to find the DEATH TO APOSTATES bit; it's right in the qur'an, 4:89 - where it states: "If they do not (repent of their apostacy) seize them wherever they are, and do away with them."

Simple, clear, and direct!


Ben said...

Reliance codifies the Qur'an & hadith which confirm and exemplify it.