Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

intolerance

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

stereotyping

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

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

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

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

protects individuals

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

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

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

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

education

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

concrete details

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

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

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

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

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

concrete examples

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

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

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

incitement ? 

Fitna

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

Motoons

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

Quran burning

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

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

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

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

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

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

legal foundation

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

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

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

Shari'ah

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

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

April Fools: Assumptions and Superficiality Make Fools of You

Since the passage of the latest UNHRC resolution combating Islamophobia, the headlines keep flowing at an accelerating pace. Here is a sample

• New UN Resolution on Religious Freedom Drops 'Defamation' Concept
• Key US Accomplishments at the UN Human Rights Council
  • he “Combating Discrimination and Violence” resolution underscores the vital importance of protecting freedom of expression and ends the divisive debate over the highly problematic concept of “defamation of religions.”
• Islamic group drops demand that UN support 'religious defamation'
• An Anti-Blasphemy Measure Laid to Rest
• UNHCR | Refworld | The Demise of “Defamation of Religions”? Human ...
• Podcast: United Nations Abandons Global Blasphemy Code
• Groups Hail Changes to Pro-Islam Measure
• OIC urges respect for all faiths, efforts for peace: Haroon
• Why the US Must Stay on the UN Human Rights Council
  • The Council also dropped the longstanding though much-criticized “defamation of religions” concept, which in years past raised concerns of encroachment on freedom of expression. 

    What do the headline writers have in common?  They failed to read and comprehend  A/HRC/16/L.38 and the statements made in support of it in the HRC.

    ¶5 of the resolution "notes" the remarks of Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu ... "and draws on his call on States to take the following actions". ... Did anyone bother to refer to that address?  The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below with emphasis added. 

Islamophobia. is a contemporary manifestation of racism and the phenomenon must be addressed in that context. It is matter of priority for the OIC that must not be treated as merely   a   numbers   game.   It   indeed  threatens   the   multi-cultural fabric ofour societies. Most importantly, it poses a clear   and   present   danger   to   international   efforts   geared towards peace stability and security, in both the regional as well as global context. Accordingly it needs to figure into the strategic calculations of the international community in our bid to bequeath a peaceful abode for the future generations.

    OIC has a principled position 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 the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council, for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international level. Let me also recall that I had outlined eight areas of
action for consideration by states, at both the national and international level, with a view to dealing with defamation
issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some resonance.

    The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity. The perception that supporting the resolution would throttle one's right to freedom
expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will always be upheld but it cannot be allowed to be a tool to
use for inciting fear and hate.
     I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I am confident that we can achieve a consensus.

Review the key phrases from that address to the HRC, what to they tell us about the objective, content and methodology of the resolution?

• Islamophobia
  • contemporary manifestation of racism
  • priority
  • threatens multicultural fabric
  • endangers peace & security
• defamation of religion
• denigration of symbols
• minaret ban
• Qur'an burning
• electoral Islamophobia
  • ominous
• preventive cultural diplomacy
• structured engagement
• human rights framework
• monitor acts of defamation
  • first step
• dealing with defamation
  • found resonance
• freedom of expression
  • tool for incitement
• incitement of hatred

    Lets take the last term first. Exactly what does that phrase mean?  How is it defined and exemplified?

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."

From that concrete example we discover that incitement includes exposing the nexus between Islamic scripture & oral tradition with terrorism & mob violence.

    Exactly why is defamation of Islam mentioned three times in a speech promoting a resolution which supposedly lays that concept to rest?  The resolution is presented as protecting individuals, not religions.  This address to the HRC demonstrates the fallacy of that presentation.

    It is not about the human rights of individuals, as pretended; it is about Islamophobia.  Burning the Qur'an is not an offense against individuals, it is an expression  of revulsion at the evil acts mandated by that accursed book. 

    A handful of congressional candidates exposed Islam in campaign speeches and advertisements.  That is not an offense against individuals, it is discussion of common sense public policy issues.  The subject matter of our political campaigns is not a proper subject of international legislation or resolutions.

    What race is Islam?  There are Muslims of all colors due to Islam's widespread conquest.  Of course, Islam is against racism, isn't it?

"Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah's Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us."
Tabari IX:69 Quoted by Craig Winn in The Prophet of Doom.

"It is your folly to fight the Apostle, for Allah's army is bound to disgrace you. We brought them to the pit. Hell was their meeting place. We collected them there, black slaves, men of no descent." The Life of Muhamad pg. 450, quoted by Craig Winn in The Prophet of Doom.

"Allah's Apostle said, 'You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.'"
Sahih Bukhari 9.89.256

        Denigration of symbols?  They thought this was a human rights issue!  Only Allah has the right to be worshiped. Only Allah has the right to rule and govern.  If those are human rights, Allah must be human. When will he appear in court to testify against those who blaspheme against him?  When some goes to a book store, wastes $25. on a Qur'an and burns it, whose human rights are violated?  When I expose its content and curse it, what human rights are violated? 

    Exactly how does the Swiss minaret ban violate anyone's human rights?  The minaret is not a divine manifestation. Where is it mentioned in the Qur'an? Need I remind you that Shari'ah forbids Christians to build churches? 

    The defamation of Islam concept has not been dropped, neither has it been laid to rest. The headlines are a cruel hoax, not an April Fool joke. Those who wrote them are perennial fools, always blooming, without season. 

    Regional and international peace & security are at stake precisely because of the execrable doctrines of Islam laid down in Allah's accursed jihad, terror & genocide imperatives.  The clear and present danger is brought closer by failure to recognize it.  If our freedom of expression is impaired as Islam demands, then it will be closer still; we will be unable to sound the alarm.