Crusader's Armory: domination

[Statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran as delivered (unofficial transcript)]

Ladies and gentlemen, look at the Security Council which is the legacy of World War I and II. Based on what logic have they been given the right to veto? With which human and divine value is this logic compatible? Justice, equality in the eye of law and human dignity or discrimination, injustice, violation of human rights and belittling the majority of nations and countries? This Council is the most supreme decision-making centre for maintaining peace and security in the world.

Tyranny is not synonymous with justice, nor is majority rule. Both minorities and majorities can perpetrate injustice. The great powers were jealous of each other, seeking to prevent the UN from being used by their rivals as an instrument of exploitation. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on the dinner menu.

When there is legal discrimination and the law-making centre is a source of bullying and force instead of justice and fairness, how can one expect to achieve justice and peace? Seeking power and selfishness is the source of racism, discrimination, aggression and tyranny. Today many racists condemn racism in their slogans and speeches but when some powerful countries give themselves the right to make decisions for other countries, using their discretion, and based on their own interests, they can easily trample on all rules and human values. As they have already proven.

This paragraph describes Islam, which seeks to dominate the entire world by force. The Iranian theocrats seek to dominate Islam, and with it, the world. President Ahmadinejad seems to assume that we are unaware of or too indolent to read certain Islamic texts.

These topics in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir display prime examples of Islamic supremacism & triumphalism. Islam will prevail, conquering and dominating the world; that is good news for Islam. In the Orwellian lexicon of Islam, conquest & domination are peace & justice.

I learned about the existence of this CNS News article through a link at Eye On the UN.

UN Passes Islamic ‘Defamation’ Measure, But Critics Hail ‘Backlash’
Thursday, December 18, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

In that article, I found a link to a statement by four human rights experts, named in the last page of the document.

International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression
JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND
ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION

Having read that statement, I now endorse it, reserving the exception of the following quoted points, to each of which I dissent. [Emphasis added.]

Recognising the importance to democracy, as well as to holding social institutions accountable, of open debate about all ideas and social phenomena in society and the right of all to be able to manifest their culture, religion and beliefs in practice;

Since Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal¹ conquest² using terrorism³ as a battle tactic, manifesting its practice is a wrong, not a right.

The definition of terrorism, at least as it applies in the context of restrictions on freedom of
expression, should be restricted to violent crimes that are designed to advance an ideological, religious, political or organised criminal cause and to influence public authorities by inflicting terror on the public.

Advocacy of casting terror, incitement to cast terror and glorification of the act & those who perform it are essential to the perpetuation of terrorism and must be condemned as part and parcel of it.

The criminalisation of speech relating to terrorism should be restricted to instances of intentional incitement to terrorism, understood as a direct call to engage in terrorism which is directly responsible for increasing the likelihood of a terrorist act occurring, or to actual participation in terrorist acts (for example by directing them). Vague notions such as providing communications support to terrorism or extremism, the ‘glorification’ or ‘promotion’ of terrorism or extremism, and the mere repetition of statements by terrorists, which does not itself constitute incitement, should not be criminalised.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Moral condemnation of conquest in which men are killed, their widows raped⁴ and orphans sold into slavery⁵ is not consequent upon the terror inflicted, it is consequent upon malum in se; the pure evil of aggression against innocent persons. Sanctification of conquest, with a divine mandate to perform it until the entire globe is dominated by Islam⁶, would be sufficient cause to outlaw the propagation of Islam, even in the absence of its 1398 year history of rapine.

Not withstanding those reservations, I endorse the rest of the statement, particularly the following:

The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding
defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.

Restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones.

Restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights
Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of ‘defamation of religions’.

In my opinion, that last sentence was poorly written, introducing an ambiguity which should not be allowed to persist. The named bodies should rescind their previous resolutions as listed in the statement, and refrain from passing further resolutions condemning or attempting to outlaw criticism of Islam.