Monday, March 21, 2011

Freedom of Religion: Only for Muslims

My email subscription to UNHRC documents turned up an interesting letter from the representative of Cyprus. I keep telling you hat freedom of religion is a one way street, few pay any attention.  

    Turkey is interfering with Greek Orthodox services in occupied Cyprus. As I keep telling you, if you ain't Muslim, you have no rights. Perhaps this will give you a clue.  Turkey is violating the rights of Christians in occupied Cyprus, interfering with church services, arbitrarily and with outrageous regulations.

Upon instructions from my Government, I would like to bring to your attention a
grave human rights violation that occurred on 25 December 2010 in the Orthodox church of
Saint Synesios, in the town of Rizokarpaso located in the part of Cyprus under the military
occupation of Turkey. This issue is directly related to the mandate in accordance with
which the yearly reports on the question of human rights in Cyprus are prepared, as
provided for in Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXXI) and General Assembly
resolution 3450 (XXX).
As confirmed by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), on
25 December 2010, security forces of the subordinate local administration of Turkey
interrupted an ongoing religious service, forced the priest to remove his liturgical vestments
and to terminate the liturgy, ordered the churchgoers, mainly Greek Cypriot enclaved
persons, to evacuate, then sealed the church on the pretext that no “permission for the
conduct of mass” had been obtained. At the same time, the occupation regime did not allow
for a Christmas mass to be held in the Church of the Holy Trinity (Ayia Triada) in the
nearby town of Yialoussa. Subsequently, the occupation regime informed UNFICYP that a
new “procedure” had been established, whereby prior authorization should be sought 30
days in advance for all scheduled religious services, except those celebrated on Sundays.
These acts contravene the third Vienna agreement of 2 August 1975, which, inter
alia, explicitly provides that the Greek Cypriots who remained enclaved behind the military
lines in their villages in the north-eastern Karpass peninsula in the aftermath of the Turkish
invasion would be “free to stay” and that they would “be given every help to lead a normal
life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as
medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement”. Even more serious, these
acts constitute a clear violation of international and European human rights law, including
article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 3 and 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.


    Lets review the fatal facts:

  • Muslims are commanded to wage war against us.
  • Our blood is not sacred to Muslims.
  • Our property is not sacred to Muslims.
  • We have no rights until we become Muslims.
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."


    We know blessed well that the Human Rights Council will not do anything to remedy this situation, which will continue to be ignored. They are occupied with more important matters such as condemning Israel for defending itself. 

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

yeah well turkey aint giving much rights to muslims either. A ban on head scarf? if you aint muslim you got no rights would be a dishonest evaluation. Turkey, simply put ,is no champion of human rights.

Ben said...

Anomous, this post ain't intended to be cryptic. Islam abrogates everyone's human rights.

Anonymous said...

as per you islam is abrogating human rights and an example you produced is turkey.you argument is terribly flawed since turkey isn't obviously following islamic idealogy sine it isnt granting basic rights to its majority of muslim population. so your statement needs revision it becomes an ill informed opinion.

also your quoting sahih bukhari is hardly sufficient proof of your unbaised education of islam. perhaps examining a history of islamic empire partcularily in the time of Prophet peace be upon him might shed some light. The concept of christian or non muslim blood being cheap in islam is false.Sahih Bukhari has various other narrations from the very same prophet that shed light ont he rights of non muslim who are not threat to islamic idealogy.obviously when a civilisation goes to war,it goes to war so hand picking narrations regarding a conflict situation and applying it as a uniform status is inaccurate.

Ben said...

Anonymous,

If there ain't a right to life, there ain't any other rights.

"...when they do that, their blood and property are sacred to us...".

That says it all. The statement that we obtain equal rights by reverting is superfluous.

War is the fact. Conquest, razia & ghazwat form the chapter titles in any Islamic history, exposing your al-taqiyya.

Anonymous said...

please not the dreaded term of al taqiyya. it is a term that many people throw around and swell on their burgeoning knowledge of islam.
aint right to life? there is right to life and the aim inst imperial.So the freedoms that are enjoyed in a thriving secular society will disappear but to say that non muslims are killed for being a non muslim in a true islamic state is a dishonest conclusion to very strong and eminent history.reading up on the history of global areas like jerusalem and making a comparative study of minorities under muslim,jewish and christian rule might benefit you.

the central belief of an islamic ideaology is the life after death.this strips life of many many material comforts and literally turns the capitalist society head over heels.which is is why islam has pretty much always been the bad guy in west.that concept is pretty hard to grasp in today's world.particuarily western mind. i'd give you an example.so many have been dying in the "third"word for purely materialistic and imperial gains.the tariffs and international regimes are designed to benefit already strong economies and further exploiting poor and defenseless nations.when colonialism rolled over the debris took the form of capitalist hegmonis structure of today's world. if you intelligently compare the norms and consequences of current hegmons you understand that slogans hide a particularily unattactive interior. Just look at this, you wage war on the poorest region of the world as a result of handpicked individuals, your treatment of the prisoners of wars is appalling, slaves made of POW in islamic state enjoyed better previliges than todays POWs at the hands of modern civilised state.but themodern civilised state would gasp with horror and demonise the status of POWs as slaves yet carry on doing grotesque things to people they keep in cages without charges being made of proven. A modern rich state that endorses human rights for others states to follows and callousy and willfully holds the same rights in contempt when in their way to ahead their interests.

Ben said...

No nation enters into Islamic domination except by one of two ports of entry:
1. conquest
2. intimidation.

The legal, social and religious restrictions imposed upon conquered Christians are clearly stated in Reliance of the Traveller.

http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/resources/reliance_complete.pdf#page=626

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Likewise the rules on POWs.

http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/resources/reliance_complete.pdf#page=621

O9.10: The Rules of Warfare

It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.

O9.11

It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

O9.12

Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

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.

O9.14

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

O9.15

Anonymous said...

hmmm i think you either misunderstand or are misinformed. Let me draw tw distinctions. One is the affair of non muslim in muslim countries in current world structure and second is the status of non muslims in an actual islamic state.

now saying that they donot have the right to fornicate is a bit silly since muslims donot have that right either.

Non muslims are divided into two main branches one with whom a treaty has beem establised and second those who have been subjugated as a result of war. Now comparing the status of today's POW and dhimis can perhaps tell of the wide difference between the level of humanity showed towards those who have fought with you.Bear in mind a war isnt fought for oil,or a mystery man in caves either. I have already stated that the concept of democracy in norms wont be applicable since you are comparing a theocracy to a secular state that pretty much holds nothing scared. As in everything is debatable. The restrictions regarding appearances and dress codes is similar.

As for no one enters islam unless intimidation or conquest well the same logic could be applied to western values of democracy and nationalism. it was indeed forcibly applied and brought to lands colonised through force and intimidation. The fathers of rationalism and enlightenment immanuel kent wasnt willing to give much status to "barbarians and indians".I mean come on. i am sure that western world is no shrinking voilet when it comes to coercison an intimidation.infaact splitting up nations has been predominantly a way to scar the region,read up on the birth of modern israel,lebanon,pakistan and etc. saying that any civilisation is not a power maximiser would be a little more than naive. however the motives of islamic expansion atleast should be more spiritual rather than imperial that in itself is far more noble a reason than expansion for exploitation an extortion.the reason why you will fail to see the genocide as a common tactic as you will see it far more commonly and rampantly in western history.because those who went astray in muslim history were exactly that astray.

Ben said...

Without Islamic aggression & intimidation there would be no Islamic states and no Dhimmis.

Bukhari 1.8.387 makes the matter crystal clear, beyond doubt & denial.

The Noble Qur'an frequently repeats "Only Allah has the right to be worshiped.". Search for it at http://www.quranbrowser.com/ .

Islam is a predator; its attitude distills down to: 'Resistanc to Islamic conquest is aggression which must be severely punished.".

Anonymous said...

Without muslim aggression and conquest the state of pakistan was formed. indonesia and malayasia too. Bangladesh as well.The generations living in afghanistan and and iran and africa arent arabic. No genocide wiped the natives.

If you want to hold that opinion inspite of the good sense( that Allah Tallah bestowed upon you ) and honest scrutiny of history than its your choice brother. May Allah guide you to right path.

Islam is a predator but it prays on injustices and imperial exploitation. I submit to such a predator.I wouldnt trade this for any emancipation inshAllah.

Ben said...

The fact that Pakistan was formed when I was too young to know about it does not prevent me from knowing the truth. Millions were murdered by Muslims in that process.

Indonesia was seduced by infiltration & demographic conquest.

We are neither so ignorant nor so gullible as you wish.

Anonymous said...

well i never brought your age into it.wasnt even aware of it. pakistan was formed as a result of political force. thousands were murdered but by both muslims and hindus. the casualties faced by muslim were far greater since the number of muslims migrating was far greater and also because they are a minority.the state of pakistan was far more fragile why would they resort to aggression when they had nothing to gain and everythign to lose?and why would india a hegmon of the region would submit to it?read up on india and its relation with others neighbours i dare say they are as chummy as usa is to its neighbours.

could you please explain how is that western democracy reins in australia?newzealand?usa?southafrica?
what became of the native populations in each of these lands?
as for seducing,seriously for an educated person your accussations merely reek of double standarads. what is the entire rearranged region of colonised world say about colonisers?japan and china?american imperialism?crash course in history with unbaised mind will allow you draw different conclusions.
if one wants to revisit the history of islamic empire than one should also revisit the history that is they reason behind the first world today.ever heard of spanish conquest?what happened to the moores?what is going on now in israel on the open support of peace espouser the champion of war on terror.
the attempt to reduce islam,muslims and everything related, to a blood hungry mob and at the same time posing deaf to the questions that are posed towards your preferred world philosophy isnt something that i would be proud of.read up the case of nicargua against usa in international court and follow up on the contempt of usa to one of the institute that is far more readily used for gains than for loss.

Ben said...

Anonymous, argumentum Tu-quoque cuts no mustard with me. Nothing subracts from the evil of Islam.

There is one major difference between Islamic and Western colonialism: Islam was contrived and disguised as a religion for the purpose of promoting & perpetuating offensive conquest for the enrichment and empowerment of its founder.

8:39 is not justified by colonialism which came long after it was 'revealed'.

I do not claim that Western Civilization is perfect. I have no need to. I am making the case that Islam is absolute unmitigated evil, which it is.

Anonymous said...

well brother Ben as i said earlier you are entitled to your opinions. My job was to contradict with you and explain the reasons why. In my personal experience of life i have seen that people willing to honestly research something are likely to benefit themselves immensely.
As for evil islam, it doesnt damage islam if propoganda is cirulated about it.Although it does damage the person circulating the propoganda.You see lie might be loud and may run faster than truth but it is self destructive.

Believe it or not,i try every time to clear misconceptions about islam because i believe that the person holding them is missing out on something far more beautiful,liberating and truthful than they can imagine. The loss is so great that i cannot help but state what i think.

Therefore my only prayer is that you might come to realise what is divine truth.

A religion that calls to fear one Allah so that you fear no one else.A religion that makes the aim of life to live for hereafter rather than material benefits. A religion that makes it must upon its followers to give charity.
A religion that was revealed to the best human being in this world and has and will sustain far bigger casualties is as far away from evil as you can imagine.

May Allah Tallah guide you to straight path.

Ben said...

Anonymous, your 'Al-Insan al-kamil" demanded the hand of his best friend's six year old daughter and consummated the marriage three years later. In the meantime, he was thighing her.

He arranged a marriage between a girl he craved (whose parents rejected him) with his adopted son. After a few years, he arranged a convenient divorce and added Zaineb to his harem.

Doubters & dissenters should read Surah 33 and the related ahadith in Sahih Bukhari.

Find any good hadith search engine and seek out "was revealed"; you will learn how some important verses were edited.

When Moe was criticized and mocked by poets, he sent his excellent companions to murder them. One of the stories is in the canonical hadith, others can be found in Ishaq & Tabari. Look up his murders at Wikiislam.

How does he stand up in comparison with Jesus Christ?

Anonymous said...

odd that you should mention Jesus peace be upon him to stoop to the level of insults and lies. Do you know what jews of the time had to say about the birth of Jesus peace be upon him by a virgin mother? To this day do you know what they believe of Mary peace be upon him?

It is a trend of those who wish to snub something that they cannot reason against to stoop to the level of insults and name calling.

Now for your concern regarding the age and number of Prophet peace be upon him wives.
The marriage age until recent "modernity" was way earlier than 18 years old.The concept of childhood far into adolesence is forced and impractical. Since west itself document every year mother of very young ages.
Islam makes puberty the age of marriage and its true the contract that is nikkah of marriage of Prophet's wife was at the age of six and marriage was consumated at the age of nine upon her puberty.

Before the prophethood ,Prophet peace be upon him was married to a widow 15 years older than him. Till the age of 40 ,till the prophethood,that was the only wife he had.
After that he only married through the will of Allah Tallah. A prophet is a role model to his people. The rolemodel sets the boundaries and limits. So the youngest you can marry has to be of the age of puberty is the limit set by Islam.
This wasnt an unheard of concept even those against him in arabia had no issue with this .

Now may be you find out about the number of wives Solomon and David had.What were their ages? here read this book and see what they have to say about marriageable age of girls. Ever wonder why Grimm stories characters frequently call the wife "my child".
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=3tuKkxU4-ncC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=early+christianity,+age+of+marriage+for+girls&source=bl&ots=HWC92R-NHj&sig=uJkYffFVwwGDZKOfmo1qQGm_tA4&hl=en&ei=u73ATfWhNI-cvgPSyuGuBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So for you to insinuate this, is purely to draw insults or maybe hurt my sentiments.Although your Jesus peace be upon him confirmed the prophethood of Moses peace be upon him and if you read jewish text you will find out the marriageable age under the time of Moses peace be upon him.

That done, your second query about the divorcee of adopted son. The taboo of adopted son as a real son was broken by islam. And what are you on about, your education is extremely lacking. The divorcee was a cousin of Prophet himself,and her family wasnt willing earlier on to wed her to the adopted son who was adopted from a slave backgorund.They never had any issue about marrying her to Prophet pbuh.Please let me know your source of information.As i said after prophet hood all the marriages of Prophet peace be upon him were to rolemodel for the society.

As for the poet,he was a propoganda machine.He didnt just make poetry,he used it to encourage battle between muslims and non muslim of arabia.
You should understand the threat of propoganda machines all too well. After all usa blocked aljazeera and advocated Assange's death.
Please gorw up. I realize it is hard to go against the grain,but you have a brain that can think.Allow it to think without suffocating it with these prejudices.Inquire,question and you shall find the truth inshAllah.
My gripe with you is that you are willing to run a blog and your research is far from honest.Sometimes i think we teach the children to right but we never teach them to respect the words.This is a capacity given to you a human being.Not so that you can write,truth and false without any distinctions.But so you can communicate and acquire knowledge.This is the trait that makes us superior to animals. Writing is a skill ,thinking and researching is something that makes what you write worthwhile.

Ben said...

It makes no difference how many wives anyone else had or how old they were. It is significant that Moe consummated marriage to a 9 year old girl. That act grates upon the sensibilities of all reasonable men who become aware of it. The ahadith which testify to Aisha's age are muttawir, all of them agree upon 9 as the age of consummation, all but one agree on 6 as the age of marriage, one says she was 7.

The story of Zainab is told most clearly in The Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn. Primary sources include Tabari & Ishaq and there is some coverage of the affair in the Sahih.

Do a Google search for Um Quirfa and Ashma bint Marwan; see how Moe had them murdered.

Anonymous said...

so it makes no difference that your ancestors and those of Jesus married pretty much the same way that Prophet of islam did?or judaism and christianity have the same history that islam should be ashamed of.flawless logic.
Reasonable man might actually think before he speak.Obviously reasonable men are a precious few today.When you get out of your christendom bubble and islam is evil monologue,the world will surprise you.
Not much more needs to said.

Ben said...

Moe was supposed to be the final Prophet, bringing the perfected message. That shining example of perfection includes rules for divorcing pre-pubescent girls. How enlightened!!!

The fact is that Islam is evil. It was fabricated for the purpose of motivating men to engage in wars of conquest so as to perpetuate the flow of loot, tribute & extortion to enrich and empower the founder.

Surah al-Anfal holds the keys to comprehending this fatal fact. A few key hadith seal the deal. Both are quoted and linked in my blog post entitled "Islam's Mercenary Mission". Read it and cursed Islam.

Anonymous said...

lets see how prophet of islam stand up to Christ of Bible.

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"(Luke 19:27)

v"Those mine enemies. bring hither. The Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans." [3]


"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:30)

"So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell." (Matthew 5:29)


"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"(Luke 19:27)


"Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone." (Gospel of Thomas)
"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man........Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)"


JudaiChristian holy texts,that i personally think are fabricated by later generations talk of having intercourse with 3 years old baby girls.

Lets go on shall we?Does this make Jesus Godforbid a voilent individual?What does it do to the sensibilities of a reasonable man who shirks away from the consummation of marriage at the age of puberty.May be ,you have another think coming. If you let it.

There is a hype against islam and its trendy to be islamophobic.But ask yourself this if it becomes trendy to be stupid would you willingly avoid your good sense?,

Ben said...

Truth never passes from the lips or fingertips of a Muslim.

Luke 19

Luke 19:27 is part of a parable, not a commandment. Jesus is not on record issuing the functional equivalent of 8:39, 9:5, 9:29 & 9:123.

Mt 5:30 is metaphorical, not imperative.

Gospel of Thomas is non-canonical, considered apochryphal.

Numbers is O.T. Christ did not say it, it is ancient narrative, limited in scope and chronology, with no modern implementation.

Argumentum Tu-quoque is a logical fallacy. It distracts rather than defending Islam.

Anonymous said...

So islam was a political movement to enrich the founder. Odd that most people in west had the same issue with Protestant church and today's vatican. That it is a thriving business .

There is no founder of islam,it was revealed and the prophet of Islam stood to benefit exactly the same way Jesus of Bible and Moses of judaism did. In hereafter. A concept dead today.There aim wasnt money,they werent after all from a western capitalist democracry.They were prophets and they had similar traits. If you could go over the surface of muslim and islamic hatred and discard the anti prophet propoganda you will see stark resembalance. So far your only response to these similarities is,it doesnt matter what these similarities are, and islam is evil.How mature.

Ben said...

Who did Jesus kill?

Who did Jesus rape?

What did Jesus say about offence to children?

How does Jesus save?

Jesus lives.

Your comparison fails!