Thursday, September 29, 2011

Unholy Derision

I outgrew comic books more than forty years ago, but was drawn to a review of Frank Miller’s Holy Terror  by a Google Alert "Defamation of Islam".  The review by  Spencer Ackerman takes a mocking and dismissive tone towards critics of Islam. 

    One long sentence from the review exemplifies one tactic of al-Taqiyya.

That sentiment has made its way into the halls of the FBI. In January, one of its field offices entertained a lecture on Islamic law from Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon consultant on the subject. Coughlin’s typical spiel contends that there’s a “ten-year plan” to make “defamation of Islam a crime” around the world.

    The reference to sentiment is passed forward from the preceding paragraph which labels Pamela Geller as "self-righteous" and rejected by the mainstream. which her ilk supposedly consider as proof of their "self-evident virtue", "a reminder that the rest of the country just can’t handle the reality of the “Muslim threat.”

“ten-year plan”

    It appears that Spencer Ackerman wants his readers to believe that the "ten-year plan" to criminalize criticism of Islam is a fiction invented by a Shari'ah expert. Unfortunately, it is no fiction, it is very real.  While the remainder of the paragraph dismisses the plan, it links to another article in which Ackerman has embedded  video of a lecture by Stephen Coughlin.

    In reality, the OIC formulated a Ten Year Plan of Action in 2005.  The sixth point of that plan bears directly on the issue at hand. [Bold font original, highlight added for emphasis.]

VI.  Combating Islamophobia

1. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through establishing an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with international Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) in the West in order to counter Islamophobia.
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
4. Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue with the parties concerned in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.


    Examine the first and third items in that list. They posit international and national responsibility to ensure respect for Islam. They want the UN to call on all members to enact laws to criminalize "Islamophobia".  In that same year the U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution "Combating Defamation of Islam". In later years, the CHR,  its HRC successor   and the General Assembly have passed similar annual resolutions.   See this blog post for more detail about one typical resolution.

    Those resolutions are non-binding; they have no enforcement mechanism. But international human rights covenants such as ICERD can be enforced against signatories. In 2007, the HRC formed an ad hoc committee to elaborate complementary standards to be inserted into ICERD through a binding protocol. On September 27, 2012, the committee presented the report on their third session in which they remained bogged down in procedural matters.  For the dirty details, see these blog posts:

Islamophobia Observatory

   One result of the ten year plan was the creation of the OIC's Islamophobia Observatory which issues monthly reports. By reading those reports you can discover the fact that their primary concern is centered on criticism of Islam, particularly Fitna & the Motoons.

basis in Shari'ah


    Fitna juxtaposes Qur'an verses and ranting clerics with  the terror attacks & riots they incite.  The Motoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which he bragged about. He died before the invention of gunpowder, but he said that he was made victorious with terror; see Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

The prohibition on criticism of Islam comes from Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shafi'ite fiqh,  specifies the death penalty for apostasy in Book O, Chapter 8, Sections 1 &2.

  • O8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

  • O8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) 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.

    But we are discussing criticism of Islam; what's the relevance of the penalty for apostasy?  The relevance is in the definition of apostasy, which is given in O8.7, which includes a list of 20 "Acts that Entail Leaving Islam". Several of those acts are directly related to our issue.

  • -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;

  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

  • -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

    What is the relevance of those rulings; we are not Muslims so apostasy law does not apply to us?  Jews & Christians conquered or intimidated by Muslims and not embracing Islam remain in the Islamic state under a treaty of protection from Islam, for which they pay jizya. Certain acts violate the treaty, subjecting the violator to a harsh penalty. Five items are listed; one is relevant.
  • O11.10

    The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

  • -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

  • O11.11

    When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

  • 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.

    What would be impermissible to mention about Islam? The items listed in O8.7, of course.  By trivializing the ten year action plan and sending us off to a half hour video which details the relevant part of the plan near the 25 minute mark, Ackerman tries to divert our attention from the fact that the OIC is pressing hard to criminalize truthful criticism of Islam. 

    The UN resolutions specifically condemn associating Islam with "terrorism and human rights violations". When we cite the numerous ayat & ahadith  which sanctify & exemplify terrorism or those which sanction the rape of captive women or the slaughter of men who had surrendered, we would be subject to persecution if those resolutions were binding or if ICERD is amended to include their provisions.

    In his concluding paragraph, Ackerman once again engages in mockery as a an instrument of diversion.

But it wasn’t God who knocked down the Towers. It was fanatics who believed themselves to have deciphered His true message. Miller doesn’t realize that by portraying them as true disciples of Islam, he’s giving the murderers what they want most. That’s the real terror of Holy Terror, the real lie, and the real naïveté.

    Who claims that Allah knocked down the WTC? Atta and his associates were not fanatics, they were believers as defined in 9:111 & 49:15.  The terrorists do not want adulation, they want rivers of wine & honey and 72 virgins to sport with. They believe in Allah's threat & promise.  

    The real lie is in Ackerman's last paragraph.  To fully comprehend it you need to read the statement of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his four co-conspirators, which they submitted to a military tribunal in response to the nine accusations against them.  Muslims do not decipher Allah's message; it is not encrypted. His imperatives are contained in clear verses whose meaning is exemplified by Muhammad's sunnah.  It is confirmed by Islamic exegesis and codified in Islamic law.  Jihad: genocidal conquest which terrorizes its victims is not extremism, neither is it a perversion of normative Islam.  It is normative Islam. Islamic law defines jihad and details the religious obligation to perform it in every year.  Open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9 and read through 9.9. Of course, you will need confirmation, so open Hedaya to Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1 and read it, too. 

    The useful idiots swear that terrorists are the problem, Islam and Muslims are not the problem. In reality, the doctrines of Islam, revealed in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's sunnah are the problem. Of course, without believers, they would be no problem. As I write this, NPR's Morning Edition is spewing the standard lies, denying the fatal facts of Islam and condemning FBI training materials which accurately describe Islamic doctrine & practice.

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)