Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman's Assessment of HRC 16/18

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/10/abigail-esman-gets-it-wrong-on-free-speech/

    Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

    The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?

    As the UN documents are fond of saying, read "inter alia". HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  "Incitement to imminent violence" means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak. 

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

    Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/127/27/PDF/G1112727.pdf?OpenElement

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 the present 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;

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his
call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious
tolerance, peace and respect, by:

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; [http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf#page=3]

    In the first page of Ishanoglu's address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran. 

     The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and violence against religions, in particular, Islam.  The increasing incidents of violence and discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored.  We hope  that this and other related issues remain an important priority in the work of  the Council. 

    The most recent and unfortunate in the series of  such events was the announcement pertaining to Burn a Koran Day. 

   
    On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence. 

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures - both in policy md practice - which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC's call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear 'and present danger
to peace, security 'and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

    Lets clarify the issue of "clear and present danger to peace"; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.

• Incitement to violence:
  
  • fear mongering
  • discriminatory
  • ban minarets
  • incite hatred
  • Burn a koran Day
• other discriminatory measures

 Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=6

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=10

The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.

• Tea Party Platform
• Qur'an burning
• Radicalization Hearings

    Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August '11
http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english?mode=window&pageNumber=7
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

    In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

    According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur'an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan's Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur'an or Moe. 

    Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations. 

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 Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur'an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation. 

    What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death. 

• 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
  and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
  deserves to be killed.
• 08.7 (0: 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 beginningless
    eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
    deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
    Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
  • (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)
    belong 
  • (15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers
    or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
    (n: 'Ala' ai-Din 'Abidin adds the following:
  • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
    (17) to believe that things in themselves or
    by their own nature have any causal influence
    independent of the will of Allah;
  • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
    (def: w22), or the heavens;
  • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
    Sacred Law;
    (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
    Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him
    peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
    world (dis: w4.3--4) (al-Hadiyya al-'Ala'iyya (y4),
    423-24).)

• 011. IO 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 suhjects 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.
• 011.11 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 (09.14).
• O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
  caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: 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 (0: before
  the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
  then he may not be killed, and one of the other
  three alternatives is chosen.

    The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step. 

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=16

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

    After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=36

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;

    For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the "consequences" of their trial and execution of the Qur'an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did. 

    It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.   

Open Letter To Rick Santorum

Open Letter To Rick Santorum Dear Mr. Santorum,

Your answer to a question about national security issues involving Afghanistan  exposes a vital element of truth on the surface, while an unpleasant stream of hypocrisy flows beneath the surface.  

    Thanks and a tip of the hat to Paul Hoffman, whose Facebook post brought to my attention Robert Spencer's post, where I found this video clip. 

How long do you want to wait?  Until the security of our country is ensured, that's what the job of the commander of chief is and you make that decision, not the generals--you make that decision based on an analysis of how virulent the threat of radical Islam is and you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly, not just militarily, you confront it first by being honest with the American public about what this threat is. 

    This President has sanitized every defense document, everything, the word radical Islam does not appear anywhere , why? because we are fighting political correct -- we are trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulently they are and why they hate us and what we must do to stop...

 

how long ?

    The question of the duration of our occupation of Afghanistan can not be answered with a clock, calendar or time table. 

strategic objectives

national security

    If the strategic objective is to permanently end  Afghanistan's membership in the set of state sponsors of terrorism and prevent Afghanistan from being used as a training ground and staging area for terrorists, then the eradication of Islam from Afghanistan is the criteria for ending the occupation. We bring the troops home when the population of Afghanistan and their government are totally free from the influence of the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and enjoin genocidal conquest which is won by casting terror. 

    In that case, you remove our troops from Afghanistan when its population is either apostatized or converted and its government is able and willing to secure its borders against infiltration from neighboring countries infested with Muslims. 

free, democratic & secure

    If the strategic objective is, as Shrub stated, a free, democratic, secure & prosperous Afghanistan with a stable government which respects human equality, dignity & rights,  then cleansing Afghanistan from the infestation of Islam  is insufficient.  In this case, Afghanistan must be cleansed from its long tradition of tribalism and its honor/shame culture as well.  Good luck with that; measure the occupation in millenia, not centuries. 

how virulent

how infectious

    Islam spread from Mecca & Medina to infect all of Arabia, North Africa, the Levant, nearly half of Asia and South East Europe in a few centuries. Infected persons now infest Western Europe and America and are spreading the infection through our prisons and inner cities. 

how malignant

    It is impossible to count with accuracy, the many innocent victims of Islam, but the best estimate runs to 270 million. 

radical Islam

radical Englishmen

    Were the founders fighting 'radical' Englishmen in the Revolution against King George or were they fighting his army?

radical Nazis

    Was the greatest generation in combat against 'radical' Nazis ?  Were those 'radicals' a tiny minority of Nazis? Was there a peaceful majority of Nazis who did not want to participate in world conquest?

radical Communism

    Did millions die of starvation at the hands of Stalin, Mao & Pot because of an extraordinary, 'radical' variant of International Communism?  Was the Cold War fought against 'radcal' Communism or the real thing? 

radical Muslims

    Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it. I quote from Wikipedia's entry on the First Barbary War:  "On October 11, 1784, Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey.^[2] " ...  "Algeria began piracy against the U.S. on July 25, 1785 with the capture of the schooner Maria and the Dauphin a week later.^[5]"

    Where the Barbary Pirates 'radicals', 'perverting', 'distorting' and 'twisting' normative Islamic doctrine into a perverted form, or were they acting in obedience to Allah; emulating their Prophet?  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams put the question to Tripoli's Ambassador in 1785. His reply is a clue for you.

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. ^[12]

Koran

    Is that true? Is it really written in their Koran that they have a right and duty to plunder and enslave? 

right & duty

2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

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.   

   
    Ordained means it is Allah's law. "fight ... until" makes the statements imperative.  The Koran commands Muslims to wage perpetual war against disbelievers. 

plunder

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

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.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

    Isn't that special: the Koran has rules for distribution of spoils, in anticipation of offensive warfare.  Moe got the top 205, first pick of the spoils.  And as a Prophet, Moe was not allowed to ransom prisoners until he had made great slaughter. We learned that Moe's motivation was mercenary and Allah's is blood lust.

    Moe besieged a local Jewish settlement, overcame them with terrorism and seized their property, enslaving their widows & orphans.  Allah promised the Muslims "abundant spoils".

Paradise

9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.

48:17. No blame or sin is there upon the blind, nor is there blame or sin upon the lame, nor is there blame or sin upon the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whosoever obeys Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), He will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow (Paradise); and whosoever turns back, He will punish him with a painful torment.

61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

61:11.  That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.  

    If Muslims do  not join the jihad, they will go to Hell; if the fight, they will go to  There is a long and esoteric hadith about Umar's sending the army to fight the great nations, in which a Muslim General is quoted as explaining things to a Persian General in similar terms.   Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

.

"Its Islam, stupid!"

    What Allah commanded and Moe exemplified is  Islam, the real thing, not a distortion, twisting or perversion of Islam. There is no such thing as radical Islam.  Islam is what Moe preached & practiced, not the anodyne, passive & benevolent religion you wish it would be. 

not just militarily

    Islam can not be defeated militarily short of wholesale extermination.  If you are unable or unwilling to kill every Muslim on the face of the earth, then you must break their faith, you must induce mass apostasy. 

expose Allah

    Effectively combating Islam requires inducing mass apostasy by introducing the Ummah to the reality of Allah and his Messenger, their true character and works.  You must effectively discredit Moe, and thereby descredit Allah. You must expose the fallacy of Allah's promises. 

war of ideas

    If you would win this war, list the ideas of Islam and the ideas of Western Civilization and prove our ideas to be superior to theirs, in intrinsic merit as well as empirical results.

honest about the threat

    When you add adjectives or modifiers to the name of the enemy, you are not being honest.  The enemy is Islam, not 'radical Islam'. In the long run, the threat is existential; Islam is Hellbent on global conquest.  In the short run, the threat is continued and escalating attacks, large and small, against civilian targets.  Once Iran obtains a nuke and couples it with a delivery system, our cities will be in grave danger. 

politically correct

    President Bush called Islam a "great religion of peace" because he knew that, if the public knew the truth, there would be a massive popular demand for the eradication of the enemy.   President Obama repeats the same lie and declares that we are not at war against Islam because he is a traitor, one of them, not one of us.

sanitized

    President Obama has removed all reference to the false meme which has been substituted for the name of the enemy because he is politically correct, not factually correct. 

    In order to win, we need to identify and truthfully describe the enemy, its intentions and capacity. The traitor in the White House has no desire to defeat the enemy because he is one of them, at the head of the enemy's fifth column.    Removing all acknowledgment of the nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism is in compliance with the demands of Islam and the United Nations.

the enemy

    Islam, as revealed & exemplified by Moe.

virulence

    Islam demands that only Allah be worshiped, "alltogether and everywhere". Allah demands "great slaughter". The gates of Paradise will not swing open to Muslims until they exterminate the Jews. 

why they hate us

    Because we are not Muslims. Disbelief is a status offense, called Kufr: rebellion against Allah, the punishment for which is described in 5:33 and the definition of which is found in Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

what we must do

    Either cause Muslims to quit believing in Allah, his threat & promise, breaking his yoke of slavery or cause them to quit living.  That should be an easy choice.

I want you to:

    Take your own advice, be honest about the identity of the enemy, its character, ability & intentions and what we must do to win this war and restore peace 7 security. First and foremost: quit adding adjectives to the name of the enemy.

Unthinking Regression: Bashing Santorum over 'Islamophobia'

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/01/05/398688/santorum-islam-eradicate/... Think Progress uttered & published a nasty diatribe against Rick Santorum. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Bare Naked Islam. UPDATED With Audio: Rick Santorum’s Islamophobia Problem By Ali Gharib on Jan 5, 2012 at 5:33 pm right-wing That is one of the favorite slurs of LibTards. The connotation is Nazi~fascist but there is no linkage between Conservatism and National Socialism or fascism. The Declaration of Independence & Constitution are not related to Mein Kampf. attitude toward Islam Given the Author's name, it is easy to predict what follows. Anyone not in love with Islam must be extremely evil. endorsed profiling When we hear hoof beats, do we look out for unicorns? The Magnificent Nineteen were all Muslims. They pronounced Takbir while slitting the throats of the flight crews. Their leader ordered them to do so: "Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.". The man who co-ordinated Atta's martyrdom operation proudly declared that the attack was done as an act of worship: "These actions are our offerings to God." The fine art of hijacking airliners was popularized and perfected by Muslims. Why then should the attention of the TSA be directed anywhere other than towards Muslims? We could save a great deal of time, money and hassle by simply banning Muslims from mass transit vehicles and terminals. “radical Islam” Islam does not require modifiers; I wish that everyone, including Rick Santorum, would quit wasting words and call it what it is: Islam. Use of modifiers such as "radical" falsely implies the existence of an anodyne, passive & benign normative Islam. Jihad, defined in Islamic law as: "to war against non-Muslims", is "ordained" for Muslims. "casting terror" is a battle tactic sanctified by Allah and bragged about by Moe. Muslims are promised extra credit (deed of righteousness) for any act taken to injure or enrage disbelievers. Genocidal jihad & terrorism are normative Islam, neither extreme nor radical; participation in them is a function of intense belief, neither innovation nor esoteric doctrine. conflates extremists with the entire Muslim faith The Magnificent Nineteen were believers, not extremists. Islam does not have extremists, it has believers who obey Allah and emulate Moe. all-encompassing ideology Islam is a "Deen": way of life. The Qur'an & hadith dictate everything from conception to burial. If you have any doubt, examine the table of contents of Sahih Buchari, the most authentic hadith collection, and Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari'ah. religious freedom Conquered Jews & Christians are not permitted to display crosses, ring bells, hold religious processions, pray or read the Bible aloud in public, build or maintain churches. Doubters & dissenters should read Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11.5. It is assumed that Islam is a religion, and therefore we are obligated by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, to permit Muslims to practice it here. Under that assumption, Muslims have a right to attack, plunder & kill us and enslave our widows & orphans. The ignorant masses are not cognizant of the fact that Islam entails those actions. Allah commanded Muslims to attack Jews and Christians; to wage war against them until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. That command is clear on the face of 9:29, confirmed by Moe in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified in Islamic law by Reliance of the Traveller O9.8. Muslims are commanded to attack those disbelievers nearest them in 9:123. A minimum of one military expedition must be mounted in every year, and if neglected when possible, all who know of the obligation are in sin, specified in Reliance of the Traveller O9.1. Disbelieving men are killed; their widows & orphans enslaved as exemplified by 33:26-27 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller. O9.13 - 9.14. Islam is not "cafeteria Catholicism", it is all or nothing. This quote from 2:85 makes the matter crystal clear: "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." Muslims are threatened with "painful torment" in Hell if they shirk jihad and promised eternity in Allah's celestial bordello if they go to war. If a Muslim truly believes Allah's threat and promise, what will he do? Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, besides confirming the jihad imperatives, has vital clues for you: you are the prey, its open season, and you have no rights, as made clear by these excerpts: "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 " "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." If Muslims have a right to practice Islam then our rights to life, liberty & property are abrogated; null and void. Which is it? One or the other, not both; either we have a right to live free and secure in our property or they have a right to practice Islam. Which is it? Dialogue The article quotes Santorum [Emphasis original.] Until we have the kind of discussion and dialogue with Islam — that democracy and freedom of religion, along with religious pluralism, are essential for the stability of the world and our ability to cohabit in this world. Unless Islam is willing to make that conscious decision, then we are going to be at war for a long time. . The proposed dialogue is useless because jihad is ordained for Muslims, required to be performed in every year until the last day or until the entire world is conquered, whichever comes first. Islam is theocratic, not democratic because only Allah has the right to legislate. Religious pluralism is out of the question because 3:2 "Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), " Also Muslims are commanded to wage war until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale, in 8:39. If Muslims abandon jihad in favor of trade, commerce or agriculture, Allah will make disgrace to prevail over them. Islamophobia Phobia implies irrational fear or loathing. Fear and loathing of Islam are anything but irrational. Since 622, Islam has been responsible for 270*106 premature deaths. Both the doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and the resulting conquest which built an empire that encompassed nearly half the world confirm the fact that Islam is a worthy object of fear & loathing. extremist ideologies The concluding paragraph demonstrates unwillingness to face the fatal fact of Islam. No decent American — or anyone across the globe — should oppose “eradicat(ing)” extremist ideologies like militant, “radical Islam.” But Santorum’s history of statements raises questions about just exactly what and who he’s targeting for eradication. The founder of Islam declared that he was: * ordered to fight * commanded to fight * made victorious by awe * made victorious by terror * and would prefer o to be martyred in Al1ah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred. That is not an extremist; that is not a radical; that is the role model for all Muslims to emulate, in all places, at all times. Normative Islam is defined by the Qur'an and exemplified by Moe's sunnah. As a wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!". Secure peace can not be established without eradicating Islam.

Response to Keith: An Apologist For Islam

Response to Keith: An Apologist For Islam http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/bare-naked-islam-is-back-sort-of/

Bare Naked Islam is one of the great ani-Islamic blogs. I frequently find interesting information there. Unfortunately, WordPress is forcing it to close down as of January 6.  Someone going by the screen name: "Keith" commented Sunday, using argumentum ad homimem.  I did not respond directly to his comment, instead responding to another commenter.  Keith's comment and mine are reproduced below.

Keith

January 1, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Not to put to much effort into giving you nuts a dose of reality but…THIS is NOT a First Amendment Issue…BNI does not HAVE a first amendment right in this issue because WordPress is privately owned. First amendment rights ONLY apply to Public forums and public areas. You can say what you want on a public sidewalk, more or less, but you cannot say it on MY yard. I have the right to get rid of you. WORDPRESS is not public property.
NOW as for TOS one only need read some of the comments to see that they would violate ANY website TOS with the language, the veiled threats and in some cases the calls for violence.
IF BNI goes elsewhere and does not better regulate the comment section it will be closed down again…that’s just reality…so if you people want this pile of islamophobic dog crap website to remain, stop being morons.

dajjal

January 2, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Mama Grizley, unfortunately Keith is right about the First Amendment issue, it applies to the Federal Gov’t., not to private entities. There might be a weak case for tortuous interference against CAIR, but their deep pockets could drag anyone through the courts for years, with little chance of prevailing.

Of course, Keith is totally wrong in his opinion of this blog, its commentators & content. Evidently he either did not read or could not comprehend the cut line on the banner. Given Noble Qur’an 8:39, 9:5, 9:29 & 9:123, there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Loathing of Islam is well warranted by the fatal facts: 270 million innocent victims in 1400 years.

    Examine the arguments Keith used:

Ad Hominem:

you nuts

    Keith labels the blog owner and commentators insane, without any basis in fact.

dose of reality

    The numerous embedded videos at Bare Naked Islam reflect a grim reality: the true nature of Islam and practices of its adherents. Keith dismisses them  with baseless derision.

islamophobic

    Phobia implies irrational fear or loathing. There is nothing irrational about fear and loathing of Islam.  We need look no further than Islamic scripture to find the proof of this fact. 

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

• so as to strike terror
• strike terror in those

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.

• to strike terror
• you terrorize/terrify with it God's enemy
• Cause terror with this
• you terrorize/terrify with it
• to terrify
• by which you may terrify
• to put fear in
• that you may instil fear
• to cause fear
• to put fear
• that you may instil fear

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

   
    Allah sanctified terror, declared that he would cast terror and cast terror resulting in death, captivity & dispossession. Allah told Moe that the Jews were more afraid of him than of  Allah.   Moe bragged that terror made him victorious.  The best estimate of Islam's victims is 270,000,000.  The accusation of irrationality is malignant malarkey at its worst. 

pile of dog crap

    With more than 3000 pages,  3000 unique visitors per day and 110,000 page views per month, there must be a very large number of people interested in 'dog crap'.  What drew Keith to read and comment on 'dog crap'? 

morons

    Morons can't stop being morons. Those born with substandard intellectual capacity can't increase it. 

Facts

    In sum, Keith has two valid factual arguments about the First Amendment and blog terms of service.  The rest is baseless insult.   Unfortunately for Keith, the facts are arrayed on our side, not his. 

    Keith subsequently returned to spew more venom. Take a close look:

Keith

January 3, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Jugger, the problem is BNI does NOT post fact. BNI posts opinions that are ALWAYS geared against Islam…so not honest at all…it wouldbe good if the same was done against Judaism and Christianity and the other religions…but ONLY Islam gets this dishonest treatement…the question is why?

 

posts

    BNI posts news stories, mostly containing video evidence of the reality of Islam.  BNI and readers comment on those news stories. Nobody compels anyone to read those posts or comments.  Anyone who does not like them can close the tab or window and seek more satisfying web sites.

always against Islam

    There are no facts in favor of Islam.  Islam's own canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence defines Islam as a barbarian war cult, a continuing criminal enterprise disguised as a religion.  BNI exposes the grim reality of Islam, it makes no pretense of balance, it takes a side.

Tu quoque

    Judaism & Christianity do not have scriptural imperatives to genocidal global conquest.  The Judaic conquest imperative was limited to Canaan,  once that conquest was finished,  Israel's battles were defensive, not offensive.  No matter how long or intensely you search the Gospels and Book of Acts, you will not find, in the New Testament, Jesus issuing functional equivalents of  NQ 2:256, 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 8:67, 9:5,  9:29,  9:111, 9:120 & 9:123.  You will not find Jesus  making a declaration equivalent to Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367.  Note to high functioning Morons: parables & metaphors do not cut the mustard:

    Luke 19:9-27 does not cut the mustard because it is a parable, not an imperative.  Matt 10:34 does not cut the mustard, it is a metaphor for personal relationships, not a war imperative. [http://infidelsunited.com/documents/2944/163/standing-challenge-to-muslims]

dishonest

    Exactly what has BNI posted that is not factually true?  Point out the lies and show your evidence to prove that they are lies. 

only Islam

    Where is the Christian genocidal conquest imperative? Where are Christians, emulating Jesus by abductions, murders & mass casualty attacks against non-combatant civilians?  Anyone thus engaged would be acting in contravention of the teachings of Jesus, not in emulation & obedience.

Keith

January 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Christopher…Islam is no more a threat to the constitution than any other religion that people want to force upon us instead of the constitution…something MANY Christians for instance have been very vocal about…yet no one says anything about THESE radicals. Let’s be clear on facts for you…Islam is a religion…your incorrect opinion that it is not is irrelevant. ACCORDING to the Constituion, they have freedom of religion just like anyone else with the same limits as everyone else…if you don’t like this, then feel free to leave.

Christian Constitutional threat

    This nation was founded by Christians, as a non-sectarian government.  The establishment clause of the First Amendment is there for good reason, there was sufficient experience with sectarianism in Europe and the colonies. . 

Constitutional threat

    BNI frequently quotes a leader of CAIR declaring a desire to see Shari'ah supplant the Constitution.  Our organic documents enshrine and protect human dignity, equality, liberty and rights.  The Constitution is man made law, which Islam arbitrarily rejects. Islam demands imposition of Allah's law: Shari'ah, what Moe preached and exemplified.  In the last thirty years, 50 trial and appellate  decisions have involved conflicts between Shari;ah and the Constitution & l;aws of the United States.

Islam is not a religion

    Islam is a continuing criminal enterprise disguised as a religion. Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial.  The 'original religion' of Islam is jihad.

Sunan 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.

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. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

freedom of religion

    Freedom of religion is for religions, not continuing criminal enterprises.  Islam entails genocidal conquest.  It can not be properly practiced without engaging in genocidal conquest.  If there is a right to practice Islam, than all our human rights are abrogated.  Rather than repeat the obvious, I direct doubters & dissenters to full documentation of the fatal facts.

Keith

January 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Claes, BNI has no stand to sue…Wordpress is not owned by the public, it is privately owned, as such the First Amendment does not apply. They are free to create their own rules (TOS) and enforce them as they see fit…BNI agreed to this when creating the BLOG.

legal standing

    WordPress, acting of its own free will, can enforce their TOS against BNI. If  CAIR interfered in the relationship between BNI and WordPress, then there might be a cause for litigation. 

    If an agency of the federal government, acting under color of the Istanbul Process for implementing HRC Res 16/18, prevailed on WordPress to sanction BNI, then there would be a clear First Amendment issue.  In either case, proving tortuous interference would probably be an insurmountable barrier.

Keith

January 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Natalie let’s clear up a few things since you’re obviously confused. I have stated other places that I am not Muslim. I am not Christian, I am not Jewish, I in fact follow NO religion. Thre reason is simple, religion is nonsense. It is a sedative for the weak and small minded that need to believe they are special, and that some invisible mythological sky bully is up in the clouds and watching them…nonsense.

Now that, THAT is cleared up lets move on. I am not a wimp at all, and have stood up to bullies my whole life, even doing so when I SERVED this nation in the United States Navy…that’s right ass clowns, I’m a vet. I served with Jews, Christians, Muslims, and even a Druid or two, and learned a lot about their respective religions and the nonsense they believe. One thing I learned with respect to Islam is that RADICAL ISLAM is not true Islam. Radical Islam is Islam’s version of the KKK.

Now ignoring terrorism, sinec MOST Muslims do not believe in it, and moving on to your other complaints about the crimes committed against men, women, and children, I feel the same outrage as I do when I hear about Mormons marrying children, Or Orthodox Jews spitting on little girls and calling them whores. Or Christian’s shooting doctors because they perform abortions. I know that these people are committing their crimes, their acts of “BULLYING” and using their religion as justificiation. I don’t hold the religion responsible for the acts of idiots.

I would REMIND you, child, that Muslims defend you EVERY DAY serving willfully and honorably in the military. The only ones that make the news however are the ones that do something bad (see ft hood)

And when a Muslim deos something good no one sees, listens, or cares, like the muslim that alerted police to a something suspicious in New York a few years ago that turned out to be a bomb.

The fact is that there are BAD CRIMES committed everyday and none of them have anything to do with religion. People do not do bad things because they are muslim, they do bad things because they are bad people. They use their religion as justification but that does not mean the relgion actually condones it. There have been dozens of Fatwas (spelling) against the things you’re complaining about, something you’d know if you did some research, but people still do bad things claiming it is in the name of islam.

The sad fact is that there are TOO MANY people like you. People not grown up enough, or experienced enough, or educated enough to know what the world is really like and what people are really like. IF ISLAM vanished tomorrow, all the horrible things would stillhappen, they’d just use a different excuse.

SO, until you are READY to condemn Christianity, Judaism, and the REST of the religions out there for the terrorist acts committed in THEIR supposed name, stop singling out Islam because you don’t like it.

As for your childish accusation of me being a pedophile, I’ll just forgive it and chalk it up you your obvious youth and ignorance.

Radical Islam

    There is no such entity!  As a wise man wrote:  "Its Islam, stupid!". Islam has a standard, set by Moe's preaching & practice, which are recorded in the Qur'an & hadith. 

terrorism

    I don't give a damn how many Muslims believe in it or abjure it. Terrorism is an inseverable intrinsic sacrament of Islam. "I will cast terror, "Allah cast terror" "I have been made victorious with terror" Islam is all or nothing, a package deal: "Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?" . "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow".  "...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."  The arrogance of these liars who defend the indefensible is infuriating!  Any step taken to injure or enrage a disbeliever is a deed of righteousess!!! That says it all, putting the lie to the Moronic protestations of innocent, moderate Islam. 

    Three thousand people are dead and thousands more injured because the magnificent nineteen  believed Allah's threat & promise, implementing his accursed imperative.  Ain't that sufficient?

Keith

January 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Dajjal I am of course not wrong…I’m simply, based on the errors in your posting, smarter and better educated than you are. OR you are a LIAR…you get to choose.

TO CLAIM that there is no such thing as Islamophobia is a BOLD FACED FALSE statement. To claim there is no such thing as islamophobia is the same as claiming there is no such thing as racism, or sexism, etc etc. You think by denying its existance it gives you license to engage in it.

It doesn’t.

It does exist and you are one such person that engages in it.

You want to continue to be part of the problem? Then keep lying like the rest of these childish cowards and dullards.

IF YOU want to truly be part of some kind of solution then the first thing you have to do is recognize your own failings, and dismiss your phobia, and THEN engage the very people you falsely judge and get their help….that’s how you make solutions…not by lying about people you know nothing about.

As for teh number of people killed by Islam, I find your numbers to be nonsense….and if you want to play that game, how many killed by the terrorists of Christianity, or the VILLANS of Judaism…play fair boy, or don’t play.

smarter

    I have a tested verbal IQ of 140. I have 140 hours of college credit with a GPA of 3.25. 

liar

    You called BNI a pile of dog excrement.  In fact, it is a blog, with plenty of well documented facts and opinions based on those facts.  I did not fabricate anything or tell any lies in my reply to Mama Grizley's comment.  In this response to your comments, I have quoted the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic law, in each case I have supplied links so that readers can verify the authenticity of the quotes and explore the context.  You have personal attacks, diversions and false, ignorant assertions. I have relevant, verifiable, well documented facts. 

Islamophobia

    I took that lie apart and disproved it with factual evidence in a previous paragraph. Click the linked heading to review the details.

part of the problem

    The problem is Islam, a set of doctrines which sanctifies men's worst impulses, sanctioning barbarity in the 'service of god'.  I am not part of that problem, I am exposing the problem. BNI exposes Islam with video evidence.  I expose it with textual evidence from Islam's canon. 

lying

    Islam is a lie, told by a liar.  Moe did not receive divine inspiration or revelation, he  took advantage of hallucinations and issued situational scripture to permit himself to sin.  Refer to the following documents for the gritty details.

• Moe's Divine Inspiration
• Revelations

number of victims

    The number is not mine, the statistic was compiled by someone else. Only Islam has an open ended, unlimited genocide imperative.  8:39 & 9:29 are fight until loops of global scale, terminated only by total global conquest and subjugation. 8:67 makes "great slaughter" Moe's price of admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 47:4 tells Moe not to take prisoners until he has "killed and wounded many of them. 

Christian terrorists

    Show me the New Testament book, chapter & verse wherein Jesus Christ sanctions, sanctifies and exemplifies terrorism.  Christians acting like Muslims would be contravening Christ's teaching and example, obeying Allah and emulating Moe instead of  Christ.