Blasphemy Laws Counter to Islam? Malignant Malarkey!

Salam Al Marayati , President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council--DC risked exposure of Islam with an article in the Huffington Post.  Google alerted me to it. 

Blasphemy Laws Are Against Islam

Blasphemy laws or laws prohibiting defamation of a religion are incompatible with Islamic thought and philosophy. The concept of Defamation of Religions denies a person their free will to choose -- one of God's greatest gifts to humanity -- and deprives individuals of their right to free speech and expression. It also creates a climate of intolerance that can breed discrimination and violence.

 

Islam does not conceive of free will, it operates on paradigm of predestination.  I refer doubters & dissenters to Malik's Muwatta 46.1.2

The climate of intolerance springs from the Qur'an. 3:85 is extremely intolerant.  Likewise the violence: from Surahs 8 & 9.

Its implementation would illustrate Muslim suppression of Western standards of freedom of speech 

Like Reliance of the Traveller O11.5 & O11.10 ?

The Quran mandates "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:256). This Quranic injunction is meant to protect freedom of religious belief and expression for all people; it is also meant to prohibit any government or group of people from intruding on the private lives of its people. Islam calls for the freedom, not for the suppression, of free speech and it condemns violations of fundamental human rights.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

3:112. Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allâh, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allâh) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh's disobedience, crimes and sins).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

In fact, the Quran documents the criticism of Islam by poets and political leaders at the time of its revelation. Though the Prophet was accused of sorcery and mania, in each and every case, God did not order him to punish the blasphemers. Instead, His order to the Prophet was to respond to their hate speech with good speech and good work. In other words, Islam calls for freedom of speech and for competing freely in the marketplace of ideas. No one has the right to play the role of God on this earth.

The hadith, Tabari's Tahrik and Ishaq's Sira document what Moe did to those critics. Here is one sample for your edification.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

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

When Rep. Peter King held a hearing on "radicalization of American Muslims" attempting to stereotype all American Muslims,

Rep. King investigated "radicalization", not Islam; not Muslims.  He heard testimony from the father of a terrorist, who was converted in a Mosque. Converted, not radicalized.  Terrorism is an Intrinsic Sacrament of Islam contains the details from the Qur'an & hadith for those who want them.

The proposed U.N. resolution on "Defamation of Religions" will certainly not prevent discrimination against Muslims, nor will it fight religious intolerance. Its passage would only further fuel anti-Muslim stereotyping and hatred.

Every time those idiots propose one of those resolutions, I exploit it as an opportunity to expose the rotten core of Islam, as I did in another post earlier this morning. This time they called it "freedom of religion and belief".

We must seek essential reforms that, along with our own honorable actions, will protect and exalt the name of Islam.

 

Islam can not be reformed, it is perfect already, and Allah's word can not be changed.

"Good and evil are not equal; so repel evil with something good and better so that the one with whom there is enmity will become a close friend."

Yeah, right. 23 & 28 were "revealed" in Mekkah, 8 & 9 were "revealed" later at Medina, so  those relatively tolerant verses are abrogated by 8:39 & 9:29. 

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

With one day remaining for submission of a new draft resolution on combating defamation of religions, none having appeared and two days of private OIC meetings, now comes  the "Draft Resolution "Freedom of Religion and Belief"  which does not identify its sponsors.  This document appears to reflect the American delegation's stated rejection of the defamation concept. I suspect a clever scheme resolving to subvert our right of free expression by consensus, without a vote.

    Although slightly sanitized, the draft remains obnoxious to life and liberty.  It seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam, subordinating our right of free expression to the Muslim's imaginary 'right' to shield their damnable doctrines from critical examination and exposure.  It demands tolerance of the intolerable.  It demands that our schools be turned into Islamic indoctrination centers.

    Like most U.N.H.R.C.  resolutions, this draft leans heavily on references to previous documents, those I could locate are listed and linked at the end of the post.

PP4  Reaffirming that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and
interrelated (PP5/HRC/RES/10/25)

    This is a clever ruse: conflating our right to free expression with the freedom of belief.  Their freedom to believe must not in any measure diminish our right to express our opinions about their belief system and practices.

PP5  Stressing that persons belonging to religious minorities should be able to live
safely and to exercise freely their freedom of religion or belief; (NEW)

    The right to live, safely, free from threat and assault is a given, already stated in existing human rights covenants.  The problem is in the last clause: asserting the right of free exercise of religion or belief.  

    It is not possible that anyone can have a right to exercise their demon's mandate to invade and conquer us, to rape our widows and enslave our orphans. Such a 'right' abrogates our right to live free from attack. 

    Islam imposes fard al-kifaya which binds all eligible adult  male male Muslims to engage in a minimum of one military attack against disbelievers in every year. The obligation is discharged against the community when a sufficient number have answered the call to jihad.  This fard is codified in Reliance of the Traveller O9.1  The fard is more clearly expressed in this quote from the founder of the Shafi'ite school of fiqh.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    Jihad is mandatory, not optional.  Jihad is the "original religion" of Islam. Jihad is "holy fighting" in "Allah's cause",  Islamic law defines it as "to war against non-Muslims,".

    Islam is inseverable, all or nothing; not cafeteria Catholicism.  If Muslims have a right to practice Islam, then we have no right to live, no right to be secure and no right to be free. All of which are confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387: "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 ".  Our blood is not sacred to Muslims until we join them in slavery to the demon.

    Rights must be reciprocal and global.  But Islam denies our rights to believe and practice or not as we see fit. Nothing in this resolution alters that fatal fact. 

3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.

    If only Allah has the right to be worshiped, then we have no right to worship any other deity. Let that sink in for a moment before examining a crucial part of Shari'ah. 

O11.5 [...]

-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.

    Under Islam, rights are a one way street; only Muslims have them.

PP9 Underlining further that schools may offer unique possibilities for constructive
dialogue among all parts of society and human rights education in particular can
contribute to the elimination of negative stereotypes that often adversely affect
members of religious minorities (new, inspired from HRC/16/53 558);

    They want our schools to indoctrinate our children to tolerate the intolerable.  Note the key phrase I have highlighted. "Negative stereotypes" is an equivalent alternative to "defamation".  That is an indirect reference to knowledge of the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. They want that knowledge erased.

Stresses that everyone has the right to freedom of belief, which includes the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one's
choice and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance, including the right to change one's religion or belief; (PP6/UNGA 64/164)

    The restatement of the free practice demand is redundant, but not the highlighted clause in the last sentence.  I suspect that clause was inserted as a poison pill because it directly contradicts Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for apostasy. 

OP2 Emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are
interdependant, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses further the role
these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief (OP4, UNGA resol 651122)

    Tolerance of Islam is not possible; the demonic mandate to terrorize & conquer is absolutely intolerable, as are rape, pillage & plunder.  Freedom of expression includes the right to speak and write the truth about Islam.  That right must not be diminished by any law, national or international or any U.N . resolution!  The trials of Elizabeth Sabaditch-Wolff and Geert Wilders for speaking truthfully about Islam  are proof of the existing abrogation of the right of free expression.

OP4 Condemns all forms of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on or in the
name of religion or belief, as well as violations of the freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or belief; (OP1, RES/14/11) as well as 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; (OP3, RES 14/11)

    The first highlighted clause is redundant, look to the second.  What is the definition of "advocacy of religious hatred"?  The Secretary General let the cat out of the bag when he remarked about the short film by Geert Wilders. 

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.”

Fitna describes and demonstrates hate speech & incitement; it is not hate speech neither is it incitement; it is proof of the fact that the Qur'an & hadith are hate speech and incitement.    In a just world, it would not be possible to prevent or punish publication of Fitna.  The U.N. intends, with high sounding but excessively broad terms, to proscribe truthful expression about Islam. That egregious violation of free speech can not be accepted!

OP5 Condemns recent attacks of terrorism targetting individuals belonging to religious
groups across the world. (NEW)

    What is terrorism?  There is no official definition because Muslims reserve attacks on Jews  as "justified resistance"

OP6 Emphasizes that States have an obligation to protect persons belonging to religious
minorities and should exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish actsof
violence against them, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may
constitute a human rights violation (inspired from OP9, UNGA65/211)

    Why restate the obvious?  Governments have no other purpose; they are for protection from attack.  If they do not protect their citizens, they are worthless; part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt can burn churches, attack and kill Christians with impunity. Everybody knows it and nobody will do anything about it, this resolution to the contrary not withstanding. OP6 is an egregious insult.

a) To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and
effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief to all
without distinction, inter alia, by the provision of access to justice and effective remedies
in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, or the
right to freely practise one's religion, including the right to change one's religion or
belief, is violated ;

    Which freedom is missing from that section?  Which constitutionally protected right does A/RES/65/199 demand be abrogated?  Get a clue!

To ensure in particular the right of all persons to worship, assemble or teach in
connection with a religion or belief and their right to establish and maintain places for
these purposes, and the right of all persons to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas in these areas;

    They postulate a right to build mosques, so that we can not proscribe their construction. In reality, mosques are being constructed as outposts from which to mount new attacks.

h) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in conformity
with internationa human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members of groups
to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully
respected and protected;  

   
    That section is a thinly veiled attack at proscription of fund raising for terrorism, an attempt to reverse the convictions in the Holy Land Foundation case.

(j) To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international
standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of
violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief,
as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to members of
religious minorities in all parts of the world;

    This section is redundant but it needs to be addressed again. Islam is intolerable, it is impossible for an informed lover of liberty to tolerate it. "Incitement to hostility and violence", as defined by the Secretary General, is far too broad; unacceptably so as it would outlaw all truthful expression about Islam. 

---

References:

• A/RES/36/55
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• A/HRC/RES/14/11
• Resolution 10/25.
• A/HRC/16/53
• A/RES/64/164
• A/RES/64/164
• A/HRC/14/L.5
• A/65/211
• A/HRC/16/53

U.N.: Resolves to Outlaw PVV

U.N.: Resolvea to Outlaw PVV "Defamation/vilification of Religion" resolutions are not the only venue for U.N. censorship.  Here we have a prime example of the breadth of the threat to freedom of expression which stems from an attempt to shield a predatory institution from exposure and condemnation. They seek, consistent with Reliance of the Traveller O8.7 & O11.10,  to  criminalize all questioning and criticism of Moe's piracy cult and its program of genocidal conquest & plunder.

A/RES/65/199

RESOLUTION FOR THE 65TH SESSION OF GA - INADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN PRACTICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO FUELLING CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE

    In reading the spew of feces which flows from the United Nations, we must constantly keep one fatal fact in mind. 'racism', 'contemporary forms of racism' & 'related intolerance' are code words for 'Islamophobia' which is a code word encompassing any and all questioning or criticism of & objection to Islam.

The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference  [Emphasis added.] 4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

    The feces begins flowing from ¶6, but at that point it is too diluted to be easily recognized.  The turgid stream condenses and the lumps begin surfacing at ¶17. Note the highlighted phrases below.

17. Also reaffirms that, as underlined in paragraph 13 of the outcome
document of the Durban Review Conference, any advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
should be prohibited by law, as should the dissemination of ideas based on racial
superiority, hatred, acts of violence or incitement to such acts, and that these
prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;

18. Expresses concern about the use of the Internet to propagate racism,
racial hatred, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance, as outlined
in the latest report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly;

19. Underlines, at the same time, the positive role that the exercise of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as full respect for the freedom to
seek, receive and impart information, including through the Internet, can play in
combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

20. Encourages those States that have made reservations to article 4¹ of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to
give serious consideration to withdrawing such reservations as a matter of priority, as
stressed by the Special Rapporteur in his latest report to the General Assembly;

    "Advocacy of religious hatred"  is an ambiguous & amorphous term which paints with a broad brush.  We will look to a statement by the Secretary General for a working definition.

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.”

    A short documentary video illustrating the clear association of terrorism with Islam's canon of scripture & tradition is hate speech & incitement to violence.  That stands as the official U.N. definition of the terms.  Keep the working definition in mind as we scroll up to the preamble of the resolution.

Alarmed, in this regard, at the spread in many parts of the world of various
extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and
skinhead groups, as well as similar extremist ideological movements,

    The U.N. is painting with a broad brush, smearing the PVV and similar parties springing up in Europe with the blood of innocent Jews murdered by Hitler and his henchmen.  This is guilt by association in the absence of genuine association.

9. Also stresses that such practices fuel contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the
spread and multiplication of various extremist political parties, movements and
groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups, and in this regard calls for
increased political and legal vigilance;

10. Emphasizes the need to take the measures necessary to put an end to the
practices described above, and calls upon States to take more effective measures in
accordance with international human rights law to combat those phenomena and the
extremist movements, which pose a real threat to democratic values;

    Got a clue yet?  Perhaps some additional detail will help you to sort it out.

16. Reaffirms that, according to article 4 of the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States parties to that
instrument are, inter alia, under the obligation:
(a) To condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas
of racial superiority or that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and
discrimination in any form;
(b) To undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to
eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination, with due regard to the
principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights
expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention;
(c) To declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas
based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well
as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons
of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist
activities, including the financing thereof;
(d) To declare illegal and prohibit organizations and organized and all other
propaganda activities that promote and incite racial discrimination, and to recognize
participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(e) To prohibit public authorities or public institutions, national or local,
from promoting or inciting racial discrimination;

    By conflating opposition to Islamic genocidal violent terrorism with racism, they are demanding that PVV and similar parties be outlawed. "Propaganda activities" is broad enough to include my blog posts which expose the demonic core of Islam to public view on the internet. 

---

 

"I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
       (1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States contain extensive protections of individual freedom of speech, expression and association. Accordingly, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention, in particular under articles 4 and 7, to restrict those rights, through the adoption of legislation or any other measures, to the extent that they are protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
       (2) That the Constitution and laws of the United States establish extensive protections against discrimination, reaching significant areas of non-governmental activity. Individual privacy and freedom from governmental interference in private conduct, however, are also recognized as among the fundamental values which shape our free and democratic society. The United States understands that the identification of the rights protected under the Convention by reference in article 1 to fields of `public life' reflects a similar distinction between spheres of public conduct that are customarily the subject of governmental regulation, and spheres of private conduct that are not. To the extent, however, that the Convention calls for a broader regulation of private conduct, the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
       (3) That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

       II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understanding, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

       That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments. To the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall, as necessary, take appropriate measures to ensure the fulfilment of this Convention.

       III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declaration:

       That the United States declares that the provisions of the Convention are not self-executing."

Untitled

A letter from Article 19 and numerous other human rights groups to the UNHRC and member states urges them to vote against resolutions condemning

• defamation
• denigration
• vilification
• negative stereotyping [omitted from list]
  • of religions.

    The primary issue is exploitation of blasphemy laws to persecute minorities and perpetrate injustice against individual members of minority groups. The secondary issue is the rights of freedom of expression and belief.  People should be free to discuss religious ideas and practices openly, free from threat of prosecution & persecution. 

    This issue flows directly from Islam's literalism, absolutism & supremacism.  The narrative of Islam tells us that Muhammad received divine revelation through the agency of Jibril, at once confirming and superseding earlier scriptures.  Because Moe is the seal of the prophets, his revelation is final.  Because Moe said that Allah said that it is from Allah, it is perfect.  That makes Islam right and everything else wrong. 

    Surah Al-Ma'idah 33 specifies the punishment for waging "war against Allah and and his Messenger", listing options from expulsion to execution. Tafsir Ibn Kathir defines "wage war" in the following terms: "`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways." Disbelief, opposition & contradiction are capital offenses in Islam.  That makes any affirmation of Christian faith a capital offense subject to the death penalty. Because only Allah has the right to be worshiped, you have no right to worship otherwise.

    For the practical application, we must turn to Shari'ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller. First, we should examine the penalty for apostasy and the penalty applied to dhimmis who violate Islam's stricture.  Both apostates and offending dhimmis are subject to  execution.

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 representive) 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.

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.

    Dhimmis: conquered Jews & Christians dominated by Muslims, suffer certain restrictions under Islamic law. Examine them carefully.

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.

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:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

    What is impermissible to mention?  For the answer, we turn to a list of 20 acts which entail apostasy.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-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). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

    Previous resolutions demanded that member states pass & enforce legislation prohibiting and punishing violation of those rules.  They specify associating Islam with terrorism and implicitly condemn Fitna & the MoToons.

    The deadline for submitting draft resolutions is Thursday March 17; the 16^th session concludes March 25.   No draft resolutions have been listed in the extranet and none were listed in the email document release notice.  It is likely that the resolution will be introduced at the last moment and rammed through in a hurry.  It is possible that the OIC will follow the precedent set by withdrawing the draft resolution condemning International Burn the Koran Day and abort the resolution rather than see it defeated.

    Now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot.  Go to http://www.congress.org/ to send emails to President Obama, your Representative & Senators demanding a vote against the resolution.  HR 141 is still bottled up in committee with little hope of being voted out for a floor vote before the HRC votes on their resolution. Mention it to your Rep. and urge him to cosign it and push for its passage.

Stop the Ground Zero Rajab!!

ACLJ's litigation against the Ground Zero Mosque project is going forward, with oral arguments tomorrow. Jordan seeks to maximize the impact of popular opposition by gaining more signatures on their on line petition.  If you have not yet signed the petition, use this link to go Jordan's note, which has a link to the petition at the end. 

    This is not really an issue of desecration of sacred soil, neither is it an issue of sensitivity.  It is an issue of supremacism. Islamic doctrine holds that Islam must be superior; it must be in a dominant position. 

    Park 51 is not a 'community center', nor is it strictly a mosque; it is a rajab: a fortification built on a site of conquest as a symbol of supremacy and a staging area for further expansion through military expeditions

    Islamic supremacism is best summarized in one ayat: 9:33 and Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65 but it is far deeper and broader than that.  Three blog posts on that subject have been compiled into a chm file: Islamic Supremacism.  Triumphalism  is a similar, related and conjoined concept covered in: Know Thine Enemy Part 11. 

King Hearing: Ellison's Excuses

This video features a Congressman and a comedian discussing Islam. I won't accept either of them as an authoritative source.  For the purpose of this post I ignore the comedian's comments and questions, concentrating on the Congressman's misrepresentations.   Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning.

"They're not getting it from the Qur'an, lets use this point for a moment, because as you know as a student of religion, books are complex, they are compiled, taking them out of context is a very easy thing to do.

Why don't you read the part where it says that anyone who takes a life its as if he killed the whole world and anyone who saves a life its as if he saves the whole world?

What about the one where it says that there should be no compulsion in religion and that its literally wrong...

Like any ideologue, they will take things out of context. to do what they want to do.  If you listen  to terrorist rhetoric, Bill, what they do is they cite politics, they cite political grievances, they don't really do too much religion, as a matter of fact, when you find Muslims who reject terrorism  as I do and almost everyone does, its often its for spiritual and religious reasons, and moral reasons; but people who want to justify it, they justify it on political reasons.  This is well documented, check out the Gallop poll check out and study this stuff. One of the things that I think we can do to undermine terrorist ideology is actually to use people who know the Qur'an and to go after people like Anwar al-Awlaki who misquote it, misuse it and don't really understand it. "

    Ellison asserts that terrorists don't get their doctrine from the Qur'an.  In fact, that is their primary source, which I detailed in a recent blog post:
Terrorism is an Intrinsic Sacrament of Islam.  Allah said that he would cast terror, did cast terror resulting in the enslavement of one Jewish village and the destruction of another. Moe said that the was made victorious by terror.  Allah commanded Muslims to terrify their victims.

    The Qur'an was not written, it was spoken; it is a partial record of Moe's rabble rousing rants, arranged according to the length of the chapters, not thematically or chronologically.  Allah's commands are contained in clear verses,  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has some guidance for us.

[...]The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.[...] The Mutashabihat and Muhkamat Ayat

    When they quote Allah with "Allah said...", quoting the jihad imperatives, they are not quoting out of context; 8:39, 8:57, 8:60 & 9:29 are commands, to be believed in and implemented. 

    5:33 is a favorite of deceivers.  Take a close look at it and its successor, which they never quote.  Why do they cite this one verse out of context?  Because they are practicing kitman: deception by obfuscation.

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land [...]`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.[...]

    Waging war against Allah includes disbelief, subjecting the disbeliever to being killed or mutilated.  Now do you have a clue why Muslims select 5:32, avoiding 33? 

    No compulsion in religion?  Yeah, right.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

10:99. And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad ) then compel mankind, until they become believers.

    Who quotes the Qur'an selectively, out of context?  I will show you what nobody else will. Read and learn from this verse which reveals the truth and hadith which explains it so that anyone not using his brain for a butt plug can comprehend it.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

3:112. Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allâh, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allâh) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh's disobedience, crimes and sins).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

Bukhari  Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

    Take a good look at 3:110 and Bukhari 6.60.80. Bringing us with chains on our necks until we embrace Islam is not consistent with "no compulsion".  3:111 indicates Moe's intention to attack the neighboring Christians. 

    Note the how the highlighted phrases in 3:112; how they are congruent with those in the quote from Aisha Bewley's translation of Bukhari. Khan bowdlerized that hadith; Bewley did not.

    Muslims are not permitted to reject terrorism.  Islam is a package deal, all or nothing.

2:85. After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of you from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. 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. And Allâh is not unaware of what you do.

13:36. Those to whom We have given the Book (such as 'Abdullâh bin Salâm and other Jews who embraced Islâm), rejoice at what has been revealed unto you (i.e. the Qur'ân) , but there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans) those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad ): "I am commanded only to worship Allâh (Alone) and not to join partners with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return."

    Islamic law is explicit on this matter, Reliance of the Traveller contains a list of twenty acts which entail apostasy, the punishment for which is execution.

-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;

Rejection of terrorism: 8:39, 8:57, 8:60, 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 warrants the death penalty!  Ellison claims to embrace morality & doing good deeds. There is a related verse he won't cite for you but I will. Acts of terrorism are good deeds according to Allah.

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, 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. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.

    Any act to enrage or injure disbelievers is imputed to Muslims as a deed of righteousness!!!  Islam  is a lie. Muslims are liars. Muslims are terrorists.  Do not take my word for it; click the links and read the citations in context. Then contact your Congressman & Senators; disrespectfully  demand that Islam be stripped of its 'religion' status & outlawed and Muslims be expelled & excluded.