The United Nations: Islam’s Gestapo
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/11/2008
Nepotism, corruption, anti-Semitism and now censorship.
While the United Nations has disgraced itself over the years with sporadic eruptions of the first three negatives, it added another one last March 28 when its Human Rights Council passed a disturbing resolution that directs the body’s expert on free speech to report on “individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.” In effect, the UN will now become the Islamic world’s censorship watchdog, snooping out undefined acts of Islamophobia around the globe.
No other religion is covered by the Muslim-backed resolution that will most likely see the curtailing of free speech in some countries. But perhaps more ominously, although the UNHRC has no power of enforcement, lists of alleged malefactors will be drawn up, giving the Council’s recent action a definite, totalitarian ring.
Motioned by Egypt and Pakistan, not the sturdiest pillars of human rights themselves, and supported by Islamic and African countries, the resolution passed by a 32-0 vote. Muslim countries were upset by the Danish cartoons, published in 2005, depicting the prophet Muhammad and have been demanding limitations on free speech since then. The recent release of the Geert Wilders film, Fitna, reinforced their insistence on such restrictions, which FrontPage Magazine columnist Robert Spencer says are all part of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference’s strategy to protect Islam from alleged defamation.
Journalist Caroline Glick wrote in her column in the Jewish World Review that the United Nations had violated its own Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when it passed the March 28 resolution. Glick also pointed out that it was surprising when the UNHRC’s European members abstained from the vote, since they are such staunch supporters of the UN.
By abstaining, the European nations, those supposed bastions of human rights and free speech (especially when it comes to blaspheming Christianity), simply showed what moral cowards they truly are, putting their dhimmi status on display once more in failing to stand up to Islamic bullying.
Several countries that still have a backbone did speak out against this atrocious violation of human rights and freedom of expression. The United States, which does not have a seat on the 47-nation UNHRC but has observer status, did not stay silent. Warren Tichenor, America’s ambassador in Geneva, told the body: “The resolution seeks to impose restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights.”
A Canadian delegate supported Tichenor’s view with his statement: “The job of a special rapporteur is not to police the action of individuals.”
But that is exactly what is going to happen. Up until now, the duty of the UNHRC’s free speech watchdog was to report on efforts by despotic governments and dictatorships (like many of those on the UN’s Human Rights Council) to restrict freedom of expression. With the March 28 resolution, the tip of the spear has now been turned around against individuals, like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists, who practise their basic right to freely express themselves.
Western observers also believe the resolution will give repressive regimes, both Islamic and non-Islamic, a further excuse to crack down on dissent in their own countries. But even worse, it will give such states an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of democratic countries, using a phoney victim status as cover for their aggression.
In defence of the resolution, Muslim representatives like Pakistan’s ambassador, Masood Khan, said the measure was only trying to make “freedom of expression responsible,” while protecting Islam from its worst practices that only defame the Muslim faith and incite religious hatred and racism.
But if Islamic countries passed this resolution to protect religion from hatred and intolerance, then they and their motion have a severe credibility problem. Muslim discrimination against other religions in Islamic countries has been well documented. For example, in Pakistan and Egypt, the two countries that proposed the anti-free speech motion, Christians are a persecuted minority.
In Pakistan, according to a story in the German newspaper, Die Welt, a form of “religious apartheid” is practised against Christians, who are regarded as “fair game” for those who wish to maltreat them. While Muslim women need four male witnesses to convict a man who rapes them, a Muslim man who rapes a Christian woman is never convicted. As well, the persecution has become so intolerable Christians have committed suicide in Pakistani courtrooms in front of judges out of protest.
Caroline Glick writes that, in Egypt, the persecution of the Christian Coptic Church has been institutionalized and liberal critics of the Egyptian government have been silenced. In both countries, Muslim persecution even extends to fellow Muslims who wish to leave Islam, since this could result in their deaths.
Calling for religious tolerance and responsible freedom of expression in international forums is obviously much easier than practicing it at home. The scene in the film Fitna where a three-year-old girl says she learned from the Koran that Jews are monkeys and pigs is all one really needs to know about the true attitude toward these two virtues the UNHRC’s Islamic countries are espousing.
But this incredible hypocrisy does not stop at the United Nations and at the borders of Islamic countries. Last month, just prior to Easter weekend, the president of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, insulted Christians and Jews worldwide when he went to Uganda and called the Bible a forgery.
In a country that is 85 per cent Christian, the Libyan leader told Ugandan Muslims in a stadium where they had gathered to celebrate the prophet Muhammad’s birthday that since the Bible did not mention Muhammad, it was not the real Bible, because both Moses and Jesus had foretold the coming of Islam’s prophet.
“The Bible we have now is not the one that was revealed to Issa (Jesus) and the Old Testament is not the one that was revealed to Musa (Moses). It means that it has been forged,” Gaddafi said, adding the real Bible has yet to be discovered.
Unsurprisingly, there was no angry outcry from fellow Muslim leaders over Gadaffi’s hurtful remarks. No members of the OIC, which strongly condemned the Geert Wilders film and to which Libya belongs, censured Gaddafi and called him to account. Neither did any of those abstaining European countries or even the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, who called Fitna “offensively anti-Islamic.”
Just imagine, though, if Australia’s or Canada’s prime minister had called the Koran a forgery. Islamic moral outrage and European condemnation would know no boundaries. Cyprian Kizito, the Catholic archbishop of Kampala, Uganda’s capital, rightly pointed out: “Had the Christians said something similar about the Koran, there would have been war.”
But while the religious feelings of Uganda’s Christians were deeply hurt by their Muslim guest, who had arrived in their country to open a new mosque, their peaceful, non-violent response was instructive.
“I hope by doing this, we shall be giving a lesson to our Muslim brothers to always stay calm,” said a Ugandan bishop.
But it is a safe bet that the Ugandan example is a lesson the OIC and the Muslim-dominated UNHRC will never learn, let alone take to heart.
Stephen Brown is a columnist for Frontpagemag.com. A scholar and former news reporter, his field of expertise is Muslim forced marriages and honor killings. Email him at email@example.com.
What did you expect? It’s Jimmy Carter, after all:
Former President Jimmy Carter embraced a leading Hamas figure Tuesday, according to participants in a meeting that infuriated Israeli officials already upset by Carter’s freelance Mideast peace mission.
Carter also laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, whom the Bush administration and many Israelis blame for the breakdown of peace talks seven years ago and the violence that followed.
At a reception in the West Bank town of Ramallah organized by Carter’s office, the former president hugged Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician, meeting participants said. Embraces between men are a common custom in Arab culture.
“He gave me a hug. We hugged each other, and it was a warm reception,” Shaer told The Associated Press. “Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel … and I told him the possibility for peace is high.”
I’m sure Carter truly believes the “possibility for peace is high.” The question is what kind of peace Carter and his friends in Hamas envision? We know what Hamas’s definition of peace is; no Israel. Given Jimmy Carter’s record the last decade or so, one can legitimately ask whether he would be willing to meet Hamas halfway in their demands – say, eliminating only half the Jews in Israel. I’m sure Jimmy would think that a fair solution.
I sometimes daydream what historians of the future will make of people like Carter and other liberals who regularly embrace the murderous thugs of the world. I imagine them shaking their heads in wonderment at the pure stupidity on display in this day and age and chalking it up to massive drug use by the left.
To think that they actually mean it when they praise these goblins is just too horrible to contemplate.
Thomas Lifson adds: Carter is now a man to be shunned by all respectable company.
Obama may be right, but I have serious reservations. It’s something that Muslims are going to have to work out themselves.
Certainly I think that Islam will have a much harder time coming to terms with modernity than Western civilization did. And to think the transition was easy for us is to overlook several hundred years of bloodshed.
For Christians a move towards a more fundamentalist understanding of their roots was a move toward separation of church and state. For Muslims it is a move away from it.
It is this very basic problematic that makes equivocations between the two faiths so ill informed.
Nevertheless, I don’t fault Obama for making the statement. Our politicians have to lie. It’s called diplomacy.
Our political leaders have to say that Islam is peaceful and that Samuel Huntington’s civilizational clash thesis is wrong. I expect them to say this. I want them to say this.
Because every time any one–let alone a political or religious leader–suggests otherwise, Muslims around the world erupt into violence, call for a return to the Dark Ages, and their governments promptly threaten a clash of civilizations if we don’t take it back!
I only hope and pray that our leaders know they’re not telling the truth. Because if they actually believe the garbage that routinely comes out of the mouths of both Republican and Democratic politicians, then we’re screwed.
It’s odd, too, that Obama uses his time in Indonesia [he was there under the successive secular dictatorships of Sukarno then Suharto] as a measure of how moderate & compatible with modern values Islam really is. For that matter it’s not even fair to argue that since most Muslims just want the same things that you and I want–food, clothing, shelter, raising a family–that Islam itself isn’t potentially dangerous.
Of course the vast majority of Muslims just want to raise their families, but so do the vast majority of communists, the vast majority of fascists, etc. It is not Islam as a religious movement that I object to, it is Islam as a political movement which is a problem.
An episode of Red Dwarf perfectly illustrates what Hannah Arendt termed the banality of evil when the crew went back in time to have dinner with the Hitlers. The Hitlers were described as throwing the most fabulous dinner parties.
I’ll go to a ball game with a communist, hang out with them, compare notes on hot celebrity babes–and in fact, frequently do just this! I’m in academia, remember? A communist might be cool, but communism has been the source of more death, destruction, and oppression than any other political system of the 20th Century.
It’s not how Muslims, as individuals, worship God that worries me. It’s not how Muslims, as individuals, treat me that is a problem. It’s what happens when Muslims, acting through the power of the state, tend to trample on the most basic tenets of religious and speech freedoms that I fear.
Islam will remain in the same category as fascism and communism as long as even ‘moderate’ & ‘secular’ Muslims demand legal penalties for criticizing Muhammad & leaving the faith.
12 Apr, 2008
Having sex with underage children is popular in sharia countries. Find out why?
ALLAH APPROVES OF IT
65.4 “If you divorce your (child) wife before she reaches menstruation age her idda is three months”.
According to this aya a muslim man can marry (and have sex with) even a one day old infant girl.
ISLAMIC AUTHORITIES PROMOTE IT
There is no argument on this point among Islamic authorities whether shia or sunni. They all agree that a muslim man can have sex with baby girl.
This is what Imam Khomeini, the top shia authority says:
“A muslim man can have sexual pleasure with a little girl as young as a baby. But he should not penetrate her vaginally, however he can sodomize her”. (Tehriro vasyleh, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990)
Here is what the the top sunni authority says (video on a Saudi website) about having sex with a one day old baby girl. (Go to “site video” and click on sex with a one day old girl)
PROPHET LOVED LITTLE GIRLS
Prophet had special feelings for cute little baby girls.
Our prophet fell in love with Baby Aisha when she was shown by Allah to him in his dreams when she still an infant.
Bukhari , Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15:
Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth(as an infant) and said to me, ‘This is your wife.’ I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, ‘If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.'”
COURTSHIP WITH AISHA
Whenever Prophet visited Abu Bakr house he made Aisha sit in his lap and played with her.
PROPOSAL FOR MARRIAGE
When Ayesha reached the age of 6 Prophet decided to ask for her hand.
Abu Bakr: Rasulullah you must be joking. She is hardly six years old. And you are in your fiftees.
Prophet: She is old enough for me.
Abu Bakr: Didn’t you marry off your own daughters when they were much older.?.
Prophet: That was before aya 65.4 was revealed. Now a muslim can marry even a day old infant girl.
Abu: “But Rasulullah you called me your brother , how can you marry your foster niece”.
Prophet:” But you are not my real brother you are only a “ brother in Islam”.”*
Muslim Book 62, Number 18:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”
Abu: “But Rasulullah, last week you turned down Hamza’s daughter (who was ugly and in her teens) . You said you cannot marry your foster niece**.
Bukharihari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 37:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, “Won’t you marry the daughter of Hamza?” He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter). “
Prophet: “Allah had shown her to me in my dreams, that was Allah’s indication for me to marry her, I am helpless in this matter”.
ABU BAKR THROWS IN A MONKEY WRENCH
Abu was concerned about the welfare of her tiny tot sleeping with a horny and hefty old man who was given the libido of 30 men by Allah..
Abu: “I will let you marry her only on one condition, you will have to abstain from having sexual intercourse with the little one before she turns 9”.
Prophet was disappointed but he had no choice.
Prophet: “O.K. but I will not abstain from using other halal methods of pleasuring.”
AISHA MADE A BEAUTIFUL BRIDE
Sahih Dawood Book 1, Number 0270:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
One night prophet entered upon me and said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs.
Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:
‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle me, he used to order me to put on an Izar and start fondling..
Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:
“Allah’s Apostle used to think that he had sexual intercourse while he actually had not”
Bukhari, Book 002, Number 0572:
Aisha said “ Whenever I found dried semen on the garments of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), I scraped it off with my nails.
AISHA TURNS NINE
Allah was very happy for the prophet when finally Aisha turned nine.. He sent Gibraeel to congratulate him and to witness the consummation. Prophet introduced Allah’s envoy to Aisha .
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 112:
Allah’s Apostle said (to me), ‘O Aish (‘Aisha)! This is Gabriel greeting you.’ I said, ‘Peace and Allah’s Mercy and Blessings be on him, you see what I don’t see’ ” She was addressing Allah ‘s Apostle. (only prophets can see angels)
MENTION OF HOLY CONSUMMATION IN HADITHS
ALLAH BLESSED THEM WITH INSPIRATIONS
Although Prophet slept with hundreds of slave girls captured women and concubines in addition to his large number of wedded wives, Allah only sent quranic revelations to prophet when he slept with Aisha.
Aisha said “Inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket”. (Tabari Vl7, page: 7)
Bukhari Vol. 5 Bk57 N 119:
Prophet said, By Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman except Aisha.”
Modern reality of Islamic pedophilia:
A PEDOPHILE CONVERTS TO ISLAM
When a pedophile found out that sex with children is halal and Sunna he converted to islam and changed his name to Mohammed. Here is the news from England.
Paedophile changes name and converts to Islam in jail
Apr 7 2008,
Exclusive by Amy Devine
A pedophile has converted to Islam and changed his name behind bars. Paul Falconer, 40, now insists bosses at Peterhead prison call him Mohammed.
Note: The conversation between Abu Bakr and Muhammad is fictitious.