Islam, Apostacy and implications for USA...
 

Apostasy and the Islamic Nations

By Andrew G. Bostom

http://www.americanthinker.com/print...mic_natio.html

September 21, 2009

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).

Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC's Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110; "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men...you believe in Allah"), and states,

"Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation..."

The preamble continues,

"Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible -- and the Ummah collectively responsible -- for their safeguard."

In its concluding articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains:

[article 24], "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'a"; and

[article 25] "The Islamic Shari'a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."

These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Shari'a -- the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on "divine revelation," which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari'a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.

Enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights is the guarantee that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.". Absent the right to freedom of thought, or conscience, other rights such as the right to freedom of speech are rendered meaningless. US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo reasoned elegantly in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) that,

"Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal."

This principle of freedom of conscience is also upheld in article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further makes explicit the fundamental right to change one's religion,

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The gravely negative implications of the OIC's Shari'a-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims:

"Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism."

Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam:

"[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'a."

"[22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a.

[22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.

[22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."

Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in Islam's foundational texts -- both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 , 4:89, and their classical exegesis by renowned Koranic commentators such as Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a).

For example, Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion," in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy:

"An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:

"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...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."

This doctrinal and historical legitimacy of Shari'a-mandated killing of apostates from Islam is affirmed by Heffening in his scholarly review for the authoritative, mainstream academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Islam:

"In Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) , there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death...A woman, on the other hand, is imprisoned...until she again adopts Islam, ..[or] she also is put to death." [Heffening, W. "Murtadd." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs.]

As noted by historian David Littman, writing in early 1999, Adama Dieng, then a prominent Muslim Senegalese jurist, alerted the international community to the Cairo Declaration's profoundly dangerous impact. Dieng, speaking for the International Commission of Jurists and the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights at the Commission on Human Rights in February, 1992, decried the Cairo Declaration, which under the rubric of Shari'a, deliberately restricted certain fundamental freedoms and rights -- most notably, freedom of conscience. He also argued that the Cairo Declaration introduced "in the name of defense of human rights," unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of heinous practices -- Shari'a-compliant punishments (from corporal punishments, to mutilation, and stoning) -- "which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being."

Pew Survey data published just this past August 13, 2009 reflect, starkly, the depth and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for these hideous views -- sanctioned by their theo-political Islamic leadership within the OIC -- and antithetical to our foundational Western freedoms. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims, there is

"...broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers."

These hard data provide a clear, irrefragable global context for any rational, objective consideration of the ongoing plight of apostates from Islam, such as 17 year-old Rifqa Bary.

Shame on all those in our government, law enforcement, and chattering classes who willfully ignore this context.

Nice......

So now you know when you hear the anyone talk about the Cairo Declaration of "Human Rights,"

they're subordinating EVERYTHING to Sharia law.


No thanks. I'll stick with the Constitution of the United States - which is our Supreme Law of the Land (See Article VI).

WM, thank you for this very informative information. With the above in mind, it seems unlikely that we in the West can peacefully co-exist with Islamic nations, especially if they have the resources at hand to agressively export their ideology or theology and use our open society and laws against us. Not expanding our use of nuclear engergy and refusing to accelerate the exploration of oil and gas in our own backyard appears to be providing the necessary resources to fund the demise of our own culture and way of life. Again it begs the question originally posted by NDD, "Are we at war with Islam?" How can we not be?

Syntax matters.

"Are we at war with Islam?"

I would argue the the answer is no.

Should we be? that's a whole 'nother question altogther.

"Is Islam at war with us?"

Absolutely. And on so many different levels - people don't even see what's going on.

Three major forms of Jihad:

1. Violent (or Military Jihad). Afghanistan, Iraq, 9/11, NYC this week...

2. Economic. In addition to the destabilizing effect of the transfer of wealth as a reult of our dependance on oil, Sharia Finance is aanother form of economic jihad that most Americans aren't even aware of, let alone the implications...

3. Cultural. Our open society and political correctness prevents us from engaging this form of jihad effectively for now...How long will it be before Americans realize what's happening?

WM,
do you see Political Jihad as a component of the Cultural variety, or separate? Or are the political efforts and influence of Islam still a somewhat distant proposition?

Indeed!!

Many don't understand these aspects of Jihad.... And it's sad many Americans refuse to see this..

We could easily add:


4. Political Jihad. Number of different angles here, from "political correctness" (also overlaps with cultural jihad). The advisors and lobbiests hired to work here in DC, to the number elected officials they are working to grow. They are working the demographics to facilitate this as well. None of this is outright illegal. Although looking into where political campaign contributions really originate would be worth investigating...

5. Legal Jihad. Google "free Speech united nations" Tell us what you find.

6. Demographic Jihad. Also known as War of the Womb. It has two prongs, birth rates and immigration.

Obama backs Muslim bill to hamper freedom of speech
 

UN rights body approves US-Egypt free speech text


GENEVA — The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”

American diplomats say the measure – co-sponsored by Egypt – is part of the Obama administration’s effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

“The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society,” the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Rights groups cautiously welcomed the resolution as an improvement on earlier drafts, but said Egypt was in no position to lecture other countries about free speech as it has a poor record on the matter.

“Egypt’s cosponsorship of the resolution on freedom of expression is not the result of a real commitment to upholding freedom of expression,” said Jeremie Smith, Geneva director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

“If this were the case, freedom of expression would not be systematically violated on a daily basis in Egypt,” he said.

Others warned that the resolution appears to protect religions rather than believers and encourages journalists to abide by ill-defined codes of conduct.

“Unfortunately, the text talks about negative racial and religious stereotyping, something which most free expression and human rights organizations will oppose,” said Agnes Callamard, executive director of London-based group Article 19.

“The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy,” she said.

Although the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism.


Some Asian and African countries had called for stronger condemnation of articles, cartoons and videos they believe defames Islam.

From:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/10/...dom-of-speech/

Here's what the Article doesn't highlight. According to Sharia, all other religions have been Abrogated. So when Muslims discuss freedom of religion, they are really talking about your "freedom" to practice islam.
SEE Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Book o "Justice" Paragraph o8.7(20)

The more I read, the more I study. . .

I have come to the conclusion not just that Islam is antithetical to western liberal democracy, but that it is ultimately an existential threat to it.

Because of the Hadith and the Koran, we cannot conduct good faith negotiations with Islamic nations or peoples (because how could we ever know they were truly sincere when lying to infidels is encouraged?). The only thing they seem consistent with is murder. We can never believe them, we can never trust them, and the only way to protect our ideals is to ensure they never rise to power or gain leverage culturally, politically or otherwise in the West.

Sam Harris, author of End of Faith, said something to the effect of, "if someone tells you that they will kill you, have a long history of doing the same, what should you do? It is reasonable then, to kill them before they can do you harm." That's paraphrased mind you, but I'm working from memory.

We just got back from Europe where they don't have oceans to separate them from the Middle East. I wonder how long they'll last.

I'm looking forward to the day oil runs out and the intellectual and spiritual slaves find themselves back in the desert beating their wives and buggering each other.

my .02 cents.

Books