Thanks to the intrepid Mullah Lodabullah:
Multiplied Â Interfaith Reasons:
The Islamic Cultural Conference Room inside Rome’s Grand MosqueÂ is packed with people:
“Reasons for living together and getting on have multiplied–We hope to receive the support of the tax advantages that are offered to other faiths and cultures”.Â
The Imam of the mosque, Al’a al-Din Muhammad Isma’Il al Ghobashi, spoke of ”postive integration, which does not mean erasing one’s roots”. Â (That’s right. Â Islam means erasing the roots of the kafirs…)
Racist bigot islamophobes:
Only Â critics of Islam Â invoke theÂ Cairo Declaration [of Human Rights in Islam] to argue the religion’s incompatibility with human rights:
No cultural suicide to see here, move on:
“We have to understand when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide and we should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy,” the Florida Republican said on “Fox & Friends.” Â Politico
They booted him out:
Western media Â to blame for the negative prejudices on Islamic culture:
Islamic culture is not calling for violence, said Abdulla Al-Mulla, Director of the Qatar Islamic Cultural Center.
More media blame and negative prejudices atÂ The Korea Herald
Turkey: Â “Mr. Prime Minister, it was genocide”-–
Â a Turkish Â intellectual presents parts of the letters by Ottoman leaders on 1915 which show obviously that the crime against Armenian nation was planned before and it was genocide. “I do not need a debate. I just want PM to get acquainted with the fact which I have presented. I hope that Erdogan will manage to give a respond to them”, Taner Akcam said.
Hussein Obama, Holocaust Preventer:
- “Preventing genocide is an achievable goal,” Obama said during remarks today at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Arch-lunatic of Dhimmibury sells bridges to Babylon:
Dr Rowan Williams, will chair the 11th Annual Building Bridges Seminar in London and Canterbury, from April 23 â€“ 25, 2012. Â Â Anglican Communion News Service
There’s a sucker born every minute:
The purpose of the event is to bring out a large group of people in support of religious freedom and tolerance in order to bring media attention to the true peaceful nature of Islam as opposed to an unbalanced view used for a political purpose of hate and division
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam: “Useless at best and at worst harmful for human rights”
The world’s foremost foe of the freedom of speech, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, recently invoked the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam — a fact that should reassure no one who wants to see the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights of all people before the law protected. “It’s Time to Revise The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” by Turan KayaoÄŸlu forBrookings, April 23 (thanks to JW):
To the surprise of many, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has shown a new commitment to advancing human rights by establishing an Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission within the organization. In the Commission’s first meeting in Jakarta, Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ä°hsanoÄŸlu asked the 18-member Commission in his opening address to “review and update OIC instruments, including the Cairo Declaration [of Human Rights in Islam]…” If the Commission intends to indeed advance human rights, then the Cairo Declaration is the first among these instruments in need of serious revision. In 1990, the OIC approved a document that is now referred to as the Cairo Declaration in an attempt reconcile the concept of human rights and Islam. The Declaration protects many of the universal human rights: it forbids discrimination; supports the preservation of human life, supports the protection of one’s honor, family, and property; and affirms the human right to education, medical and social care, and a clean environment.From an international human rights perspective, the controversial nature of the Cairo Declaration lies in its claim of adherence to Shari’ah. Its preamble affirms that“fundamental rights and universal freedoms are an integral part of [Islam]” and these rights and freedoms are “binding divine commandments” revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. The central role of Shari’ah can be clearly seen in the Declaration’s articles. Article 22 states that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to principles of Shari’ah.” Article 12, affirms that “every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement” (nothing is said about every woman). Articles 24 and 25 further makes Shari’ah supreme by asserting that Shari’ah is the Declaration’s “only source of reference.”
Such shorthand and cursory use of Shari’ah gives rise to four important shortcomings. The first is that it renders the document too restrictive. Shari’ah represents an extensive moral and legal code, and limiting rights such as free speech to a Shari’ah compatible framework of values would essentially render free-speech meaningless. Furthermore, the document is rendered ambiguous., as it does not specify what constitutes Shari’ah. Given the diversity of opinions on the subject across time and between and within madhabs (schools of Islamic law), it is impossible to know what rights are protected.
Interestingly, the declaration empowers states, not individuals. In the modern world, Shari’ah has increasingly become integrated in states’ domestic legal systems. In the absence of any international authority to decide on Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration effectively diminishes the universality of human rights by relegating them to the discretion of governments.
Finally, the declaration conflicts with international human rights. The document provides only a subordinated status to religious minorities and also prohibits conversion from Islam. It also presents glaring evidence of discrimination against women, as it provides the right to freedom of movement or marriage only to men.
These shortcomings render the Declaration useless at best and at worst harmful for human rights.
Recognizing that the shariah operates as the limiting factor driving the Cairo Declaration, and for that reason should be rejected by anyone seeking freedom from government, we should similarly not be mislead by the flowery language found the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When doing statutory construction one rule stands out. Read the whole statute.
The UDHR lists all kinds of rights. E.g., Art. 18, freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Art. 19, freedom of opinion and expression.
Now no one in their right mind believes that anyone in the UN believes any of that. The UDHR operates from a faulty premise to begin with. Namely, that rights come from government, not from the Creator. As such, what government “grants,” it can as easily take away.
This premise is entirely at odds with the thesis of our Founders. We recognize and state that rights, inalienable, come from the Creator and that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit the government, not the people.
Contained within the UDHR is itself the trapdoor that effectively flushes all of the vaunted UDHR “rights” away.
Article 29 reads,
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Do you see the “by law” trick? Rights are first granted, but then they’re made subject to limitations as set forth “by law.” In other words, it’s all a charade. In a UN world, which bears great similarity to an Islamic world, government comes first and foremost, with the people “allowed” to exist but only to serve the state.
The UDHR used as its model not the US Constitution (1787), but the Soviet Constitution which uses that same “by law” limitation trick.