Indonesian President at UN calls for legally binding Sharia blasphemy law criminalizing criticism of Islam

Or else. “Yudhoyono touts blasphemy ban at UN,” by Bagus BT Saragih for The Jakarta Post, September 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Indonesia is calling on the UN”s member states to adopt a legally binding instrument to ban blasphemy against religious symbols and to promote dialogue between different faiths, civilizations and cultures.

Speaking before hundreds of world leaders at the UN General Assembly, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said such an instrument was needed to prevent incitements to violence based on religion.

“This instrument, a product of international consensus, shall serve as a point of reference that the world community must comply with,” Yudhoyono said.

In addition, the President said that a dialogue was needed to build cooperation globally.

“These communities will become bulwarks for peace and they will make it difficult, if not impossible, for any kind of armed conflict to erupt,” Yudhoyono said….

In other words, pass international Sharia blasphemy laws, and the riots will stop. But the implication is that if we maintain free speech, more “armed conflicts” will erupt. This shows, as I have pointed out many times, how the violent jihad and the stealth jihad work hand-in-hand, and are two related and mutually dependent aspects of the same initiative.

The President said that the defamation of different religions has persisted, mentioning Innocence of Muslims, the US-made film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad that has caused an international uproar and spawned riots that have claimed several lives.

“Different religions”? Come on, Bambang. Only Muslims care.

The President said that the UN”s Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlined that all people must observe morality and public order in exercising their freedom of expression.

“Freedom of expression is therefore not absolute,” Yudhoyono said in an address that principally focused on global security….

Sacramento: Popular radio hosts absent from show after calling for "anti-Muhammad ads"
Pakistan's president asks UN to ban "hate material" against Muhammad
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Religion in a product of man’s imagination. Why protect a pure fantasy from criticism?

    This is where science is superior. Science is open to changes. Of all religion, mohammedism is the most reluctant to change and they are going berserk now because they are losing the survival of the fittest. Cultures evOlve and cultures that do not adapt to necessary changes die out.

  2. says

    “Ban blasphemy against religious symbols”—

    Ok, then… but we would have to build prisons that can hold up more than 1 billion people. Muslims are the most intolerant, bigoted and blasphemous against non-muslim “religious symbols” and even between each other-sufi vs shia vs ahmadiyya vs sunni vs alawite… etc.-. Here’s some of that hatred and blasphemous behavior:

    memritv.org

    Besides thief, buffoon.

  3. says

    Against “religious symbols”?

    Was Mohammad a “symbol” or an historical person?

    Who defines “blasphemy”? Zealots?

  4. says

    Imams are heavily rewarded each time his members threaten the American embassy. A pacifier soon arrives in the form of a suitcase full of hundred dollar bills. But in reality Muslims care little about Muhammad’s reputation, they only care about the free goat meat and camels milk they get from the rewarded Imam.

  5. says

    The President said that the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlined that all people must observe morality and public order in exercising their freedom of expression.

    Who is the UN to tell me what I must and must not do? They have no mandate over individuals surely, governments may choose to be bound by them but I do not.

  6. says

    Sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, the West and Muslims will have to make up their minds if we can live together in the West. At this moment in time, it does not appear that we can. Certainly in Muslim nations, I see no future for Christians.

  7. says

    They are concerned, and see a major block, of global scope, to their successful takeover. Freedom of Speech, is the primary firewall, in their way, they know it. That is their wedge issue, along with their insiders, chief of which is hussein. Tens of millions of armed militia, in America, is another block in their way, and there is more. Will not mention. They will find out to their surprize.

  8. says

    What does dialogue between different faiths mean? Jews can talk to Hindus, Christians to Buddhists? That’s fine, no problem at all. But dialogue with Mohammedans means, they demand that barbaric sharia is imposed globally. At the moment it’s especially about their stupid idea of blasphemy. But it won’t stop at that. They’ll carry on until there will be only two groups on this planet: Mahoundians and dhimmis. This has to be nipped in the bud.

  9. says

    QUOTE
    “In other words, pass international Sharia blasphemy laws, and the riots will stop. But the implication is that if we maintain free speech, more “armed conflicts” will erupt.”

    Ah, yes…Extortion & Rackateering, one of the Fave Combos of SO many other criminal organizationss, and let’s not kid ourselves folks, that’s all islam is, a big criminal organiztion-cult attempting to masquerade as a religion.

  10. says

    In order to give Islam credibility, you must first believe that an incoherent angel named Gabriel whispered all that dark and evil…stuff…into the ear of a psychotic Arab…
    Not only that, but the psychotic Arab remembered it word for word, even the long drawn out…stuff…Idiot savant maybe?
    Or completely fabricated story?
    Since I don’t believe in incoherent angels, I lean toward fabrication…Most likely Robert is right…Mahound did not really exist…He has been fabricated…

  11. says

    Check out this strange situation:

    “About Saparmurat Niyazov(1940-2006),the Turkmen and Muslim President who wrote a Book that he said was the Equal of the Koran”

    http://www.antisharia.com/2012/09/27/about-saparmurat-niyazov1940-2006the-turkmen-and-muslim-president-who-wrote-a-book-that-he-said-was-the-equal-of-the-koran/

    AND ALSO

    “Article and Video about the Barbary Wars when the US smashed the Muslim Pirates of the Mediterranean”

    http://www.antisharia.com/2012/06/03/article-and-video-about-the-barbary-wars-when-the-us-smashed-the-muslim-pirates-of-the-mediterranean/

  12. says

    Its ridiculous statement came from someone like him. Where is he and what he did when churches persecuted and burned in Indonesia? as president he did NOTHING. Many churches destroyed because some fanatic muslim don’t like it there, and police do nothing, just watching as it legal by law to expel christian from their church (actually its not legal in Indonesian law) and he did NOTHING. Even the persecuted christian asked him to help them, but he gave no response. I think persecution is more than blasphemy. BUT when there’s film about islam, he talking to the world. President, Indonesia is not a muslim country, so you MUST (not should) treat other religion as the same as muslim. And the more important, its better to solve your own country problem first, not just about religion only, but also corruption that spreading like cancer in your goverment.

  13. says

    If God exists, can He not speak?
    re: “Religion”. Because there exists bad religion does not mean all religion is bad.
    Thus, apply that idea to anything else…bad music exists therefore all music is bad?
    Should one rule out the possibility of God revealing Himself? “God spoke to Moses”. Exodus 33:11
    I do not believe God or an Angel spoke to Muhammad. That does not mean that God has never spoken to anyone.

  14. says

    From the article -” to ban blasphemy against religious symbols and to promote dialogue between different faiths, civilizations and cultures.”

    Translation: “to ban all criticism and questioning of Islam, and to promote Muslim da’wa toward non-Muslims”.

    Whenever one hears Muslims talk about ‘dialogue’ and ‘interfaith’, think: ‘da’wa’.

    “to prevent incitements to violence based on religion”

    Translation: to prevent Islamosavvy persons from using words and/ or actions to defend themselves against Jihad or encouraging other non-Muslims to defend themselves against Jihad” The Muslim attitude is that resisting jihad is a crime. If you are attacked by Muslims, you must silently submit. The Muslims of Gaza feel entitled to attack Israel; they also view it as a terrible evil if Israel hits back. The Pact of Omar, the legendary template of all the ‘rules for dhimmis’, makes that quite clear: no dhimmi is allowed to possess or bear arms, and no dhimmi is allowed to strike a Muslim…ever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Self-defence is **not permitted**. Islam is the epitome of non-reciprocity: Muslims are allowed to hit non-Muslims, and non-Muslims (so Muslims firmly believe) are nasty wicked creatures if they *dare* to hit back. Muslims are the savages described in G K Chesterton’s essay on ‘the barbarism of Berlin': “he laughs when he hurts you, and howls when you hurt him”.

    More: “a dialogue was needed to build cooperation globally”.

    Translation: Everybody must listen to Muslim da’wa, so as to be ‘groomed’ for conversion or dhimmi submission.

    I am assuming that in this variety of Islamspeak, ‘dialogue’ = da’wa and ‘cooperation’ = acceding to Muslim demands and commands.

    “These communities will become bulwarks for peace and they will make it difficult, if not impossible, for any kind of armed conflict to erupt”

    Translation: once there are enough brainwashed dhimmis, resistance to Jihad will become difficult, even impossible for the others who *don’t* want to submit.

    More:
    “all people must observe morality and public order in exercising their freedom of expression.”

    Translation: “all people must submit to the sharia definition of ‘morality’ and ‘public order’ when writing, speaking, or producing any kind of artwork.”

    In the Islamic worldview, whatever sharia permits (including polygyny, keeping of multiple concubines, ‘temporary’ ‘marriage’, Muslim seizure and rape of wives and daughters of non-Muslim men, slavery, and sex with and beating of your prepubescent nine year old ‘wife’) is ‘moral’ and whatever sharia forbids is ‘immoral’ (like pet dogs, church-bells, pictures and statues of living beings, drinking wine, and unrelated men and women sharing a work-place); and ‘public order’ = Muslims rule, dhimmis submit and pay jizya, and anyone who doesn’t want to be a Muslim or a dhimmi gets killed.

  15. says

    You wrote: ‘…But in reality Muslims care little about Muhammad’s reputation, they only care about the free goat meat and camels milk they get from the rewarded Imam.’

    So, the Imam is inciting hatred and illegal activity while saying he is a man of peace preaching the religion of peace. Is that right? Please confirm that these Imams are criminals. A simple ‘yes’ will do!

    Thanks, clown!

  16. says

    “Why protect a pure fantasy from criticism?”
    Islam is criticised because it’s deeds are evil. eg The Amish don’t kill people. Whether what they believe is a fantasy or not is besides the point at issue here. If Islam were non-violent no one would be bothered about their beliefs.
    “Religion is a product of man’s imagination.”
    Before you get too excited about your Atheism just remember that the greatest political killing “machines” have been atheistic: Soviet Union. Chairman Mao.
    And as for Science ..do you really think scientists will bring peace to the world? Perhaps you should talk with Ahmadinejad about that.

  17. says

    Please, lets not think all religions are a like. Just like not all atheists are alike. The beauty about most religions is that they teach (or preach) forgiveness, understanding, kindness, and a “Free Will”. All except one that is.

    Of course you’d have to know something about religion before that would enter your mind.

    Please don’t talk about things you know nothing about. It only shows your ignorance…… Muslims included…..

  18. says

    “Religion is a product of man’s imagination.”

    But that just what it is…If you cannot imagine a god, you will never know one…
    There may be an ultimate God of the cosmos who created everything…but as soon as a religion is formed on it, corruption sets in…This is because religions are about God, but they are not God so they are subject to entropy and corruption…This is expressed by religious supremacist bigots who imagine their religion is supreme…
    There is only room for one at the top, which is why religions play ‘king of the hill’ games with each other…
    With Islam these games are deadly…Islams religious supremacist bigotry is dangerous…The others, not so much…

  19. says

    As to the character of the Iman and others who hold that title, the following report answers your question:

    http://rt.com/news/pakistan-girl-imam-evidence-168/

    As a religion of *peace* these followers have a very distorted definition of the term. In this iman’s own words: “You know this is the only way to expel the Christians from this area.”

    Lying and framing a disabled teenage girl – whose family was placed in protective custody and she remains in prison. You might say, “So what?” but many who are *not* so fond of having Sharia law being considered as a basis for any law in the US will see this as proof of the incompatibility of such behavior among civilized peoples.