I have read Allah's book, and many ahadith. I have read a number of books, and all kinds of commentary, and I have listened to what muslims themselves say...As a result of all that, I agree with Hugh.
Blue smoke and mirrors...There is no 'American as Apple Pie', in Islam...it's not even possible...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 29, 2008 11:12 AM

I suppose he means halal American Pie, sans lard.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at August 29, 2008 11:28 AM

They don’t care what we say, or believe in, because they have their own agenda. So why should we care what they say or believe? We now slowly, indelibly understand their agenda. Enlightenment is irrevirsible.

Muslims, those who are true believers, have their own agenda, and our American freedoms, our constitutional laws, our guaranteed human rights under the Bill of Rights, all these mean nothing to them. Once we understand these mean nothing to them, and they are unable to prove to us they mean anything to them, why should we be swayed by anything said by those who bow in complete total mind-stifling submission to their belief-system of Islam? They are incapable of being true Americans, as American as apple pie, as we are incapable of bringing back that awful historical tarnish of Black American slavery, a slavery we ended with a major Civil War to liberate ALL humanity from its evil grip. Sharia is that awful slavery still alive and plaguing the modern world, a world that has moved out of the 7th century long ago. Do we want slavery back again? No!!! So why should we believe anything they say? Have them prove us wrong, and then perhaps we might begin to believe those soothing Muslim homilies of being just the same as us. Feigned pledge of allegiance to our freedoms by those who want to impose Sharia is an oxymoron, as much of that ancient evil Cult of Allah, per their Koran and Hadiths.

No, they divide us into camps of ‘believers and non-believers’. So right, we remain suspicious unbelievers. In all those soothing 'inter-faith-dialogues'... Prove us wrong.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 29, 2008 11:45 AM

In debating Islamist “kool-aid drinkers”, one comes to the sense they are mostly just “self-licking ice cream cones”, ever believing anything that buttresses their belief system and discarding any historical or current facts showing otherwise! We must all continue to educate the sleeping masses about this carcinogen for truth always trumps darkness and Islam is the darkest of all belief systems.

Posted by: MCMiller at August 29, 2008 11:56 AM

This is precisely why I was so concerned about the congressman who (symbolically) took his oath of office with his hand over the Koran. Lots of laws within the Koran conflict with our own laws. A problem here is that within our own legal system, the written document overrides the verbal.

Posted by: joe-six-pack at August 29, 2008 12:05 PM

"Muslims are really here like a little worm in the apple in the pie"

Posted by: SoteriA at August 29, 2008 12:27 PM

The 2008 Olympics offered a "level playing field" for Muslims to show the world they are as American as apple pie. On a per capita basis the Muslim world earned only 10% as many medals as the U.S. The overwhelming reason for this dismal showing in Beijing is their deeply ingrained intolerance. The scope of this intolerance is documented in an article here: http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/show.aspx?aid=16110

Posted by: Chris at August 29, 2008 1:09 PM

You cannot reason with islamists, aka pious muslims.
apple pie, pumkin pie, no matter what muslims say, the do not want to intergrate among Americans, but to drag in their death cult culture aka ilsam.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 29, 2008 1:14 PM

Islam had a tent at the Democratic convention in support of Iran as well. Did any protest?

To follow islam is to stand against this nation as it is, how can they love what it taught to them, to be somthing to hate?

Mountebanks it is.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at August 29, 2008 2:14 PM

Sure, you're American as a 'BAD' apple pie, but even that's too good for what's inside Islam.

Lets get the true ingredients out on the table and ready for preparing this kind of pie, shall we.

First, roll out some dough made out of stolen pastry, representing their stolen "religion", if you want to call it that - then - gather up some dead rotten animals or foliage from your neighborhood, because every neighborhood has roadkill lying around somewhere; ie, rats, gophers, snakes, or just anything dead and rotting, as these dead & rotting ingredients represent their dead & rotten FALSE prophet, who lived a spiritually dead and rotten life. Ok, I think you get the picture now, and I bet you can't wait to dig in, right?

No sugar & spice required, because there is nothing sweet or tasty going into this pie. Sound yummy? I suggest cooking it on an outdoor grill, otherwise your kitchen will smell to high heaven.

Islam, a recipe for disaster, and not for human consumption.

Posted by: champ at August 29, 2008 2:31 PM

I notice this article or interview only appeared in UK news. I do not recall seeing these "people" interviewd in any US news outlets. I did read here though http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=f88b1cf5ed1ebc903bb78621022ff2bc
That one of the organizers of the muslim groups feel that we should look at muslims as a "gift" & asset to America. No apple pie there--- &

Posted by: Ladywolfnl at August 29, 2008 2:32 PM

Does anyone see a similarity between this kind of objection to Islam and an old fashioned prejudice against Catholics which was once very strong in the United States but which no one with an ounce of sense would take seriously now?

The charges sound remarkably familiar: the allegiance is obviously elsewhere; nothing like mental or moral independence; cannot be trusted to tell the truth (truth not being a virtue in that benighted ideology).

Perhaps there was indeed as much in the charge, perhaps Catholicism does have dangerous and anti-democratic tendencies. And, as it happens, Catholicism was and is no threat at all!

This is only to stimulate discussion. I am thinking out loud.

Posted by: Novalis at August 29, 2008 5:16 PM

American as apple pie?

Not by any stretch of the over-active imagination or delusion.

This is simply a restatement of the current political thinking in the West:

"I say so; therefore, it is."

Turth is objectively true and false is objectively false.

Islam is objectively islam; stating that it is in anyway "American" is nothing but a brazen lie!

Posted by: witness at August 29, 2008 5:20 PM

all of the Muslim countries (save for the Shah's Iran, and most temporarily and temporizingly) have failed to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Well, save for Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Turkey (all of which voted for the UDHR in the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948), as well as Iran, but who's counting?

(I don't include Lebanon, which also voted for the UDHR, because at the time it was a majority-Christian state.)

Posted by: Seamus at August 29, 2008 5:25 PM

"Does anyone see a similarity between this kind of objection to Islam and an old fashioned prejudice against Catholics which was once very strong in the United States but which no one with an ounce of sense would take seriously now?"

Novalis, I don't see any similarity here at all.

All immigrant groups, whether Jews, Irish, Italians, Catholics, whatever, have always faced suspicion and prejudice. The difference is, all the other immigrants to the USA and Canada have been so glad and grateful to be here, they have assimilated, worked hard, and have made huge contributions to our society as they became proud citizens.

On the other hand, muslims have no desire to assimilate, they wish to change our countries and take them over. They would rather sponge off the system than work. Our "prejudice" is not misplaced in their case, as it is based on clear proof that they have no intention of assimilating and becoming good citizens of anything but the ummah.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 29, 2008 6:00 PM

Novalis:
To answer your question: no, there is a huge difference between the Muslim and Catholic experience in America.

Where did you get the idea that Catholics didn't value truth and that truth was not a virtue in Catholicism? No mental or moral independence? What are you talking about?

One of the tenets of Catholicism, as with all Christian denominations, is to respect the authority of the state. We don't expect to be ruled by Catholics and we don't necessarily consider laws that are not in keeping with Catholic doctrine to be an affront.
The anti-Catholic bigotry was based on rumors and unfounded fears that the pope would live in the White House. Muslims are giving us lots of examples of their intentions, in print and on television, almost every day. The fear you see today is the result of many Muslims' own actions and the failure of their fellow Muslims to defend American values. If they don't respect our laws then why are they here? Where was it ever said that Catholics didn't respect the law?

Posted by: PMK at August 29, 2008 6:22 PM

"Does anyone see a similarity between this kind of objection to Islam and an old fashioned prejudice against Catholics which was once very strong in the United States but which no one with an ounce of sense would take seriously now?"

Suggest you take a tour of the local Catholic Charities and count the number of islamics on the dole and getting hand-outs of either food, clothing, or both.

Next, watch these islamics walk to their cars and note the newer Lexus and Mercedes models that they drive -- occasionally, newer SUV's.

Then go and try to find an islamic charity someplace -- any place -- and count the number of Catholics getting hand-outs of any kind from the islamics.

Repeat this exercise with any Christian or Jewish group.

After you actually do this exercise over the course of four weeks; then tell us about the similarity between "prejudices" that you cited.

Not being "prejudiced" against islam is just plain irresponsible!

Posted by: witness at August 29, 2008 6:25 PM

Seamus, that was 1948. Now the Organization of Islamic Conference which represents ALL Muslim countries is opposed to the UDHR and supports the Cairo Declaration.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 29, 2008 7:01 PM

In a posting that reflects either a misunderstanding of what I wrote (and of the word "subscribe") or that is simply disingenuous, a poster above attempts to "correct" me by first quoting from my piece:

"all of the Muslim countries (save for the Shah's Iran, and most temporarily and temporizingly) have failed to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

and then scornfully commenting:

"Well, save for Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, and Turkey (all of which voted for the UDHR in the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948), as well as Iran, but who's counting?

(I don't include Lebanon, which also voted for the UDHR, because at the time it was a majority-Christian state.)"

But it he who has it wrong. The Muslim nations never truly "subscribed" -- in either the ordinary sense of that word, or in the implicit sense of adhering by a writing -- to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What they did do, when the U.N. was practically brand-new, and the Universal Declaration was proposed by the advanced (i.e., Western) states, and put only to a voice-vote on December 10, 1948, is not bring attention to themselves by objecting, but going alone when the measure was adopted unanimously.

Think of the times. The Muslm states were weak, and without oil. Pakistan had just been formed, by the personally-largely-unobservant Mohammad Ali Jinnah (who was to die within Pakistan's first year) and would need all the Western help it could get. In Egypt, the aftermath of Lord Cromer's administration, from 1882 to 1922, lingered on in the ancien regime of King Farouk, and the many non-Muslims -- including Italian, Greek, Jewish, Armenian families that had lived in Cairo and Alexandra for generations -- who helped to create a modicum of prosperity, and who had benefited from the English influence and power during and after the period when Cromewr and other Englishmen ran, and ran well, the Egyptian bureaucracy. Syria and Lebanon were still under French influence, and the French were still willing to protect the Christians. Afghanistan had had a king who, in the inter-war period, had wanted to emulate Ataturk, and that secularizing spirit had not relapsed into full-bodied Islam; Afghanistan was too hopelessly dependent on the West. In Turkey, Kemalism was still riding high.

With that knowledge of the circumstances under which Muslim countries did not voice objections when, by voice-vote, the Universal Declaration was "unanimously" adopted, no one could legitimately say that those states had, in any real sense, "subscribed" to the Universal Declaration, and soon enough, every single one of them -- with the exception, as I carefully noted in my original piece, of Iran under the Shah -- showed that they had no intention of honoring the individual rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration.

That is, they did not "subscribe" to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but only, in 1990, to the sham version, the "Islamic" version, specifically drawn up by Muslim states in order to pretend that they were advanced, that they had an ever-so-slightly different version of the Universal Declaration, when in fact, as the Senegalese jurist Adama Dieng noted, what they proposed was simply the Shari'a as the final authority, which completely vitiated the most important rights in the Universal Declaration.

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2008 9:21 PM

Here is a comparison of the Cairo Declaration with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be found at www.faithfreedom.org:

"In August of 1990, representatives of 54 Muslim countries met in Cairo and signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Many of these countries did not sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sponsored by the UN, admitting that this document was in conflict with Islamic values.

What then are Islamic Human Rights and how do they differ from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)? In the appendix below are both human rights declarations for a quick comparison.

If you look at the preamble of the UDHR, you will see that there is no mention of any religion. All religions and cultures are assumed to be equal. All of humanity are asked to work together to promote “universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. But in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (hereafter called the Cairo Declaration), we can detect a completely different tone.

Right from the first paragraph of the preamble, the Cairo Declaration confidently asserts the superiority of Islam by referring to the Islamic Ummah as the “best nation”. The Ummah has a historic role to play in guiding “a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.”

This is no implication, unlike in the UDHR, that all cultures and religions are equal. Indeed the rest of humanity is supposedly confused and in need of guidance from the “best nation”. Right from the start of the Cairo Declaration, it is made clear the world is divided into Muslims and infidels.

Now take a look at Articles 24 and 25 at the end of the Cairo Declaration. You will see that all rights and freedoms and subject to the Islamic Shariah and the Shariah is the only source of reference for the Cairo Declaration. Therefore we must read the rest of the Cairo Declaration with this in mind.

Article 1a states, “All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam.”

This sentence begs the question, “What about non-Muslims who do not submit to Allah?”

Does this not imply that Article 1a is simply telling us that non-Muslims are not part of the family? Article 1a went on to say, “All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, color, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.”

Take note the word “men” instead of “human beings” was used. In Islam, men and women are seen to have different obligations and responsibilities. Men of course can have four wives but women cannot have four husbands. In the UDHR, gender-neutral terms such as “everyone” or “human beings” are always used.

In addition, Article 1a appears to contradict the preamble and Article 1b, as we will soon see. Article 1a forbids discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, amongst other things. In the preamble and in Article 1b, it is quite clear that Muslims are held to be higher than infidels.

Article 1b states, “ All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.”

Let me remind you that everything in the document is subject to Islamic shariah. This means that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims since infidels cannot be more pious than Muslims. So while Article 1a forbids discrimination on grounds of religious beliefs, Article 1b is doing precisely that. This attitude will strain relations with infidels. This could explain why Muslims are in conflict with non-Muslims in Palestine, Chchenya, Kashmir, South Thailand, Philippines and Sudan.

In contrast, Article 1 of the UDHR tells us all to act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. All religions and cultures are by implication equal and the declaration appeals to us to work together. There is no talk of one group leading the others.

Article 2 of the Cairo Declaration forbids bodily harm or the taking of life unless for a Shariah prescribed reason. This means that you can be killed for criticizing their holy Prophet Mohammed, as there are tough laws against blasphemy in Islam. A good example is the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, condemning him to death.

Article 9 places the duty on the state to give Islamic education to the people. No mention is made, of course, of other religions. It also charges the state with educating the people with worldly education, so long as these do not conflict with Islam, of course. Thus history lessons will necessarily reflect the Islamic world-view. Therefore, children must be taught that the early wars of Arab imperialism were being in accordance with God's wishes. The years before the Arab invasions must be seen as periods of darkness, no matter how great the ancient civilizations were.

The Crusades must be seen as an attack on Islam and not as a desire to recapture lands once belonging to Christians. While, the education system will no doubt emphasize the brutality of the Crusaders, their own Arab invasions of other people's lands, no matter how brutal, must always be framed as bringing the light of Islam to benighted peoples.

This approach makes it difficult for empathy to develop. A child going through such and education system is not encouraged to understand the other side's point of view.

Any sort of historical revisionism will be viewed suspiciously at best or apostasy at worst. Also any teaching of Finance will raise difficulties, if Articles 24 and 25 are vigorously enforced by the signatories. It is part and parcel of the modern business world to deal in interest, which is forbidden. All countries borrow money and most companies also do so to conduct business.

Thus, I pity the Finance professor of a business school who must teach the valuation of bonds in an Islamic fashion. How are you going to calculate the Net Present Value of an asset without an interest rate?

Lets move on to Article 10, which says, “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.”

Since Islam is the truth, a Muslim must be truly ignorant to want to convert to another religion. Therefore, what this means is that Muslims are not allowed to convert. The penalty of apostasy, according to Shariah, is death. Article 10 is actually superfluous, since Article 24 says that everything in the Cairo declaration must be subject to Shariah.

There is of course no protection for non-Muslims being forcibly converted to Islam and no provisions to protect him or her from her own ignorance or poverty. Besides this, Article 10 is actually a restriction and not a right. A right is an entitlement to something beneficial. By restricting somebody's free choice, you are taking something away from him. Article 10 is of course in contradiction to Article 18 of the UDHR:

“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.”

Article 11a of the Cairo Declaration states:

“Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-high.”

That sounds reasonable in theory, except that Allah does not make personal appearances. So in practice, people will act in His Most-high name to subjugate you. This has already happen in Iran and in any Islamic state. This Article has the potential to limit your freedom of religion since guardians of the Islamic state will be telling you how to practice your religion. Article 11a effectively gives those in authority the right to subjugate you in the name of God.

Article 14 of the Cairo Declaration prohibits usury. Again, this is a restriction and not a right. It may be fruitful to enquire as to how the scholars who wrote this Declaration could confuse rights with restrictions. A psychological study into this may give us an insight into their minds. Perhaps, the scholars think that it everybody's right to submit to Allah and this must necessarily means obedience to His laws. Hence submission equals liberation.

Article 19a of the Cairo Declaration states:

“All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between ruler and ruled.”

This Article makes reference to rulers and the ruled and makes no reference between man and woman. According to Shariah, a woman's testimony in court is worth that of half a man's. Thus Article 19a does not give women equal rights before the law.

Article 19d of the Cairo Declaration states:

“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shariah.”

This means that stoning for adultery and amputation for theft is allowed and even encouraged. Stoning is a slow and painful way to die. Therefore Article 19d is in conflict with Article 5 of the UDHR which states:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

These are the main differences between the Cairo Declaration and the UDHR. The differences are not immediately apparent. Rights that appear to be given are taken away by clauses 24 and 25. That is the fine print. Perhaps the people who wrote the Cairo Declaration were aware of the wide gulf in their conception of human rights and did not want to highlight it.

To sum up, the Cairo Declaration allows stoning as punishment, prohibits Muslims from changing their religion, prohibits usury, does not give women equal rights and divides the world between Muslims and infidels. It makes it clear that Muslims are the “best nation” whose duty it is to make you become like them. While it is supposedly a document about rights, it also a document containing restrictions. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is a harsh document that comes from a harsh faith.

Appendix

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with spiritual faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.
Convinced that mankind which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith to support its civilization and of a self motivating force to guard its rights.
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 and 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.
Proceeding from the above-mentioned principles,
Declare the following :
ARTICLE 1 :
a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other conside-rations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.
b) All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.
ARTICLE 2 :
a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the State to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
ARTICLE 3 :
a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not permissible to kill non-belligerents such as old men, women and children. The wounded and the sick shall have the right to medical treatment; and prisoners of war shall have the right to be fed, sheltered and clothed. It is prohibited to mutilate dead bodies. It is a duty to exchange prisoners of war and to arrange visits or reunions of the families separated by the circumstances of war.
b) It is prohibited to fell trees, to damage crops or livestock, and to destroy the enemy’s civilian buildings and instal-lations by shelling, blasting or any other means.
ARTICLE 4 :
Every human being is entitled to the inviolability and the protection of his good name and honour during his life and after his death. The State and Society shall protect his remains and burial place.
ARTICLE 5 :
a) The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right.
b) Society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and shall facilitate marital procedure. They shall ensure family protection and welfare.
ARTICLE 6 :
a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
b) The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
ARTICLE 7 :
a) As of the moment of birth, every child has rights due from the parents, Society and the State to be accorded proper nursing, education and material, hygienic and moral care. Both the fetus and the mother must be protected and accorded special care.

b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari’ah.

c) Both parents are entitled to certain rights from their children, and relatives are entitled to rights from their kin, in accordance with the tenets of the Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 8 :

Every human being has the right to enjoy his legal capacity in terms of both obligation and commitment, should this capacity be lost or impaired, he shall be represented by his guardian.

ARTICLE 9 :

a) The question for knowledge is an obligation and the provision of education is a duty for Society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diver-sity in the interest of Society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.

b) Every human being has the right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of, education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such and integrated and balanced manner as to develop his personality, stren-gthen his faith in God and promote his respect for and defence of both rights and obligations.

ARTICLE 10 :

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.

ARTICLE 11 :

a) Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High.

b) Colonialism of all types being one of the most evil forms of enslavement is totally prohibited. Peoples suffering from colonialism have the full right to freedom and self-determination. It is the duty of all states and peoples to support the struggle of colonized peoples from the liqui-dation of all forms of colonialism and occupation, and all states and peoples have the right to preserve their independent identity and exercise control over their wealth and natural resources.

ARTICLE 12 :

Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.

ARTICLE 13 :

Work is a right guaranteed by the State and Society for each person able to work. Everyone shall be free to choose the work that suits him best and which serves his interests and those of Society. The employee shall have the right to safety and security as well as to all other social guarantees. He may neither be assigned work beyond his capacity nor be subjected to compulsion or exploited or harmed in any way. He shall be entitled without any discrimination between males and females - to fair wages for his work without delay, as well as to the holidays allowances and promotions which he deserves. For his part, he shall be required to be dedicated and meticulous in his work. Should workers and employers disagree on any matter, the State shall intervene to settle the dispute and have the grievances redressed, the rights confirmed and justice enforced without bias.

ARTICLE 14 :

Everyone shall have the right to legitimate gains without monopolization, deceit or harm to oneself or to others. Usury (riba) is absolutely prohibited.

ARTICLE 15 :
a) Everyone s
hall have the right to own property acquired in a legitimate way, and shall be entitled to the rights of ownership, without prejudice to oneself, others or to society in general. Expropriation is not permissible except for the requirements of public interest and upon payment of immediate and fair compensation.

b) Confiscation and seizure of property is prohibited except for a necessity dictated by law.

ARTICLE 16 :

Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interest stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 17 :

a) Everyone shall have the right to live in a clean environment, away from vice and moral corruption, an environment that would foster his self-development and it is incumbent upon the State and Society in general to afford that right.

b) Everyone shall have the right to medical and social care, and to all public amenities provided by Society and the State within the limits of their available resources.

c) The State shall ensure the right of the individual to a decent living which will enable him to meet all his requirements and those of his dependents, including food, clothing, housing, education, medical care and all other basic needs.

ARTICLE 18 :

a) Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property.

b) Everyone shall have the right to privacy in the conduct of his private affairs, in his home, among his family, with regard to his property and his relationships. It is not permitted to spy on him, to place him under surveillance or to besmirch his good name. The State shall protect him from arbitrary interference.

c) A private residence is inviolable in all cases. It will not be entered without permission from its inhabitants or in any unlawful manner, nor shall it be demolished or confiscated and its dwellers evicted.

ARTICLE 19 :

a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between ruler and ruled.

b) The right to resort to justice is guaranteed to everyone.

c) Liability is in essence personal.

d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

e) A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fair trial in which he shall be given all the guarantees of defence.

ARTICLE 20 :

It is not permitted without legitimate reason to arrest an individual, restrict his freedom, to exile or to punish him. It is not permitted to subject him to physical or psychological torture or to any form of humiliation, cruelty or indignity. Nor is it permitted to subject an individual to medical or scientific experimentation without his consent or at the risk of his health or of his life. Nor is it permitted to promulgate emergency laws that would provide executive authority for such actions.

ARTICLE 21 :

Taking hostages under any form or for any purpose is expressly forbidden.

ARTICLE 22 :

a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.

b) 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’ah.

c) 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.

d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

ARTICLE 23 :

a) Authority is a trust; and abuse or malicious exploitation thereof is absolutely prohibited, so that fundamental human rights may be guaranteed.

b) Everyone shall have the right to participate directly or indirectly in the administration of his country’s public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 24 :

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25 :

The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

_____________________________________________

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages.

Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

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.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(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.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2008 9:32 PM

And here is an example, one among many, of a vain and touching attempt by Egyptian Copts to appeal to Muslmis in Egypt to honor Egypt's supposed duty to honor the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But, as we know, Egypt, and the other Muslim states, save for Iran under the Shah, believed themselves in any way limited by the terms of that Universal Declaration, did not act as if they had in spirit or in letter "subscribed" to it. And as I have said, the poster above misunderstands the essential meaningless of the fact that the representative of Egypt's ancien regime, back on December 10, 1948, had failed to express objection to the "unanimous" adoption of the Universal Declaration by the U.N. (which is hardly the same thing as a nation-state demonstrating its intent to solemnly commit to the express terms, without reservations, of that aspirational document):

To: The UN Secretary, U.S.Congress, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
WE THE UNDERSIGNED wish to bring to the attention of the World Community the continuing plight of Coptic Christian Citizens living in the sovereign Nation of Egypt:

1.Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt have been continually persecuted in Egypt. More than forty cold-blooded massacres have been committed against Coptic Christians in recent years, resulting in the injury and murder of men, women, and children, and untold loss of businesses and property.

2. On Friday November 7, 2003, in the village of Gerza-Ayiat-Giza, eleven Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were injured, and dozens of homes and businesses were burned by a mob of approximately 500 radical Egyptian Muslims armed with knives, sticks, kerosene and benzene. Fields and crops were also burned by this violent mob. Many of the injured who were bleeding and suffering with broken bones were unable to leave their homes to seek medical attention as they feared to leave their children while this violent angry mob was permitted to go unchecked. The local Police refused to document this event, and refused to allow local Coptic Christians to file complaints against the perpetrators of this attack. Not a single individual to date has been arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

3. In October of 2003, more than 22 Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were arrested, many of them converts from Islam to Christianity. These Christians were beaten, interrogated and tortured. The women among them may have been raped. All of this has been done in an attempt by the Islamic Authorities to persuade these Christians to renounce their Christian Faith and return to Islam. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

4. On August 19, 2003, over 300 Egyptian Soldiers were ordered by the local governor to destroy a fence surrounding the historic 4th century Monastery of St. Anthony in El Zaaferane, Red Sea Governorate in spite of the fact that this fence was authorized and constructed by the previous governor of the Red Sea, State Security and the Ministry of the Interior in 1991-1992. The monks in residence at this Monastery used their bodies as shields to prevent the Egyptian Government Security Forces from attacking the Monastery.

5. On April 5, 2003, an Egyptian Army Unit attacked the Charity Isle of Patmos, a Coptic Christian Center, the sole purpose of which is to provide treatment and support for mentally and physically handicapped children and orphans. This Center is legally registered with the Egyptian Authorities. This attack was conducted with armed vehicles, a bulldozer and tear gas, against unarmed helpless children. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

6. On February 11, 2002, a newly constructed and completed Coptic Christian Church was stormed by dozens of radical armed Muslim Egyptians. These individuals set fire to this newly constructed house of worship, and additionally set fire to 35 homes and 3 automobiles belonging to Egyptian Coptic Christians. Ten Coptic Christian Citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were wounded in this attack. In addition, these radicals also attacked two buses carrying parishioners to the church. Local police failed to arrive on the scene for more than four hours. Muslim radicals were observed preventing fire trucks from entering the village to extinguish the fire inside the Church. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes with one notable exception. The Church Priest, Father Luka Ibrahim Sargious was arrested and questioned.

7. On February 24, 2001, over 100 Egyptian Policeman stormed and destroyed with bulldozers the Coptic Church of St. Bola located in Shobra Elkhaima after the local Bishop had asked for permission to hold prayers.

8. On Friday, December 31, 1999, New Year’s Eve, a dispute between a Muslim trader and a Christian shop-owner in the village of El-Kosheh erupted into violence, which resulted in the deaths of 21 Coptic Christians. Over 260 Christian homes and businesses were destroyed. During the violence local Police forces either stood passively watching the mayhem, or worse, became actively involved in the attacks. 96 suspects were arrested and “prosecuted” by the Egyptian Courts, however an Egyptian State Security Court acquitted all 96 suspects on February 5, 2001. The Sohag Criminal Court found four men guilty. One Muslim perpetrator received a sentence of 15 years for the killing of the sole Muslim victim, which in fact was in another village and not part of the El-Kosheh massacre. The other three men received two and one-half year sentences for setting a truck on fire. Not a single individual responsible for the deaths of these 21 Christians was brought to justice. This miscarriage of justice may now be viewed by the Muslim community as a green light to kill Christians in Egypt.
9. On August 14, 1998, two Coptic Christians were murdered, again in the village of El Kosheh. The Egyptian Authorities’ response to these murders was to arrest 1000 Coptic Christians, many of whom were tortured in an effort to force confessions. Local Coptic Christians insisted that the murderers were Muslim.

10. On March 13, 1997, hundreds of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the village of Bahgoura, Nagi-Hammady. Nine Coptic Christians were killed. The homes and businesses of Coptic Christians were burned and destroyed. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

11. On February 12, 1997, a group of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked and murdered 12 Coptic Christian Sunday School students praying inside their church in the village of Abu Quorcas. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

12. On February 25, 1996, hundreds of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the Coptic village of El-Badary, Asyut, looting homes, animals and crops, and destroying homes and fields. Seven Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were murdered. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

13. On October 10, 1994, a mob of radical Egyptian Muslims attacked the village of El-Qousya, Asyut, looting and destroying homes and businesses, resulting in the deaths of seven Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

14. On March 11, 1994, at St. Mary’s Monastery in the village of El-Mouharak, Asyut, a mob of radical Muslim Egyptians attacked and killed an Archpriest, a Monk, and three laymen in front of the Monastery. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

15. On May 4, 1992, in the village of Manshyet El-Nasr, Dairout, Asyut, a group of radical Muslim Egyptians attacked and murdered 12 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt in their field, looted their animals and crops.

Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

16. On May 12, 1990, in the city of Alexandria, a group of radical Muslim Egyptians ambushed and murdered a Coptic Priest and six other Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

17. On June 17, 1981, 22 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were burned inside their homes and businesses in the village of El-Zawia El-Hamra, Cairo, during religious rioting. The Egyptian Internal Minister at that time, General Hassan Abu Basha declared after his resignation from office that 81 Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt were killed, over one hundred were seriously wounded, and 80 homes were looted and destroyed. Not a single individual was ever arrested or prosecuted for these crimes.

1. 1.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT

Coptic Christian citizens of Egypt do not differ from their Muslim neighbors either ethnically or linguistically. All speak Arabic. All are Egyptian citizens.

According to the Islamic sharia Law, anyone who denounces his religion of Islam should be executed, his marriage annulled and his children and property confiscated.

The Egyptian constitution, second article states that “Egypt is a Muslim country and the Islamic Sharia law is the main source of legalization.” This statement contradicts article number forty as contained in the Egyptian constitution, which states that all “all citizens are equal regardless of color, creed, or religion.”

The Sovereign Nation of Egypt is a Signatory to the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations without dissent, which states in part that:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of persons.

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, not to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18: 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.

Article 20: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and

(2) (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

WE CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT to educate its Muslim population as to the rights of their Coptic neighbors to live in peace and security, free from harassment and violence, and to ensure that its Coptic Christian citizens are afforded the same rights as its Muslim citizens.

WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT:

To reveal to the World Community ‘the whole truth’ concerning the persecution of Coptic Christian citizens of the Sovereign Nation of Egypt, to identify all those responsible, either actively or complicity, for these continuing atrocities;

To arrest and bring to trial’ all suspects implicated in the murders of 21 Coptic Christians in the village of El Kosheh in 199/2000;
To provide all victims of the violence of El Kosheh with reparation and support for material and emotional loss;

To lay the foundations for Egypt which respects and promotes Human Rights for all its citizens without distinction.

WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO FORMALLY CONDEMN THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENTS AND TO FORMALLY CONDEMN ALL PERSECUTION OF COPTIC CHRISTIANS TAKING PLACE IN THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT.
WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO ESTABLISH AN INQUIRY COMMISSION TO FULLY INVESTIGATE THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999,2000, AND TO PROSECUTE THE GUILTY THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED NATIONS TO ENACT A RESOLUTION DEMANDING THE IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF VIOLENCE, HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND RELGIOUS INTOLERANCE PERPETRATED AGAINST COPTIC CHRISTIAN CITIZENS OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT.

WE, THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD A MINIMUM OF $300,000,000 IN UNITED STATES TAXPAYER FUNDED FINANCIAL AID TO THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A FEDERAL COURT IN THE UNITED STATES RULES ON AWARDING PUNITVE DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED, AND TO SURVIVORS OF THE EL-LOSHEH MASSACRE.
WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVERIEIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CORRECT THE FLAGANT DENIAL OF JUSTICE WHEREBY ONLY THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH OF A MUSLIM BY MUSLIMS WAS PUNISHED IN REGARD TO THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999/2000, WHILE THE MURDERS OF 21 COPTIC CHRISTIAN CITIZENS OF EGYPT WENT UNPUNISHED.

WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CARRY OUT AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE EGYPTIAN SECURITY FORCES IN 1998.
WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT CONDUCT A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN THE EL-LOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999/2000, PUNISH THOSE FOUND GUILTY OF OFFICAL MISCONDUCT, AND INQUIRE AS TO WHY THE LOCAL EGYPTIAN SECURITY FORCES FAILED TO STOP THE MASSACRE OR TO INTERVENE IN ANY WAY.

WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, CARRY OUT THESE INQUIRIES INTO THE EL-KOSHEH INCIDENT OF 1999/2000, AND CONDUCT TRIALS INDEPENDENT OF THE LOCAL SECURITY FORCES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT ENSURE THAT SUBSEQUENT INQUIRIES AND TRIALS BE CONDUCTED WITH THE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF PROMINENT HUMAN RIGHTS GUARANTORS AND INTERNATIONAL OBERVERS.

WE THE SIGNATORIES OF THIS PETITION, CALL UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE OSVEREIGN NATION OF EGYPT, HOSNY MUBARAK, REQUIRING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT PUBLICALLY DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST BISHOP WISSA AND FATHERS GABRAIL AND ANTONIOUS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PROTEST OF POLICE BRUTALITY IN 1998, RETURN THEIR BAIL, AND DISCIPLINE JUDGE AFIFY FOR HIS ABUSIVE COMMENTS ABOUT THEM WHEN THEY WERE NOT ON TRIAL.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2008 9:42 PM

Here's a brief Wikipedia summary of the Cairo Declaration and its discontents:

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic Shari'ah as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic counterpart of and a response to the post-World War II United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.

Predominantly Muslim countries, like Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. In 1981, the post-revolutionary Iranian representative to the United Nations Said Rajaie-Khorassani articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[1]
The CDHRI was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights.
The Declaration also forbids the promulgation of "emergency laws that would provide executive authority for such actions". Art. 19 stipulates that there are no other crimes or punishments than those mentioned in the Sharia, which include corporal punishment (whippings, amputations) and capital punishment.[2] The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Sharia,[3] which forbids muslims to submit to the rule of non-muslims.

The Declaration also emphasizes the "full right to freedom and self-determination", and its opposition to enslavement, oppression, exploitation and colonialism. The CDHRI declares the rule of law, establishing equality and justice for all. The CDHRI also guarantees all individuals the "right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs". The CDHRI also forbids any abuse of authority 'subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.'

The Declaration grants individuals the right to express their opinion freely. It encourages them to propagate that which is right and good. However, it forbids the misuse of this right in order to "violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets", "undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate", "arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred" or commit an "incitement to any form of racial discrimination".

The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah, which is the declaration's sole source[4].

The CDHRI declares "true religion" to be the "guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity". It also places the responsibility for defending those rights upon the entire Ummah.

[edit] Criticism
The CDHRI has been criticized for falling short of the international human rights standards by not upholding the fundamentality of freedom of religion.[5] Article 5 prohibits imposing any restrictions on marriage stemming from "race, colour or nationality", notably excluding religion from the list, so that men and women may be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion. However, in Shari'ah law this is due to the fact that it forbids men to attempt to forcefully (by any means) convert their non-muslim wives to Islam, while there is no such guarantee for muslim women should they choose to marry non-muslim men.

Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of asserting the superiority of men.[6] In the Article 6, women are guaranteed equal dignity, but not equality in other matters. The article also puts upon the husband the responsibility to maintain welfare of the family, while no similar obligation is placed upon the wife. Finally, it makes no mention of the widespread practice of having multiple wives in some Islamic countries.

Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticized the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus, on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[1]

Posted by: Hugh at August 29, 2008 9:46 PM

My daughter is really into watching MEMRI.org videos. They're quite an antidote to the sanitized fantasies she hears from her professors at college. They are quite unsettling, especially when you consider that all that fanaticism and ignorance is real, Islamic pop culture as a sort of horror genre. Ahmedinejad has it all over Chucky.

Posted by: jewdog at August 29, 2008 9:51 PM

Thank you, Hugh, for your analysis and supporting evidence comparing UDHR with Cairo's version. This is exactly why I'm a regular visitor to JW/DW; to gain an indepth understanding of Islamic supremicism that's sorely lacking elsewhere.

Posted by: Xero G at August 29, 2008 11:05 PM

I will state again what I have asserted heretofore at JW and that is that it is impossible to be a devout Muslim and a good American at one and the same time. You can be one or the other but not both. And this is not the case for believers of any other major religion on earth. In every case but Islam the world's major faiths do not demand eventual replacement of the Constitution with religious law, all but Islam have the Golden Rule (also very American) and none except Islam demand that the secular and spiritual spheres be undivided. In short, Islam and America don't mix.

Posted by: Wellington at August 30, 2008 12:08 AM

the posts of Hugh have a contradiction:

"In August of 1990, representatives of 54 Muslim countries met in Cairo and signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam"

"The CDHRI was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference"

I'd bet it's 54, and not 45, since I'm sure I've read that ALL nations in the OIC have supported the CDHRI over the UDHR.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 30, 2008 12:21 AM

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not adopted by a voice vote. To quote from Ambassador Glendon's book, "A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (p. 169): "At four minutes before midnight the president called the roll and drew by lot the name of the country to vote first, Burma. After Burma voted yes, Byelorussia, next in order, abstained, as did the other members of the Soviet bloc when their turns came up -- Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Ukraine, the USSR, and Yugoslavia. It had been clear from the beginning that South Africa would be unable to accept the Declaration, but she too abstained rather than voting against it. So did Saudi Arabia, breaking ranks with the other Muslim nations that had voted yes. The final tally was forty-eight in favor, eight abstentions, and none opposed. Two countries, Honduras and Yemen, were absent."

So, of the Mahometan states then members of the UN, all but Saudi Arabia and Yemen affirmatively voted for the Declaration. Now maybe you want to claim that, yeah, they technically subscribed to it (i.e., put their names to it by voting yes), but they didn't really mean it. But that's not what you said. You said that none of them other than Iran "subscribed" (i.e., "assented to" (see Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.)).

And now that you mention it, what was so special about Iran that distinguishes it from the other Mohammedan states? You argue: "The Muslm states were weak, and without oil. Pakistan had just been formed, by the personally-largely-unobservant Mohammad Ali Jinnah (who was to die within Pakistan's first year) and would need all the Western help it could get. In Egypt, the aftermath of Lord Cromer's administration, from 1882 to 1922, lingered on in the ancien regime of King Farouk . . . . Syria and Lebanon were still under French influence, and the French were still willing to protect the Christians. Afghanistan had had a king who, in the inter-war period, had wanted to emulate Ataturk, and that secularizing spirit had not relapsed into full-bodied Islam; Afghanistan was too hopelessly dependent on the West. In Turkey, Kemalism was still riding high." It sounds to me that Iran ought to be listed right along with Egypt, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc. After all, its monarch was young and weak, having been installed less than a decade earlier by British and Soviet invaders, and he later showed himself be be a modernizer in the Kemalist mode (and come to think of it, no more scrupulous about human rights than Turkey under the Kemalists or Afghanistan under Zahir Shah; he looks good in comparison to what came after him, but that's not saying a lot).

And if you read Ambassador Glendon's book, you'll see that she reports how the Mahometan states didn't just passively acquiesce to the drafting of the Declaration by Western representatives, but took active part in the drafting, and affirmatively declared their support for the product (see, e.g., p. 168, where the Pakistani and Syrian representatives are quoted). You may think they were insincere, but even an insincere support is sufficient to disprove your claim that they had not "in letter or in spirit" shown that they subscribed to the Declaration.

Posted by: Seamus at August 30, 2008 10:42 AM

Mary Ann Glendon is not to be found in Langdell Hall, but further afield in soft Italian climes, so I can't check with her on my remembering -- I wouldn't have made it up -- reading that it was by voice-vote, and there were no dissenters. Or perhaps I misunderstood what I read: it was a voice-vote (one by one by one), and there were no dissenters (no one dared to vote "No" but there were a handful who dared to abstain, which is taken to be a different thing).

But I will concede the point, and note here that, unalphabetically, a roll-call was taken on Resolution 217(a) on December 10, 1948, and that certain states with large Muslim populations, including Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, voted in favor along with everyone else, save the Soviet bloc and Saudi Arabia's Jamal Baroody (himself a dour Lebanese).

But I will also note, exactly as before, that several of these countries were ruled by regimes that were secularizing, or intent on doing so, as Kemalist Turkey was in 1948, that Pakistan hardly existed and was dependent on the West's goodwill, but also had been the creation of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who though "the Father of Pakistan" was far more secular than any of those who followed him, and who would have been horrified at the re-islamization, no doubt inevitable, of Pakistan.

As for the oblique reference to the participation of the Syrian and Pakistani delegates, I don't know what you mean. Of course they would put in their two cents, no doubt trying to change certain things (but as Charles Malik was among the drafters, I doubt that they would have gotten by him) to make the document more palatable to Muslims -- or was the Syrian delegate a Christian? -- but that does not mean that they were enthusiastic about the document. Look at how the Arabs tried in the late fall of 1967 to change the wording of Resolution 242, to make it read "from all of the territories" rather than what the British delegate, Lord Chalfont, and the American delegate, Arthur Goldberg, had carefully crafted (the British Foreign Secretary at the time, Michael Stewart, later wrote about this energetic but failed attempt), which was "from territories."

Finally, I will repeat emphatically that the ONLY largely-Muslim state that, for a while -- until Khomeini and Company came along to see Islamic Justice done -- was Iran. And that is because the Shah was determined to bring Iran into the world of the West, as best he could, was a secularizer, and a protector of non-Muslims (Bahai's, Jews, Christians), who flourished under his regime, and whose nostalgia and fond memories are not so much of "Iran" but of "Iran under the Shah." They are different things.

Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2008 11:28 AM

Does anyone see a similarity between this kind of objection to Islam and an old fashioned prejudice against Catholics which was once very strong in the United States but which no one with an ounce of sense would take seriously now? Posted by: Novalis

Catholics had no problem with obeying secular laws, as per our separation of church and state. Muslims do have a problem, so they try to change our constitutional laws to Sharia law. Therein lies the difference. Remember Islam has nothing like "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", so their so-called religion is totally tied into their politics of control, punishments, and death. The rest of it is spurious. Catholicism was never a death cult. "We love death" is totally Islamic.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 30, 2008 12:59 PM

Nietzsche said that "religious wars" showed that the masses were treating "concepts" with respect. In that way, until Americans take the concepts in the Constitution and, by extension, documents like the declaration of human rights, seriously, we won't be on a level footing with Muslims seeking the overturning of both those documents and the societies they engender.

Of course, the "treason of the intellectuals" in the West has helped Muslims in this regard, unwittingly at first, I suspect, but with the possibility that some are beyond the "useful idiot" stage into the full-on fellow traveler of Islam stage, since "concepts" are now ridiculed by the average American, having been exposed to concepts primarily through the words of charlatans peddling postmodernism and its related intellectual detritus.

Muslim commitment to American principles is the circle that can't be squared, as much as apologists obfuscate that fact.

Posted by: venividivici at August 30, 2008 1:03 PM

I don't know why you think you have to speak with Ambassador Glendon personally in order to find out what she said, or what the facts were about the adoption of the UDHR. Her book is readily available at reputable book stores everywhere, or on Amazon. I believe it is also available in libraries.

So there is no need to speculate about what the Pakistani and Syrian delegates said on page 168, much less to speculate (wrongly) that "they [were putting] put in their two cents, no doubt trying to change certain things . . . to make the document more palatable to Muslims," but that "they were [not] enthusiastic about the document." You could just check the book. And if you did, you'd find what Ambassador Glendon said:

"In the end, the controversial religious-freedom article caused only one defection. All the states with large Muslim populations except Saudi Arabia voted yet when the whole Declaration was presented for approval by the third committee. The main speaker on the issue in the General Assembly was Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, the foreign minister of Pakistan and head of its UN delegation. A member of the minority Ahmadi Muslim sect, Kahn told the delegates that the article on religious freedom would have the full support of Pakistan, then the UN member with the largest Muslim population. The issue, he said, 'involved the honor of Islam.' He cited a passage from the Koran for the proposition that faith could not have an obligatory character: 'Let him who chooses to believe, believe, and him who chooses to disbelieve, disbelieve.' Moreover, he pointed, Islam was a proselytizing religion that strove to persuade others to change their faith and to alter their way of living. It recognized the same right of conversion for other religions, though it had objections to Christian missionary work when that work assumed a political character. The freedom to change beliefs, he concluded, was consistent with the Islamic religion.

"Syria's Abdul Rahman Kayaly rose to defend the Declaration against those who complained of its imperfections. There had been many human rights declarations throughout history, he began. Those earlier declarations had not been perfect, nor had they been perfectly observed. Civilizations had progressed slowly. As for the present Declaration, 'It was not the work of a few representatives in the Assembly or in the Economic and Social Council; it was the achievement of generations of human beings who had worked towards that end.' Now the task was to put its principles into effect -- through education, national legislation, and forms of government."

And while you're talking about what countries have or have not "subscribed" to the UHDR, I would note that the countries that have literally subscribed (in the originally sense of affixing their names) to the UN Conventions on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which were created in order to give legal force to the UDHR) include: Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan (signed but not ratified), Tunisia, and Turkey. (In addition, the Conventions have been ratified by Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Djibouti, Egypt, The Gambia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon (in 1972, so it was probably a majority-Mahometan state by then), Libya, Malawi, Mauretania, Somalia, the Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.) Now you may well argue that the subscriptions or ratifications of these states were not made sincerely, and you might even be right. (Certainly many of these states attached reservations to their ratifications that undercut much of their force.) But that's not what you said. You said that none of them (other than Iran) had acted in any way to indicate that they "subscribed," in letter or in spirit, to the UHDR.

You know, your arguments would be a lot more effective if you thought a little about the factual claims you were making and checked them out first, rather than shooting from the hip with easily falsifiable statements about what you assume must be true (especially when those statements include sweeping terms such as "all," "every," "none," or "never").

Posted by: Seamus at August 30, 2008 1:16 PM

The only largely-Muslim state that--did *what* until the arrival of Khomeini and Co.? Senator, we need a verb.

Posted by: Seamus at August 30, 2008 1:18 PM

I think most of us here realized this a while ago that it's not possible to be a Muslim and an American. An "American Muslim"? Ha! That's more oxymoronic than a "Nazi Jew".

But the more important question is what do we do with the growing threat within our own borders? How can America let these Muslims live and breed like rats here when they clearly have allegiances elsewhere, especially to those who hate America. Not only that, but the Muslims actively seek to destroy America with their chants of "Death to America". They have proven time and time again that they are "Muslims first" and Americans never!

What can America do you ask? We ought to start by ceasing all immigration from Muslim countries. It is imprudent for us to keep doing so. And we eventually move on to deporting those within our own borders. We have to monitor their every move. Monitor their hateful congregations in their mosques, which they built to show their political dominance.

For those concerned with their supposed "rights": If no true Muslim can be an American, then how can the same person be granted AMERICAN rights? This is completely illogical. As far as I'm concerned, they have no rights, other than the "rights" and "freedoms" granted to them in their Sharia-dominated countries. Let them live under Sharia over there if they are so hellbent on bringing Sharia here.

Our safety is constantly under threat from the Muslim threat. When will America wake up and realize this? If they are allowed to live here, propagate their Satanic ideology under the guise of free speech, infiltrate the government pretending to be patriotic, undermine our values and our way of life under the guise of freedom of the press, breed like roaches and rats, constructs their terrorist-breeding mosques upon our churches under the guise of freedom of religion, create secret pacts with the political Left and the liberal media, fund their jihad under the guise of charities, and other such countless things, then America has already lost the war before it began. And the war is indeed coming.

Posted by: jiji8989 at August 30, 2008 4:29 PM

Seamus, your disputes with Hugh are interesting but I have a question for you: when Muslim states & delegates some 60 years ago were subscribing to the UDHR were they being more, or less, Islamic than when the OIC today (and since 1990) representing all Muslim nations does its damndest to subvert that with the CDHR? I think that's the more important point here.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 30, 2008 4:43 PM

You quote Mary Ann Glendon thus:

The main speaker on the issue in the General Assembly was Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, the foreign minister of Pakistan and head of its UN delegation. A member of the minority Ahmadi Muslim sect, Kahn told the delegates that the article on religious freedom would have the full support of Pakistan, then the UN member with the largest Muslim population. The issue, he said, 'involved the honor of Islam.' He cited a passage from the Koran for the proposition that faith could not have an obligatory character: 'Let him who chooses to believe, believe, and him who chooses to disbelieve, disbelieve.' Moreover, he pointed, Islam was a proselytizing religion that strove to persuade others to change their faith and to alter their way of living. It recognized the same right of conversion for other religions, though it had objections to Christian missionary work when that work assumed a political character. The freedom to change beliefs, he concluded, was consistent with the Islamic religion."

All that this passage shows is that Mary Ann Glendon simply reported on what Mohamad Zafrullah Khan said. She did not feel the need to investigate whether or not this was the sheerest fantasy on his part, his hope, his aspiration, as an Ahmadi, who knew, or certainly had an inkling of, just how false and misleading his misrepresentation of islam was.

Does an Ahmadi, does the distinguished Mohamad Zafrullah Khan, strike you as a true representative of Islam, expressing the approval of Muslim Pakistanis, or did he in this speech simply offer an example of what Ahmadis and the most advanced handful of secularising or secularised Muslims might welcome. Of course Mohamad Zafrulla Khan would naturally would welcome any protection that might be provided to Ahmadis by this Universal Declaration, and who knows? --perhaps Mohamad Zafrulla Khan convinced himself that Islam would not revert to its type, that Ahmadis would not live in fear, as they now do, and be prohibited from identifying themselves as Muslims on official forms in Pakistan. might get, in a state run of, by, and for Muslims. You know that what Mohamad Zafrullah Khan was worried about in the end came to pass. You know that they live under the threat of constant assault by Muslims who, having so few non-Muslims around to be the targets of hatred, have chosen to increase pressure on Ahmadis -- just take a look at all the reports of this on-line.

As for the Syrian delegate, what do we know about him? We know that then, as now, Syria had a lot of Christians, and then, and even more so know, the military caste of the Alawites were both powerful (having gotten their start under the French as part of the "troupes speciales" in the 1920s) and yet constantly worried about whether or not the majority Sunni population would fully accept them as Muslims (answer: no).

So while no one can fault the telling, without any explanation on her part, by Glendon of the vote itself by Muslim states, the real meaning of that vote, which includes the stories of the particular time, place, and representatives chosen (Mohamad Zafrulla Khan had a long run as an authority on Islam among those who simply took it for granted that an "Ahmadi" (or, dismissively, Qadiani) was regarded as a full-fledged Muslim, and would not have understood his own brand of misrepresentation, his own hopes and fears. But we don't have that excuse. We are able -- aren't we? -- to see through his vote, and to the real meaning of that vote, which was on his part aspirational, on the part of the Muslims who really ended up running Pakistan a matter of supreme indifference, with the results we all see, and not only in Pakistan, but in every single one of those Muslim states that voted a meaningless "Yes" on December 10, 1`948 for a document that was so far from what they believed, that they finally came up with an Islamic "version" that contradicted the original Universal Declaration in most important ways, the travesty known as the Cairo Declaration.

As for your general comment on my haste, I have put up about 10,000 postings at this site since late 2004. If I have sometimes been mistaken, I always try to own up. But how many times, considering how much I put into some of these postings, information and details about all kinds of things, all sorts of histor, have I been wrong about something? A dozen times? Perhaps a little more, perhaps twenty, even though I go out of my way to make comments on all sorts of things? Hmm? Twenty times in 10,000 postings? I don't think I have much to apologize for.

You, on the other hand, in your attempt to mislead by endowing that vote by Muslim states for the Universal Declaration with a significance it clearly does not possess, do.

Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2008 5:07 PM

Hugh -

thank you very much for putting up the post above containing: the faithfreedom analysis of selected clauses of the Cairo Declaration; the full text of the Cairo Declaration, with its repetitive drumbeat of phrases like "in accordance with the tenets of the Shari’ah"; and the full text of the Universal Declaration.

One thing struck me immediately. It leaps out at you when you set the two Declarations side by side.

The fourth clause of the UDHR unequivocally and in the strongest possible terms forbids Slavery:

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

There is NO corresponding clause in the Cairo Declaration.

Nowhere does the Cairo Declaration forbid slavery. Slavery is carefully not mentioned at all. Of course: anyone familiar with sharia knows that sharia takes slavery and slave-taking for granted; it does not forbid slavery, it does not condemn slavery, it has all sorts of rules about what one can and cannot do to and with slaves, and who may be enslaved (any kafir is fair game). Under Islam, slavery is perfectly legal and moral and permissible; all Islamic societies throughout history have enslaved people, often on a staggering scale.

I recommend that this very useful posting by Hugh - the two Declarations, and the sample commentary from faithfreedom, and other things that may strike you, such as the fact that the Cairo Declaration conspicuously fails to forbid slavery - should be copied by all jihadwatchers.

Print it out and send it, with a suitable covering letter, to your political representatives and - if you belong to a non-Muslim faith - your religious leaders. Make sure you include samples, with references, of the kinds of thing that sharia prescribes and permits, such as slavery, wife-beating, stoning of 'immoral' women, the wedding and bedding of nine-year-old girls, and death for 'apostasy' and 'blasphemy', and the whole panoply of repressive laws relating to the status of non-Muslims in sharia-based Muslim states.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 30, 2008 10:11 PM

A further note.

I understand that Nuh Ha Mim Keller, the Western convert to Islam who translated 'Reliance of the Traveller' into English, carefully refrained altogether from translating the extensive section of the work that discusses and regulates slavery (and thus, of course, reveals that sharia permits slavery). His stated reason for doing so was that this section was irrelevant, or something like that.

Translating the lot would have been more honest...but would have revealed to curious non-Arabic-speaking kafir the unpleasant facts of what Islamic law says about slavery.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 30, 2008 11:20 PM

Hugh, may I copy this and send it to my local newspaper? There is an editorial today about how "patriotic" muslims are and I would like to respond. In fact, there are two articles about islam/muslims on the editorial page, the other one from a local muslim whining about how people misunderstand and disparage islam and defending the UN's stance on disallowing all criticism of islam. His last sentence encourages everyone to read Karen Armstrong and John Esposito!

It's not that I'm too lazy to write my own but this is the perfect riposte and it's already written. There is no guarantee that they will publish it but it's a conservative newspaper, one of the few left, so they might.

Posted by: Susanp at August 31, 2008 12:46 AM

Go right ahead. This posting, or for that matter any excerpts you find useful in any of the articles.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2008 9:57 AM

If they are allowed to live here, propagate their Satanic ideology under the guise of free speech, infiltrate the government pretending to be patriotic, undermine our values and our way of life under the guise of freedom of the press, breed like roaches and rats, constructs their terrorist-breeding mosques upon our churches under the guise of freedom of religion, create secret pacts with the political Left and the liberal media, fund their jihad under the guise of charities, and other such countless things, then America has already lost the war before it began.
Posted by: jiji8989

This is a good description of the Muslim 'Trojan Horse' that had been allowed to enter our nation. Better check under the floor boards where all sorts of nasties and persons are hiding.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 31, 2008 11:07 AM

Islam can only be a rotten pie.

Posted by: American at September 2, 2008 10:16 AM