| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Comments by David G. Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education and the World Union for Progressive Judaism to the United Nations:
On June 26, ten days after the June 16 “Sharia Affair” landmark at the Human Rights Council (see UN Human Rights Council: Any mention of the word “sharia” is now taboo; UNHRC: Something is, indeed, rotten in the State of … the Council; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03dOu-DNLec), the Permanent Mission of the OIC to the UN in Geneva forwarded to the High Commissioner for Human Rights the “OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia” – regarding the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 62/154, entitled “Combating defamation of religions” , of which a summary was reproduced as a General Assembly document (A/HRC/9/G/2) .The OIC document, processed on 24 July was made available only yesterday on the UN website for the 9th session of the UNCHR (8-26 September). We have reproduced four key paragraphs from this very pertinent Report – the introduction, one in the middle and two concluding passages:One of the challenges of today’s world is the issue of Islamophobia. In recent years, this phenomenon has assumed serious proportions and has become a major cause of concern for the Muslim world. As a result of this rising trend, Muslims, in the West in particular, are being stereotyped, profiled, and subjected to different forms of discriminatory treatment. The most sacred symbols of Islam are being defiled and denigrated in an insulting, offensive, and contemptuous manner to incite hatred and unrest in society. While Islam, as the religion of peace and tolerance, affirms moderation and balance and rejects all forms of extremism and terrorism, the proponents of Islamophobia continue their campaign to defame Islam and Muslims. (…)
The Observatory Report states that Islamophobia will continue to be an issue of concern for the international community in the near future unless the international community comes up with effective measures to contain it. The Report, however, argues that the Muslim world’s outcry at Islamophobic incidents, in particular the publication of the defamatory cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the unfortunate and unwarranted remarks by Pope Benedict XVI at a University in Germany on September 20, 2006, had a negative impact on the Muslim world and drew attention of its official and public opinion to the gravity of the issue. (…)Since the submission of the first Observatory Report and immediately in the wake of the 11th OIC Summit, a major Islamophobic incident that shocked and dismayed all Muslims and the international community was the release of the film “Fitna” denigrating the Holy Qur’an. This was preceded by the reprint of cartoons of the Prophet (PBUH) by seventeen Danish newspapers. Condemning the release of the film in the strongest terms, the OIC Secretary General described it as a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims, incitement of hatred, and an act of defamation of religions solely designed to incite and provoke unrest among peoples of different religious beliefs, and to jeopardize world peace and stability. He warned the international community against the repercussions of this serious development. He also took up the matter with the Dutch Government, urging it to initiate legal action against the acts committed under the pretext of freedom of expression.
The Observatory Report concludes that the relentless campaign of hatred and intolerance of Islam and Muslims by vested individuals and ultra-right wing groups notwithstanding, there is now a general awareness in the international community on Islamophobia’s serious implications. Western Governments, NGOs, and the civil society have started to take serious note of the concerns of the Muslim world over the dangers of defamation of Islam and have shown willingness to engage in dialogue. The Report also shows that these developments still fall short of the actions and political needed to address the issue in decisive and clear terms, since Islamophobes remain free to carry on their attacks in the absence of necessary legal measures to curb the misuse or abuse of the right to freedom of expression. The Report therefore concludes that OIC Member States may continue to vigorously pursue their efforts to combat Islamophobia at both multilateral and bilateral levels.
For this wake-up text on “Islamophobia” and “freedom of expression”, see here.
On December 18, 2007, when the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 62/154 “Combating Defamation of Religions” by 108 votes to 51 with 25 abstentions, many delegations opposed; Portugal, speaking for the European Union, explained that:
The European Union does not see the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ as a valid one in a human rights discourse. From a human rights perspective, members of religious or belief communities should not be viewed as parts of homogenous entities. International human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, rather than the religions as such.We are quoting this from joint written statement (A/HRC/7/NGO/96 – Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association of World Citizens) to the 7th session of the HRC in which we addressed this point, concluding:
The OIC is attempting to limit both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and to extend human rights to religion, per se, by its repeated promotion of the resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” in the Commission on Human Rights [1999-2005], the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.For our full text: ‘The Cairo Declaration and the Universality of Human Rights,’ see here. See also the IHEU site.
When the same resolution on “Combating the defamation of Religions” (only Islam is mentioned) was adopted at that 7th HRC session on March 27, 2008, the AP carried a despatch (New York Times/IHT) – in which the delegate of Saudi Arabia is quoted as saying that no culture should incite to religious hatred by attacking sacred teachings:
Maybe Islam is one of the most obvious victims of aggressions under the pretext of freedom of expression. It is regrettable that there are false translations and interpretations of the freedom of expression.In June (8th session, soon after the “Sharia Affair”), the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights a 16-page substantive analysis “Combating Defamation of Religions” in response to the OHCHR’s invitation regarding implementation of UNGA Resolution 62/154. It begins:
The position of the ECLJ in regard to the issue of “defamation of religion” resolutions, as they have been introduced at the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression. The “defamation of religion” resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law. Furthermore, “defamation of religion” replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech.The ECLJ’s Appendix 1 provides six pages of “Samples of Recent Defamation of Religion Incidents and Cases” from 11 countries taken from media sources. For the full text, see here.
In another joint written statement (AWE/IHEU/AWC), also posted yesterday on the UN website: “Sixty Years after the UDHR: Threats to the Universality of Human Rights”, we reproduce a Press Release of the International Commission of Jurists from 1991 (“Jurists Concerned by the Declaration on Human Rights in Islam”), in which a highly respected international Muslim jurist, Adama Dieng – then the ICJ Secretary-General – provides a strong criticism and condemnation of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,; it is still valid today. The CDHRI remains a cornerstones of the OIC struggle (jihad) to impose Sharia law at the United Nations and elsewhere – a stumbling block for article 18 and 19 of the UDHR: “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” & “the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
This written statement (A/HRC/9/NGO/2) concludes with an urgent reminder:
Surely, one of the lessons of the Cold War is that only a firm and uncompromising stand regarding fundamental issues can lead to the effective implementation of the ideals and objectives enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights and other UN instruments.”For the full text, see here.
As the 9th session of the Human Rights Council opens on September 8, a prologue line from Shakespeare’s Henry V comes to mind… “For now sits Expectation in the air….”
Posted by Robert at September 4, 2008 11:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Arab immigration to the US after 9/11 is UP, not down. Why do tens of thousands of Muslims seek to emigrate to such a hostile country?
How Islamophobic is the US if it welcomes Muslims instead of turning them away?
Face it. Muslims won't be happy until this country is run under sharia. Those that came here to escape sharia had better speak up. We can't hear them and we can't see them. Until we do, we'll never know they're here.
Posted by: PMK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 4, 2008 11:24 AM
“For now sits Expectation in the air….”
And expectoration is the first response to come to mind.
Perhaps the best response is for the civilised world to ignore this bid to steal free speech. State our case, walk away, treat the matter with disdain and quiet contempt.
at September 4, 2008 11:27 AM
I have the impression they are crossing one bridge too far.
They may take over the councils, while at the same time the councils will lose their standing as respectable and respected bodies.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at September 4, 2008 11:35 AM
I hate to say it but the people of Islam know how to defend their "religion of peace". I only wish that the West would learn how to defend the West.
Unless the West learns soon, we are doomed to become nothing more than what you see in any other despotic corrupt bullet hole ridden Islamic country.
Posted by: Spot on at September 4, 2008 11:36 AM
Does anyone else have another link to the latest OIC report? The UN ODS link does not work on my computers.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at September 4, 2008 11:39 AM
Has the whole world gone mad?
In Bush's speech to the RNC this week he said America needs a president who understood the message of 9/11, yet no one got the "message" yet. Missed it by a mile. As a matter of fact the effort is to protect the religion who sent the "message" and screwing anyone who sees the truth. It's maddening.
The UN and leftoid busybodies are going to destroy themselves eventually and a pile of innocents with it.
I'll answer my own question then. Yes, the world has gone mad.
Posted by: Sounder at September 4, 2008 11:43 AM
We are seeing the beginning of the end of the UN. Once the OIC has taken over, the decent states simply will withdraw, one by one, thus delegitimizing the UN.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at September 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Hi, knightemplar2! You sent me the Perfect Man slide show, and I must say, it really is good (although bloody). But of course it's bloody, because this is Muhammad & Islam we're talking about. Anyway, it is very compelling, and I recommend everyone write you to see it. Take care.
It's safe to say that Muhammad was anything BUT a "Perfect Man". Hardly. He was perfectly gross and perverted; not someone rational people should be following after. Yes, you got that right, if you ARE following after Muhammad, then you are not rational. No way.
Posted by: champ at September 4, 2008 12:02 PM
OK - I found some documents on my own - and have posted links for any other researchers:
-- United Nations Documents Main Web Site
http://documents.un.org/
-- United
Nations Documents Web Search - in English
http://documents.un.org/welcome.asp?language=E
-- July 24, 2008 - A/HRC/9/G/2 - Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Forms of Intolerance: Follow-up to and Implementation of the Durban
Declartion and Programme of Action -- Letter dated 26 June 2008 from the Chargé
d’affaires ad interim of thePermanent Mission of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC) -- and -- Annex: OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia
http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/147/46/pdf/G0814746.pdf?OpenElement
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/un_docs/G0814746.pdf
-- August 18, 2008 - IHEU: Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights,
Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to
Development
http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/151/47/pdf/G0815147.pdf?OpenElement
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/un_docs/G0815147.pdf
-- European Centre for Law and Justice: "Combating Defamation of Religions" -
submission to UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights
http://www.eclj.org/PDF/080626_ECLJ_submission_to_OHCHR_on_Combating_Defamation_of_Religions_June2008.pdf
-- UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - [on the report of the
Third Committee (A/62/439/Add.2)] - 62/154. Combating defamation of religions -
March 6, 2008 A/RES/62/154
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-154.pdf
http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/473/01/pdf/N0747301.pdf?OpenElement
-- 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia – May 2007-March 2008
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/is11/english/Islamophobia-rep-en.pdf
at September 4, 2008 12:28 PM
And yet another reason for the U.S. and her (real) allies to withdraw from the U.N. (along with the kabillions in "dues") and give the U.N. a 30 day eviction notice.
Go someplace where you will be more comfortable and away from us infadels and islamaphobes, like maybe Gaza, Cairo or Tehran.
Posted by: walterc at September 4, 2008 12:36 PM
PMK posted: Face it. Muslims won't be happy until this country is run under sharia. Those that came here to escape sharia had better speak up. We can't hear them and we can't see them. Until we do, we'll never know they're here.
Even of they did, will we ever know that they are not just beguiling us with sweet talk, with things we what to hear, until such time Muslim numbers are large enough for no such requirement.
I'm afraid that there will be civil war, that is if we ever perk up the courage to say "NO" to the continuing Islamisation of the West. Of course, if we ever did say "NO", then full Jihad becomes mandatory for Muslims.
at September 4, 2008 12:44 PM
Islamists are constantly tunneling to undermine our laws to protect the rights of the individual, our human rights. In the Umma there is no ‘individual’, only the members of the collective in total submission to this cult-like total belief system. So it is heartening to hear the speaker from Portugal:
The European Union does not see the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ as a valid one in a human rights discourse. From a human rights perspective, members of religious or belief communities should not be viewed as parts of homogenous entities. International human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion or belief, rather than the religions as such.
We are quoting this from joint written statement (A/HRC/7/NGO/96 – Association for World Education, International Humanist and Ethical Union, Association of World Citizens) to the 7th session of the HRC in which we addressed this point, concluding:
The OIC is attempting to limit both freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and to extend human rights to religion, per se, by its repeated promotion of the resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” in the Commission on Human Rights [1999-2005], the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.
Human beings are not part of some homogenous religious entity, but natural human beings with their own rights to privacy in their thoughts and beliefs, our freedoms from enslavement of the mind. For the OIC, and Islamists in general, to try to redefine the individual as members of a ‘homogenous entity’ goes directly against our Universal Human Rights, and therefore seeks to enslave our minds to their cult-like belief system. How can we possibly ‘dialogue’ under these conditions, where we are universes apart in how we define the natural human individual? Freedom of expression is a personal right, and not dictated by some obsolete dogma dragged out of 7th century Arabian primitive antiquity. As free individuals we have a right to examine and criticize any tenets of religion that offends our sensibilities, especially one that in slave-like submission seeks to enslave the mind to prevent it from questioning it. Dialogue with Islam for this reason is a dead issue.
Until Muslims reject the Cairo Sharia version of their ‘human rights’ there is no basis for this dialogue on any level to discuss our real human rights, those protecting the individual. In Islam the ‘individual’ does not exist, per their definitions of their collectivist homogenous ideology of total control of the individual. Our freedoms of expression and belief are non-negotiable. “Combating Defamation of Religion/s” (really only Islam) is a dead issue at the UN.
at September 4, 2008 1:01 PM
DP111,
You're absolutely right.
It's depressing because it suggests that there isn't a single Muslim, anywhere in the world, whose word we can trust. What do American Muslims-in-name-only think?
So where do we go from here?
Posted by: PMK at September 4, 2008 1:10 PM
"And yet another reason for the U.S. and her (real) allies to withdraw from the U.N. (along with the kabillions in "dues") and give the U.N. a 30 day eviction notice."
walterc,
But we won't and they won't. It's not in the script. Too bad. It would be a new independence day to be celebrated by Americans for years to come.
What about kicking OIC member countries out of the UN? Given their experiences with jihad, why would ANY of the five permanent members vote against it?
Posted by: PMK at September 4, 2008 1:17 PM
The Trojan Mosque
There are two kinds of cultures that can co-exist with a majority culture1. Those cultures willing to integrate to a significant degree within the majority culture and as a result gain equal decision making powers, e.g. the classic immigrant melting pot.
2. Those cultures who choose to preserve their unique culture intact through isolation by refusing integration, e.g. the Amish.
There is a third kind of culture, but one that cannot co-exist with a majority culture, a culture that refuses integration but demands control over the majority culture through violence and intimidation. This is the way of the conqueror culture.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
This article puts it in a nutshell, all that is wrong and dangerous about Islam . Well worth reading and posting around the internet.
at September 4, 2008 1:19 PM
funny thing about the oic they are lying every time they claim to be representing only muslim nations its member list has several nations listed tat are christian majority with a very small (less tat 1 percent )muslim population like the league of nations the uns time to die of uselessness as come
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at September 4, 2008 1:27 PM
PMK
In the UK, the political elite is simply terrified of these legal and illegal immigrant Muslims and asylum seekers, who came here looking for the dole in the best case, and a job at worst.
Politicians, having got themselves and us in a mess, cannot admit that they have been wrong, badly wrong. Politicians of today never admit to ever having made a mistake. They are perfect, and even if they make a mistake, then it was with the best intentions, and so they can never never be wrong. They never resign as a matter of honour, and leave the job only when forced to.
This policy of allowing Muslims into the UK will go down as the biggest mistake that the UK has ever made. The same can be said for every Western country. It will lead inevitably to Balkanisation - this is already evident, with several no-go areas in the UK. Civil war, and Muslims will start it when their numbers are large enough, is inevitable, unless our politicians comply with all Muslims demand - shari’a.
I'm afraid, and very sad to say, that there will be civil war - that is, if we ever perk up the courage to say "NO" to the continuing Islamisation of the West. Of course, if we ever did say "NO", then full Jihad becomes mandatory for Muslims, as this is the legalistic requirement for Jihad to be declared.
It is for this reason I'm confident that Muslims will fire the first shot in the coming civil war.
at September 4, 2008 1:44 PM
DP111,
Maybe everyone should brush up on Spanish history, particularly the 1490s.
Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Moors out, without apology. That could have been characterized as a civil war. It may be time to follow their example. Do we have the will? Our ancestors seem to have been made of sterner stuff.
We're more likely to melt at the first story of a "loyal" Muslim who faces torture if he returns home. Then there's the Muslims who were born in the West and know no other life - even though they are willing to accept sharia. A refusal to resist sharia is tantamount to accepting it. But that won't matter. Once we see the story of an "innocent" teenager who plays soccer or baseball or basketball with everyone else but who might face deportation, we will give in and surrender to our emotions rather than listen to our own better judgment. It's easier to be politically correct.
So when will the people of the UK decide to support the BNP even if some of its policies make them uncomfortable? They'll pay a price one way or the other. Either they have to accept things that make them squirm or they can die secure in the knowledge that they did nothing that was the least bit distressing.
at September 4, 2008 7:00 PM
"Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Moors out, without apology. "
Yeah, but they did it after a conquest and long occupation, and in a context where the rest of Europe agreed that Muslims are bad. Today we have to do it before a conquest and in a context where most people think Muslims are "moms and pops like the rest of us".
Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 4, 2008 7:20 PM
"The CDHRI remains a cornerstones of the OIC struggle (jihad) to impose Sharia law at the United Nations and elsewhere."
Exactly, even "moderate" Muslims are obliged to engage in jihad - and that means implementing sharia, Islamizing your culture and putting Islam in it's "rightful" place since "above all other religions" (Qur'an 9:38)
At least some organizations have rejected the OIC sharia ruling at the UN. Now the UN itself should reject it.
If the UN fails to reject this ruling it has truely lost any possible moral position from which to judge others on human rights - even in cases of genocide or other attrocities. Sharia itself is an on-going attrocity against humanity, dignity and freedom.
The UN is either for or against human rights. If for it must reject sharia, if against it has no longer has a moral mandate.
at September 5, 2008 5:18 AM
"The CDHRI remains a cornerstones of the OIC struggle (jihad) to impose Sharia law at the United Nations and elsewhere."
Exactly, even "moderate" Muslims are obliged to engage in jihad - and that means implementing sharia, Islamizing your culture and putting Islam in it's "rightful" place since "above all other religions" (Qur'an 9:38)
At least some organizations have rejected the OIC sharia ruling at the UN. Now the UN itself should reject it.
If the UN fails to reject this ruling it has truely lost any possible moral position from which to judge others on human rights - even in cases of genocide or other attrocities. Sharia itself is an on-going attrocity against humanity, dignity and freedom.
The UN is either for or against human rights. If for it must reject sharia, if against it no longer has a moral mandate.
at September 5, 2008 5:19 AM
PMK posted: Maybe everyone should brush up on Spanish history, particularly the 1490s. Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Moors out, without apology.
As Denver pointed out, Spain had been occupied for centuries.
The more important factor is that, just as Muslims were supremely confident about their faith, so were Christians in Spain, and even more so. Irish monks had gone over to Spain, to fire up and put resolution into Christian hearts. It was resolute faith, even in the face of despair, that led to victory.
Now what do we have? We are no longer confident of our faith, religion, and even our secular liberalism, which recognises everything**. We apologise for eating at Ramadan, for heavens sake. We even apologise for fighting in our own defence. How can such a civilisation itself? Naipaul believes, or believed a couple of years ago, that very diffidence will overpower all. I really dont know.
But the surest way to lose a war is to give up hope, and give in to despair.
** Have you noticed that the political, celebrity and other elites, now give their newborn such names as River, Bristol, Brooklyn, Sky etc. Peter, Paul, Mark, Elizabeth, Mary, etc are no longer good for these elites - they are Christian. They are ashamed of their native faith that is responsible for the very civilisation they inhabit, and make use off.
Catch you another thread.
at September 5, 2008 7:11 PM
A 1st ammendment test is to substitute your own cause for the cause you wish to censor, then see how you like it. In this case, a counter motion should be proposed to include slurs against the faith called Zionism. If Muslim countries cannot support preventing defamation of the faith called Zionism, at least some will recognize that they have no legitimate right to ask protection of their own.
I also wonder if their concept means that Wahabis no longer diss the Sunis and the Sunis no longer diss the Shia, and the Shia...etc? If that alone were observed, the world would be mostly at peace today!
"Freedom of Speech" is now merely a 'pretext' for slaming Islam, whereas for Islam, censorship is the recommended path.
If you believe in democracy you disagree with that statement, and if you are a good Muslim you agree with it. It is legitimate for Westerners to be fearful that to the extent Islam rules, freedom of speech is eliminated. It's not Islamophobia, it is Shariaphobia.
Now, with Russia jumping into this mosh pit on the side of the Islamics, we're in for an 'interesting' decade to come.
The world is now lining up on battle lines for the new Islamic attack to capture the world for Mohammad, and the glory of Allah. Included are the communist countries who see this trend as a free jet stream in the direction of their own anti-Western goals.
To validate this reality, merely add up the hot wars now ongoing in the world. How many have Muslims on one side or both? It is an objective measure of the very real threat.
Yes, it is ok to be phobic: afraid. Be very afraid...
Posted by: Abbushuki at September 7, 2008 10:53 PM
A 1st ammendment test is to substitute your own cause for the cause you wish to censor, then see how you like it. In this case, a counter motion should be proposed to include slurs against the faith called Zionism. If Muslim countries cannot support preventing defamation of the faith called Zionism, at least some will recognize that they have no legitimate right to ask protection of their own.
I also wonder if their concept means that Wahabis no longer diss the Sunis and the Sunis no longer diss the Shia, and the Shia...etc? If that alone were observed, the world would be mostly at peace today!
"Freedom of Speech" is now merely a 'pretext' for slaming Islam, whereas for Islam, censorship is the recommended path.
If you believe in democracy you disagree with that statement, and if you are a good Muslim you agree with it. It is legitimate for Westerners to be fearful that to the extent Islam rules, freedom of speech is eliminated. It's not Islamophobia, it is Shariaphobia.
Now, with Russia jumping into this mosh pit on the side of the Islamics, we're in for an 'interesting' decade to come.
The world is now lining up on battle lines for the new Islamic attack to capture the world for Mohammad, and the glory of Allah. Included are the communist countries who see this trend as a free jet stream in the direction of their own anti-Western goals.
To validate this reality, merely add up the hot wars now ongoing in the world. How many have Muslims on one side or both? It is an objective measure of the very real threat.
Yes, it is ok to be phobic: afraid. Be very afraid...
Posted by: Abbushuki at September 7, 2008 10:54 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)