OIC pushing for global anti-(Islamic) blasphemy law

Well therein lies a big part of the problem, I think your definition of "off-topic" is far too rigid and constraining, indeed I find it somewhat delusory. You even asserted that the bill is merely pushing the "truth" that persecution against Muslims is the worst ethnic tragedy the world faces today. No consideration whatsoever for who's pushing the bill, what the OIC has pushed in the past and will continue to push in the future, nor some of the potential implications for the Islamic and Western Worlds which I have already pointed out, whether or not you chose to actually read my posts.

You weren't consistent when SAM started leading the thread askew after my detailed analysis and word count, so if you're gonna let her have her say, I need to be allowed to have mine. And that's how it progressed throughout the thread, I noticed she got lightly admonished once or twice, but maybe for sheer lack of substance in her posts, she has rarely been taken to task in this thread and never on the level that it was taken with me.

I thought you were doing well enough to keep your personal opinions and your moderation separate, could have been better but at least you didn't outright stifle anyone. But now it's reached the point where I have to question whether you're able to remain objective here, and the bias shows in your personal definition of the topic and the issue to be addressed, as well as your Freudian slip which falsely accused me of discussing Muslim baby-beaters (I was only saying human rights doesn't mean you can beat babies, as in it implies limits, and this new UNHRC resolution also has specific meanings and limits).

Well then why the heck does the warning say it only expires in April next year? It even has its own special page. I'd like you to retract it, as I said to you in private, without further delay.

I note that response came exceptionally quickly once I started quoting from the hadiths, which serve as a basis for much of the law practised in the Islamic world and which will be a central issue in any claim of Islamic defamation, which itself is the mathematically dominant complaint in the Resolution.

Doesn't that disturb you? People and regimes can claim defamation over all kinds of crazy issues based on hadiths, and most people don't even know what those hadiths actually say (apparently we can now include SAM in that group). Don't tell me a massive portion of the Islamic world isn't ruled with the guidance of hadiths in one form or another, I've already proved they very much are. Resolutions such as the one we're discussing will seriously hinder the UN's ability to scrutinize human rights practises in Islamic countries, because the UNHRC will be telling them that worldwide abuses against Muslims are by far the top priority.

I'm still waiting for you to spell out the meaning of defamation, and why my direct citations constitute defamation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If your concern is that I'm not bashing the Pope or the Chief Rabbi of Israel, let them come forth to the UN proposing legislation to protect their archaic religious "rights", and I'll happily tear them a new one all the same.

I'm real glad you can at least be honest about your heavy personal bias in this matter.

If the UNHRC is going to be accusing people of defaming the Quran, and I guarantee you that's a major reason the OIC is pushing this Resolution and complaining about the treatment of Muslims, then the Quran itself is a subject for discussion, as are all other texts of great political importance in the Muslim world. As far as the legitimacy of the Quran, I have extended an open invitation to SAM to discuss it with me in the Religion section, where it will be fully on-topic, and she's been playing rope-a-dope throughout the entire thread.

Well there you have it, folks. This thread is supposed to be about a bill condemning the defamation of religion, yet we're not allowed to define what religions and beliefs are subject to defamation, nor what constitutes defamation itself. For those sitting on the fence, read my posts, read my sources, you can blatantly see what's going on here. What the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has pushed through the UNHRC is but one of a continuing series of actions by them to push a strict Islamic agenda on non-Muslim nations while protecting the OIC nations themselves from outside scrutiny, under the shield of "defamation". They have even been so blunt as to attempt to make existing Human Rights legislation secondary to Sharia law at the UNHRC itself, which hypewaders would have noted if he had bothered to read the Wikipedia quote and citation I conveniently put there for him.

Like I already said, what the OIC wants to ultimately do, as is blatantly revealed by their actions, is to create an environment in which not only would I have to worry about warnings, long-term black marks and padlocks from debaters moderators like hypewaders, but we will all have to worry about heavy-handed attempts to choke such discussions, and similar topics, whether in the Religion, History or even Physics forums (Science forbid!).

So again, while I continue with my appeals process, please reconsider and retract the warning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alrighty then... Happy?

Good. Let's get back on topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Much better, I hope it doesn't have to come to that again. If I legitimately screwed up in the future, I wouldn't need an undeserved black stain adding to the weight of my record.

Well I dunno hype, I think you've just made a whole bunch of us very uncomfortable about discussing the topic, now that we don't know what exactly we are and aren't allowed to discuss. I think your actions here made a great point for me as is, readers should think hard about what it's like when the authority they have to answer to is far less rational, and physically ultra-violent to boot.

I'd love to continue discussing with SAM what her sources say (BTW, that islamqa.com page which mysteriously vanished yesterday evening is now back online, hopefully it stays that way). But if you deem it off-topic, why don't you help me out to keep things on topic? Help me push SAM to take her religious-based rants and politics to the Religion forum with me. After all these years of vitriol, it's finally time for her to pay the piper, and I'm ready to go any time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moderator Note (#12 in this thread):

The subject of this thread is HRC 13/9: Combating Defamation of Religions.

The topic is not Islamic exegesis- we have a Religion subforum appropriate for that. The topic is not criticism of Islamic theology- see the Religion or Comparitive Religion subfora. The topic is not the life of the Prophet. The topic is not Islamic apocrypha. The topic is not the relative sensitivity in various cultures to defamation of beliefs. The topic is not Islam, or the examination of any other religion.

The topic is a UN Resolution that discourages defamation of any religion. If you would like to argue otherwise, then argue on the basis of the language within the Resolution. Otherwise, if you persist in spamming this thread with material that is unrelated to the language of the Resolution, you will be sanctioned for aggravated off-topic posting.

I am not forbidding any discussion, but insisting that there has been excessive diversion from the simple facts of the language of the Resolution, which is the incontrovertible basis of its meaning.

I'll say it plainly: Discuss the Resolution here, if you please. Focus on particular religions elsewhere- or else (sanctions).

 

Note to the moderator: There's no point in reading a piece of UN legislation if you don't want to read between the lines or look at the surrounding context. You didn't even pay attention to the Resolution's references to the Durban and subsequent Geneva conferences, which called for all future racism to be directed exclusively at Jews Israel. Read my earlier posts in this thread referring to these conferences, and you'll understand what I mean, and you'll thereby attain the capacity to address it.

Again, if you don't want to read between the lines, I've got a brand new car I'd like to sell you, only 150 000 miles on the odometer. As for taking things off topic with religion, nearly everything SAM argues on this forum, when you probe deep enough, ultimately boils down to her religion and the sources she cites but doesn't read. Why do you not put her on the spot for her constant mindless distractions from this and just about every other topic? I'm ready to take it all to the appropriate thread and lay down the cold hard facts, but she's too scared to face the music now that she's finally found a real scientist who's ready to take her to task.

 

Mod Note: Please PM me for any additional clarification you would like from me regarding off-topic posting in this thread. I think that I've been clear enough here for most participants to understand.

BTW, UN conferences mentioned in the Resolution are certainly topical; not a theological matter; perfectly acceptable for discussion here.

---------------- ​

I'll review your characterizations of Durban and Geneva, and possibly challenge them further (as a fellow member, not as a moderator). The first thing that I would like to emphasize is that UN deliberations involve all sorts of opinions. There is at times even defamation within UN deliberations, but that is not the same thing as discriminatory policy expressed in Resolutions passed and made official in the UN process.

The Resolution can be evaluated as to its balanced treatment of all religions solely on the basis of its language as published in final-draft, ratified Resolution. If it were a binding Resolution, we could also include in such analysis its enforcement- but there can be no enforcement of this Resolution.

 

Then I reiterate - again - that the context of the Resolution is entirely based around Islam, as discernable immediately from the cover letter. Futher, I must remind you - for the second time - that you are arguing 'in circles', as you define it, since you are asking the same question again and again despite the clear representation of the above in my posts. Furthermore, while you grudingly allow that any enforcement of the Spirit of the Resolution is up to the auspices of the individual nation-state, you fail to admit that this same spirit of the Resolution could be under unequal adherence - or you fail to recognize this as a potential problem, and stick to a very naive literal interpretation of the Resolution. This despite its being proposed by Pakistan, of all places.

Your 'estimation' is not a categorical demonstration on basis of the evidence. What you are telling me is that you think it's what you say it is, while refusing to consider the context of the Resolution alone, even though this was not the basis of the OP. This is trolling; you have not demonstrated how the argument is "Islamophobic", and have ignored post #206 above:

Best of luck.

 

Thanks.

How do you reconcile your contention that this Resolution provides unique protections or privileges to Islam, when the Resolution's language consistently avoids specificity of religions?

What specific language can you quote from within this Resolution that applies to Islam, that it does not apply equally to any other religion?

 

Hypewaders -

We have been over this and over this and over this. Several times. The motivation of the Resolution is clearly Islamic. The enforcement of the spirit of such a Resolution by members of the OIC will clearly be biased, based on their own abject failure - disinterest, even - in separating mosque and state. Your attempts to avoid this by referring to the text of the Resolution are obviously obfuscation. If you still don't understand the complete discussion on this, refer to the OP.

If you have no further evidence, you must desist in calling my argument Islamophobic. It's really as simple as that.

 

If you cannot find language that confers special favor on Islam in the Resolution, and you cannot acknowledge the meaning of "non-binding", then your criticism is most likely islamophobic (an exaggeration of the real-world effects based on irrational fear). Your argument is not based upon the actual language, and not based upon the actual legal power of this non-binding Resolution.

 

Total, unsupported, nonsense.

I have described numerous times the motivation of the Resolution, based on the cover documentation, which you have not only denied but misrepresented. I have discussed the non-binding aspect several times (as the spirit of the legislation, which may have political enforcement via shame or criticism), which you have ignored.

So, even given your above stipulation, your argument still fails.

Thanks anyway.

 

You have consistently avoided addressing the actual text of the Resolution throughout this thread, alleging a bias in favor of Islam over other religions that is not contained in the language of the Resolution, and not enforceable by any legal mechanism.

 

You have blithely avoided addressing the motivation of the Resolution.

Actually, that's not true: on at least one occasion, you misrepresented it.

 

The motivations for the Resolution were clearly expressed by the Pakistan mission, and at the Durban conference, including an expressed intention to combat islamophobia. However, the Resolution does not promote any exceptional protections of Islam over protections of any other religion. The Resolution is not in fact an "Anti-Islamic blasphemy law".

 

The motivation of the Resolution, as demonstrated by the examples chosen and their explicit relevance to current events called anti-Islamic by religiously biased commentators, without any representation of bigotry against non-Muslims by Muslims or by others, is Islamic - or more accurately, Islamist, now that I ponder definitions. Given this, the text of the Resolution is resoundingly unimportant. These are facts that simply cannot be denied.

 

Hogwash.

 

Not. Are you going to stand over their shoulders, hype, scolding them when they selectively apply it? No? Is anyone?

Motivation has suddenly become unimportant, in our strange world.

EDIT: Better yet, tell me in what respect the text of the (non-binding, if you must be reminded) Resolution is important. Map it out.

 

Let's hear your scenario. Please try not to make it too obviously islamophobic.

The text consistently refers to the defamation of all religions.

 

I've already given my scenario: non-uniform adherence to the spirit of the Resolution. Try to keep up, old bean.

Now: how is the text going to matter in this non-binding Resolution? Go ahead. Think it through, hype.

 

I am- can you give me a link or post number?

The text explicitly expresses condemnation for defamation of all religions- This means that there is not favoritism for Islam or "Islamism" in this Resolution.