Iran's other nuclear programme
The take-over of the United Nations
During the two-decade-long jihad takeover of the United Nations, the crucial turning point came on the occasion of the Jubilee Commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDR) on 17 March 1998, when Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, the first speaker to address the U.N. Commission for Human Rights, called for a “revision of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Eight months later, on 9-10 November 1998, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Organization for the Islamic Conference jointly hosted a seminar at the United Nations in Geneva titled, “Enriching the Universality of Human Rights: Islamic Perspectives on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
The High Commissioner, Mary Robinson, in her letter to all delegates laying out the procedure to be followed at the seminar they were about to attend, explained,
We have agreed that for the purpose of this seminar, Islam is understood in terms of ‘Shari’a’ (Qur’an and Hadith), and not in terms of tradition or practices that may vary and mix with historical heritage. (My emphasis)
David Littman has dissected the step-by-step Iran-orchestrated Muslim take-over of the UN over decades. He observed of the purported joint seminar, “For the first time at a U.N. public seminar, no questions were allowed from the more than 250 participants from about 80 states, intergovernmental, and U.N. bodies, as well as 41 NGOs.”
Context is everything:
Firstly, that the deliberations would be confined to the mujtahidun, legal scholars, the Muslim illuminati, is a pure Shari’a standard, everyone else’s duty being to hear and obey. For those who are not mujtahidun, let alone not Muslims, there is no questioning and nothing to discuss. As the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Azeddine Laraki, put it in a chilling totalitarian manifesto:
An elite of Muslim experts in the field of Shari’a and Law are thus being offered the opportunity to present researches which expound the Islamic perspective as to human rights and recall the contribution of Islam to the laying of the foundations of these rights through which Islam aimed at leading people out of the obscurities and into enlightenment, at ensuring dignity in their life and non-submission to anyone but God, and at asserting their freedom and their right to justice and equality on the basis of the two sources of Islamic Shari’a: Qur’an and Sunna and on Fiqh jurisprudence, away from politicking, demagogy or reliance on local practices and mores which are subject to variations according to historical legacies.” (My emphasis)
Azeddine Laraki’s statement needs careful unpacking. Things are not necessarily what they seem to the non-Muslim eye:
recall the contribution of Islam to the laying of the foundations of these rights
Only Islam may organise human affairs; no other organising principle is recognised.
Islam aimed at:
leading people out of the obscurities and into enlightenment,
Anything that came before Islam is ignorance and worthy only of destruction, and everything that came after Islam is corruption. The inclusion of the word ‘enlightenment’ is tawriya, lying by ambiguity. ‘Enlightenment,’ in this context, means ‘Islam’.
ensuring:
dignity in their life
No one shall be subject to non-Muslims or non-Muslim law, in other words, everyone shall be Muslim.
non-submission to anyone but God
There shall be no religion, other than Islam
asserting their freedom and their right to justice and equality on the basis of the two sources of Islamic Shari’a:
Shari’a shall be the only law
Qur’an and Sunna and on Fiqh jurisprudence
Only Muslims shall write and implement laws, and practise law
away from politicking, demagogy or reliance on local practices and mores which are subject to variations according to historical legacies.
There shall be no democracy.
In the immediate context where the speech was given, at the United Nations, the unequivocal message is annunciated in, “Non-submission to anyone but God.” In other words, we Muslims do not submit to the United Nations, and most certainly not to the UDHR.
There is nothing new about this Islamic drive, in this case spear-headed by Iran, to destroy Western law, human rights and democracy. The previous such attempt was led by none other than Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan el-Banna, who saw Zionism as the thin edge of the wedge of such corruption. In an interview with American journalist John Roy Carlson, el-Banna explained:
We are not eager to have a parliament of the representatives of the people, or a cabinet of ministers, unless such representatives and ministers are Koranic Moslems. If we do not find them, then we must ourselves serve as the parliament. Allah and the religious councils will limit our authority so that no one has to fear dictatorship. We aim to smash modernism in government and society. In Palestine our first duty as Moslems is to crush Zionism, which is Jewish modernism. It is our patriotic duty. The Koran commands it. (John Roy Carlson, From Cairo to Damascus, p92.)
Secondly, contrary to Mary Robinson, the pliant, newly-appointed High Commissioner’s misleading verb, they did not agree, she was told. To Muslims, especially Iran’s religious elite, negotiating with the kufaar is deeply offensive. They do not agree, they tell. The novice, white, kafir, female High Commissioner never stood a chance. The imposition of Shari’a at the UN manifested at all levels, steadily worsening over the two decades. Thus, to quote David Littman again:
The United Nations took little interest when Ayatollah Khomeini issued an edict in February 1989 that condemned British writer Salman Rushdie to death for his novel, The Satanic Verses, which is “in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an” as the edict affirms; if anything, most member states tried to ignore the whole episode. ...It also disregarded statements by leading regime officials threatening Rushdie’s life.
This attitude of indifference emboldened member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), sympathetic to the enhancement of the Shari‘a, and they proceeded to try to introduce Khomeini-style restrictions on freedom of speech about certain political aspects of Islam to the United Nations itself. Thus did the “Rushdie rules” begin affecting U.N. bodies, and especially the Commission on Human Rights, eating away at international norms.
This Iranian take-over of the United Nations was complete when:
In this same period in 1998, the year 2001 had been officially designated by the U.N.’s General Assembly as a “United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations” — once again on the initiative of Iran — even as the Khomeini fatwa against Salman Rushdie remained in effect. This “Dialogue of Civilization Year” included the “Durban World Conference Against Racism,” — just before the 9/11 jihad attack [on New York, the seat of the UN; this is no coincidence, AP] — where the U.N. underwent a most shameful metamorphosis as racist attempts were made to reanimate that General Assembly Resolution 3398, which had assimilated Zionism with racism in 1975, on the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht [targeting emotionally-charged dates is standard Muslim psy-ops m.o., AP].
This is exactly what “dialogue” means when Muslims engage in “interfaith dialogue”. The Muslims tell whoever is foolish enough to engage them in “dialogue” how it’s going to be. By 1998, the blatant imposition of Shari’a on the compliant UN Commission for Human Rights and the UN as a whole signalled that we were now in a different world.
The big milestone in the replacement of the UDHR came with the United Nations endorsement of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) as a UN document in 1997, after its adoption by the Organization for the Islamic Conference in 1991. A study of the Muslim prototypes leading up to the CDHRI show a clear progression from mild reservation towards the UDHR, through discussing Muslim demands in terms of the UDHR, through critiquing UDHR in terms of Shari’a, to the CDHRI, a Shari’a document carefully drafted to assuage Western sensibilities.
Thus is the UN, wittingly or unwittingly, responsible for re-legalising slavery.
Article 11 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, for example, is a masterpiece of Islamic deception:
(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.
The CDHRI giveth and the CDHRI taketh away. The first part of the sentence, “Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them,” is already complete in itself. Its meaning is clear. Yet, a second sentence, superfluous to clarity, is added. The purpose of, “and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High,” serves only to abrogate the first sentence. God the Most-High not only permits, but encourages slavery. Muhammad, the perfect human that all Muslims must emulate, both had and traded in slaves. His life is one of the foundations of Shari’a. The sentence as it stands is, therefore, a criticism of Muhammad and of Shari’a. To uphold the first part also amounts to subjugation to other than God. Since the second part stipulates, “there can be no subjugation but to God,” the first part is void. In other words, the CDHRI states that at least some humans are born unfree, while at least some have, “the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit,” those born unfree. Ergo, slavery is legal again.
(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 for the liquidation 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.
The CDHRI cannot exactly describe the “Palestinians” as slaves, after just having declared slavery legal, so they must become a “colonized people” whose land is “occupied”. “The liquidation of all forms of colonialism and occupation,” means the annihilation of Israel, and “exercise control over their wealth and natural resources,” means extermination or expulsion of the Jews”. To single out colonialism for condemnation, yet clear the way for slavery involves some delicate wordsmithery, especially as Islam is the biggest colonial empire and every single non-Arab and non-Turkic Muslim people is a colonised people. Egyptians, Mauritanians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians… are all colonised peoples.
The re-legalisation of slavery is just one of the barbarian iniquities insinuated into international law through the Iran-controlled UN. Another is the reduction of women to the Islamic status of chattel, and the complete unpersoning of children, again, in compliance with Islam, all thanks to the UN endorsement of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. To understand where the CDHRI leads, one simply needs look at Shari’a itself. Reliance of the Traveller is easily accessible in English. Slightly more challenging, but well worth the effort is Al-Hidaya (various spellings). Both are summaries of Shari’a and not for the squeamish. The non-Muslim familiar with these works is immune to the gentle wiles of the “moderate Muslim,” whom Shari’a strictly forbids from studying Islam. The scholarly critic of Islam would be quite ready for the exalted mujtahidun, who are unaccustomed to being challenged, and who had even less to fear from Mary Robinson, than from lay Muslims, who are religiously obligated to only ever hear and obey.
Iran does not have total control of the UN, but it does have effective control, thanks to a history of intimidating key officials. President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, whether by accident or design, amounts to a diplomatic assault on the highest achievement by Iran’s diplomatic jihad. The Board of Peace will have the effect of marginalising the UN, rather than destroying it. The Trump administration would do well to render the UN premises unviable. The cumulative effect of sanctioning UN officials and dissolution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, together with marginalisation of the UN implied by the Board of Peace, might well be a deepening irrelevance of the UN, leaving the totalitarian world’s stealth alternative, BRICS, with nowhere to land.
Murtadd to Human is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Murtadd to Human that their writing is valuable by giving a one-off donation above.