http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=244

The Free Muslims Against Terrorism (Free Muslims) have partnered with progressive Arabs and Muslims to hold religious leaders accountable for justifying violence and encouraging terrorism.

The Free Muslims are petitioning the UN Security Council and the United States government to establish an international tribunal to prosecute religious leaders, including clerics who issue “fatwas” which are religious opinions, edicts, rulings and conclusions that incite violence and justify the use of terrorism. These religious leaders are especially dangerous because some of their followers consider their opinions to be gospel.

This petition is a follow up to the recently adopted UN Resolution 1566 that reads in part:

“…[A]ll members of the Security Council to consider and submit recommendations… on practical measures to be imposed upon, individuals … involved in or associated with terrorist activities…bringing them to justice through prosecution or extradition, freezing of their financial assets….”

It is crucial to hold these religious leaders accountable because most terrorists who kill in the name of Islam rely on the fatwas and conclusions of these religious leaders to convince themselves that they are going to heaven after their death.

Why does the press only report the islamist suicidal nuts speaches and ignore totally the moderates calls to combat the evil that is so obvious?

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Cos bad news sells, and we can't wage wars in the middle east if we don't hate the people living there can we?

Sounds like a good idea, but why can't they make 'incitement to religious hatred' or whatever a crime in the international criminal court, unless it is already, and then GET AMERICA TO SIGN UP.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

because to the extrewme ,any religon is inciting. Just who gets to define the terms?

These fatwas are the equivilant of hit contracts. Big difference between that and simply spouting hatred.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD

Whoever the world (and not just America) deems appropriate.

Yes, well "incitement to religious hatred" is not the act in itself (which would probably come under another part of the constitution or whatever) of killing, but the threat thereof. So saying "Kill the evil Jews" in a church or mosque would come under this.

__________________
"I see no reason why...there should not arise a United States of Europe" Winston Churchill, 1946

so even if they are wrong? Or is it majority mob rule is always right? No, the world has been wrong to many ties for my liking. i prefer no one define it for me.i am more than capable of that myself thank you.
Yes, well "incitement to religious hatred" is not the act in itself (which would probably come under another part of the constitution or whatever) of killing, but the threat thereof. So saying "Kill the evil Jews" in a church or mosque would come under this.[/quote]Who's constitution???
Inciting a riot is a no no. If a leader of any group incites that group to action, they are guilty.
Individuals spouting rhetoric is not the same thing.

__________________
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
(from Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "the Younger," circa 4 BC-65 AD