Powerful Islamist Org. Ramps Up War on Free Speech in West

In the spirit of my last post concerning Geert Wilders giving a little correction to Pope Francis’ claim that authentic Islam is not violent, here is the Clarion Project exposing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for telling us Islam trumps Free Speech.

JRH 12/12/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

******************************

Powerful Islamist Org. Ramps Up War on Free Speech in West

The primary objective of the OIC is to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban 'negative stereotyping of Islam.'

By SOEREN KERN

December 12, 2013

The Clarion Project

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual "Islamophobia" report.

The "Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013" is a 94-page document purporting to "offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies."

The primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban "negative stereotyping of Islam."

In this context, the OIC's annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a "culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims" in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of "Islamophobia," a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.

The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting "incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits."

But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC's repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for "the institutionalization of Islamophobia" in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has "contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a 'phobia' of Islam and Muslims."

According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding "the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims."

Chapter 1 of the report deals with "Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims," and purports to reveal the "unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies."

According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the "perpetuation of Islamophobia," which:

"…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination, particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries."

"In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations."

Another factor favoring "the climate of intolerance" is:

"…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other."

Chapter 2 of the report deals with "Manifestations of Islamophobia in the West." According to the OIC:

"The number of Islamophobic incidents continues to rise in the US, as a result of anti-Muslim propaganda. It is particularly alarming that anti-Muslim sentiments are taking deeper roots infiltrating further in the educational system. Notable among several other worrying trends/cases are: the initiatives taken by a leading and powerful US legislator [US Representative Peter King] to convene special Congressional Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in the US... In the same vein, the Republican Party in the recent 2013 [sic] US Presidential elections also used the anti-Islam card as a strategy."

"With regard to Islamophobic trends in Europe, various reports and polls have revealed growing misperception vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Among the most common and recurring… are the ideas that Muslims are inclined to violence including revenge and retaliation; that Islam is an inherently expansionist religion, which strives for political influence, and whose followers are obsessed with proselytizing others, and more generally that Islam deprives women of their rights and encourages religious fanaticism and radicalism. According to the same polls, only a minor portion of the public tends to see Islam in a more positive light, as being a religion of peace that preaches love for neighbors, charity, openness and tolerance… Muslims who live in xenophobic environments are more exposed to daily stress and other forms of moral prejudice."

The OIC concludes that "journalists and media organizations have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a platform for its widespread dissemination."

Chapter 3 of the OIC report highlights "Some Positive Developments" in terms of initiatives and other steps and positions taken to combat Islamophobia, including:

"…the condemnation of anti-Muslim hate speech by various quarters, including non-Muslim religious leaders; the barring from entry of certain Islamophobes to a number of countries where they intended to take part in anti-Muslim rallies or deliver inflammatory lectures; the recognition of Muslim holidays and other strict sanctions taken against acts of manifest religious intolerance. It was noted with satisfaction that a number of international organizations, including UNSECO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, have recognized the danger posed by Islamophobia and have taken concrete steps to combat it, notably by laying down Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims."

Chapter 4 of the report, "OIC Initiatives and Activities to Counter Islamophobia," focused on the OIC's ongoing efforts to promote the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration)—together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011—is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations and non-state actors to:

"Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws;

"Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards;

"Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;

"Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam.

"Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate, exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified stance."

The report states that "the OIC and the Member States should not be complacent in underscoring the fact that our present day world is gradually being driven towards the dangerous precipices of growing intolerance of religious and cultural diversity. This is the clear and present danger that the OIC has been consistent in warning the international community against. The sooner the phenomenon of Islamophobia is addressed, the better it is for ensuring peaceful coexistence of the present as well for the future generations to come."

The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and European political leaders for their help (here and here) in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West.

"The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton ... must be carried forward ... the Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation ..." Ihsanoglu said.

___________________________________

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Copyright © 2013 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

About Clarion Project

Obama Rendering Constitution to Dhimmitude to the OIC

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2012

Have you ever heard of the Bilderbergers? A group powerful politicians and wealthy people primarily from Europe and the USA have a semi-secret and an absolutely closed meeting on an annual basis. This group that meets annually has derived its name because the first known meeting place was the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands.

A webpage that bills itself as the official website and is labeled Bilderberg Meetings can be read HERE. There is a huge amount of Conspiracy Theory websites that describe the Bilderbergers as a New World Order agenda group. I am using the Jeremiah Project merely because that is first the website I looked when I Googled “Bilderberger.” The Jeremiah Project writes about the nefarious nature of the Bilderbergers and can be read HERE.

Well check this out! Are you aware the Obama Administration has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a series of semi-secret meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to participate in “classified” (i.e. Closed Meetings) to negotiate about criminalizing criticism of Islam? The meetings are called the Istanbul Process. I found a good summary about the Istanbul Process on the Gates of Vienna. Read the entire article but I think you can get the idea of the Istanbul Process and its agenda.  Hillary Clinton is negotiating compliance (translate as dhimmitude) to this process which is a threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The objective of my presentation is to explain the role plaid by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, OIC, and its several attempts to try to ban freedom of expression on Islam across the world.

1.		First, I will explain what is the OIC and what are its goals
2.		Secondly I will develop the freedom- killing Islamic concept of “defamation of religions” supported by OIC and partly by the UN;
3.		Third I will finish with the “Istanbul process” and the western reaction against OIC anti-freedom and theocratic agenda.

Below is an email from ACT for America that is just as much a fund raiser as it is informative. The part I want you to really take notice of is the “informative.” ACT for America is sending an article by Nina Shea that I noticed was actually picked up by a number media websites. After reading the informative it would not hurt to add a bit of support for ACT for America.

JRH 12/6/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 With Your Contribution.

***************************

State Dept., OIC assault on free speech

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 12/5/2012 2:22 PM

Obama Administration cooperates with the OIC’s assault on free speech!

If you cherish our First Amendment right of free speech, we urge you, as strongly as we can, to read the article below by Nina Shea about the Istanbul Process (highlights added), which was recently posted on National Review Online.

For over 18 months now, the Obama administration has been working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on what is known as the Istanbul Process.

The Istanbul Process has evolved into an assault on our free speech so serious that next year ACT! for America will launch a national campaign to expose what is happening and fight back against it.

It’s simply not possible to overstate how serious a threat this is to our First Amendment.

You can help us prepare now for next year’s national campaign, by making a year-end contribution to ACT! for America’s 5^th anniversary appeal, which we announced in September.

Simply go online here, make a $5 or more monthly commitment to ACT! for America’s Patriot Partner program, or a $30 or more single gift. When you do, you’ll be entered in a drawing to win one of two chances to have Brigitte Gabriel visit your community and meet with you and up to 25 of your friends.

You can also make a single gift by printing out a reply form here and mailing your contribution.

We urge you, please, read the article below and help us prepare for next year’s campaign to protect free speech with your most generous contribution.

Because even if America succeeds in preventing every future terrorist attack, if we lose our freedom to speak out against radical Islam, a central tenet of sharia law will prevail in America and put a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment.

Here’s just one quote from the column below:

Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West [to] give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam.

---

America Again Submits to the Istanbul Process

By Nina Shea.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334647/america-again-submits-istanbul-process-nina-shea

Round three of the “Istanbul Process” opens today, December 3, and runs through Wednesday, at Canada House, in London, hosted by the U.K. and Canada. The Istanbul Process is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s major transnational law initiative, undertaken in partnership with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was established last year to “implement” measures against speech and expression that negatively “stereotype[s]” Islam and Muslims, with a particular emphasis on enacting them in the West.
This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.

For over a decade within the U.N., the OIC has relentlessly pushed for a universal law to punish blasphemy, or “defamation,” of Islam. This 56-member-state organization, an essentially religious body, is in fact chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam. Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” in all states for “Islamophobia,” a term that encompasses a broad range of constitutionally protected speech, judging from the OIC website’s black list of Americans and other perpetrators of “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s stated understanding of the Istanbul Process is that it will “help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”

Corner readers will remember that the Istanbul Process’s first conference was co-chaired by Clinton and the OIC secretary general in July 2011, in Istanbul, with the foreign ministers of the Muslim countries in attendance. The second was held over three days of closed-door meetings last December, at the offices of the U.S. Department of State in Washington. That meeting drew enough controversy within free-speech circles to raise questions about whether the process would continue. But thanks to a leak last week by OIC head Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, we now know the event will go ahead, even if its agenda is still being treated like it’s “classified.”

Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam. This puts our diplomats in a tight spot: Unlike virtually every other country represented in the conference hall, America does not protect any religion or any other body of ideas from criticism and ridicule. However, when we’re in the dock this time around, the U.S., represented by Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, the administration’s severely marginalized ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, will have some measure of “progress” to report.

For example, the U.S.’s top intelligence official and its top commander in Afghanistan were again deployed to suppress blasphemy against Islam in Florida and, this time around, they succeeded. Last year, the efforts of our top authorities to stop Florida micro-church pastor Terry Jones from desecrating a Koran ended in failure. But this year, their resort to the “good offices” of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley proved an effective strategy. Her persuasive emails resulted in Florida talk-show host Bubba the Love Sponge’s standing down from deep frying a Koran, something he had threatened to do on-air. The OIC’s Ihsanoglu would likely rule Bubba was about to “abuse” freedom of expression by not being able (incontrovertibly, I should note) to pass a “responsible use” test.

That leads to our next plea: The administration has also adopted the OIC’s own standard of condemning the “abuse of free expression.” Or at least that is what it appeared to do on the website of the pivotal U.S. embassy to Egypt on September 11 this year. Our embassy declared on its homepage: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

But perhaps, the best evidence of America’s “implementation” in response to the Istanbul Process is the Justice Department’s dispatching the FBI a couple months ago to investigate Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or Sam Bacile), the California Coptic filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the YouTube trailer that blasphemed the Muslim prophet. As Ambassador Cook can point out, this investigation has resulted in a creative criminal conviction of Youssef, and his being sentenced by a federal court to a year in prison. All the better for the U.S.’s reputation as implementers is that it will be lost on the conferees that Youssef has been imprisoned on a probation offense, à la Al Capone — though, unlike Capone, his underlying offense, without which he would not have been investigated, was making a crude, insulting video, which is hardly equivalent in American law to gangland massacres or racketeering. It, in fact, is not a crime at all. Thus, most important, the OIC’s take-away will be that in defense of Islam the U.S. government can and will regulate speech.

Nevertheless, none of this is likely to impress the Istanbul Process gathering. On its opening day last December, Saudi Arabia — headquarters to and godfather of the OIC — beheaded a Sudanese woman for “sorcery.” Last week, Egypt sentenced to death Youssef, Terry Jones, and six other Americans implicated in the blasphemous YouTube trailer. For the Istanbul Process that’s “best practices” for “implementation.” Thus, again, America will be judged to have fallen short, indignation will rise, and the Istanbul Process will need to ramp up its pressure.

— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.

______________________________________

Obama Rendering Constitution to Dhimmitude to the OIC

John R. Houk

© December 6, 2012

_____________________________________

State Dept., OIC assault on free speech

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance?

Pseudonymous author Dajjal puts together some information that exposes Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the OIC as a deceiver. What a surprise, right? Not.

JRH 8/19/11

********************************

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance?

By Dajjal

August 18, 2011

Dajjal’s Posterous

Last March, the HRC passed a new resolution which was said to abandon the nefarious "defamation of religions" concept, substituting "negative stereotyping" & "incitement".  That is the official position; divergent from objective factual reality. The distinction is without difference, and the amended verbiage is persiflage.

   

That fact is exposed by a March 24 address to the HRC by Mr. Zamir Akram, Pakistan's Ambassador.   He made it clear that the new resolution does not abrogate previous resolutions, instead, it confirms them.  His speech is dissected in detail here.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating  defamation. which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion or belief.

The Secretary General of the OIC also addressed the HRC on the subject of the new resolution.

 

OIC has a principled position against defamation of any  religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of symbols  sacred to all religions. The developments  including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts towards burning of Qur'an and the use of Islamophobia as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term as ‘preventive cultural diplomacy’. We need to move beyond  event based calls for action to create spaces for structured engagement The Human Rights   framework provides with a concrete basis for this engagement. We believe that the workshops on incitement to hatred under the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.

The Secretary General has spoken out again, this time uttering & publishing a lie so egregious that it must be refuted immediately.  It is necessary to rub his snout in his mess of deception.

"The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries."

never sought to limit freedom of expression

·       OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content.[Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh]

·       Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax. [http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/]

·       "Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."[BBC News]

   

For the benefit of those suffering from anal cranial juxtaposition, I will clear away the chaff:

·       never sought to limit freedom of expression

·       urging the Danish government to stop the publication

·       pressure Norway to stop publication

·       told the Dutch ambassador to prosecute Mr Wilders

   

From the viewpoint of a rational and honest person, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is a damned liar, having deliberately made an egregiously untrue statement.  From the Islamic point of view, he is not a liar because Islam does not recognize disbelievers as human, denying our rights. They can not violate our freedom of expression because we have none. Human rights do not apply to us in their point of view.  The sanctity of life is conditioned on being Muslim.

[...]And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah[...] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

Having exposed the most egregious deception, I will continue fisking this screed, which is being widely propagated. I perceive that this and related articles are the first wave of a tsunami of pressure focused on the next General Assembly session beginning September 20. 

   

As is my habit with target rich environments, I will link my comments to superscripts in the text. Click the superscripts to read the comments and use your Backspace key to return to the text. 

Norway attacks reinforce need for united stand against intolerance
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Istanbul, Turkey - The horrific and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the importance of combating religious intolerance1 and promoting cultural understanding2.

Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities3, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing4 political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant5 and anti-multiculturalism6 policies, as was evident in the manifesto of the Norway killer7. Their views8 are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression9 while claiming that Muslims do not respect that right.

A few days before the Norway attack, on 15 July in Istanbul, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the United States agreed to a united stand on “[c]ombating intolerance10, negative stereotyping11 and stigmatization of12, and discrimination13, incitement to violence14, and violence against persons based on religion or belief15” through the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.

The meeting – co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and myself, with the attendance of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs together with the foreign ministers and officials of OIC member states and Western countries, as well as international organisations – reaffirmed the commitment of the participants to the effective implementation of the measures set in the resolution.16

This was a major step towards strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity17 as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world18.

The OIC, which was the initiator of Resolution 16/18, worked in close cooperation in the drafting process with the United States and the European Union in bringing about a breakthrough on 21 March.

The 2011 HRC resolution is a genuine effort to usher in an era of understanding on the issue of religious intolerance. It gives the widest margin of freedom of expression, and reiterates the rejection of discrimination, incitement and stereotyping used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions. 19

The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries.

The Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, colour or faith20. It falls on all the OIC member states as a sacred duty to protect the lives and property of their non-Muslim citizens and to treat them without discrimination of any form. Those elements who seek to harm or threaten minority citizens must be subjected to law. Our strong stand condemning violence perpetrated against non-Muslims whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan has been consistent.

No one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice. That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised.

We also cannot overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western perception on certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need to be sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to criticising or expressing views on issues related to religion and culture. 21

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred22 that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility23. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.

It is not enough to pass resolutions and laws against religious incitement. We should also be diligent in launching more initiatives and measures towards better intercultural dialogue and understanding at all levels – the political, social, business, media, academic and religious.

Resolution 16/18 includes an eight-point approach that calls for various measures to foster tolerance, including developing collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and constructive action, creating appropriate mechanisms within the government to identify and address potential areas of tension between members of religious communities, and raising awareness at the local, national and international levels on the effects of negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred.

The implementation of the 2011 HRC Resolution 16/1824 would take us a long way in making our world a more peaceful and harmonious place to live in.

###

* Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference), an international organisation consisting of 57 member states. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org

Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Search: "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu"+ "stop publication"

Results: 35

 

Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh [Emphasis added.]

2 October 2010 JEDDAH — The Organisation of the Islamic Conference has condemned the publication of the book Tyranny of Silence in Denmark.
The book, containing blasphemous caricatures, hit the stores in Denmark on Thursday amid concerns over a backlash from the Muslim world.

The cartoons were first published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, resulting in condemnation from Muslims around the world.

OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content. [...] Emphasising the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark, Ihsanoglu said the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudice and animosity. This would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community to promote understanding and peaceful coexistence among people of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax.

_________________

1. Religious intolerance indeed. We must tolerate Islam, but Islam is not obligated to tolerate Judaism or Christianity. Tolerance is a one way street 

* whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted [3:85}

* fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. [8:39]

* those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind[2:161]

2. Cultural understanding, yeah, right. They do not want us to understand Islam, they want us to accept a false image; a web of lies spun by Islam and its apologists. What passes for cultural understanding is really kitman: deception by obfuscation.

3. Translation: resistance: Kuffar attempting to defend themselves and their culture. Phobia implies irrational fear and loathing. There is nothing irrational about loathing an institution which has a 1400 year track record of genocide, murdering an estimated 270*106  people.

4. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear tactic. 

5. The Immigrants in question are primarily Muslims, living as parasites on the state and breeding like rats. They tend to rape, riot and block the streets raising their butts to the moon. Whats not to oppose about that?

6. Multiculturalism is the idea that an inferior culture which dominates women, assaults Queers, rapes indigenous girls, declares superiority, refuses to assimilate, threatens war, supports terrorism and constantly escalates its demands is equal to Western Civilization. Whats not to oppose about suicidal idiocy?

7. Breivert's Manifesto discusses 'martyrdom operations'. "Yes, for certain religious members, certain measures are obviously in violation to biblical teachings but the amount of grace and divine goodwill generated at the point where you sacrifice everything (in the martyrdom operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more than nullify any minor or serious sins committed prior to operation." [pg. 846] On page 849 he lists three pieces of music to be played during 'martyrdom operations'.  It is obvious that Breivert adopted enemy doctrine & tactics. It is obvious that he is not sane. While objective facts reproduced in the manifesto remain true and accepted by others, the manifesto is his alone. The manifesto is violent, see pages 1028 & 1344; rational resistance is educational and political, not violent. Ihsanoglu is engaging in smear tactics, attempting to tar others with Breivert's violence.

8. Our views of Islam are founded on facts discovered in Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Check out ICCPR, Article 19. §1 guarantees the right to hold opinions. §2 guarantees freedom of expression.  The spewers of feces assert that rights are interdependent and cling bitterly to exaggerated ideas of Article 20.

9. In America we have the Declaration of Independence; God gave us the right to live;  & Bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." If prohibited from truthfully communicating warning of approaching danger, we would be rendered defenseless. We perceive Islam to be a threat because of its declaration & prosecution of perpetual war.

1.   2:216

2.   8:39

3.   9:29

4.   9:111

5.   9:123

6.   47:4

7.   61:4

8.   61:10-11

9.   Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386

10.Tafsir Ibn Kathir  The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World

11.Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8

12.Risala

13.Hedaya

10. If they were sincere about combating intolerance, they would outlaw the Qur'an because it inculcates intolerance.  Is there anything more intolerant than declaring us the worst of living creatures, cursing us and declaring perpetual war against us?

11. When we share the facts outlined in point 9 above, we are accused of negative stereotyping. Exposing the fact that Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us, Moe confirmed the imperative & implemented it and Islamic law codifies it is not negative stereotyping, it is revealing objective factual reality. It does not mean that every Muslim is violent, it means that Islam requires every Muslim to pray for, pay for and or participate in aggressive conquest.

12.  Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma? Why then should membership in Moe's war cult not carry a stigma?

13. Should members of the Mafia be subject to discrimination? Should they be closely observed; suspected of criminal activity? Why then should members of the cult which sanctifies & celebrates terrorism not be suspected, observed and excluded from our societies?

14. If incitement were to be combated, the Qur'an would be outlawed. Of course, that is not the intention of the resolution's authors and few will read 8:65, 9:38-39, 9:123 & 61:10-12 to learn why it should be. The Motoons simply depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. They did not suggest that viewers should assault or wage war upon Muslims. The associated violence was incited by Imams in Mosques, not by the cartoonists or publisher.  Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, displayed the incitement contained in the Qur'an, which flows through Mosques.  Fitna did not incite violence, Imams did, resulting in riots.  They are demanding that all criticism of Islam be outlawed, twisting and perverting language in the process.

CNN.Com's European outlet has a reminder of what the Secretary General said about Fitna, the documentary video by Geert Wilders.

"The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance,"

BBC News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

"Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

After the release of the film, a number of international organizations released statements or otherwise responded to the film. United Nations' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated on on March 28, 2008 that

I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.[133][134]

1. If they really gave a damn about violence against persons based on their religion, they would be acting to protect Christians in Muslim dominated areas of Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and other places where Christians are bombed, shot, burned and hacked to death with impunity.

 

2. If there was any possibility of balanced & effective implementation the resolution, no Muslim would vote for it because it would require the outlawing of Islam. 

3. Tolerance respect for diversity? Really? Yeah, right. "Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm". "Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), "

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

4. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?  "then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush." "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land." Get a clue: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.

5. The sentence is unmitigated hypocrisy. What did Ban Ki-moon say about Fitna? Something about "hate speech" & "incitement". Oh, yes, he said that freedom of expression was "not involved:.   Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  called it a "deliberate act of discrimination"  intended to "provoke unrest and intolerance.  Reality check: Fitna shows the  violent Qur'an verses side by side with the Imams who  invoke them and the resulting riots.  Describing is not doing. 

6. Like most Muslim screeds, this one is redundant. One lie must be pointed out: discrimination. Reliance of the Traveller is Islamic law. This provision affects conquered Jews & Christians.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

7. Diversity, yeah, right.  Because there is more than one "religion" in the world, we must not mention the fact that one of them is a war cult, hellbent on conquering us, not a legitimate religion. 

8. Incitement to hatred? Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror. Allah declared that he would cast terror. Allah declared that he cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish settlement and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. The fatal facts of Islam are truly worthy of hatred and contempt but exposing them is not incitement. 

9. Those of us who have become familiar with the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam have a responsibility to share our knowledge with our fellows and to encourage them to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  There is no responsibility to be silent or soft pedal the truth. 

10. Examine the resolution's call to action :

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

(a) Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education;

(b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within Governments to, inter alia, identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;

(c) Encouraging training of Government officials in effective outreach strategies;

(d) Encouraging the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities the causes of discrimination, and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief; {Review the definitions implicit in criticisms of Fitna and the Motoons!!!}

(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness-building;  {Indoctrination.}

(h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence;

6. Calls upon all States:

(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief;

(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society;

(c) To encourage the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

(d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session, within existing resources.

_______________________________

Dajjal’s Posterous Home Page

Some of the original formatting of Dajjal’s post may have lost in the cross post.