Brookings Takes Both Sides of the Issue on Islamist Censorship

Part 3 of a 4-Part Investigative Series: Brookings Sells Soul to Qatar’s Terror Agenda

by Steven Emerson, John Rossomando and Dave Yonkman
IPT News
October 30, 2014

1081Brookings’ partnership with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in conjunction with its Qatari-backed Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, sends a mixed message for a think tank that claims to want “a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.”

The OIC is a 57-government body (56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority) that constitutes the largest United Nations voting bloc.

Fighting against criticism of Islam and those who link the religion with violence under the banner of so-called “Islamophobia” features prominently in the OIC’s rhetoric and diplomacy.

“Freedom of expression … cannot be used as a pretext for inciting hatred … or insulting the deeply held beliefs of any community. It should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions,” OIC’s “Seventh Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2013-April 2014″ states.

Islamophobia under OIC’s definition even covers court-proven facts such as the use of zakat (charity) payments to fund terror, evidenced by the international body’s attack on FBI training materials that describes it as a “funding mechanism for combat.”

Zakat is the tithe Muslims must pay as a pillar of their faith. It may be spent on feeding the hungry or caring for the sick, but also for funding violent jihad. Muslim authors suchas Sheik Muhammad Ali Hashimi, a well-known author in the Arab world, teach that funding “jihad for the sake of Allah” is the most important use for zakat.

Court documents and classified State Department cables demonstrate that numerous charities such as Qatar Charity (formerly the Qatar Charitable Society), the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and countless others have diverted zakat collections to benefit terror groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. A 2012 UN Security Council report notes that the Taliban uses zakat collected from areas it controls to finance its operations.

Instead of unequivocally and unconditionally defending free speech, Brookings sends mixed messages, with some experts endorsing the OIC’s effort on Islamophobia and others condemning its excesses.

Brookings scholar Ahmet T. Kuru argued following the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, that Muslims need “mechanisms and institutions” to prevent the dissemination of “anti-Islamic propaganda.” In this case, Kuru implicitly referred to the “Innocence of Muslims” video that the Obama administration and others blamed for triggering the attack.

“The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has taken some important steps forward in promoting respectful, civilized and effective ways of fighting Islamophobia. Their diplomatic attitudes, however, have yet to spread at the grassroots level,” Kuru wrote, contrasting the OIC’s efforts with those of violent Muslim protesters. “The recent incident also shows how counterproductive Islamophobia is. There are politicians and religious leaders in the United States and Europe who, unfortunately, promote Islamophobia.

“Western countries need to develop effective mechanisms and institutions to marginalize Islamophobes; that will be consistent with their principle of working against discrimination, as well as serving their interests in different parts of the world.”

Other Brookings scholars reflect this line of reasoning about the threat from Islamophobia and their perspectives similarly align with many of the OIC’s complaints.

A few years earlier, in a June 2007 article, former Brookings scholar Peter Singer cited former U.S. diplomat William Fisher, saying that “an unreasoning and uninformed Islamophobia” served as a new prejudice that threatened to undermine U.S. foreign policy and that it was rapidly becoming “implanted in our national genetics.”

Brookings scholar David Benjamin extended this line of reasoning in an Oct. 7, 2008 paper, stating that Islamophobia driven by “the religious right and talk radio” had undermined the integration of Muslims into American society. He claimed this compounded the effects with “dubious prosecutions.”

“Officials should denounce incidents of anti-Muslim sentiment quickly and vigorously,” Benjamin wrote.

The OIC’s diplomatic efforts against so-called Islamophobia have included applying pressure to governments and international bodies to criminalize free speech.

OIC’s war on free speech

Brookings invited then-OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to speak at its annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum in 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in Doha. The conferences drew intellectuals and policymakers from the United States and across the Muslim world, and serve as a major part of Brookings’ Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World.

Ihsanoglu’s organization for years has lobbied the European Union and the United Nations to outlaw criticism of Islam.

Read more

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

 

Criticizing Islam Becomes “Incitement to Imminent Violence”

998_largeby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
June 11, 2014

You could say it is a new form of Islamic honor crime: the silencing of those who dare besmirch the honor of Islam or its prophet, except the suppression now doesn’t come from Muslims only. These days, it’s the work of secular groups and governments: theaters in Germany, prominent publishers in England and the USA, of public prosecutors in the Netherlands, and most recently, of the Spanish Supreme court.

On May 30, that court ruled that Pakistani refugee Imran Firasat be stripped of his refugee status and deported. A Pakistani Muslim apostate, Firasat for years received death threats for marrying a non-Muslim, and for his outspoken criticism of Islam. In 2006, he received amnesty in Spain, a country where he was guaranteed the glorious freedoms unavailable to him in his homeland – freedoms enshrined in the foundations of any Western democracy: of religion, of opinion, and of speech.

But evidently he was not.

In 2012, Firasat produced a film critical of Islam in which he included footage of the attacks of 9/11, along with subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks in London and Madrid. According to a report from Gatestone Institute, “Shortly after Firasat’s film was released, Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo and Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz initiated a process to review his refugee status.”

The reason? Garcia-Margallo had determined that Firasat’s film created a security risk from Muslims who might be angered by its content. (That those Muslims themselves posed a risk seems not to have entered the discussion.)

The Supreme Court’s decision, which affirms the ruling of a lower court, reflects the growing influence of an anti-blasphemy measure introduced to the United Nations in 2011 by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprised of the 56 Islamic states. That measure, Resolution 16/18, aims to limit – even criminalize – speech that can be understood as “discriminatory – which, as I wrote at the time, “involves the ‘defamation of religion’ – specifically that which can be viewed as ‘incitement to imminent violence.'”

But nearly anything can be called “incitement to imminent violence,” just as a woman walking the street without covering herself ankle to brow in a niqab could be called an “incitement to imminent rape.” Who decides what “incitement” and “imminent” are? Should we now arrest all non-veiled women in the West? Has Spain become another Sharia state? Has UN Resolution 16/18 marked the end of freedom as we know it in the West?

In fact, as the Heritage Foundation recently reported, “throughout Europe, in Canada, and even in the United States, judicial systems in countries with large Muslim minorities are under pressure to adopt Sharia free speech restrictions. As a result, in many places, including Denmark, it is now a crime to say anything negative about Islam or the prophet Mohammed, regardless of whether such statements are factually true or not. The concept that even offensive speech is protected—so fundamental to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment—is collapsing.”

Such attacks on democratic values – and their success in destroying them – are what have many experts, human rights groups, and politicians concerned about multiculturalism in the West. The idealized model – in which multiple cultures coexist peacefully within the same society – simply doesn’t work; the conflicts of values are too extreme.

True, it would be easy enough to wave off such incidents of censorship if they were limited to a mere one or two: but they aren’t. In 2010, for instance, Comedy Centralpulled a “South Park” episode satirizing the violent reactions to depictions of the prophet Mohammad after a New York-based Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, threatened the show’s writers with death.

Four years prior, the Berlin-based Deutsche Oper cancelled its run of Mozart’s “Idomeneo,” in which the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed are placed on chairs onstage. Explaining their decision, the organizers of the opera, which was first performed in 1781, cited warnings from the police that “the publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk.” (Neither Buddhist nor Christian groups, it should be noted, expressed any discomfort with the production.)

And there are others: the extended criminal case against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders for his statements against Islam and his film “Fitna,” which, like Firasat’s, focused on a recent history of Islamic terrorism and various calls for violence written in the Quran; or (also in the Netherlands) the arrest, at the demand of a radical imam, of pseudonymous cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for sketches deemed “insulting” to Muslims.

America has hardly been immune: in 2008, Random House publishers cancelled publication of The Jewel of Medina, described as “a fictional account of the life of Mohammed’s wife, Aisha.” A year later, Yale University Press deleted images from a book about the so-called “Danish Cartoons” – a series of cartoons that ran in Denmark’s Jyllands Post in 2005, citing fears of “insulting Muslims” and – there it is again – a risk to national security.

And earlier this month, the New York Times demanded that the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) revise an ad slated to run on the Gray Lady’s web site, claiming that there had been numerous complaints about a previously approved, full-page version of the ad in the print edition of the paper. Explained the IPT at the time, “The NYT ordered us to insert the word ‘radical’ before the term ‘Islamist groups,’ so that it read, ‘Stop the radical Islamist groups from undermining America’s security, liberty, and free speech.'”

That change was not as minor as it might at first seem, argued IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson in an editorial for the IPT website. It suggested that Islamist groups who are not radicalized – like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – are not dangerous. And yet it is precisely these organizations worldwide which often exert the kind of pressure that results in censorship of speech, in the subjugation of the arts, in the compromise of truth.

Fortunately, America’s capitulation to pressure on this issue has been limited to the private sector. But Firasat’s story should be taken as a warning, as much for the U.S. as for Europe, of the damage Resolution 16/18 and similar efforts are having on our culture – and on our future.

One week after the Spanish court robbed Firasat of his democratic rights in a democratic country, President Barack Obama stood on the beaches of Normandy and spoke to those gathered to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day. On that day, he said, the world marked the moment of “commitment” to liberty and freedom; and since then, “From Western Europe to East; from South America to Southeast Asia; seventy years of democratic movements spread. Nations that once knew only the blinders of fear began to taste the blessings of freedom.

That would not have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met, and ideals they couldn’t live without.”

Those ideals still remain our ideals. We still cannot live without them. We cannot give up the fight.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Islamophobia Comes to Canberra

CANBERRA STOCKby Mark Durie:

Are we to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kind of intolerance found in the sharia badlands? How will discrimination among religions based on fear distort human rights?

Like student magazines all over the world, Woroni, put out by students at the Australian National University, publishes satire. It did when I attended 30 years ago, and it still does today. Much of what is written is offensive to someone or other, but it is a rare day when the university pays any attention.

However last week, The Australian newspaper reported that university authorities responded to a complaint by international students to compel Woroni “to pulp a satirical infographic which described a passage from the Koran as a ‘rape fantasy'”. Rachel Baxendale wrote:

The University also threatened student authors and editors of the infographic with disciplinary action, including academic exclusion and the withdrawal of the publication’s funding.

The piece was a fifth in a satirical series entitled “Advice from Religions” which had previously discussed Catholicism, Scientology, Mormonism and Judaism.

No complaints were received about any of the earlier installments.

The university issued a statement that:

… the infographic breached university rules and Australian Press Council guidelines, as well as posing a threat to the ANU’s reputation and security.

“In a world of social media, (there is) potential for material such as the article in question to gain attention and traction in the broader world and potentially harm the interests of the university and the university community,” the statement said.

The university cited an ugly demonstration by Muslims which took place in Sydney on September 15, 2012, and the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy.

The Sydney demonstration involved protestors displaying placards such as “Behead all those who insult the prophet” and “Sharia will dominate the world.”

Baxendale reported that one of the Woroni editors was told by a complainant: “I don’t think you understand the seriousness of this. In Pakistan, people get shot for this kind of thing.”

This logic is terrifying. People can get shot for many things in Pakistan: for gay sex or for belonging to the wrong Muslim sect. Are we in Australia to let our freedoms be shaped by the worst kinds of intolerance found in the sharia badlands?

The Australian National University was motivated by raw fear — of Islam. They virtually admitted as much. They did not bat an eyelid when diverse religions were mocked week after week in the pages of Woroni, but Islam is different. It seems the university did not even go through the motions of pretending they were acting to protect Muslims: they just didn’t want to get hurt.

This is a real example of true Islamophobia, in which an individual or organization discriminates between religions on the basis of the degree to which they fear Islam. The Australian National University has shown itself to be genuinely Islamophobic, yet at the same time, sharia-friendly.

This is the surrender of fear, which aligns with Muhammad’s call to non-Muslims to aslim taslam: “Surrender and you will be safe.” The Australian National University has acted to secure its safety, but at a great price.

This university could dig deeper and consider two implications of their actions.

One is: Why is it they have such fear of Islam? Do their actions show that they agree with Geert Wilders that “Islam is the problem”? Do they agree that it is Islam’s own theological characteristics that have caused Australia’s leading university to threaten its students with expulsion, simply for doing what students have always done?

The second question is: How will discrimination among religions based upon the criterion of fear distort human rights and the very fabric of the society in which we live? Are we to bow down before Islamic dogmas in every domain of life, out of the fear of being shot “as in Pakistan”? Will the demands of Islamic sharia determine the boundaries of human safety in every corner of the globe, as the September 2012 Sydney protestors so brazenly demanded?

Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, author of The Third Choice, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.

Tennessee: US Attorney, FBI to lecture Americans on Islam

via Creeping Sharia, May 28, 2013:

On your taxpayer dime. Hat tip to the Daily Roll Call blog who writes U.S Attorney To Supress 1st Amend in Tennessee:

How dare this U.S attorney and the agent from FBI tell us how to be ethical. How dare them to try to intimidate citizens of the United States by suggesting writing  blogs and media it’s a federal crime to tell the facts about political islam.

This is not about religion and “culture” this is political. First amendment rights once again being suppressed.

Why is a U.S Attorney and the lead Law Enforcement agency in this country addressing this issue in Tennessee, in a small town to boot?

These types of Islamic dawah pushed by the DOJ are happening all over the U.S. We’ve covered them numerous times. via Tullahoma News

A special meeting has been scheduled for the stated purpose of increasing awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles.

“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd.

Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

images (62)Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.

AMAC is a CAIR-like Islamic group that has fully infiltrated Tennessee politics including DHS.

Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

 Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.

He referred to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing in which Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist, detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the attack killed 168 people and injured more than 800.

It was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Terry Nichols was also charged and incarcerated as a coconspirator.

Killian also referred to the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting on Aug. 5, 2012, when Wade Michael Page, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. Page committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after he was shot in the stomach by a responding police officer.

“Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both Christians as was the guy who shot up the Sikh temple,” Killian said. “Sikhs are not Muslim, Many people think they are Muslim, but they split off with the Hindu religion.”

We know that is an outright lie. McVeigh said he was agnostic and was unrepentant in a CNN interview. Meanwhile, Islam rewards Muslims who kill non-Muslims or even Muslims deemed to be apostates.

Killian referred to a Facebook posting made by Coffee County Commissioner Barry West that showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, “How to Wink at a Muslim.”

Killian said he and Moore had discussed the issue.

“If a Muslim had posted ‘How to Wink at a Christian,’ could you imagine what would have happened?” he said. “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

Actually, Muslims post more direct and violent threats regularly and the feds do nothing. Take a look at Twitter or Facebook or the comments section on any anti-jihad blog. And remember Molly Norris? She had to go into hiding here in the U.S. due to Muslim death threats. Killian is a shill and a hypocrite.

Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.

“That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.

Killian said slide show presentations will be made.

Zak Mohyuddin, a Muslim Advisory Council member, said a shortened version of a documentary called “Welcome to Shelbyville” will also be featured.

The documentary, produced by the Public Broadcasting Service, spotlights recent demographic changes in nearby Shelbyville, with a focus on the growing number of immigrants from Latin America and Somalia with many Somalis from the Bantu minority ethnic group which practices Islam.

More taxpayer funded propaganda. See An inside look at the Shelbyville film propaganda team.

Mohyuddin said Muslims across the nation consistently issue press releases condemning terrorist acts, but the media usually does not pick up the information. He added that the apparent silence leaves the impression that Muslims do not condemn such acts.

Like Killian, Mohyuddin said word needs to be spread so more people understand the Muslim culture.

“It is in the self-interest of Muslims in the United States to counter violent extremism, because we and our children do not want to be viewed with suspicion,” Mohyuddin said. “The Muslim community is a vital resource in the fight against terrorism.”

Killian said he has made other presentations in the state about Muslim culture and civil rights laws, and the Muslims he’s become acquainted with are outstanding citizens.

“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” he said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country.

They always throw Hindus and Jews. It’s about Islam and for Muslims to shut up and submit non-Muslims. Plain and simple.

“It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

 Clearly these thugs want to impose their interpretation of the First Amendment and Islamic blasphemy laws on non-Muslims.

Read more

Also see:

Arab Spring Egypt’s ‘Legal’ Persecution of Christians

by Raymond Ibrahim
Special to IPT News
May 29, 2013

ACT! for America Launches National Free Speech Campaign

freedomOfSpeech

On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, anchored by the very important First Amendment. Today, our cherished right of freedom of speech is under assault. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants to criminalize speech that “denigrates” Islam. Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations and their politically correct enablers regularly engage in name calling and character assassination to silence those who dare speak out about the threat of radical Islam.

This is why, on September 25, 2013, 224 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, patriots across America will host events and educate the public about how freedom of speech is under attack – and what we all can do to protect it.

Free_Speech_Day

 

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

 

WHAT: HIGHLIGHTING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE OIC AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO STRIP US OF THAT FREEDOM.

signup

  1. Commit to host the event on September 25, 2013.
  2. You must hold the event in an indoor location where a video can be shown and access can be controlled (versus an outdoor venue), such as:
    - Meeting in your home
    – In a church, synagogue or other house of worship
    – In an American Legion, VFW, or similar hall
    – A public library
    – A hotel meeting room
  3. You also have the option during the day on September 25th to hold up signs and hand out printed materials at public venues, such as street corners.
  4. You will be provided instructions and materials to use at your indoor event and at outdoor public venues (if you choose that additional option).
  5. Commit to this being an educational event, not a confrontational event. Our goal is to help people understand how their free speech rights are under assault, not to get into confrontations with those who disagree with us.
  6. Put the word out and get RSVP’s for the indoor event so you will know how many to expect, to ensure your venue is adequate.

ACT! for America will announce how many “Freedom of Speech Day” events will take place and will advertise exact locations of each venue for those hosts who confirm to us that they want us to.

 

In this series of national webcasst, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

 

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

 

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

 

 Sign ACT! for America’s letter opposing this threat to free speech!

An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the State Legislatures 

Oppose the Implementation of UN Resolution 16/18:
A Threat to Free Speech

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states and the Palestinian Authority, has been trying for more than a decade to win UN-wide support of a resolution that calls on nations to prohibit speech that allegedly “defames” religion.

However, the evidence is clear that the OIC is concerned primarily about any speech it views as being critical of Islam, what it calls “Islamophobia.”

In the past, the United States has opposed such resolutions, correctly asserting that they are contrary to our First Amendment right of free speech.

In 2011, at the U.S.’s request, the OIC drafted a new resolution that would supposedly balance America’s constitutional protection of free speech with OIC concerns about “Islamophobia.” This resolution passed, with U.S. backing.

This new resolution, UN Resolution 16/18, no longer uses language such as “defamation,” but instead uses European-style hate speech language that has been used to criminalize speech critical of Islam in countries such as Austria and the Netherlands.

The OIC is now aggressively working to implement its definition of the resolution. Its position is clearly spelled out in a February 18, 2013, article in the Saudi Gazette entitled “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”

Given that the OIC is now pushing for nations to criminalize speech that it views as “Islamophobic,” we, the undersigned, call on our legislators to pass resolutions opposing the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18 as both unnecessary and a threat to America’s constitutional protection of free speech.

OIC Ramps Up ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign

kaffash20130201102509687-450x332By : The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has long been on the forefront of the Islamist mission to establish the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.  Now, during its 12th Islamic Summit held in Cairo February 7-8, 2013, the OIC set forth new and creative ways to silence, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam.

The OIC is a 57-member state organization that claims to represent 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe.  As the second largest international organization in the world, behind only the UN, and as the largest Islamic organization in the world, it is obviously quite powerful.  Though it is arguably the largest voting block in the UN, most people have never heard of it.

One of the OIC’s primary aims for at least the last fourteen years has been the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Since 1999, the OIC has set forth UN resolutions that would “combat defamation of religions.”  These resolutions condemned criticism of religion, but in the OIC’s interpretation, it applied only to Islam.  True statements of fact constituted no exception.

Support for the resolutions declined once the United States and other Western countries caught wind of the true meaning of “defamation of religions” and its inevitable chilling effect on freedom of expression.

In 2011, at the State Department’s request, the OIC drafted an alternative resolution that was intended to retain freedom of expression and still address the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia.  The result was Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.

The US State Department and numerous Christian organizations were elated, believing that the OIC had abandoned its mission to protect Islam from so-called “defamation,” and instead replaced it with the goal of protecting persecuted religious minorities from discrimination and violence.  In other words, many assumed a paradigm shift away from providing legal protections to a religion and toward legal protections for people.

But the OIC had some very creative interpretations of the language embodied in the new resolution.  By its manipulation of words such as intolerance and incitement, giving new meanings to what many thought was plain English, the OIC made it clear that it had not dropped its ultimate goal of protecting Islam from “defamation.”

Read more at Front Page

Blasphemy as a National Security Threat

freedomBy Daniel Greenfield

Spain has begun deportation proceedings against Imran Firasat, a Christian refugee from Pakistan, for making a documentary about Mohammed and thereby threatening the national security of Spain. If Firasat is deported back to Pakistan, he will face the death penalty proving that it’s a short step from the Spanish Inquisition to the Pakistani Inquisition.

The United States has a man sitting in prison for making another blasphemous movie, which the government spent weeks blaming for worldwide attacks on American embassies. And he isn’t the first man persecuted or prosecuted for offending Islam. Offending Islam has become a national security issue involving all levels of government.

When Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa DJ, proposed to burn a Koran, the commander of the Afghanistan war contacted his girlfriend, who would later be stalked by Petraeus’ girlfriend, to contact the Mayor of Tampa to keep Bubba from burning a Koran. Instead of explaining how the American system works to the Lebanese temptress and her four-star general, the mayor wrote back that the city was working on it.

That month 50 percent more Americans were killed in Afghanistan in the long slow death march of the war, but a Koran was not burned in Tampa. Mission accomplished.

Muslims did not have to kill a great number of Americans to enforce blasphemy law in this country. Counting the various reactions to burnt Korans, rumors of a flushed Koran and assorted things of that nature, the number is still well below a hundred. Even counting every casualty in the war from September 11 onward, it took fewer deaths to make the United States give up on the Bill of Rights than it took to liberate it in the War of Independence.

But it’s not really about the deaths, if it were, then the United States wouldn’t be senselessly squandering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid offending the natives. It’s not the death of men that our leaders are worried about, but the death of stability.

Knowing that a hundred men will die today in car accidents does not alarm anyone, but knowing that somewhere a dozen men might die in a bomb explosion, anywhere and at any time, can bring a nations to its knees. That is the difference between predictable and unpredictable death. Predictable death makes it possible for most everyone to go about doing what they normally do. Unpredictable death, however, erodes daily order.

Blasphemy makes terrorism seem predictable

Blasphemy makes terrorism seem predictable. It delivers that false sense of control that is at the root of Stockholm Syndrome, the seductive illusion that the thug can be reasoned with and that we can restore control over our perilous environment by accepting responsibility for the enemy’s violence. If we meet a set of conditions, then we will have peace. And what kind of lunatic wouldn’t want peace? The kind who needs to be deported or locked up in the name of peace.

When an entire country goes Stockholm, then it is no longer interested in winning the war, only in surviving the peace. In a Stockholm country, national security consists of locking up anyone who can be blamed for sabotaging the peacemaking. The less peace there is, the more the peacemakers go on the hunt for “extremists” who are to blame for the lack of it. The more their vision of a better world fails, the more stern measures they must take against their own people. Peace is always one more denunciation of extremism away.

The same countries whose leaders have spent a century and a half blathering incessantly about a truly progressive order under international law have shown no ability to cope with the old-fashioned kind of war. They can quote verbatim the laws of war, but understand poorly that war makes its own laws. War’s simplest law is that you pick a pretext, any popular pretext, make your demands and then go on the attack. If the other side is foolish enough to meet your demands, then it has shown its weakness and must be attacked again and again.

Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence.

Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence. Like Khrushchev banging his shoe on the United Nations delegate desk, they did their best to convince the rest of the world that they were violently irrational and liable to do all sorts of things if their demands weren’t met. And their demands were met. Rather than going medieval on their asses, the civilized world instead went medieval on anyone who offended the medieval cult of Islam.

Muslim blasphemy, like the ghetto hood’s respect, is an assertion of supremacy by identity. It isn’t a grievance, it’s a right of violence, and if you give into it, then you accept the inferior status that comes from being weak in a system where might makes right and killing people, or threatening to, is what makes one man better than another.

Islam is submission. If you submit to Islam, then you’re a Muslim. If you submit to a Muslim, then you’re a slave

Islam is submission. If you submit to Islam, then you’re a Muslim. If you submit to a Muslim, then you’re a slave. The western blasphemy trial is not the enforced submission of an Islamic legal system that would be crude and brutal, but at least comparatively respectable, it is the enforced submission to Muslim violence. The judges who preside over our blasphemy cases do not believe in Islam, they believe in the danger of Muslim violence. This is not theocracy, is it slavery.

For the moment blasphemy prosecutions still involve trying offenders on some charge other than the obvious one. Low-hanging fruit like Imran Firasat or Mark Youssef are the easiest to deal with. Any man whose freedom depends on the whim of a judge can already be locked up or deported any time without the need for actual charges of heresy to be brought. When that isn’t possible, there is always the ubiquitous hate crime which increasingly extends to anything that offends anyone regardless of consequences or intent.

These trials are a contradiction, 21st Century legal codes built on sensitivity and tolerance being used to prosecute deviations from a medieval code of insensitivity and intolerance. But that very same contradiction runs through the modern state’s entire approach to Islam. It is impossible to embrace medievalism without becoming medieval. The need to accommodate Islamic medievalism is forcing the medievalization of the modern world’s political and legal systems.

The conflict between the modern world and the Muslim world is being waged by the modern rules of international law and peacemaking on one side and by the medieval rules of brutal violence, insincere offers of peace and bigoted fanaticism on the other. Rather than fighting it on its own terms, the modern world is instead trying to accommodate it on its own terms by accommodating its blasphemy codes.

Trapped in a long-term war, our leaders are looking for ways of making the conflict more manageable. If they can’t win the war, they can at least limit the number of attacks. It’s not the open book kind of appeasement, but the double book kind. The open book is still patriotic, but the second book in the bottom drawer is running payments to the terrorists and finding ways to accommodate them. And anyone who runs afoul of the second book, also runs afoul of national security.

War often compromises freedoms, but it rarely compromises the freedom to hurt the enemy’s feelings. But this is a different sort of war. A war with no enemies and no hope of victory. A war whose only hope is that one day our enemies will become better people and stop trying to kill us. Our enemies are fighting to take away our freedoms and we are fighting to take away our own freedoms in the hopes that if we give up some of them to the enemy, he will settle for them and give up on the rest.

Read more at Canada Free Press

Threat to Free Speech (counterjihadreport.com)

Blasphemy and Islam

Coptic Christian blogger Alber Saber

Coptic Christian blogger Alber Saber

By Andrew C. McCarthy

In Cairo on Wednesday, a Coptic Christian blogger named Alber Saber was convicted of blasphemy and “contempt of religion.” There’s a tragic irony: As any of the country’s Christians can tell you, contempt of religion is not merely permitted but encouraged in the new, post-Mubarak Egypt. What is criminal, what has become increasingly perilous, is any criticism of Islam.

Nor is truth a defense. Another Egyptian court recently upheld the blasphemy conviction of Makarem Diab, also a Coptic Christian. Diab had gotten into a discussion with a Muslim acquaintance, Abd al-Hameed, who, in the course of mocking Diab’s faith, insisted that Jesus was a serial fornicator. Diab countered Hameed’s baseless taunt with an assertion most Islamic scholars regard as accurate: namely, that Mohammed had more than four wives. Yet, because the context of Diab’s assertion evinced an intention to cast Islam’s prophet in an unfavorable light, Diab was prosecuted for “insulting the prophet” and “provoking students.” He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

This is now everyday life in Egypt. It is also certain to be the future of Egypt. The overwhelmingly Islamist population, having first elected Islamic supremacists led by the Muslim Brotherhood to top leadership positions, is now poised to adopt a constitution that is founded on sharia, Islam’s totalitarian legal framework, and that expressly enshrines these blasphemy standards. But the problem is not just sharia in Egypt. Sharia is here.

About three weeks ago, another Egyptian court sentenced seven people to death after convicting them in absentia on blasphemy charges. Most of the seven are in the United States. Most of them are Coptic Christians; one is a Florida-based pastor who is a blistering critic of Islamic scripture. The charges relate to the defendants’ alleged involvement in “Innocence of Muslims,” an obscure amateur video that Islamists have frivolously cited as a pretext for their latest round of international mayhem — and that the Obama administration has fraudulently portrayed as the catalyst of a massacre in Benghazi in which jihadists killed four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya.

So how has President Obama responded to the Egyptian government’s human-rights violations, its failure to protect the Copts from persecution (indeed, its willing participation in that persecution), and its provocations against Americans — which now include ordering their killing, through a kangaroo-court process that flouts our due-process standards, over their engagement in activity that is expressly protected by our Constitution?

Well . . . the president has announced that not only will he continue funding Egypt’s Islamist government, but he intends to include in that U.S. aid the provision of 20 F-16 fighter jets. Moreover, Obama is continuing his administration’s collaboration with the 57-government Organization of Islamic Cooperation on the “Istanbul Process.” That is the OIC’s campaign to impose sharia’s repressive blasphemy standards.

The most recent aggression in this blasphemy enterprise — a years-long, carefully plotted OIC campaign to snuff out American free-speech rights under the guise of “defamation of religion” — is U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It calls on Western governments to outlaw “any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

Read more at National Review

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was published by Encounter Books.

Benghazi bungle an attempt to advance Islam?

HillaryClinton32-273x275by Taylor Rose

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration may be trying to use the al-Qaida terror attacks on U.S. operations in Benghazi, Libya, to advance a growing global movement to protect Islam from criticism, according to one expert.

The issue is the “defamation of religions” resolution pending at the United Nations.  It was introduced by Islamic nations and coalitions to criminalize any negative reference to Islam or Muslims.

Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Clarion Fund, said that after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration made an impromptu decision to advance the Islamic agenda item it already had endorsed.

“The Obama administration, and especially the Department of State led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are coordinating closely with the [Organization of the Islamic Conference] to achieve implementation of U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which despite some cosmetic wording changes, remains the vehicle through which the OIC is determined to work toward the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law,” she said.

Her comments came at an Endowment for Middle East Truth panel discussion recently  concerning the OIC’s repeated demand to punish those who criticize Islam in U.N. member nations. The OIC is a coalition of 57 Islamic members, 56 states and the non-state Palestinian Authority.

After almost a decade of negotiations between the OIC and Western powers, the U.N. resolution no longer has specific references to blasphemy and Islam. It now has more generic language, with hate-speech style references.

The original Obama narrative on the Benghazi attack, quickly proven to be false, was that the violence was caused by a spontaneous crowd protesting an anti-Islam YouTube video called “Innocence of Muslims.”

Lopez said the Obama administration’s “stubborn adherence to the false narrative of the YouTube film, ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ for so long after the 11 September 2012 attack on the Benghazi mission is inexplicable except in the context of a globally coordinated campaign through the OIC and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood affiliates to advance the anti-free speech agenda of U.N. Resolution 16/18.”

Lopez said the administration’s aim not only is to support the passage of U.N. Resolution 16/18 but to attempt to move Middle East policy in a direction that favors jihadist states.

“Official U. S. policy now is to assist al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadists to overthrow what have been termed ‘unfaithful Arab/Muslim rulers’ who failed to enforce Islamic law (shariah) … and to replace them with jihadist Muslim Brotherhood leadership that has pledged its commitment to re-establishment of the Caliphate and strict implementation of Shariah,” she said.

Lopez said the change in policy is a consequence of infiltration of Islamist operatives in the United States government.

“It is likely that such drastic and detrimental changes to U.S. national security strategy can be attributed at least in part to the extensive infiltration of MB operatives as advisers and appointees within the Obama administration and throughout cabinet departments … and on down even to local law enforcement levels,” she said.

She said the OIC “is determined to work towards the criminalization of the criticism of Islam in U.S. law.”

While she said the First Amendment is posing a stumbling block, she believes the OIC and Obama will expand on existing law that possesses broad language allowing for various interpretations.

“One of the tactics they appear to be considering is seeking to expand upon already-existing U.S. law that prohibits ‘imminent incitement to violence’ to impose a so-called ‘test of consequences’ on speech by American citizens,” she said.

She elaborates on the strategy by clarifying that “while currently the law stipulates that the actual content of the speech must include an explicit incitement to violence, the ‘test of consequences’ would instead assign a post ipso facto charge of guilt against someone who neither spoke nor intended ‘imminent violence’ and perhaps spoke only truth – but whose speech was interpreted at some time and place in the world by someone as ‘offensive’ and who then used that entirely subjective feeling of ‘offense’ as an excuse to go out and commit violence.”

Read more at WND

New Movie Documents Islamist Threat to Free Speech–and Obama’s Support for It

New York: On September 25, 2012, President Obama astonished many Americans by declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This is a sentiment espoused by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Worse yet, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed the lengths to which the Obama administration is prepared to go to enforce this view when she told the family of a former SEAL killed last month in Benghazi that the producer of a video she falsely claimed precipitated that attack would be “arrested and prosecuted.” He was subsequently taken into custody and remains in jail.Now, the powerful documentary SILENT CONQUEST explains why these affronts to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are part of an ominous pattern of Team Obama’s submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah and its prohibition of any expression that “offends” Islam or its god, prophet or followers.The film features interviews with U.S. and foreign legislators, journalists, national security and other experts and Muslim, former Muslim and non-Muslim activists including:Best-selling author Mark Steyn; Rep. Allen West, Member of Congress; Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament; Baroness Caroline Cox, Member of the British House of Lords; ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel; scholar and author Daniel Pipes; American Islamic Leadership Council founder Zuhdi Jasser; former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish; former Defense Department official Frank Gaffney; Lord Malcolm Pearson, Member of the British House of Lords; Naser Kader, Member of the Danish Parliament; author and financial terrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld; author Pastor Mark Durie, as well as others.

SILENT CONQUEST offers a frightening insight into the extent to which Europe, Canada and the United Nations have already succumbed to the restrictions of shariah blasphemy laws. Its stark warning about the Obama administration’s substantial efforts to accommodate them here, as well, is a wake-up call for every American.

The documentary was produced by Sanctum Enterprises, LLC.

For a limited time, SILENT CONQUEST can be viewed for free online at silentconquest.com.

For more information about the film and its subject matter or to arrange interviews with the film’s featured authorities, contact David Reaboi of the Center for Security Policy at 202.431.1948 and dreaboi@centerforsecuritypolicy.org or media@www.silentconquest.com.

 Frank Gaffney:

As Americans go to the polls, many factors may influence how they vote for  president. Among those — if not pre-eminent among them — should be the kind of  country they want to bequeath to their children. It is unlikely that most voters  would knowingly and deliberately opt for a candidate who appears determined to  make the United States a nation that does not respect and safeguard our most  foundational constitutional right: freedom of expression.

It may seem unbelievable that anyone running for the presidency would even  consider such a betrayal of the oath of office governing that position, let  alone work toward that end. Yet, as a new film, “Silent Conquest,” makes clear,  President Obama, from his first months in office, has been enabling in this  country an insidious effort by Islamic supremacists to keep us from engaging in  speech, videos, training or other forms of expression that offend Muslims, their  god, prophet and faith.

The documentary opens with Mr. Obama’s astounding pronouncement at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25: “The  future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This  sentiment could have been expressed as easily by the Muslim  Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic  Cooperation (OIC), the Taliban  or al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it is but one of  many manifestations of an Obama policy approach that has brought U.S. diplomacy  and government practice into closer and closer alignment with the demands of  Islamists that such “slanders” be prohibited and criminalized.

Consider a few of the other examples “Silent Conquest” itemizes with help  from an array of U.S. and foreign legislators, analysts in national security and  other fields, and Muslim and non-Muslim activists (this columnist among  them):

The Obama administration co-sponsored in  March 2009 a resolution in the U.N.  Human Rights Council that basically endorsed the unacceptability of any  expression that offends Islam.

In Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama declared, as part of what Mitt Romney and  others have called his “apology tour”: “I consider it part of my responsibility  as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam  wherever they appear.”

In July 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton launched with  the OIC the Istanbul  Process, a multilateral effort to find ways to accommodate Muslim demands for  restrictions on free speech. On that occasion, she declared that among other  means put in the service of this dubious objective would be “old-fashioned  techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Mrs. Clinton evidently has  found such methods inadequate. In the aftermath of the murderous attack on our  diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, she joined Mr. Obama and others in  insisting — despite abundant evidence to the contrary — that it had been  precipitated by a “disgusting and reprehensible” act of free expression, namely,  a video denigrating Muhammad produced by a California man. According to Charles  Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the former Navy SEALs killed while  heroically defending the CIA’s annex and his comrades, Mrs.  Clinton told him that the government was going to “arrest and prosecute” the  filmmaker. Shortly thereafter, the American who had given offense was indeed  taken into custody and will remain there, at least until after the election.

Then there’s this, just in: The man selected to perform the investigation  into the Benghazi debacle for the State Department — whose results will only  become available after Nov. 6 — seems committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda  as well. As reported by syndicated columnist Diana West, in the course of his  Oct. 23 appearance on a panel at Washington National Cathedral titled “The  Muslim Experience in America,” retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering “made an  ominous call for ‘strong efforts  to deal with opinion leaders who harbor  [anti-Islam] prejudices, who espouse them and spread them.’” He went on to  endorse the characterization of another panelist, Islamist apologist James  Zogby, who claimed “the racism [of U.S. soldiers] was really intense.” Mr.  Pickering even seemed to suggest that the U.S. armed forces are “the enemy.”

Read more at Washington Times

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy  (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure  Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).

Sixty Percent of US Muslims Reject Freedom of Expression

By Andrew Bostom:

After violent Muslim reactions to the amateurish “Innocence of Muslims” video, which simply depicted a few of the less salutary aspects of Muhammad’s biography, international and domestic Islamic agendas have openly converged with vehement calls for universal application of Islamic blasphemy law. This demand to abrogate Western freedom of expression was reiterated  in a parade of speeches by Muslim leaders at the UN General Assembly. The US Muslim community echoed such admonitions, for example during a large demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan, and in a press release by the Islamic Circle of North America.

Now the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 US Muslims, indicate widespread support among rank and file American votaries of Islam for this fundamental rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under the US Constitution. The first amendment states, plainly,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure”.  Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.”

Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these US Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing, “…that U.S. citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating cases that involve Muslims, ” while nearly one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.”

These alarming data remind us that despite intentionally obfuscating apologetics, Sharia, Islamic law, is not merely holistic, in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian, regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion, to personal hygiene, to the governance of a Muslim minority community, Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties—including freedom of conscience and speech—enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

And the US Muslim data mirror global Islamic trends. Previously, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (subsequently renamed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC])—the largest voting bloc in the UN, which represents all the major Muslim countries, and the Palestinian Authority—had sponsored and actually navigated to passage a compromise U.N. resolution insisting countries criminalize what it calls “defamation of religion.” Though the language of the OIC “defamation of religion” resolution has been altered at times, the OIC’s goal has remained the same—to impose at the international level a Sharia-compliant conception of freedom of speech and expression that would severely limit anything it arbitrarily deemed critical of, or offensive to, Islam or Muslims. This is readily apparent by reading the OIC’s supervening “alternative” to both the US Bill of Rights and the UN’s own 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, i.e., the 1990 Cairo Declaration, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

Read more

Hypocrisy: Saudi King Asks UN To Adopt Resolution Condemning Anything And Everything ‘That Insults Religions’ …

Midnight Watcher:

Yet all the while Saudi Arabia continues to export Islamic textbooks that do nothing but fuel Islamic supremacy and violent Jihad around the globe, textbooks which promote vitriolic hatred of Judaism and Christianity because “Jews and the Christians are enemies of the [Islamic] believers” …

The Jerusalem Post – “Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz on Saturday called on the UN to adopt a resolution condemning blasphemy, AFP reported.

‘I demand a UN resolution that condemns any country or group that insults religions and prophets,’ he reportedly said. ‘It is our duty and that of every Muslim to protect Islam and defend the prophets.’

The Saudi King is the latest Islamic leader to call for a ban on blasphemy following the release last month of the US-made Innocence of Muslims film, which triggered a wave of deadly anti-American violence across the Islamic world.

Abdullah also stressed the important of the ‘unity of the Islamic nation…to face the nation’s enemies.’” Source – The Jerusalem Post.

Flashback: New Study Shows That 80% of Mosques in America Teach Jihad Violence and Islamic Supremacism – “… Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule. And now comes yet more confirmation that mosques in the U.S. are teaching these things, and again the percentage is remarkably similar: around 80% of mosques are found to be teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism.” Read more.

Flashback: Report: Saudis Export Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish Textbooks that Continue to Fuel Intolerance and Violence Around the Globe – “Textbooks used in Saudi Arabia’s schools contain virulent forms of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigotry that continue to fuel intolerance and violence around the globe, says a new report…  ‘Because of the Saudis’ great oil wealth, it is able to disseminate its textbooks … to many Muslim schools, mosques and libraries throughout the world. ‘This is not just hate mongering, it’s promoting violence,’ … Christians are referred to as ‘swine’ and Jews as ‘apes,’ …” Read more.

Flashback: ‘Fight The Jews And Kill Them’: Major American Publishers Protest Hate-Filled, Toxic Saudi Textbook Content - “An appeal to the government of Saudi Arabia to stop publishing hate-filled textbooks was issued today by seven current and former heads of major American publishing houses… Muslims in many countries have reported that over the past 20 to 30 years, local Islamic traditions have been transformed and radicalized under the growing influence of Saudi Salafist Islam, known as Wahhabism. The late president of Indonesia Abdurraham Wahid wrote that Wahhabism was making inroads even in his famously tolerant nation.” Read more.

Muslim-American Interfaith Group Calls for Blasphemy Laws

By Ryan Mauro:

The United Muslim Christian Forum, a friendly-sounding “interfaith” group issued a press release on September 18 demanding the prosecution of the makers of the low-quality Innocence of Muslims film that appeared on YouTube. The Islamist agenda of the group is in written form but if the past is any indication, that won’t stop elected officials and Christian leaders from embracing it in order to prove their tolerance.

The United Muslim Christian Forum (UMCF) is an entity of the Muslims of the Americas, whose members follow a cleric in Pakistan named Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani that refers to Osama Bin Laden as a “Saudi activist.” The group says it has 22 “villages” across the country, such as “Islamberg” in Hanock, N.Y. and “Islamville” in York County, S.C.

Gilani also leads Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a group that the State Department said in 1998 is an “Islamic sect that seeks to purify Islam through violence.” In 2009, I obtained a video of Muslim women receiving guerilla warfare training, complete in military fatigue, at “Islamberg.” This should raise questions about the purpose of Islamberg’s 24th Annual Ladies Summer Camp in July 2011.

The UMCF press release claims that the film is part of a conspiracy involving “media terrorism” to cause war between Muslims and Christians and its content should not be protected as free speech. It quotes an unidentified citizen as saying it is “barbarous treason.”

“Therefore we demand immediate action by the appropriate government agencies to stop this film and bring its perpetrators to justice for this malicious hate speech,” it says.

Anti-Semitism is at the core of UMCF’s drive to forge a Muslim-Christian coalition. Its website states that the 9/11 attacks were “Stage One of getting the Western World, on behalf of the Jews, to go to war with the Arab world.” Gilani says “Jews are an example of human Satans” and that he’s never encountered an honest Jew.

A number of officials and Christian leaders have embraced the UMCF even though this extremism can be easily found with a simple Google search or review of the group’s website. A photo of Binghamton Mayor Matthew T. Ryan standing with the UMCF sign is on the home page of the website to this day.

The most recent event held by the UMCF was on April 21 at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C. The two Christian speakers were Reverend Sam McGregor of Allison Creek Church and a missionary named Ryan Peters. The UMCF’s main speaker was Khalifa Hussein Adams and the text of his speech is online.

Read more at Front Page