Honor Diaries is an important film that explores the brutality and systematic inequality faced by women in Muslim-majority societies. It features both believing Muslim women, like Dr. Qanta Ahmed (whose compelling essay about the film was published here at National Review Online yesterday), and former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the renowned author and human-rights activist.
The purpose of Honor Diaries is to empower women by shining a light on the hardships they endure – including “honor” killings (i.e., murders over the perception of having brought shame to the family by violating Islamic norms), beatings, genital mutilation, forced marriage – particularly of young girls - and restrictions on movement, education, and economic opportunity. The film highlights authentic Muslim moderates struggling against the dead-end of Islamic supremacism.
So naturally, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) does not want you to see it.
CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood creation, conceived as the primo American public-relations firm for Islamic supremacists, particularly Hamas – a task CAIR pulls off by masquerading as a “civil rights” organization.
Hamas, as I recounted in The Grand Jihad, is a formally designated terrorist organization under federal law. It is also the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In the early Nineties, the Brotherhood established a “Palestine Committee” to promote Hamas in the United States, an agenda topped by fundraising and efforts to derail the 1993 Oslo accords – the futile, Clinton administration-brokered attempt to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. CAIR’s founders, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed, attended a three-day summit in support of Hamas in Philadelphia in 1993, much of which was wiretapped by the FBI. CAIR was established shortly afterwards. By summer 1994, the Palestine Committee was listing CAIR in internal memoranda as one of its “working organizations.”
We’ve discussed CAIR here many times, including in my 2009 column about the FBI’s long-overdue severing of “outreach” ties with the organization. It is infuriating that the Feebs and the wider government thought it was worth canoodling with CAIR in the first place, but the Bureau officially ended the affair after the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted. CAIR, though unindicted, was shown by the Justice Department to be a co-conspirator. In sum, prosecutors established that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the primary Hamas fundraising arm in the United States. Like CAIR, HLF was identified by the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as one of its “working organizations.” As terrorism researcher Steve Emerson has shown, CAIR got $5,000 in seed money at its inception from HLF, and thereafter helped raise money for HLF. The federal government shut HLF down in 2001 because of its promotion of terrorism.
Although Honor Diaries has been widely acclaimed and screened internationally, CAIR has been agitating against it. As reliably happens when CAIR plays its tired “Islamophobia” card, universities across the nation cower – especially universities with active Muslim Students Association chapters. (As we’ve observed before, the MSA is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States.) Starting with the University of Michigan at Dearborn, several schools have now decided not to screen the film after all.
Why it is “Islamophobic” to condemn violence and abuse against Muslim women is not entirely clear to me. It is, however, clear to Linda Sarsour, a “community organizer” and “immigrants’ rights activist” who is celebrated on President Obama’s website, WhiteHouse.gov, as a “Champion of Change.” As reported on The Kelly File, this particular “champion” reacted to Honor Diaries by tweeting:
How many times do we have to tell White women that we do not need to be saved by them? Is there code language I need to use to get thru?
Thoughts like Ms. Sarsour’s make for depressing reading, but clearly she is referring to some of the filmmakers, who happen to be white women (the others include white men and a black woman, Ms. Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born executive producer who was raised as a Muslim). The film has also been promoted by yet another highly accomplished woman, Brooke Goldstein, the human-rights attorney and filmmaker who directsThe Lawfare Project; and by the Clarion Project, a New York-based organization that promotes moderate Islam and publicly challenges “extremist” Islam.
The community organizers at CAIR have obviously read a bit farther along in Rules for Radicals than Ms. Sarsour. Rather than racist tweets, they couch their character assassination of the film’s backers in the poll-tested sensitivities of everyday Americans, pretending to endorse the film’s message while telling you not to watch it. They issued a statement on Monday that Megyn Kelly aired:
American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.
Right. Women are being brutalized but our “real concern” should be the “track record” of some film producers. Beyond CAIR’s say-so that it is “hate-filled,” this purportedly dark track record is not described. But, after all, who would know more about what counts as “hate-filled” than a PR flack for a terrorist organization whose charter vows to annihilate Israel by violent jihad?
On Tuesday night, CAIR’s Chicago branch dispatched Agnieszka Karoluk, one of its “senior communications coordinators,” to Fox in order to regurgitate CAIR’s statement. Questioned by Megyn Kelly, Ms. Karoluk gave a dizzying explanation: CAIR, we’re told, agrees that Honor Diaries raises vital issues, opposes the abuse of women just like the film does, and is not really happy that colleges are canceling screenings (even though CAIR put out a smiley-face tweet when the first cancellation was announced). But CAIR is “disgusted” by the Clarion Project because it is - all together now - “Islamophobic.” Ms. Karoluk declined to say what makes it so (of course, to get into that would bring attention to episodes of Islamic extremism Clarion has exposed). So because Clarion likes the film, you shouldn’t watch it even though its content is accurate and significant – got it? Confronted by Brooke Goldstein about CAIR’s own record, Ms. Karoluk predictably replied, “I’m not here to talk about CAIR, I’m here to talk about the film” . . . and then continued to avoid talking about the film.
It is no doubt true, as CAIR’s statement asserts, that American Muslims substantially join the rest of us in condemning the abuse of women. CAIR, however, is in no position to speak for American Muslims – and in fact speaks for very few of them. Even if one were inclined to accept CAIR’s statements at face value, Honor Diaries is about the abuse of Muslim women; it is not about the filmmakers. If CAIR truly condemned these misogynistic practices it would be encouraging people to see the film. Instead, as Dr. Ahmed told Megyn, “They claim to be defending the vulnerable whereas they’re actually silencing exposure about the vulnerable.”
But there is no reason to take CAIR’s statements at face value. Under the old adage that actions speak louder than words, the inescapable fact is that CAIR does not condemn the horrific abuse of women in Muslim-majority countries. It is feigning condemnation in hopes of rendering people more receptive to CAIR’s actual message, which is: Avoid Honor Diaries because anyone who exposes atrocities committed by Muslims is unworthy of consideration, no matter how valid the exposition.
And I can prove it.
CAIR has a very close relationship with another Muslim Brotherhood creation, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) – an Islamic-supremacist think-tank we’ve also discussed in these pages (see, e.g., here). As Steve Emerson points out, disclosure forms IIIT filed with the IRS show thousands of dollars in contributions to CAIR. IIIT was also a major financial backer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami al-Arian, whom CAIR continued to champion even after his guilty plea to a terrorism charge.
As I’ve previously recounted, IIIT is one of the influential Islamic academic outfits that have endorsed Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of the classic sharia manual, `Umdat al-Salik. Indeed, the endorsement, written by IIIT’s then-president, Taha Jabir al-`Alwani, is included in the introduction section of the published manual. Dr. Alwani, a revered figure in Muslim Brotherhood circles, highly recommended Reliance as both a “textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English-speakers” and a legal reference for sharia scholars.
Here are just some of the things Reliance teaches about the treatment of women under Islamic law (with supporting citations to sections of the manual):
Read more: Family Security Matters
A jihadi group occupying the Syrian town of Raqqa recently gave Christian minorities living there three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) remain Christian but pay tribute and accept third-class subject status, or 3) die by the sword.
According to the BBC, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria issued a directive
citing the Islamic concept of “dhimma”, [which] requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety. It says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public. Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS (also known as ISIL) on their daily lives. The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices—they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS’ conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed. “If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword,” the statement said.
Because several Western media outlets uncharacteristically reported on this latest atrocity against Syrian Christians, many Westerners are shocked—amazed to hear of such draconian conditions.
In reality, however, these three choices are fully grounded in Islamic teachings, as shall be demonstrated below.
So why is the West, here in the “information age,” utterly if not abhorrently ignorant of the teachings of Islam? Because those responsible for making such knowledge available—specifically academia, media, and government—are more interested in whitewashing Islam andbemoaning Islamophobia (see pgs. 219-249 of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for specifics).
Most symbolic of all this is that right around the same time news that jihadis were subjugating and extorting jizya-money from Syrian Christians appeared, the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University, Washington D.C., held a seminar discussing how Islam is misunderstood and being demonized by so-called “Islamophobes.”
I have direct experience of this. Many years ago, as a graduate student at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, my interest in medieval Islamic history, Sharia, and jihad received askance looks from professors—not least because most classes offered were about the evils of colonialism and Orientalism, or Islamic “feminism.”
It was the same when I worked at the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, a governmental institution; there, our conferences regularly focused on the purported achievements of Islamic civilization.
As for the endemic Muslim persecution of Christians—past or present—apparently only an “Islamophobe” would raise that topic up.
Speaking of government, also around the same time jihadis were giving Christians the three classic choices of Islam—conversion, subjugation, or death—a delegation of Syrian Christian clergy came to the Senate Arms Services Committee meeting room to offer testimony concerning the sufferings of Syria’s Christians. Then,
Sen. John McCain marched into the committee room yelling, according to a high-level source that attended the meeting, and quickly stormed out. “He was incredibly rude,” the source told Judicial Watch “because he didn’t think the Syrian church leaders should even be allowed in the room.” Following the shameful tantrum McCain reentered the room and sat briefly but refused to make eye contact with the participants, instead ignoring them by looking down at what appeared to be random papers. The outburst was so embarrassing that Senator Graham, also an advocate of U.S. military intervention in Syria, apologized for McCain’s disturbing outburst. “Graham actually apologized to the group for McCain’s behavior,” according to the source, who sat through the entire meeting. “It was truly unbelievable.”
Less dramatically but equally revealing, CIA chief John Brennan recently declared that the ideology of those offering Christians three choices is “a perverse and very corrupt interpretation of the Koran,” one that has “hijacked” Islam and “really distorted the teachings of Muhammad.”
And if the attempts to suppress the reality of Christian suffering under Islam by academia, media, and government were not enough, months and years back, when the plight of Syria’s Christians was becoming known, even random (but supposedly nonbiased and independent) think tanks and writers also tried to suppress it.
Is it any wonder, then, that Christians in Syria being offered three choices—Islam, subjugation, or death—is mindboggling to the average person in the West, appearing as a wild aberration?
The Conditions of Omar
Yet knowledge of the particulars of Islam’s three-fold choice has been available for centuries; early Western peoples were much acquainted with it, including the now much maligned “Orientalists.”
Whereas Koran 9:29 provides divine sanction to fight the “People of the Book” (namely, Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued,” the lesser known Conditions of Omar (also known as the Pact of Omar) lays out in detail how they are to feel themselves subdued.
Named after the second caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab (r. 634 to 644), the Conditions was purportedly agreed upon between the caliph and a community of Christians conquered by invading Muslims, ironically in the region of Syria. It has since been referenced in most major works on the treatment of dhimmis—non-Muslims living under Islamic authority.
Read more at PJ Media
Human Rights attorney and the director of the Lawfare Project, Brooke Goldstein, asserts that anyone who is brave enough to speak openly about terrorism and its connection to Islam may find themselves on the “receiving end of a frivolous and malicious lawsuit designed to silence and punish them.”
Goldstein claims over the last 15 years, Islamic groups like the Arab league and the OIC attempt to punish any type of speech they consider offensive to Islam. Moreover, she told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon and the host of Breitbart News Sunday that such groups pair lawsuits with acts of violence and are becoming more aggressive about invoking fatwas, as they did to the Danish cartoonist. Goldstein, also pointed out that violence and fatwas ensued across the Muslim world when the state department decided to blame a so called anti-Islam YouTube film for the attack on Benghazi.
The human rights and free speech advocate posits that the lawsuits and violence precipitates an inherent self censorship. Altogether these three free speech denying modalities comprise a phenomenon which Goldstein calls “Islamist Lawfare, which is the use of the law as a weapon of war to silence and punish free speech about these issues of public dissonance.”
Bannon asked Goldstein if she thought there was an over-hyping by the Conservative Right of Islamist overreach in America, or is there a real problem as in the UK, where Sharia Law is now becoming codified into English Common law. Goldstein replied that “I wish it was just hype. But what we can measure now, because this has been a strategy that has been pursued, is the effects of the lawfare.”
Goldstein cited one example where Islamist lawfare was carried out and resulted in a major act of terror on American soil. She referred to a community center and mosque called the Islamic Society of Boston, that in 2005 was being investigated for receiving Saudi funding and was breeding Wasabi Islamic radicalism. The mosque turned around and sued at least 17 media defendants tying up the courts in a two year process stymieing police and discouraging further investigations.
The mosque was able to continue its teachings and sponsorship of radical ideology. Unfortunately, several years later, the mosque produced the two Tsarnaev brothers, responsible for the bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013, which killed three people including an eight year old boy and wounded many others.
Goldstein expressed her outrage that we have a policy in the government now where the words Islam and Jihad are being redacted from counter terrorism training manuals. She further points out that we have FBI officials and counter intelligence experts “that have been fired because they are Islamaphobic. We have Fort Hood which is reclassified as work place violence, not Islamist terrorism.”
Goldstein concludes that we have an uber PCness in America that brands people, even if it’s a Muslim criticizing his own religion, as being an Islamaphobe.
“I don’t have any desire to debate Robert Spencer….I would never give someone like that a forum,” Hofstra University Professor Daniel Martin Varisco declared at Georgetown University on February 26, 2014. Addressing the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding (ACMCU), Varisco’s equally flawed outlooks on Islam and intellectual inquiry had disturbing implications for modern academia.
Prior perusal of the opening pages of Varisco’s 2007 Reading Orientalism: Said and Unsaid did not raise hopes for his briefing “Khutba vs. Khutzpa: Islamophobia on the Internet.” In this book, Varisco analyzes leftwing intellectual Edward Said’s Orientalism and its legacy, expressing agreement “with most of Said’s political positions on the real Orient.” Varisco reveals his discipleship of Said with condemnations of post-World War II United States having “become by stealth and wealth the neo-colonial superpower” in which a “neocon clique…engineered the wars” not just “against” Iraq but also Afghanistan. Varisco’s one-sided estimate of historical harms includes a “PhD cataloguing of what the West did to the East and self-unfillfulling political punditry about what real individuals in the East say they want to do to the West.”
Yet, Varisco writes, “Said hardly scratched the surface of the vast sewerage of racist and ethnocentrist writing, art, and cinema that for so long has severed an imaginary East from the dominating West.” “In particular,” Varisco emphasizes,
almost anything that Muslims would consider holy has at one time or another been profaned by Western writers. Perhaps the frustrated worldwide Muslim anger at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was emetic justice for centuries of vicious and malicious verbal abuse from the West, where this controversial best seller incubated.
Both matters of principle and practicality deter further reading of Varisco. “Truth with a capital T does not exist for anyone,” Varisco nonsensically proclaims as one of his “own operational truths,” thereby placing in doubt Varisco’s views. Varisco’s attempts at humor also do not amuse, such as when he describes the book’s “anal citational flow of endnotes” designed to allow a person to “read for entertainment” Varisco’s turgid tome.
Nothing improved during Varisco’s presentation on “Islamophobia,” described in a Powerpoint image referencing a 1991 Runnymede Trust report as an “unfounded hostility” towards all things and persons Muslim. One Powerpoint on “Combatting Islamophobia on the Internet” set a leveling tone with a recommendation of a “[f]ocus on interfaith efforts, noting that all religions have positive and negative aspects.” This accorded with Varisco’s prior call for scholars to “be doing all we can to refute the notion that Islam is intrinsically more violent than other religions.” “I am not saying that these things don’t happen,” Varisco conceded when showing a picture of a woman undergoing a sharia stoning to death. Another Powerpoint, meanwhile, simply dismissed as “fallacy” controversies that “Muhammad was a pedophile and Islam is cruel to women.”
Varisco gave a historical overview of longstanding negative Western views of Islam. He noted, for example, Dante’s depiction of Islam’s prophet Muhammad in the Inferno and unfavorable 19th century American comparisons of an emerging Mormon faith with Islam. Varisco’s bias was evident when observing that John Smith fought Ottoman Turks before coming to America without ever analyzing whether Smith might have been justified to oppose Muslim aggression. Varisco also reiterated his previously written scorn for an “allegedly Venerable Bede, who condemned invading Muslims of his time as ‘a very sore plague.’” Why this single condemnation of marauding Muslims in France stopped at the 732 Battle of Tours discredited this pioneering English historian in Varisco’s estimation remained unexplained.
In discussing the 1797 American treaty with Tripoli, meanwhile, Varisco bizarrely claimed that “we were doing a lot of trade” with the Barbary States. As any schoolboy should know, though, this treaty, including a tribute payment, was part of American trade protection efforts against Barbary pirate depredations scourging the Mediterranean for centuries. Varisco then noted with a Powerpoint image America’s subsequent Barbary Wars resulting from the failure of diplomacy to dissuade the Barbary pirates from their attacks. “Economics is always in there somewhere,” Varisco stated in a similarly bizarre fashion when discussing the United States’ first encounter with jihadists.
Turning to the present, Varisco condemned as “Islamophobic” the Clarion Project along with its film Obsession, the website Answering Islam, and Franklin Graham for having called Islam “evil.” One particular focus of Varisco was the anti-Catholic writer Jack Chick who in his cartoon publications had wildly slandered the Catholic Church as Islam’s inventor. Another emphasis for Varisco was evangelical Joel Richardson’s website Joel’s Trumpet with its apocalyptic predictions of an “Islamic Antichrist.”
The little discussed elephant in the room for perceptive “Islamophobia” observers during Varisco’s presentation, though, was “Islamophobe” Number One, Jihad Watch website founder Spencer. Varisco cited a Spencer quotation from his book Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics listed at the website Spencer Watch. Varisco once again failed to explain why Spencer’s condemnations of Islam as an “often downright false revelation” and “threat to the world at large” were unacceptable. Varisco also noted a recent Jihad Watch entry criticizing his very Georgetown briefing.
Read more at Front Page
Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. You may follow Harrod on twitter at @AEHarrod.
Over at Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer is laughing
On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood ” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in that article to Boby’s lecture at the Ottawa Public Library on the consequences of allowing mosques to be built in municipal neighborhoods without adequate public consultation and supervision, an event whose reverberations have not yet died away and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future as mosque construction continues unabated. (Of the approximately 1200 mosques operating the U.S., for example, nearly 80 percent  were built after 9/11; there are no official data for Canada, but it is estimated  that there are at least 1000 mosques in the country, a lowball figure.)
Also known as the “mosque buster” — a designation, be it said, not of his choosing — Boby has devoted his time and expertise pro bono to advising the residents of municipal boroughs on the legal recourse at their disposal to prevent local mosque construction. In cases that Boby researched, the presence of mosques had led to the blighting of the quality of life in such residential areas, usually beginning with what he calls the “parking jihad,” as Muslim congregants occupy parking spots and private driveways on Friday worship and holy days, seriously limiting residents’ mobility, freedom and private property rights. Such disruptions would invariably metastasize. Residents walking their dogs would find themselves molested. Eventually, various forms of vandalism would occur — broken windows, severed TV cables, and the like — to force down the already depressed market value of homes, which were then bought up by Muslim interlopers. Such cases have been meticulously documented by Boby and justify the pursuit of legal impediment against the domestic proliferation of mosques, often camouflaged in civic application forms as “Islamic cultural centers” and “inter-faith community centers” to deceive the unwary and the credulous.
As Boby explained in a talk delivered to the Q Society of Australia  on September 12, 2012, in Melbourne, a mosque is not like a church, synagogue or temple; it is “a center of power used for political and military purposes.” Studies  have shown that a large majority of mosques act as recruitment hubs for jihad, foster the imposition of Sharia law, and labor to drive a sanctified wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. For Islam, which makes no distinction between church and state, between the things which are God’s and the things which are Caesar’s, between synod and politburo, is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism; it is a political movement garbed in the trappings of a religion, or alternately, a religion whose primary agenda is the conquest of the world through political, cultural and military means.
What Boby is attempting to accomplish — to educate and empower beleaguered residents of generally poorer working districts to maintain the preferred character of their neighborhoods — is both legal and ethical, as well as humane and empathetic. There is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” or “fascist” about his endeavors — epithets that dubious Islamic organizations, clueless do-gooders and liberal charlatans readily lob in his direction.
Most towns and communities have zoning bylaws that prescribe what can and cannot be erected in the areas under their jurisdiction. The village I have lived in for many years, for example, is strict in this regard, forbidding the construction of any building, commercial, religious or private, over three stories high, and even halting the construction of a palatial dwelling that reached for a fourth. No one claimed that the town council was biased against the wealthy or the architecturally ambitious. Similarly, if a town or borough wishes to prevent the construction of a mosque — or church or pub or stupa  or spud hut or casino or soup kitchen — that would transform the character of a neighborhood in a way it finds undesirable, it is legally permitted to do so under existing zoning regulations. Boby is not advocating, as has reportedly happened in Angola , that Islam should be banned and all mosques closed or dismantled to forestall a Sahelian  future (the report has been disputed, but, as of this time, does seem to be accurate ); he is, rather, arguing for citizens’ rights in preserving the nature, morale and typical features of the places they reside in, should they choose to do so.
The acid irony is that most of those hostile to informed citizens like Boby and his compatriots are affluent ideological accommodationists, socialist poobahs and progressivist conservatives dining on the calipash of slow intellection. They need never worry about mosques stippling their upscale turf, whose driveways would not be blocked, whose dogs would have the romp of the neighborhood and local parks, whose windows would not be broken, and whose telephone lines and satellite dishes would remain intact. Among this privileged cohort we find a clutch of political officials and administrators tainted by political correctness, media lefties, assorted members of the liberal elite, infatuated academics who live in “the glebe,” “moderate” Muslims who rarely attend religious services but approve of neighborhood mosques, and court Jews who pride themselves on their “social justice” credentials (though I am tempted to call these more craven of my co-religionists courtesan Jews) — in effect, pseudo-intellectuals like the emulsified tandem who published an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, titled “Mistaking Islamism for Islam ,” protesting Gavin Boby’s presence among us and serving to mobilize a posse of offended Muslims to petition the library to annul the presentation. And, naturally, the journalists were out in force to interview the assembly of aggrieved Muslims, though none saw it as their duty to attend the lecture or to interview Boby.
Apart from the convenient fact that such people are exempt from the trials and outrages that afflict the less advantaged classes, they exhibit no understanding of the political and historical trajectory of Islam, the nature of the Koran and the Hadith, and the contagious influence of the mosque. They have eagerly embraced the propaganda of the Islamic camp and its enablers, namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This is a giant step toward ultimate surrender to an alien dispensation, guaranteed by what Larry Kelley in Lessons from Fallen Civilizations  calls the 8th Law of History (Kelley enumerates ten such Laws): “When a civilization accepts the propaganda of the enemy as truth, it has reached the far side of appeasement and capitulation is nigh.” The truth being obscured is that Islam is a religion of perpetual war — “the truth of Islam is in its killing fields,” writes  Daniel Greenfield — and anyone who doubts this has not read the history of Islam or delved into the pages of its canonical texts, theological, philosophical, political and jurisprudential. Boby, for his part, is perfectly aware of these larger and deeper issues, but has chosen to fight on a more limited, cadastral front by reducing the number of mosques that conquer territory piecemeal, one neighborhood after another.
Most of those attempting to neutralize Boby and his allies believe with Daniel Pipes that radical Islam can be countered by something called moderate Islam. They are afraid that unsparing criticism of, or principled resistance to, the spread of Islamic doctrine and culture will drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists — as if opposing violence creates even more violence, an inversion of reason so preposterous as to resemble a neurological fugue. They are terrified of being labelled as “Islamophobes.” They wish to be seen as lovers of diversity, as enlightened thinkers, as noble representatives of an advanced civilization. They do not realize that, after they have slept for the next twenty years like Rip Van Winkle, they are heading for a grim awakening. As indeed, unless we come to our senses, we all are. And by then our firearms will be pretty well useless, like Rip’s, “the barrel incrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten.”
Read more at PJ Media
Since I wrote my book Stop the Islamization of America and established the Stop Islamization of America initiative of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), we have seen increasing accommodation and submission to Islam in the United States. This past year was a particularly good year for Islamic supremacists, who are working furiously in this country to impose Sharia (Islamic law) — and in particular, the blasphemy laws under the Sharia.
The Islamic supremacist approach is stealthier here in the States than it is in Europe, where we see no-go zones, mass car burnings, etc., because Europe currently has a much bigger Muslim population than the U.S. does. More on Muslim immigration here.
That kind of aggression is in our future, for nothing is being done to prevent its coming here. The few of us who dare to speak against Sharia and jihad are blacklisted from the mainstream media’s major newspaper and broadcast outlets. Trimmers (those who soften the message about Islam or speak of “Islamism,” an artificial word making a distinction without a difference) and Islamic apologists are dusted off and trotted out to make some inane comment whenever the mainstream media cannot avoid covering a jihad news story (such as the Boston Marathon jihad bombing). But the effective true voices against Islamization, such as myself, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq are rarely seen these days.
It’s never been as bad as it is now, and we have never been proven so right as we were in 2013. In the U.S., in a survey released at the end of 2012, almost half of the Muslims in America said that they thought parodies of Muhammad should be subject to criminal prosecution. One in eight thought that insulting Islam should be a death penalty offense. Forty percent said that they shouldn’t have to obey U.S. laws, but should be subject only to Islamic law.
These findings should have come as no surprise; they weren’t much different from those of a May 2013 survey of Muslims worldwide. The survey showed that the harshest Sharia punishments enjoy broad support among Muslims the world over: “72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.” 85% of Muslims in Pakistan, 81% in Afghanistan, and 70% in Egypt supported the most brutal aspects of Sharia, such as amputating the hands of thieves. 86% of Muslims in Pakistan, 84% in Afghanistan, and 80% in Egypt supported stoning for adultery. 75% in Pakistan, 79% in Afghanistan, and 88% in Egypt favored executing those who leave Islam. “91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies.”
And in America, wherever Islamic law and American law conflict, it is increasingly American law that gives way.
Read more at Breitbart
Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com [new website at pamelageller.com] and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council’s “Declaration Against Extremism” belies its actions, which are more important.
By Ryan Mauro:
On Friday, the Muslim Public Affairs Council issued a Declaration Against Extremism. Only six days prior, MPAC announced it was “proud to be a cosponsor” of an Islamist conference in California run by a group with a background filled with the type of extremism MPAC purports to stand against.
MPAC is a group with Muslim Brotherhood origins and a long historyof advancing the Islamist cause. It changed its tone in recent years, but the same leadership is in place. At its 12th annual conference, MPAC founder and Senior Advisor Maher Hathout said, “We don’t want to enforce Sharia anywhere” and that Sharia’s penal code is unsuitable for today’s world.
MPAC also stood out as the only major group with a Brotherhood background to support the revolution that toppled Egyptian President Morsi over the summer. The other major Muslim-American groups with Brotherhood links were silent or rallied for Morsi.
“We rejoice and celebrate the victory of the Egyptian people against the exploitation of religion to suppress the masses and rob them of their God-given freedom and dignity,” MPAC’s July 3 statement reads.
Its new “Declaration Against Extremism” is another step that makes today’s MPAC seem different than the MPAC of the past. Unfortunately, the hope that MPAC has evolved in a positive direction is undermined by its proud cosponsoring of the inaugural conference of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).
The theme of the AMP event is “A Movement United” and it took place on December 7 at the South Coast Chinese Cultural Center. The movement that AMP is a part of is undeniably Islamist.
Shortly before the MPAC-sponsored event, AMP held a large conference on Thanksgiving Weekend in Illinois. The speaker roster consisted largely of vocal Islamists, including supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. This was not new for AMP: Last year’s conference had at least 13 Islamist speakers.
The December 7 event was also sponsored by the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. Another sponsor was the Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors say was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
Read more at Clarion Project
“I don’t apply the same standards” as in the United States, the Muslim Harvard Law School professor Intisar A. Rabb stated at a November 21, 2013, Georgetown University conference with respect to “hate speech” restrictions and Islam abroad. In connection with her concern about an American Muslim’s terrorism conviction “chilling speech,” Rabb’s acceptance of “just a different legal regime” abroad revealed troubling double standards towards Islam.
Raab addressed the final panel of “Muslim-Christian Relations in the 21st Century: Challenges & Opportunities,” a controversial conference (see here, here, and here) marking the 20th anniversary of Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). Rabb opposed a recent appeals court conviction affirmation for Tarek Mehanna, as elaborated in an amici curia brief in Mehanna’s appeal. Therein Rabb and others warned of a “serious chilling effect” on speech from convicting Mehanna for translating the book 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad for the website at-Tibyan.
The federal government considered the book, website, and Mehanna’s “disfavored political and religious beliefs” all supportive of Al Qaeda. The appellate opinion noted that Mehanna had a First Amendment right to praise Al Qaeda, but Al-Qaeda-coordinated advocacy was terrorism support. “Under the Government’s theory,” amici curia warned, “translating an al-Qa’ida text is lawful, as is espousing beliefs…supporting al-Qa’ida,” but together these “legal acts gives rise to criminal liability,” a particular concern for scholars researching terrorism.
Rabb at Georgetown therefore demanded that action beyond speech underlie any terrorism support conviction. Yet, unmentioned by Rabb, Mehanna had traveled in 2004 to Yemen, irrespective of any translation work charge. The appeals court rejected his “rose-colored glasses” presentation as a “devoted scholar…protected by the First Amendment” and found a jury conclusion “virtually unarguable” that Mehanna “went abroad to enlist in…terrorist training.”
Legal issues aside, amici curiae did not consider Mehanna’s reading and website choices objectionable. At-Tibyan, for example, “primarily” concerned “Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi…a theologian and a jurist” who “endorses rebellion against…illegitimate Muslim regimes.” Among “innumerable mainstream theological texts,”39 Ways also involved “basic…Sunni jurisprudence,” namely the “individual duty (fard ‘ayn) incumbent on all Muslims” to “contribute to wars of self-defense.” “All collections of the words and deeds of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (hadith) and all Islamic law books” endorsed this “standard position in all Sunni legal schools.”
The amici curiae cited a 2003 fatwa from “mainstream Muftis” at OnIslam, “[o]ne of the most popular websites in the English-speaking world devoted to Islam.” The muftis considered whether for Muslims it is “necessary to fight alongside Afghans” or otherwise resist American-led forces in Afghanistan. Citing Quran verses legitimating fighting against non-Muslims, the muftis answered that the “Muslim Ummah (nation) is considered one body, which if a single organ aches all the other organs will share the feelings of agony.”
Robert Spencer of the website Jihadwatch could not have explained such doctrines of jihad in a more troubling manner. Questions in the brief about targeting civilians aside, the cited Islamic doctrine justified the killing of military personnel “attacking” Muslim nations, cold comfort to, among others, beheaded British soldier Lee Rigby or the 13 Americans of the Fort Hood shooting. Rabb’s brief could only confirm the criticisms of Islam by individuals like Spencer or Holland’s Geert Wilders and incite Terry Jones to burn another Quran.
Unlike Rabb, though, Spencer has faced exclusion from the United Kingdom and Wilders criminal prosecution in Holland for their comments on Islam, while destroying a Quran is prohibited hate speech in countries like Belgium. Such domestic legal actions accord with the longstanding international agenda of majority-Muslim nations in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to prohibit criticizing Islam. This agenda has culminated in the March 24, 2011,United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 with troubling implications for free speech even after Western-induced modifications.
In this context, Rabb’s invocation of the proverbial “chilling effect” on free speech prompted my question about criticizing Islam. Rabb’s “each regime is different” response allowed for “dignity laws” as a “prerogative” for other democracies dealing with anti-Islam speech grouped by her with Nazism. Muslim-majority countries also had such laws, Rabb indicated, a worrying statement in light of Islamic blasphemy laws.
Critical issues involving Islam, however, were not absent from the conference. George Soros-financed leftist evangelical Richard Cizek, for example, recalled during a panel how a fellow evangelical had once told him that “insults in Lynchburg produce riots in Lahore.” Convicted terrorism financier Sami Al-Arian, meanwhile, discussed with me in the audience viewing the conference’s morning segment before going home to comply with his house arrest.
“Islamophobia” critic Nathan Lean was also in the audience. Called a “stalker” by Spencer, Lean has repeatedly tweeted an article supposedly containing Spencer’s address and wife’s picture, a “clear attempt to intimidate me.” Addressed by me on this matter, Lean curtly replied that it is “not appropriate” to discuss Spencer at a Christian-Muslim understanding conference and walked away.
Thus Lean, Rabb, and others, concerned about fundamentally necessary anti-terrorism laws infringing intellectual inquiry in the United States, exhibited little principled concern about uninhibited discussion of Islam. Yet as the conference and Mehanna’s conviction show, the needs of security and liberty demand robust debate precisely with respect to Islam.
This article was sponsored by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.
On 10/30/13, Stetson Universities Cross Cultural Center and Multicultural Student Council presented a lecture on ‘Addressing Islamophobia: Proactive Efforts to Address Hate and Bias on and off Campus’ led by Amer F. Ahmed.
Amer F. Ahmed, Associate Director, Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, University of Michigan supports Islamic Religious Apartheid and called all non-Muslims a violent threat to Mecca. Ms. Yolany Gonell, Director of Diversity & Inclusion stood silent as Mr. Ahmed was making these vile statements during his lecture. Mr. Ahmed’s comments make a mockery of diversity and Inclusion.
Mr. Ahmed’s lecture was advertised as open to the public and all were welcome. I had my video camera set up to document the event when Stetson Public Safety Officer Sgt. Casey told me I could not film under threat of arrest.
To follow is an exchange between Mr. Ahmed and myself focusing on the fact all non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina.
Mecca and Medina Islamic Apartheid Cities – A Dialogue
Audience member asks Mr. Ahmed: “Is it true that your God is the same as our God, like the Christian God?”
Mr. Ahmed: “That’s what Muslims view the same God and we view our religion as an extension of the same traditions, so in the Islamic tradition it is believed that those who believe the teachings of the previous prophets are our brothers and sisters, because we are all worshipping the same God. And its the same message that has come over and over again by all the prophets.”
I ask: “If we are all brothers and sisters why is it illegal for non-Muslims to step foot in Mecca or Medina and not just during the Hajj, but we’re talking the whole city, its like apartheid on steroids.”
Mr. Ahmed responds: “so Medina anyone can go into Medina, its Mecca that only Muslims can enter.”
I say: “If we are all brothers and sisters why is that?”
Mr. Ahmed responds: “Because it has been a place that has been under attack in the past, and so it is a place which there are very sacred rituals partaken upon so its a holy sacred site, so if you just open it up it leaves room for those who can do things that might be problematic in the broader sense.”
I say: “So your saying that non-Muslims are going to attack Mecca?”
Mr Ahmed says: “Its happened before, so (stops mid sentence).
I say: “So non-Muslims are not allowed in the city limits of Mecca because we are a threat. I take offense at that because it is hateful and hurtful to me.”
Mr. Ahmed does not respond, moves on to another subject but says he will get back to this exchange.
Before I tell you the rest of the dialogue between Mr. Ahmed and myself lets do a little fact checking on Mr. Ahmed’s statements of fact.
1. Medina is open to non-Muslim (Lie): According to the US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs it says, “Non-Muslims are forbidden to travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.”
2. Mecca is closed to non-Muslims under threat of arrest (True).
3. Non-Muslims Attacked Mecca before: (Lie) The last attack on Mecca was in 1979 by the devout Muslims of Juhayman al-Otaybi, who belonged to the powerful family of Najd. There is nothing in the historical record validating Mr. Ahmed’s claim.
The Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid is a commonly accepted cultural practice by most every Mosque here in the United States. Mosques across the United States encourage every Muslim to visit the Islamic Religious Apartheid Cities of Mecca and Medina even though they know it is illegal for Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Agnostics, and all non-Muslims to do the same. Islamic Religious Apartheid is happening today despite all the talk that we non-Muslims are brothers and sisters of the Abrahamic traditions.
Mr. Ahmed, true brothers and sisters would not practice Islamic Religious Apartheid like Islam does in Saudi Arabia. True Muslim brothers and sisters would scream from the roof tops and minarets this bigoted exclusionary practice be stopped. True Muslim brothers and sisters would demand the opening of Mecca and Medina to all people.
Ahmer Ahmed realized in our exchange he exposed his heartfelt beliefs supporting the Mecca/Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid against all non-Muslims. Mr. Ahmed made these hate filled views in a failed effort to defend the 5th Pillar of Islam.
Read more: Family Security Matters
Two days after the release of a CAIR report claiming to expose the network financing “Islamophobia”, Charles C. Johnson ran his own report documenting CAIR’s convoluted financing schemes.
While the CAIR report attempted to stigmatize terrorism research by reporting on the straightforward funding of organizations and individuals such as Robert Spencer; the Johnson report showed that CAIR, described by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism, had engaged in convoluted methods to conceal its financing sources while laundering money from abroad.
Unlike the groups it is targeting, whose language and ideas it criticizes, CAIR went well beyond words, doing everything from helping fund terrorists to obstructing government investigations of terrorism.
Despite its theatrics, CAIR’s Islamophobia report showed nothing except that American organizations researching Islamic terrorism were funded by other Americans. The Johnson report however showed that CAIR had received millions from foreign governments, including Qatar which is notorious for funding terrorist groups like Hamas, and used a shell game to hide the foreign sources of its financing.
CAIR’s attempt to smear terrorism researchers, many of whom have paid a great deal of attention to its terrorist ties, has an obvious motive. It is not reporting on bigotry as a national phenomenon. Instead its report is a clumsy attempt at silencing its critics by denouncing them as bigots.
The targets of the CAIR Islamophobia report include not only terrorism researchers, but also Muslim groups like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy that have been critical of CAIR and its Saudi backers in the past, as well as Voice of the Copts, an organization advocating for the rights of Coptic Christians persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood.
CAIR, like Hamas, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Its attempt to silence liberal Muslim critics and the Coptic Christians whose churches it is burning down as “Islamophobes” is self-serving cynicism.
Read more at Front Page
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has released its 2013 report on Islamophobia, titled “Legislating Fear”. The report constitutes one big pity party over the abject failure of CAIR (and other Islamist organizations) to convince Americans that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Although the report is 162 pages long, much of it was cut and pasted from their previous 2009-2010 report.
CAIR receives most of its funds from overseas, so they are somewhat accountable for how effectively that money is being spent. Since the Islamists are losing ground in terms of anti-Sharia legislation and school textbook dawah, they must blame someone (actually, lots of people and organizations) for their failures. They have identified 69 different organizations “whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims”, either directly or by regular support. It is a matter of concern, however, that the long litany of grievances, offending individuals and “anti-Muslim” organizations could provide ample impetus for fanatical Muslims to carry out bloody “Islamic justice.”
Nowhere in this document, however, is there any acknowledgement that the Islamists have been making demands and insisting on prerogatives that run counter to the U.S. Constitution, state laws, and basic human rights. Also, nowhere is there any suggestion that perhaps the Islamists need to modify their Islamic ideology to make it more compatible with Western civilization in the 21s Century.
CAIR wants the word “Islamist” dropped from the American lexicon. They argue that those who use it are “making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used”. Unfortunately, Islam is at best 14 percent religion (Quran) and 86 percent political (Muhammad) based on Bill Warner’s analysis. What are most offensive to non-Muslims are the political activities of Muslims exercised under the cover of religion. Until CAIR can suggest a word that covers Islam’s unprecedented obsession with society outside the mosque (including the despised kufrs), the word Islamist must apply.
CAIR goes to great lengths throughout the report to conflate criticism of the ideology of Islam with anti-Muslim bias. They define an Islamophobe as “an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.” In consistently linking Islamic ideology with Muslim people, the report sees pervasive bigotry where the actual situation is just the condemnation of Islamic doctrines that fly in the face of civil rights and community harmony.
Money, money, money: Right from the opening page of the report, CAIR is asking for money, both from Muslim-Americans and from overseas supporters. They have tallied up the money spent by the opposition right down to the dollar! $119,662,719, to be exact. Why not just say $120 million? They are also quite jealous over the salaries made by the opposition. Not only does the CAIR report quote the exact salaries of David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others, but a table on page 14 calculates an average salary increase of 12% for the parties listed. It looks as though CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is bucking for a raise.
Financial Disclosure Hypocrisy – CAIR gleaned most of its information about the anti-Islamist organizations by reading the IRS Form 990’s required by non-profit organizations. This is both ironic and hypocritical, since CAIR lost its non-profit status in 2011 because it has failed to file those forms disclosing its own membership and sources of funds since 2006. It was only due to the Tea Party tax exemption brouhaha that their tax exempt status was reinstated earlier this year.
Friends and Enemies Lists – Given the number of brutal assassinations by Muslims of non-Muslims (often with no justification), CAIR’s lengthy lists of friends and enemies with pictures is troubling. Those assassinations include Daniel Pearl (2002), Theo Van Gogh (2004), Salmaan Taseer (2011), Lee Rigby (2013), and Dominic Parker (2013). The “Best List” contains only four individuals – Rais Buhuiyan, Chris Christie, Dick Durban, and Anderson Cooper (who would be arrested and hanged if he ever set foot inside Saudi Arabia or Iran). The “Worst List” includes David Caton, Jerry Boykin, Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, Herman Cain, Peter King, David Yerushalmi, Allen West, and Walid Shoebat. Also mentioned are the state legislators who sponsored “anti-Islam” legislation (better known as American Laws for American Courts).
So-called Anti-Islam Legislation – The title of CAIR’s report and longest chapter in the report deal with the advance of the American Laws for American Courts legislation. According to the report, there have been 78 ALAC bills introduced in 29 states. Six states (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee) have successfully passed such legislation. These laws essentially confirm that the state and federal laws take precedent over foreign laws. From CAIR’s point of view these laws “have at their heart the goal of subjecting Islam to government-sanctioned censure.” Naturally, Muslims who emigrated from countries where Islam was the national religion might see these laws as “censure”, but the fundamental problem ignored in CAIR’s report is that Sharia Law contradicts the U.S. constitution and many state laws with regard to cruel and unusual punishments, mandated eye-for-an-eye revenge, women’s rights, freedom of worship, inheritance, and equality before the law, just to name a few. CAIR cannot even honestly describe Sharia Law: “It is a set of interpretations [not laws which exact physical and corporal punishments, mind you] of the Quran and other Islamic sources [Only a small fraction of Sharia can be traced to the Quran; the rest is man-made, as is evidenced by the development of five schools of Islamic jurisprudence several centuries after the Quran was “handed down.”]; it is dynamic and intended to accommodate the time, place and laws – in America that means the U.S. Constitution – of the particular community [not to mention that the most recent codification approved by the U.S. based International Institute of Islamic Thought – Reliance of the Traveler – was written around 1360]. . . . Sharia mandates Muslims to respect the law of the land in which they live [except that R of T states in paragraph w43.5(c), “it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.”]
CAIR goes on to argue that Sharia Law in America is a “non-existent problem.” Human rights advocates have identified fifty cases in twenty-three states where Sharia Law was applied in contradiction to State and Federal laws. These cases were discovered only because they were reversed on appeal – a process that few victims of Sharia Law have the knowledge or resources to undertake (See, http://shariahinamericancourts.com/). Don’t tell 17-year-old New Jersey bride, “S.D.”, that Sharia Law is a non-existent problem: She was repeatedly raped and beaten by her new husband who successfully argued in court that it was his right as a Muslim to treat his wife that way (See, New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man’s Right to Rape is Religious Freedom). Fortunately, the case was overturned on appeal.
Read more at Islam Watch
- CAIR Leaders Curry Favor With Dictators (counterjihadreport.com)
- CAIR’s Awad: In support of the Hamas Movement (investigativeproject.org)
- CAIR collects millions from foreign donors thanks to non-profit shell game (counterjihadreport.com)
- CAIR Releases Islamophobia Propaganda Report “Legislating Fear” (counterjihadreport.com)
CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine (counterjihadreport.com)
- CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment (meforum.org)
- 10 Facts about CAIR (thereligionofpeace.com)
- CAIR Exposed – IPT Report (investigativeproject.org)
- Rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders (counterjihadreport.com)
August 28, 2013
A segment in the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s new award-winning documentary “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception” focuses on Islamists and how they try to control public perception. Part of it is by manipulating a lazy and gullible media. But another part is to shut down any criticism of Islamist ideology – the notion that society is best governed by Islamic law.
During a recent panel discussion on the film, panelists – including two anti-Islamist Muslims – discussed the way phony accusations of “Islamophobia,” or bigotry, are used to stigmatize critics.
To see the video click here
By Ryan Mauro:
Religions for Peace USA (RFPUSA), which says it is “the largest and most broadly-based representative multi-religious forum in the United States,” is holding a webinar on July 25 titled, “What You Can Learn from the Fight to End Islamophobia.” The group is yet another coalition of Islamists and their non-Muslim political allies. And, as usual, it is tarring the Islamists’ opponents as “Islamophobes.”
The webinar is being jointly held with the American Center for Outreach, a Tennessee Muslim group that will use the event to highlight its “successful challenge to the nation’s most vehemently anti-Muslim legislation in 2011.”
The seminar is being promoted by the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign, another interfaith bloc allied with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. You’ll notice a lot of cross-pollination if you look at the leadership of RFPUSA, Shoulder-to-Shoulder and ISNA’s declared“interfaith partners.”
Naeem Baig, President of the Islamic Circle of North America, sits on RFPUSA’s Council of Presidents and Executive Council. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo identifies ICNA as one of its fronts as part of its “kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The memo instructs its members to use “the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”
ICNA’s conferences bring together the rock stars of the Islamist movement. At its 2011 event, radical imam Siraj Wahhaj advised the audience to wait to talk about Sharia because “we are not there yet.” At ICNA’s event over Memorial Day Weekend, radical imam Zaid Shakir told the audience of 32,000 that the U.S. Constitution is inferior to Sharia because Muslims and non-Muslims are equal.
Read more at Front Page
by Soeren Kern:
The OIC Secretary General appears to be laying the diplomatic groundwork to persuade non-elected bureaucrats at EU headquarters to enact hate-speech legislation that would limit by fiat what 500-million European citizens — including democratically elected politicians — can and cannot say about Islam.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has officially inaugurated a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union (EU).
The primary objective of the OIC, headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by Islamic countries around the world, has long been to pressure Europe and the United States into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”
The establishment of a permanent OIC presence in Brussels implies that the group intends to redouble its lobbying efforts aimed at outlawing all forms of “Islamophobia” [a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s] within the 27-member EU, where restrictions on free speech regarding Islam-related issues are already commonplace (see here, here, here and here).
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu opened the mission to the EU during a formal inauguration ceremony in Brussels on June 25; it was attended by diplomats, EU officials and dignitaries from Europe and across the Muslim world.
In his inaugural speech, Ihsanoglu declared, “There is a growing and developing interest at the highest level in the EU to cooperate with the OIC… I think our relations with the European Union on the different agenda items that we share will benefit all of us. There is a need for cooperation between the Muslim world and Europe, and the OIC, as a collective voice of the Muslim world which stands for modernization and moderation, will be the proper institution to deal with the EU.”
Ihsanoglu — who recently said in an interview with Al Jazeera Television that his number one job is to combat the religious persecution of Muslims in the West — added, “We need to seriously fight against Islamophobia to further strengthen ties between the Islamic world and Europe and to eradicate the unnecessary sensitivities.”
Since the late 1990s, the OIC has been promoting 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.
The OIC scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. By doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy was seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.
Read more at Gatestone Institute