By Bill Warner:
Currently the UN determines what refugees get to come to America. Why should not we, the US, determine who gets to come here?
I won’t dignify the repellant, egregiously counterfactual “Final Communique” of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—Sharia supremacist avatar of the Islamintern, and largest voting block in the U.N.—which purports to examine the ongoing Hamas-instigated conflagration in Gaza and Israel, by extracting its contents.
This Orwellian statement, “Final Communique Expanded Extraordinary Meeting Of The Executive Committee At A Foreign Ministers Level On The Grave Situation In The Occupied State Of Palestine Including Al-Quds Al- Sharif,” issued July 10, 2014, can be read in its entirety here.
Prior to re-casting itself as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, when it was dubbed the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the OIC’s intentions vis-à-vis Israel were pellucid: this ecumenical bloc of Sharia-supremacist states sought the jihad destruction of Israel.
That remains the OIC’s goal, a jihad, as the 1981 formulation of this genocidal intent proclaimed, “that all Islamic States must wage, each according to its means”.
Extracted from my 2008, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (p. 55) are two candid expressions of the OIC’s self-proclaimed mission of “liberation”—i.e., genocide, 22-years apart from 1981, and 2003, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and Putrajaya, Malaysia.
From the Mecca Islamic Summit Conference, 1981:
The undertaking by all Islamic countries of psychological mobilization through their various official, semi-official, and popular mass media, of their people forJihad to liberate Al-Quds. . . . Ensuring military coordination among the front-line statesand the Palestine Liberation Organization, on the one hand, and the Islamic States on the other, to ensure full utilization of the potentialities of the Islamic States in the service of the military effort; and setting up a military office in the Islamic Secretariat to be responsible for such coordination, in agreement with the Committee on Al-Quds. . . .
Resolution No.2/3.P (IS) on the Cause of Palestine and the Middle East: Considering that the Liberation of Al-Quds and its restoration to Arab sovereignty, as well as the liberation of the holy places from Zionist occupation, are a pre-requisite to the Jihad that all Islamic States must wage, each according to its means. . . .
Resolution No.5/3-P (IS)—Declaration of Holy Jihad: Taking these facts into consideration, the Kings, Emirs, and Presidents of Islamic States, meeting at this Conference and in this holy land, studied this situation and concluded that it could no longer be tolerated that the forthcoming stage should be devoted to effective action to vindicate right and deter wrong-doing; and have unanimously.
Decided: To declare holy Jihad, as the duty of every Muslim, man or woman, ordained by the Shariah and glorious traditions of Islam; To call upon all Muslims, living inside or outside Islamiccountries, to discharge this duty by contributing each according to his capacity in the case of Allah Almighty, Islamic brotherhood, and righteousness; To specify that Islamic states, in declaring Holy Jihad to save Al-Quds al-Sharif, in support of the Palestinian people, and to secure withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, wish to explain to the world that Holy Jihad is an Islamic concept which may not be misinterpreted or misconstrued, and that the practical measures to put into effect would be in accordance with that concept and by incessant consultations among Islamic states.
From the 2003 Putrajaya Islamic Summit speech by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad:
To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand. . . on Palestine. . . . We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships. . . . We may want to re-create the first century of the Hijrah, the way of life in those times, in order to practice what we think to be the true Islamic way of life. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter-attack. As Muslims, we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. Surely the 23 years’ struggle of the Prophet can provide us with some guidance as to what we can and should do.
The primary focal point for this week’s daily articles on Sharia (Islamic Law) is to get readers to digest the reality that when Islamic Leaders speak, their words must be translated into what Islamic Law would have them mean. The phrase “Human Rights” is no exception.
To put it as simply and as factually as possible, when Islamic Leaders say “Human Rights” they mean the “Imposition of Islamic Law.”
In 1990, the leadership of the entire Muslim world – at the Head of State and King level – signed the Cairo Declaration. In summary, the Cairo Declaration states the Islamic world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights insofar as (1) it does not contradict Sharia, and (2) the Muslim world only understands Human Rights as the Sharia defines it.
In 1993, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – now calling themselves the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – served the Cairo Declaration as a formal document to the United Nations. This means that at the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim World has officially defined “Human Rights” as the imposition of Sharia since 1993.
The last two articles in the Cairo Declaration read:
“Article 24: All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah. Article 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles in this Declaration.”
What is most interesting is that most people at the U.S. State Department have never heard of the Cairo Declaration. The practical reality is, however, that when our leaders call for certain Islamic leaders to be brought before international legal forums for “justice” because of their “Human Rights” violations, the legitimate defense for these tyrants is that they are legally on the record stating Sharia defines human rights. So, homosexuals can be killed, women can be treated as property, those who leave Islam can be killed, and non-Muslims can have less rights under an Islamic government than Muslims – and there is nothing the World Court or the United States can do about it because Sharia unequivocally states all these things are a part of Islamic Law and legally binding.
Notably, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action approved in Saudi Arabia in 2005 reaffirms the entire Muslim leadership’s understanding of “human rights” under section VIII “Human Rights and Good Governance” where it states: “Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent and permanent body to promote human rights in Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration…”
Most disturbing is that the promotion of the “Islamophobia” campaign is not a random occurrence but a part of an international strategy to silence truth-speaking critics of Islam and destroy the freedom of expression in the West and elsewhere. Islamophobia campaign is the imposition of the Islamic Law of “Slander” which Sharia makes a capital crime for saying anything about Islam or Muslims the a Muslim would “dislike.”
In the OIC’s Ten Year Programme it specifically calls for criminal punishments for those who slander Islam (according to the definition of “slander” under Sharia, not Western law). Under section VII entitled “Combating Islamophobia” sentence (3) states: “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to combat Islamophobia, and to call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”
Sentence (4) in that same paragraph calls for Muslim countries to be empowered to “help in the war against extremism and terrorism.” Readers of UTT will recall that “terrorism” in Islam is the killing of a Muslim without right. As a bonus for today…”Extremism” in Islam is exceeding your ability or authority. For instance, a few years ago when Islamic jurists contemplated labeling Osama bin Laden an “extremist” our government got giddy assuming THOSE particular Islamic jurists must be “moderates.” In fact, Osama bin Laden’s forces were losing a lot. Since Allah never loses a jihad, the jurist argued bin Laden had exceeded his ability to succeed and was thus putting the Muslim ummah (community) at greater risk, making him an “extremist.”
Words matter in this war. Sharia matters in this war. Knowing something of Sharia matters if we intend to win the war.
It should not surprise us that Parvez Ahmed, the former Chairman of the Board for Hamas in America (dba CAIR), was voted back on as the Human Rights Commissioner by the city council in Jacksonville, Florida last year. His definition of “human rights” is significantly different than the councils. Since being the leader of a designated terrorist organization (Hamas) didn’t stop the Jacksonville City Council from voting him in back in, Ahmed’s support for the imposition of Sharia likely won’t sway them in the future either.
Mohamed Elibiary, a member on the Obama administration’s Homeland Security Advisory Council, and is at the center of a controversy involving allegations that DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano gave him secret clearance to download classified information. According to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Elibiary later shopped that classified material around to a reporter.
Elibiary, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood who regularly goes after the Sisi led Egyptian government, is also an active participant on Twitter and mocked the “freak out” by U.S. talking heads discussing the terrorist activities relating to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Elibiary’s reference to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) goes back to a 2011 resolution the Obama administration approved of. At the time, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to a U.N. Human Rights Council proposal known as “resolution 16/18″. CNS News reported at the time:
The head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has acknowledged that a U.N. religious tolerance resolution heavily promoted by the Obama administration has the same aims as the Islamic bloc’s annual “religious defamation” resolutions, which Western democracies have consistently opposed for more than a decade.
The State Department this week hosted three days of talks with foreign governments and international organizations, including the OIC, on implementing “resolution 16/18,” a measure adopted “by consensus” – without a vote – at the U.N. Human Rights Council last March and set to be endorsed by the full U.N. General Assembly within days.
The resolution, formally entitled “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” has been championed by the administration – and some human rights advocacy groups – as a historic achievement, in that it supposedly seeks a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
It was hailed as a shift away from earlier “defamation of Islam” (later changed to “defamation of religion”) resolutions introduced by the OIC, and duly voted through each year at both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly – in recent years, by steadily smaller margins.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday told the closing session of the meeting at the State Department that the adoption of resolution 16/18 had “ended 10 years of divisive debate where people were not listening to each other anymore.”
A problem with resolution 16/8 is how other countries will choose to interpret the resolution’s language. CNS News also interviewed Elizabeth Kendal, an international religious liberty analyst and advocate who said resolution 16/18 was “far from being a breakthrough for free speech … is actually more dangerous than” the religious defamation resolutions.”
“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.
That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”
“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.
Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.
“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”
Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasanhad a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.
Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.
A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.
Read more at IPT
Via Gates of Vienna:
Dave Petteys is a member of the Colorado chapter of ACT! For America. He is one of the hard-working members of the anti-sharia group that made such a difference at the OSCE conferences in Warsaw in 2012 and 2013. Below is his take on the continuing controversy over “hate speech” laws.
by David Petteys
ACT! For America, 5280 Coalition
Hate speech laws originated during debates in the United Nations immediately after World War Two. At the time, it was the Soviet Bloc versus Western Europe and the United States. The Soviets wanted “hate speech laws” to suppress the criticism of their totalitarian system as well as the calls for greater democracy. Their excuse was: “We cannot allow fascists to speak lest it lead to violence “. The same language is being used today.
Although the Communist totalitarian governments have disappeared, (at least we used to think so), the legacy of the notion that it is up to government to regulate speech remains.
Initially, “Hate Speech” laws addressed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. But now the reach of these laws has steadily expanded to include any issue, provided its supporters have the political clout to influence legislatures.
Global warming advocates, homosexuals and Muslims are all demanding laws to protect them from “insult” and criticism. Priests and pastors have been arrested and prosecuted for preaching Christian doctrine that” hurts the feelings” of homosexuals. Global warming skeptics are silenced.
The Muslims are a particular case in point. They know they can’t confront our First Amendment directly. So what they are doing is drilling down into the definitions of words inside the laws: specifically, the definition of “incitement”.
Traditionally “incitement” resided in the content of speech or writing. The Muslims are working to refocus “incitement” from content to consequence. If I were a Ku Klux Klan leader addressing my followers, and I advocated that they march to another section of town and burn down houses, that would comprise speech with content that directly advocated violence.
But the Muslim strategy is more insidious.
Let us now move to the definition of “Hate Speech” in Forums such as “The Rabat Plan of Action” (RPA). This was a document produced at a workshop put on by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that met in Rabat, Morocco in October of 2012. The UN appears to have convened the Conference at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), mindful of its funding and its large voting bloc of 56 states plus the Palestinian Authority.
The subtitle of the document (“Conclusions and recommendations emanating from the four regional expert workshops organised by OHCHR, in 2011, and adopted by experts in Rabat, Morocco on 5 October 2012”) refers to the plan as adopted by “experts” without any disclosure of who these “experts” are. Within this document there is a six part “threshold test” to give “guidance” to law enforcement. The final test is “Likelihood, including imminence”. To quote:
“The action advocated through incitement speech does not have to be committed for that speech to amount to a crime. Nevertheless some degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified.”
Thus, speech that “might” hurt someone’s feelings, or “might” lead to “discrimination or intolerance” becomes a criminal offense! Yet the argument that such speech “might lead to violence” has not been substantiated.
Next, the Muslims claim the right to violence against anyone who “insults” the Prophet or Islam:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
Therefore, Muslims hold that any speech that they deem an “insult” is illegal “hate speech” because it would trigger the violence that they themselves threaten and guarantee! It makes no difference that we have the constitutional right to say what we want to say, including criticism of Islam.
Islam is mostly a political movement, and not separate from religion, as the Muslims themselves assert. Yet they hold:
This neatly finesses the First Amendment. Sadly, Western authorities are buying into this! It codifies into law the “battered wife syndrome” with its “blame the victim” premise.
Read more at Gates of Vienna
Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it would transfer its oversight of internet domain management to a yet-to-be-named international multi-stakeholder. Many are concerned that this will lead to the suppression of speech in capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other free speech tyrants. And though some on the left insist that these concerns amount to nothing more than alarmist folly, the concessions have already begun.
The internet originated in America, initially launched as a government experiment in networks. Over a period of two decades, it grew to include researchers and think tanks. In 1992, the “network of networks” opened its doors to the commercial world, and the internet as we know it today was birthed.
A global system of domain management was needed. Someone had to keep a list of domain names and assign them numbers for internet users worldwide. This had to be done by a central body in order to prevent multiple individuals, organizations or other entities from winding up with duplicative domain names, causing confusion.
Initially, domain management was conducted informally. Then, in 1998, the Department of Commerce (DoC) recognized ICANN, a California-based non-profit organization, to perform this function. In a cooperative arrangement, the DoC’s National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) would retain some minor administrative tasks regarding internet management, but would also have a critical oversight function over ICANN to ensure that the internet is free, secure and stable.
NTIA’s contract with ICANN is set to expire in September of 2015. On March 14, 2014, the Obama Administration announced that it would decline its option to renew the contract and instead allow ICANN oversight to transfer to the “global multi-stake holder community”.
Despite some alarm on the right that ICANN will fall into the hands of China, Russia or the UN, both ICANN and the NTIA have been clear that they will not agree to transfer oversight responsibilities to any government entity or to the United Nations. What is not clear is what entity is qualified to assume this function or whether ICANN might wind up without an oversight body altogether.
Currently, there is bipartisan concern that US relinquishment of domain oversight will have negative consequences for freedom of speech. The Wall Street Journal referred to it as “America’s internet surrender.” Newt Gingrich warned that “every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.” Even former President Bill Clinton has been extremely vocal on the issue, proclaiming that “I just know that a lot of these so-called multi-stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people and restrict access to the Internet.”
Two legislative bills are now in the works to prevent the Obama Administration from moving oversight of ICANN out of US hands. The first is a bill sponsored by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, which would stall the transfer until the Government Accountability Office could do a study on the transfer’s impact. The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly, would prohibit the administration from making the transfer without congressional approval.
Because ICANN has no control over website content, fraud or email spam, some on the left erroneously assume that this precludes the possibility of stifling free speech on the internet.
Others naively believe that if attempts at censorship through domain name assignments were to occur, it would be met by “stiff opposition” from domain registry operators and ISP’s…. as if this would be sufficient to stop the likes of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other tyrannical free speech oppressors.
In truth, ICANN has already started to crack under the OIC’s pressure.
Read more at Front Page
Here is the main point: The rioting at the American embassy in Cairo was not about the anti-Muslim video. As argued here repeatedly (see here and here), the Obama administration’s “Blame the Video” story was a fraudulent explanation for the September 11, 2012, rioting in Cairo every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for the massacre in Benghazi several hours later.
We’ll come back to that because, once you grasp this well-hidden fact, the Obama administration’s derelictions of duty in connection with Benghazi become much easier to see. But let’s begin with Jay Carney’s performance in Wednesday’s exchange with the White House press corps, a new low in insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Mr. Carney was grilled about just-released e-mails that corroborate what many of us have been arguing all along: “Blame the Video” was an Obama-administration–crafted lie, through and through. It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the president’s foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the president’s reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success — and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being “decimated,” as the president repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al-Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries — indeed, they had been strengthened by the president’s pro-Islamist policies.
The explosive e-mails that have surfaced thanks to the perseverance of Judicial Watch make explicit what has long been obvious: Susan Rice, the president’s confidant and ambassador to the U.N., was strategically chosen to peddle the administration’s “Blame the Video” fairy tale to the American people in appearances on five different national television broadcasts the Sunday after the massacre. She was coached about what to say by other members of the president’s inner circle.
Read more at National Review Online
Al Qaeda-linked jihadists helped incite 9/11 Cairo protest by Thomas Joscelyn
Walid Shoebat has done a lot of research into the Innocence of Muslims video and he says there is reason to believe that the “Innocence of Muslims” video was a hoax designed to spark the huge outpouring of Muslim rage that it did.
Orchestrated Muslim “Days of Rage” are a well known Muslim Brotherhood tactic.
See Shoebat’s recent articles:
So whose idea was it to use the video in the first place? Was it John Brennan?
The CCB conducted an extensive research effort into the elements and sequence of the
administration’s two-week campaign to falsely claim that a protest had preceded the
attack on our Benghazi mission, and their efforts to blame a YouTube video for the
attack. The White House campaign appears to have been well-coordinated with U.S.
Muslim Brotherhood organizations as well as Islamic state members of the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), who all joined in condemnation of the video, and, even
more troubling, issued calls for restrictions on Americans’ free speech rights.
From that report’s Additional Documents:
Anatomy of the Cover-Up
§ “Innocence of Muslims” was a 14-minute video trailer about the life of
Muhammad posted to YouTube on 2 Jul 2012 by “Sam Bacile.”
§ In the aftermath of the 11 September 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in
Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. administration ignored facts in evidence indicating that
it was an al-Qa’eda-linked terrorist attack not preceded by any demonstration or
protest and publicly blamed the video instead.
§ The coordinated nature of the international campaign by U.S. Muslim
Brotherhood groups and member states of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) presents the impression that condemnation of the film was
used to further an agenda supportive of the OIC/Muslim Brotherhood objective to
criminalize criticism of Islam and curtail American Constitutional free speech
Go to the report for a detailed timeline in support of these assertions.
“The Encyclopaedia of Jewish-Muslim relations from their origins to the present day” and the more modest English version, published by Princeton, promises to be the official academic encyclopedic bible (quran?) of Islamic revisionism and historical inaccuracy according to the sharia.
The great Islamic lies are being given serious treatment by serious quisling academics. Lies and distortions with gravitas, my friends. The bloody and brutal history of Islamic Jew-hatred is scrubbed with an iron brush. Brainwashing 4.0.
Won’t Sir Martin Gilbert be surprised by this vicious rewrite of history? Academics like him will be jailed at some point, if this adherence to the savage sharia continues.
One has to wonder how much the sniveling 12-member scientific committee that approved the outrageous lies pimped themselves out for.
A perplexing rewriting of history, Lynn Julius, Times of Israel, April 16, 2014
Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish thinker and physician, is famous for his Guide for the Perplexed. But readers of a glossy new 1150-page encyclopedia in English and French will be equally perplexed by accounts of Maimonides’ life that can’t even agree on the correct year of his birth.
The joint editors are a Tunisian professor at the university of Nanterre (Paris), Abdelwahab Meddeb, and Benjamin Stora, a Jewish professor of North African history and author of a history of the Jews of Algeria. The two men have been touring France, North Africa, Israel and Belgium promoting the encyclopedia.
“The Encyclopaedia of Jewish-Muslim relations from their origins to the present day” was launched in November 2013. There is a more modest English version, published by Princeton.
Also see this bit of Islamist propaganda:
“American Muslims” - a 100 page pdf published by the United States Department of State (h/t Creeping Sharia)
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.
By Andrew E. Harrod:
“There is broad bipartisan agreement that America is at risk,” declared former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra via video at the March 6, 2014, National Security Action Summit (NSAC). The “silent jihad” of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliated groups described by Hoekstra at National Harbor’s Westin Hotel across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, should alarm all Americans.
In comparison to the “violent jihad” of groups like Al Qaeda, the MB “strategy is very, very different,” Hoekstra explained during the panel “The Muslim Brotherhood, the ‘Civilization Jihad’ and Its Enablers.” MB groups “are going to use our laws, our customs…our freedom of speech, the values we profess…to become a cancer” in the United States. MB supporters would seek “initially a tolerance of sharia law” that “begins the process of establishing of Islamism,” a process evident in certain European neighborhoods where sharia has become “de facto law.” “Never forget the phrase: The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Hoekstra added when discussing cooperation across intra-Muslim sectarian divides such as between a Sunni Al Qaeda and a Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran. “They ultimately share the same objective: the destruction of the West.”
MB “Islamic supremacism” or Islamism “is not a fringe ideology” but is actually the “dynamic element of Islam” today, former first World Trade Center (WTC) bombing prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy observed in his video address. Contrary to the “very Politically Correct interpretation of Islam” encountered among policymakers by McCarthy, Islamism is “not a hijacking of a doctrine” but rather Islam’s “most unalloyed form.” Suffering numerous maladies, the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman prosecuted by McCarthy could only lead the 1993 WTC terrorists because “he was a master of sharia doctrine.” Without understanding “sharia supremacism” as a “very active ideology” according to polls of Muslims worldwide, “we will never be able to protect ourselves.”
“You don’t know jack,” sharia expert Stephen Coughlin agreed on the panel, without understanding this MB “metanarrative.” “It runs deep…the threat,” Coughlin noted concerning terms taken “verbatim” from the 7thcentury Pact of Umar recently imposed by Syrian jihadist groups upon Christians. Yet Coughlin worried that the “enemy knows us better than us” in an America whose political and religious leaders often no longer properly understand their constitution and Judeo-Christian faith, respectively.
Subverting rule of law through “narrative control” is central to Islamist groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international grouping of 57 (including “Palestine”) mostly majority-Muslim states. “If you do not control the narrative, no matter what position you take, you will lose.” In particular, “he who controls the First Amendment…controls the Constitution,” Coughlin warned in discussing the OIC’s 2005 Ten-Year Strategic Action Plan with its call for “Combating Islamophobia” via censorship. The OIC would seek to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Article 20 ban on incitement as prohibiting speech to which recipients react violently. This is the “battered wife syndrome” of “if you say that, I am going to have to beat you up”
Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition
by Raheel Raza:
Islamists have been successful in building the Islamophobia industry: it diverts attention from activities they would probably prefer not be noticed, such as promoting sharia law in the West, stealth jihad, and a push to implement a global Islamic caliphate, among many others.
What is ironic and hypocritical about the Islamophobia hype from members of the OIC is their double-standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities.
Islamophobia has almost become a fad for a certain group of academics and Muslims across North America. 2013 was a bumper year for Islamophobia conferences in America and abroad.
One would think that four conferences in one year would be enough for the International group of speakers to discuss, debate and hash out that, in their view, there is an epidemic of Muslim-bashing taking place in North America.
However it seems that these are not enough to complete the agenda of the Islamists. Therefore this year the University of California, Berkeley is hosting its fifth annual International conference on the study of Islamophobia, from April 14 to 19, 2014.
It is frightening to realize that this is their fifth such conference; the website states, “the obsessive pre-occupation of everything related to Islam and Muslims, congressional and parliamentary hearings criminalizing Muslims and violations of their civil liberties and rights, domestic and international surveillance programs exclusively on Muslims and Arabs, extra-judicial use of force on Muslims and Arabs, interventions, military campaigns, and policies rationalizing its exercise, are, in essence, what we see and bear witness in the Muslim world. These are the direct effects of latent Islamophobia.”
University of California, Berkeley is home to Professor Hatem Bazian, who directs the school’s “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” and teaches a course titled, “Asian American Studies 132AC: Islamophobia.”
Seriously? A course on Islamophobia? Recently, Professor Bazian told 100 students in his class to tweet about Islamophobia — all being done to promote an agenda of “victimhood.”
UC-Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian speaks on “Promoting Islamophobia” at the Occupy AIPAC Summit in 2012. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)
Obviously the Islamophobia conferences, the courses and the tweeting professor must find support for their self-serving propaganda somewhere. Part of this support comes from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international organization consisting of 57 Arab and Muslim member states, including the entity of the Palestinian Authority. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The term “Muslim world” is offensive: no one speaks for all Muslims, and for the OIC to consider itself the “voice of the Muslim world” is dictatorial in the extreme.
No surprise, then, that on their website they have an Islamophobia Observatory, where they mention their support of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in 2011, on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”.
What is ironic and hypocritical about all the Islamophobia hype by members of the OIC is their double standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities, and are routinely ignored under UNHRC Resolution 16/18.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
By Audrey Russo:
As a wild beast would pull its prey closer to guard it from other predators, Islam is sinking its barbed paws ever deeper into the heart of the European Union (EU). Right under the radar of the EU, the European Parliament is considering a proposal that requires the direct surveillance of any EU citizen suspected of being “intolerant.”
The proposal is called, “European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance”, and it intends to compel the governments of all 28 EU member states to create “special administrative units” to monitor individuals or groups expressing views that these self-styled sentinels of European multiculturalism assess to be “intolerant”… an unprecedented threat to free speech in Europe. European citizens are already habitually punished for expressing the “wrong” views, specifically concerning Islam.
Remember, it’s all those citizens “Suspected” of being “intolerant”…I guess it depends on who looks through Allah’s microscope…
For those of us who have our coffee every morning, this was predictable. First we had the establishing of an OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) office in Brussels in June 2013. This placed the influential 57 Muslim country bloc (actually, 56 sovereign states, plus the Palestinian Authority [given State status in the OIC]) at an in-your-face position to the European Parliament.
This is a doubling down of their efforts to control free speech in Europe…and the West. Something the OIC has been working arduously to accomplish at the UN. Since 1999 the OIC has attempted to have the issue of religious defamation included in UN Human Rights Council resolutions. And they’ve been making progress with elitists and fools (as if there’s a difference).
What the Sharia machine of the OIC fails to realize is…the Leftist World media/leaders, the little Islamic helper monkeys walking around with eyes wide shut…are not the only kafir out here. There is a growing number of infidels with eyes wide OPEN, who know what they’ve swept under their magic prayer rugs: Sharia Islamic Law forbids questions or criticism of Islam (including the Quran & Muhammed) of any kind. The idea of “questions or criticism” is intentionally vague and is subjective to the offended Mohammedan. It’s considered blasphemy whether it be committed by a Muslim OR non-Muslim. Sharia also calls for severe punishment, even death, for the offense.
Read more at Clash Daily
by Joseph Puder:
President Barack Obama joined in the commemorations of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day (the day the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, January 27, 1945), issuing a statement that urged the nation and the world to remember the victims of the Holocaust. His statement said “We recall six million Jews and millions of other innocent victims who were murdered in Nazi death camps. We mourn lives cut short and communities torn apart.” Obama added, “In our lives, we always have choices. In our time, this means choosing to confront bigotry and hatred in all its forms, especially anti-Semitism.” Obama’s statement talked about doing our part to ensure that survivors receive some measure of justice.
While President Obama’s words are praiseworthy, his recent actions in striking a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, and pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians, is placing the Jewish state in jeopardy. The Obama administration must recognize the fact that to ensure survivors receive ‘some measure of justice’ means protecting the Jewish state, and the living Jews from another Holocaust. The anti-Semites of this world, whether in the halls of the U.N. or in Tehran, Ramallah, or Gaza, want nothing better than to annihilate the Jewish state.
The State of Israel is the “collective Jew,” and home to the majority of Holocaust survivors. The charade that the U.N. puts on annually on January 27, called the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, cannot obscure its deliberate and vicious anti-Semitism practiced by the majority of this body, and its affiliated agencies, targeting exclusively the Jewish state.
Addressing the U.N. delegates in January, 2005, on the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, Israel’s foreign minister at the time, Sylvan Shalom reminded the delegates that the U.N. Charter meant to insure against another Holocaust. “The very first clauses of the UN Charter bear witness to the understanding of the founders, that this new international organization (The United Nations, JP) must serve as the world’s answer to evil (of the Nazi holocaust JP), that it comes, and I quote: ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person.’ ”
The current Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, had this to say on Monday, January 27, 2014. “The U.N. marks the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but the hatred that is disseminated by (certain) governments only shows that the organization (the U.N., JP) has yet to internalize the lessons of the Holocaust. Nearly 70 years since the end of World War II, we are still witnesses to the phenomena of racism and anti-Semitism that rears its head around the world.” Prosor pointed out that anti-Semitism has not been eradicated, and its venom is being expressed in sermons by Palestinian Authority (PA) clerics, in PA educational institutions, textbooks, and in speeches by leaders around the world. He accused Gaza based Hamas of perpetuating anti-Jewish propaganda, and specified that “Palestinian children learn that the lives of Jews are worth less.”
On the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Israeli government received its annual report on anti-Semitism worldwide. It appears from the report that there has been a worrisome increase in anti-Semitism, according to 76% of the respondents. The report presented by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, shows that the highest percentage of reported anti-Semitic activities are in Hungary, France, Belgium, and Sweden. The situation is less severe in Italy, Germany, and Britain. In Hungary, the respondents pointed to the extreme Right as the most threatening to Jews, whereas in France and Belgium, radical Muslims are the major source of anti-Semitic hate. 69 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, European Jews live once again in fear.
If aliens stumbled upon the U.N. debates, read its resolutions, or walked the U.N. halls, they would clearly conclude that the sole purpose of this world body is to censure a tiny Jewish state called Israel. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a non-voting observer to the U.N., is the second largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N, and can count on the votes of 57 Islamic states as its members. Along with the Third World member states, the OIC is almost guaranteed to master an “automatic majority.” Until the fall of the Soviet Union, that majority could add the Soviet Bloc, and in 1975, following a steady drumbeat of anti-Israel declarations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the resolution that “Zionism is Racism.”
Read more at Front Page
By Andrew E. Harrod:
The “quite formidable” Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) “has really escaped the notice of a lot of foreign policy observers,” religious freedom scholar Nina Shea noted at a January 17, 2014, Hudson Institute panel. To correct this deficiency, Shea moderated an important presentation on the OIC’s stealth jihad against freedom by her “old friend” Mark Durie, an Anglican theologian and human rights activist.
As Durie’s PowerPoint presentation available online noted, the 1969-founded OIC headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, contains 57 mostly Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”). The second largest international organization after the United Nations (UN), the OIC is a “major global voting block” at the UN and unique in being the “only such organization devoted to advancing a religion.” The OIC is “largely funded by Saudi Arabia,” Shea noted, having contributed $30 million to the 2008 budget, far greater than the next largest contribution of $3 million from Kuwait.
Ominously, the OIC has been “lobbying assiduously” since about 2000 against “Islamophobia,” Shea observed. “Islamophobia” was analogous to “homophobia,” Durie’s PowerPoint elaborated, an analogy previously noted by Islamic sharia law expert Stephen Coughlin and analyzed by this author. A “[n]arrow reading” of this “deep-seated and irrational fear about Islam or Muslims” would encompass only prejudices such as the “xenophobic aversion to Muslims” of some.
A “[b]road reading” by the OIC and others, though, condemns “all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam” as “irrational and manifestations of prejudice.” “Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam,” the PowerPoint quoted from the OIC’s 2013 Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia. “9/11 came as a long awaited opportunity,” the report specifies, “for the anti-Islam and anti-Muslim elements in the West to set in motion their well orchestrated plan to slander Islam and target Muslims by equating terror with Islam and Muslims.” Such bigots were “just hanging out” and waiting for Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks, Durie mocked.
The OIC and its recently retired Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu assume that the “Islamic religion is under attack,” thereby posing an “atmosphere of threat to the world,” Durie stated. Yet American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics in Durie’s PowerPoint belie this Islamic victimhood, with attacks upon Jews far outstripping those on Muslims in 2012 (674 to 130). Western states in the past have also often aided their Muslim minorities and Muslim countries, such as when the British government donated land for the United Kingdom’s first mosque, London Central Mosque.
The “Islamophobia” campaign, moreover, manifests the distorted subordination of human rights to Islamic sharia law present throughout the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Therein rights such as free speech may not contradict the Koranic phrase “what is good” according to Islam. Similar distorted sectarianism is evident in the juxtaposition of OIC documents on “Combating Islamophobia” internationally and OIC-supported UN resolutions such as 16/18 in the Human Rights Council advocating religious equality.
Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition