Tag Archives: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Shadowing Europe with the ‘Islamophobia’ Canard

Posted on by
Reply

20130411_shadow_report_2011-12by ANDREW E. HARROD:

On March 21, 2013, the United Nation’s observed its annual International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorating the anniversary of the 1960 apartheid massacre in Sharpeville, South Africa.  Attempting to draw a parallel with the massacre, the Non-Governmental-Organization (NGO) grouping European Network Against Racism (ENAR) issued its Racism in Europe:  ENAR Shadow Report 2011-12 on racism in Europe the week earlier.  In the report’s associated Key Findings on Muslim Communities and Islamophobia, ENAR, an entity linked on its website to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, calls upon European Union (EU) institutions to “recognize Islamophobia as a specific form of racism.”  ENAR’s cavalier invocation as “racism” of what has been analyzed as an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) developed “thought crime of the totalitarian future” portends problematical developments with respect to the treatment of Islam amidst its critics in Europe.

Relating “racism” to Islam asks the obvious, “are Muslims a race?”  The Shadow Report does little to clarify the confusion, stating (page 2) that “Islamophobia describes an irrational fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture.”  ENAR thus condemns not just animus against Muslim individuals, but also any undefined “irrational” opposition to Islam as an idea in faith or culture.   Accordingly, the report condemns as “Islamophobia” (13) not simply “criminal damage to Islamic buildings and violence against Muslims” but also “opposition to, as well as protests against, the building of mosques,” irrespective of any individual criticism of such mosques like the proposed New York City Ground Zero Mosque.

The Shadow Report similarly bemoans the poor public relations (PR) image concerning Islam and Muslims in Europe.  While noting (4) that the “news media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion,” the Shadow Report declares without any empirical substantiation that “news reporting of ethnic minorities…is generally negative and distorted.”  The report complains of a “tendency for the media to blame migrants and asylum seekers for high rates of unemployment and criminality.”

In contrast, the Shadow Report recommends (5) that supposedly objective journalists “[u]se positive terminology and encourage positive media reporting about ethnic and religious minorities and migrants to emphasize their economic, social and cultural contributions to European societies.”  This would be part of what the report (5) describes as a desired “ethical journalism, protective of values such as equality and dignity.”  Similarly (6), the report calls upon authorities to “[r]eview school curricula to ensure that they take into consideration the presence of minorities and migrants and their contribution to culture and society, and contribute to overcoming stereotypes and promoting inclusion.”

While promoting positive speech about Islam and Muslims along with other minority groups, the Shadow Report disturbingly calls for restricting negative speech on these matters.  The Key Findings and the report (5) both advocate a “courageous approach to tackling hate speech and racist rhetoric in the public discourse” and a “zero tolerance policy to stigmatizing comments and terminology likely to incite violence, racism or other forms of discrimination.”  While most EU members (4) “have legal provisions in place for tackling hate speech…in some cases they are insufficient or ineffective.”

Thus the report, in reiterating this charge on page 30, states that “[i]n some cases measures still need to be brought in.”  In particular, the report (5) deems “regulation of the internet” as “seriously inadequate and often completely lacking” even though “[s]ocial media and social networking sites have become a growing space for disseminating xenophobic, Islamophobic and racist discourse.”  EU members should accordingly “[r]einforce legislation to monitor hate on the internet and in the media.”

The report (30) identifies Austrian politicians, “particularly from far-right parties,” as “regular perpetrators of hate speech.”  The report references the October 14, 2011, acquittal of the provincial Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partie Österreichs or FPÖ) chairman in Styria, Gerhard Kurzmann, of incitement charges.  The Styria FPÖ had posted on its website a game entitled Moschee Baba (Austrian slang for “Mosque Goodbye”) in which players targeted mosques, minarets, and muezzins on screen, something that brought prosecution accusations of replicating a shooting gallery.  The Shadow Report finds that this case “demonstrates the difficulty in successfully prosecuting hate speech in Austria, especially when the perpetrator is a public figure.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod serves as a Legal Clerk for The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum. Mr. Harrod is also 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. This article was commissioned by The Legal Project.

 

Pat Condell takes aim at the “Organization of Islamic Criminals”

Posted on by
1

images (1)

Free speech will never be allowed to die…not in a blizzard of crooked UN resolutions and not in a million manufactured riots. There’s more chance that pigs will literally fly….

 

 

Learn more about the OIC’s attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam: Threat to Free Speech

 

The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

Posted on by
2

mb

Front Page:

Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mohammed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser.

Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Salam al-Marayati – Obama Adviser, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director.

Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar, Islamic Society of North America.

Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

To read and order Frank Gaffney’s pamphlet, The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, click here.

 

ACT! for America Launches National Free Speech Campaign

Posted on by
1

freedomOfSpeech

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

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

Free_Speech_Day

 

WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

 

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

signup

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

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

 

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

Part One with Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers:

 

Part Two with Deborah Weiss:

 

Part Three with Guy Rodgers:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OIC Ramps Up ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Front Page

How Sickening Will Sweden Get?

Posted on by
2

by Douglas Murray:

Their gamble is that if we give the Organization of Islamic Cooperation just a little something — just a “harmless” little law — then we might all just be able to get along. But for every inch of encouragement the free nations of the world give the OIC, the more Reza Jabbaris we sacrifice — and a million more free-thinking souls.

How to deal with one madman is tricky enough, but how do you rectify things if the whole world has gone mad? Take Sweden and its apparent determination to deport Reza Jabbari back to his native Iran, most likely to be killed for having converted from Islam to Christianity.

First, there is the growing phenomenon of individuals being targeted for retribution if they have been seen to “insult” Islam. In particular there is the terrible recent case of Lars Hedegaard, who was targeted by an assassin at his home in Denmark earlier this month. The larger tapestry that hangs behind incidents such as the attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard, Kurt Westergaard and others, however, is not just the attempt to silence a few brave voices, but the attempt to silence an entire planet. I refer of course to the attempt to criminalize – around the world – any speech which is deemed to be offensive to Islam.

This process is not only ongoing among the 57 Islamic countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), but is being considered – rather than laughed out of the room – by, among other countries, the United States of America.

For more than a decade the OIC, originating from Pakistan, has been attempting to bring in legislation via the UN to criminalize “Defamation of Religions.” Last December Hillary Clinton made a speech at the Istanbul Process’s meeting (in London, shamefully) on “Combating intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.”

Here is the first paragraph:

Well, good afternoon, everyone, and I want to thank you all for participating in this conference where we are working together to protect two fundamental freedoms – the right to practice one’s religion freely and the right to express one’s opinion without fear.

Right there is the problem. Because her two “fundamental freedoms” might be a square peg or a round peg. But there is absolutely no way that either will ever fit into an OIC-shaped hole. Of course the OIC will continue to talk in generalities. So let us talk specifics. While the OIC pretends to worried about its feelings, let us consider a real-life, concrete, current example.

Reza Jabbari is an Iranian by birth. He is also a convert to Christianity. He is currently seeking asylum in Sweden. Why would this possibly be necessary? Surely if the OIC are being honest, Mr. Jabbari is merely someone with a different opinion from the people who run the country of his birth? And surely if the Iranians are worried about “offense” to religion, they would be standing up to ensure that Mr. Jabbari does not have his Christian faith insulted by the claims of Muslims that he is forever Muslim because he happened to have been born into a Muslim family.

Alas, the realities of the OIC are otherwise. As are those of the Swedish authorities, who appear to be doing everything they can to ensure that Mr. Jabbari is returned to Iran, where he is likely to be imprisoned, sentenced to death, or both. I suppose the Swedes reason that do not have room for him, even with all those empty homes the Jews left behind when they fled Malmo.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

 

OIC Seeks Global Watchdog on Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply
Rashad Hussain,

Rashad Hussain,

By Clare Lopez:The 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) met in Cairo, Egypt February 6-7, 2013 with a full agenda of issues to address.

The U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, attended. One of the key takeaways from the two-day Heads of State Summit appears to be a renewed commitment to the Istanbul Process, the OIC-initiative to criminalize criticism of Islam globally.

According to Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, director of cultural affairs at the OIC general secretariat and spokesman for the OIC secretary general, the next session of the Istanbul Process will be held sometime in the spring of 2013 and will focus anew on getting individual nation states to draft laws that would criminally sanction “denigration of religions.”

Read more at Radical Islam

Related articles

Organization of Islamic Cooperation on the Defensive Over Shariah in America

Posted on by
1

20110225_Shariah4Americaby CLARE M. LOPEZ

For all who’ve been working hard to educate Americans on the facts about  Islamic Law (shariah), there are some encouraging signals. The Organization  of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and its affiliated network, including the  Muslim Brotherhood in America, would seem to be in full-on defensive mode about  shariah if a recent Brotherhood conference and a couple of new reports are  indicative.

At the Muslim American Society (MAS)-Islamic  Circle of North America (ICNA) conference in Chicago, Illinois 21-25  December 2012, a few thousand mostly Arabic speaking Muslims circled the wagons  for a five-day program aimed at rousing them to defense of Islam. The Islamic  Circle of North America (ICNA), acknowledged in the Brotherhood’s 1991 “Explanatory  Memorandum” as one of its organizations, and the Muslim American Society  (MAS) co-sponsored the 11th Annual MAS-ICNA  Convention. The Convention speakers roster featured Tariq  Ramadan, scion of the Brotherhood’s al-Banna founding family; Nihad  Awad, the Executive Director of HAMAS’  U.S. branch, CAIR  (Council on American Islamic Relations); Siraj  Wahhaj, Imam of the al-Taqwa Mosque in Brooklyn, NY and included on a list  of unindicted  co-conspirators from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial;  and  Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA),  the largest Muslim  Brotherhood front group in the U.S.

The Convention theme of “Renaissance” was all about getting American Muslims  to experience a “double revolution in intellect and psychology,” as Ramadan put  it, so they’d be energized enough to stand up to an alleged atmosphere of   “Islamophobia” in the U.S. that has shariah in its sights. This theme, of  course, is straight out of the OIC’s “Islamophobia  Observatory” which hyperventilates about such things at Foreign Ministers  meetings and in regular reports posted to its website.

A 19 January 2013 report from the Brookings Institute’s Doha Center entitled,  “A  Rights Agenda For The Muslim World,” presents a full-throated apologia for  the OIC’s allegedly frustrated efforts to get its recalcitrant member states to  integrate shariah with modern international standards on human rights. The  problem seems to be that the OIC allows some of those countries with a “conservative  brand of Islam” too much leeway to cling to their  “emphasis  on national sovereignty,” which just wrecks the OIC Secretary General  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s sincere efforts to implement more effective “supra-national  human rights mechanisms.”  Apparently, according to the report’s  author, Turan Kayaoglu, Ihsanoglu wants to make human rights the centerpiece of  the OIC agenda, which Turan says “shows  a gradual move away from emphasizing the centrality of shariah.” Supposedly,  Ihsanoglu increasingly is willing to “discuss  these issues in the context of international human rights rather than  exclusively within that of Islamic law and tradition.” A quick check of the  OIC website shows the “Islamophobia Observatory” is still up and the Human  Rights page features the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 (the one  about restricting free speech criticism of Islam) and other items about “combating intolerance,  negative stereotyping, and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to  violence and violence against persons, based on religion or  belief“-i.e., Islam.

Nothing much about international standards of human rights superseding  shariah anytime soon, but the OIC did establish an “Independent Permanent  Commission on Human Rights” (IPHRC) in 2011, the Brookings report says, that is  supposed to “promote  the civil social, and economic rights enshrined in the organization’s human  rights documents.” Of course, the 1990 Cairo  Declaration that abrogates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human  Rights in favor of shariah is still posted in its usual spot on the OIC’s Human  Rights page, so maybe they just haven’t gotten around to updating that yet. But  in the meantime, the OIC wants everyone to know that its focus on shariah is  definitely on the wane. Really.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Meet the first Muslim president

Posted on by
5

first muslim presidentby David Kupelian

Excerpt:

‘My Muslim President Obama’

For a president whose policies over the past four years, both at home and  abroad, have been passionately and relentlessly pro-Muslim, one wonders how the  elite media could somehow have missed the camel in the living room: Barack Obama  is the “first Muslim president.”

This is not breaking news. As American Muslim writer Asma Gull Hasan wrote in  a widely read Forbes article titled “My  Muslim President Obama”: “I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am  tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very  unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances,  many of us feel … that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack  Hussein Obama.”

“Since Election Day,” Hasan confesses, “I have been part of more and more  conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama  is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, ‘I have to support my fellow Muslim brother,’ would slip out of my mouth before  I had a chance to think twice.”

But another aspect of having elected our “first Muslim president” is much  more consequential, as veteran CIA officer and intelligence expert Clare  Lopez chronicles. Under Obama, she writes:

“America’s involvement in the global jihad against Western civilization – on  the side of the jihadis – is accelerating. Instead of standing firm as leader of  the free world and defender of inalienable human rights, U.S. policy is shifting  demonstrably to the defense of those who systematically deny such rights to  their own people and seek to suppress them everywhere.”

Noting that since 2009, “U.S. foreign policy has backed al-Qaida and Muslim  Brotherhood power plays in Libya, Egypt and now Syria, too,” Lopez reports that  our State Department “is working closely with the Organization of Islamic  Cooperation, whose top objective is the criminalization of the criticism of  Islam.”

Meanwhile, adds Lopez, here in the U.S. “the White House cultivates  relationships with CAIR/Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures and  associates,” while “instructors, trainers and any curriculum that would describe  accurately the link between Islamic doctrine, law and scripture and Islamic  terrorism have been methodically purged from U.S. government, intelligence and  law enforcement classrooms.”

So, according to the established cultural norm of what constitutes a “first something president,” Obama qualifies as “Muslim” at least as much as  Bill Clinton qualifies as “black.”

But let’s go a little further: How much literal truth might there be  to this honorary title no one in the establishment press sees fit to confer on  Barack Obama?

Respected Islam expert Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle  East Forum, has exhaustively documented “Obama’s  Muslim childhood.” Here are just a few of the dozens of non-disputable  evidentiary facts cited by Pipes:

  • “In Islam, the father passes his faith to the children; and when a Muslim  male has children with a non-Muslim female, Islam considers the children Muslim.  Obama’s grandfather and father having been Muslims – the extent of their piety  matters not at all – means that, in Muslim eyes, Barack was born a Muslim.
  • “Arabic forenames based on the H-S-N trilateral root … (Husayn or Hussein,  Hasan, Hassân, Hassanein, Ahsan, and others) are exclusively bestowed on Muslim  babies. … Obama’s middle name, Hussein, explicitly proclaims him a born  Muslim.
  • “Obama was registered at a Catholic school in Jakarta as ‘Barry Soetoro.’ A  surviving document lists him as born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961; in addition,  it lists him having Indonesian nationality and Muslim religion.
  • “He was also registered as Muslim at SD Besuki: Although Besuki … is a  public school, Obama curiously refers to it in ‘The Audacity of Hope’ (p. 154)  as ‘the Muslim school’ he attended in Jakarta. Its records have not survived,  but several journalists (Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star, Paul Watson of the  Los Angeles Times, David Maraniss of the Washington Post) have all confirmed  that there too, he was registered as a Muslim.
  • “Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s younger half-sister, said her father (Barack’s  stepfather) attended the mosque ‘for big communal events,’ and the Chicago  Tribune’s foreign correspondent Kim Barker found that ‘Obama occasionally  followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers.’
  • “Muslim clothing: Zulfin Adi, among Obama’s closest childhood friends,  recalls about Obama, ‘I remember him wearing a sarong.’ Likewise, [the  Washington Post’s] Maraniss found not only that ‘His classmates recalled that  Barry wore a sarong’ but had written exchanges indicating that he continued to  wear this garment in the United States. This fact has religious implications  because, in Indonesian culture, only Muslims wear sarongs.
  • “Obama says that in Indonesia, he ‘didn’t practice [Islam],’ an assertion  that inadvertently acknowledges his Muslim identity by implying he was a  non-observant Muslim. But several of those who knew him contradict this  recollection. Rony Amir describes Obama as ‘previously quite religious in  Islam.’ A former teacher, Tine Hahiyary, quoted in the Kaltim Post, says the  future president took part in advanced Islamic religious lessons: ‘I remember  that he had studied mengaji.’ In the context of Southeast Asian Islam, mengaji Quran means to recite the Koran in Arabic, a difficult task  denoting advanced study.”

“The record,” concludes Pipes, “points to Obama having been born a Muslim to  a non-practicing Muslim father and having lived for four years in a fully Muslim  milieu under the auspices of his Muslim Indonesian stepfather. For these  reasons, those who knew Obama in Indonesia considered him a Muslim.”

All right, that was then. But what about today?

Even as president, observes Pipes:

“… when addressing Muslim audiences, Obama uses specifically Muslim phrases  that recall his Muslim identity. He addressed audiences both in Cairo (in June  2009) and Jakarta (in November 2010) with ‘as-salaamu alaykum,’ a greeting that  he, who went to Koran class, knows is reserved for one Muslim addressing  another. In Cairo, he also deployed several other pious terms that signal to  Muslims he is one of them:

  • “The Holy Koran” (a term mentioned five times): an exact translation from  the standard Arabic reference to the Islamic scripture, al-Qur’an al-Karim.
  • “The right path”: a translation of the Arabic as-sirat al-mustaqim, which  Muslims ask God to guide them along each time they pray.
  • “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it  was first revealed”: Non-Muslims do not refer to Islam as “revealed.”
  • “The story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed … joined in prayer”: This Koranic tale of a night journey establishes the leadership of Muhammad over  all other holy figures, including Jesus.
  • “Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them”: a translation of the  Arabic ‘alayhim as-salam, which pious Muslims say after mentioning the names of  dead prophets other than Muhammad. (A different salutation, sall Allahu alayhi  wa-sallam, “May God honor him and grant him peace,” properly follows Muhammad’s  name, but this phrase is almost never said in English.)

Beyond all these things, what honest conclusion – other than that the  president has a tremendous hidden attachment to Islam – could one possibly draw  after reading Obama’s March 2007 interview  with the New York Times’ Nicholas D. Kristof, who wrote:

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting  them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated  (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to  prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

’The grand jihad’

Ironically, none of Obama’s documented Islamic background may matter very  much, since his demonstrated camaraderie with Islamists is typical of  far-leftists and doesn’t require a personal Muslim upbringing such as Obama  had.

In his bestselling book, “The  Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” former federal  prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains how and why hardcore leftists and radical  Muslims – despite their obvious differences – work together.

“Like the neocommunist, the Islamist works to impose his version of ‘social  justice.’ It is a very specific Islamic prescription, and elements of it diverge  markedly from the neocommunist’s more amorphous utopia. But the essentials of  their visions coalesce: They are totalitarian, collectivist, and antithetical to  the core conceit of American constitutional democracy, individual liberty.  Today’s left-leaning, Islamophilic Obamedia consciously ignores the convergence,  but America’s 44th president and America’s enemies have a common  dream.”

Thus, while there is no evidence Obama is today a practicing Muslim, what is  far more important than his current religious affiliation is what his deep-down  sympathies, affinities and loyalties truly are – and what sorts of policies  those affinities lead him to pursue.

One final thought: Having lived through a tumultuous era in which the two  biggest geopolitical challenges to America’s very existence as a free nation  have been Marxism and Shariah Islam, it’s a testament to modern Americans’ advancing spiritual blindness that we have chosen – twice – a president in  thrall to both.

There’s a perfect logic to the “grand jihad” uniting these two ungodly forces  against the rare and exotic bloom of individual liberty. Both movements are  based on rejection of Christianity, Judaism and the “Judeo-Christian values” that comprise the moral foundation of Western Civilization. Both are fixated to  an ecstatic vision of a utopia that cannot exist in reality because it defies  all the laws of God and man and human nature and common sense.

And, although superficially incompatible with each other, both are on the  same side of the great war between good and evil, each intent on captivating as  many free people as possible in the process of imposing a deluded paradise that  never was, and never can be.

Read the entire article at WND

David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of  Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The  Marketing of Evil His newest book, How  Evil Works, released to much critical acclaim in the spring of 2010.

See also:

Obama’s ring: ‘There is no god but Allah’ (counterjihadreport.com)


‘Defamation of Religion’ Rule Applies to Islam Only

Posted on by
4
Deborah Weiss

Deborah Weiss

by: Ryan Mauro

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is an expert on the defamation of religions U.N. resolutions set forth by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.  She is a frequent contributor to FrontPage Magazine and The Washington Times, and is co-author of the book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace.” A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org

The following is RadicalIslam.org National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s interview with Deborah Weiss:

Ryan Mauro: What is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and what is its end goal?

Deborah Weiss: The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, claiming to represent 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.  It’s comprised of 56 UN Member States plus the Palestinian Authority.  They tend to vote together as a block in the UN and are arguably the most powerful voting block in the UN as a whole.  They are certainly the most powerful voting bloc in the UN’s Human Rights Council.

Though the OIC holds itself out as a “moderate” organization, it is clear from its own documents and its concepts that it is anything but moderate.  Its long term goal is the worldwide implementation of Sharia law and the supremacy of an Islamic State.

In its immediate activities, it is working to solidify the relationships among Muslim majority countries, to unify the Muslim voice, to support the so-called “Palestinian struggle” and to restrict all speech that is critical of anything related to Muslims or Islam including Islamic terrorism and Islamic persecution of religious minorities.

Mauro:  Tell us about the OIC’s concept of “Combating Defamation of Religions” and its impact.

Deborah Weiss:  “Combating Defamation of Religions” is a concept which gives an idea or religion, in this case Islam, protection from criticism, as opposed to what we have in the American legal system which only gives defamation protections to people.

Additionally, the OIC’s definition of defamation includes anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even if it’s true and even if it’s opinion.  In fact, it goes even further and condemns any free expression that would violate Islamic blasphemy laws even when, and perhaps especially when, expressed by non-Muslims.  So it’s the OIC’s attempt to pressure non-Muslims to comply with Islamic blasphemy codes.  Its target is the West and failure to comply with its demands is deemed “Islamophobic” even when no actual bigotry or prejudice is present.

The impact of putting the concept of combating defamation of religions into effect has numerous consequences and implications.

First, though it’s called “combating defamation of religions,” the OIC interprets and applies it to Islam only without any reciprocity for other religions.  In fact, the concept of protecting Islam from “defamation” is used in many OIC countries to persecute religious minorities.  The concept gives credence to Islamic blasphemy laws, which not only operate to suppress freedom of religion, but also violate human rights.  For example, in Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims believe in a prophet after Mohammad. They generally have a peaceful, egalitarian interpretation of Islam.  Yet, they are considered heretics, and it is not only illegal for them to practice their faith, but it is criminal.  Merely sending out a wedding invitation with an accurate quote from the Koran can land an Ahmadiyya Muslim in jail.

Last, but not least, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has serious consequences for freedom of speech.  This is the main concern from a Western, and specifically American perspective.  The OIC as well as other Islamist organizations continue to work hard to stifle free speech.  They are constantly placing pressure on Western governments and societies to refrain from saying or dong anything that violates Islamic blasphemy codes, even though they don’t word it this way.

For example, the OIC encourages “hate-speech” laws in Europe that make it illegal to speak negatively about Islam.  And in America, though the government has thus far declined to make such speech illegal, it is enacting policies that discourage such speech even when it’s critical in protecting US national security.

Though not necessarily a direct result of the OIC’s UN resolutions, the implementation of the concept of combating defamation of religions has resulted in America’s recent cleansing of all national security training material for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and the National Counterterrorism Training Center.  National security and intelligence professionals will still learn about terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, but will be deprived of teachings regarding the underlying[Islamist] ideology, disconnecting the motivation from the terrorist behavior.  This ties one hand behind America’s back in fighting the War on Terror and is very dangerous.

Read more at Radical Islam

Also see ”Making Islamic sense of free speech“ by Harris Zafar, National Spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, which was published in the Washington Post recently. Can you spot the taqiyya?