Stephen Coughlin on the Quranic Concept of War

Gates  of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey, September 25, 2018:

During last week’s OSCE/ODIHR conference in Warsaw, the Counterjihad Collective organized a side event entitled “Why Does Europe Hate Speech?” The following video from the event shows a talk given by retired Maj. Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s long-term plans for jihad — both kinetic and non-kinetic — which are even now bearing fruit, both at the OSCE and elsewhere.

In his talk Maj. Coughlin discusses, among other things, The Quranic Concept of War, a book that was written in 1979 by the serving Brigadier General S. K. Malik when he was chief of staff of the Pakistani army.[1] President Zia ul Haq declared the book to be his country’s military doctrine.[2] The Advocate General in Pakistan, a man named Brohi[3], affirmed that it was law.

So it’s a significant book, and well worth paying attention to.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

In his book Gen. Malik writes:

So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the Enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. (p. 58)

He also says, “We do not even start the fighting war until we have already assessed that the war has been won. We have already made the enemy surrender mentally.”

From pages 57 to 58, he includes the four following quotes from the Koran to make his point.[4]

I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (Qur’an 8: 12)

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. (Qur’an 3: 151)

And those of the People of the Book who aided them, Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners [the women and the children]. And he made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things. (Qur’an 33: 26-27)

Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the Godly): they will never frustrate them. Against them make ready your strength of the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah any your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. (Qur’an 8:56-60)

Based on the above citations from the Koran, Gen. Malik concludes:[5]

TERROR struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means; it is an end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. TERROR is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.

Thus his conclusion is that the Quranic concept of war is terror, with four quotes from the Koran to back up his argument. His final sentences at the end of the same chapter are very important:

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent. … To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror.[6]

The object of jihad is therefore the destruction of faith. It intends to destroy our faith in our God, in our government, in our legal system, in our entire world. Once we lose faith in our world, we become the object of a Da’wah mission that aims to convert us to Islam.

At the very end of his book, Gen. Malik’s chilling final sentence reads:[7]

This rule is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars.

Concerning this book, in another context Maj. Coughlin once remarked:

So this is the “Quranic concept of war”. Do you think General Malik was mistaken? Do you think his understanding of Islamic doctrine is incorrect?

Even if someone were to argue that the general’s understanding of Islam is wrong, all we have to do is show that this was published doctrine in Pakistan. The Pakistani government creates policy and executes it as if this doctrine were correct. Furthermore, their written doctrine includes a statement that they can use nuclear weapons in furtherance of jihad.

Do we really need anything else?

Our job is not to know true Islam. Our job requires us to understand the doctrines that drive the enemy’s behavior in his self-declared war.

Notes:

1. The Quranic Concept of War by Brigadier S.K. Malik (Lahore, Pakistan: Wajid Al’s Ltd., 1979, with a forward by General Zia-ul-Haq). First Indian Reprint, New Delhi, India: Himalayan Books, 1986. Cited hereafter as S.K. Malik.
2. S.K. Malik, xi.
3. S.K. Malik, xiii.
4. S.K. Malik, 57, 58.
5. S.K. Malik, 59.
6. S.K. Malik, 60.
7. S.K. Malik, 60

At the UN, Pro-Freedom Donald Trump Stares Down the World’s Deep State

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters, in New York, United States, September 25, 2018. Roman Makhmutov / Sputnik via AP

PJ MEDIA, BY ANDREW G. BOSTOM, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018:

In September 2017, speaking at the United Nations, President Donald Trump decried the abject failure of socialism as a form of governance, and more broadly, as an ideology:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba, Venezuela — wherever socialism or Communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish, devastation, and failure. Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.

During his speech at the UN today, Trump returned to the subjects of socialism, communism, and Venezuela, where he noted that “more than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the Socialist Maduro regime, and its Cuban sponsors.” He added: “Not long ago Venezuela was one of the richest countries on earth.” Trump observed: “Today socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.” And he concluded with another denunciation of socialist/communist totalitarianism as a predatory, liberty-crushing ideology that produces despair:

Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery it brings to everyone.

Three years earlier, campaigning at the Iowa Family Leadership Summit in July 2015, Donald Trump gushed about Norman Vincent Peale (d. 1993), a staunch anti-Communist and his family’s pastor at the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan:

Norman Vincent Peale was my pastor — “ The Power of Positive Thinking” [Peale’s 1952 book]. Everybody has heard of Norman Vincent Peale? He was so great. He would give a sermon — you never wanted to leave. I’m telling you, I still remember his sermons.

Peale minced no words about where he stood on the totalitarian menace of Communism in his 1952 bestseller, penned at a critical juncture in the Cold War: “No one has more contempt for Communism than I have.” Indeed, a Nashville Banner, January 20, 1951, front-page story featured coverage of an enormous anti-Communist rally, where Peale was the keynote speaker: “Dr. Peale Tells Thousands Here — The Future Belongs to Christ Not Communism.”

David Brody’s 2018 biographical analysis, The Faith of Donald J. Trump: A Spiritual Biography, elaborates on Peale’s earlier opposition to collectivism more broadly, encompassing both Communism and fascism. Two weeks after Trump’s birth in 1946, Peale opined in a newspaper column:

There are small-minded people who have the idea that to be a Christian today, one must lean way over to the left or right: either to take Communism on the one hand or something else on the other. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand how a man who regards himself as a leader of the Christian Church can attempt to deprecate the teachings of Jesus as to try and get them into the thinking of Karl Marx or of some Fascist. Those puny little fellows compared to the colossal mind of Jesus Christ, pale into mere insignificance.

Brody avers that Peale was also an “ardent” opponent of what he viewed as Franklin Roosevelt’s coercive New Deal era statism and “demagoguery,” particularly when FDR sought a third presidential term.

A January 2016 Washington Post story (notwithstanding the negative, tangential headline) riveted upon the warm, enduring relationship between the “Trump and Peale clans”:

Norman Vincent Peale presided at Donald Trump’s wedding to Ivana Trump. He also officiated at the wedding of Trump’s sister Maryanne. The mogul co-hosted the minister’s 90th-birthday bash … “The great Norman Vincent Peale was my minister for years,” … Peale, for his part, described Trump as “kindly and courteous” with “a streak of honest humility,” and touted him as “one of America’s top positive thinkers and doers.” The minister also called Trump “ingenious” and predicted that he would be “the greatest builder of our time.” Trump’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, formally joined Peale’s  Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan — a venerable affiliate of the Reformed Church in America — during the 1970s.

While Donald Trump (in a 2009 Psychology Today interview) credited Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking for keeping his mindset optimistic after a series of setbacks, I believe Dr. Peale’s staunch anti-totalitarianism — especially his anti-Communism — influenced Trump’s own worldview. Trump’s 2000 The America We Deserve, is the best summary explication of the pro-freedom ideology which animates his foreign policy considerations. Referring to what he designated “oppressive communism,” Trump championed “western style democracy” as his desired replacement for communist totalitarianism in the collapsed former Soviet Union. Trump also denounced the “disgrace” Castro’s communism had wrought upon Cuba:

Terror reigns, the police are unrestrained; beatings and citizen disappearances are common, and all free expression outside the Communist Party is crushed.

More importantly, as has remained his wont, Trump was gimlet-eyed about the persistence — and danger — of entrenched Communism in a powerful China:

I break rank with many business colleagues and foreign policy gurus … in my unwillingness to shrug off the mistreatment of China’s citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it clear that China’s current government has contempt for our way of life. It fears freedom because it knows its survival depends on oppression. It does not respect individual rights. It is still, at heart, a collectivist society. As such it is a destabilizing force in the world, and should be viewed that way.

Donald Trump’s muscular anti-socialist/communist pronouncements and observations highlight the seditious role reversal underlying the manufactured “Trump-Russia collusion” faux narrative. A simple juxtaposition of Trump’s written and spoken words versus the writings, utterances, and behaviors of key players orchestrating what was tantamount to a putsch (or coup d’etat, per former federal prosecutor DiGenova) against Trump — John BrennanNellie OhrChristopher Steele, and James Comey — should make this dichotomy plain to even the most blinkered and doctrinaire Never Trumpers of any persuasion.

Former CIA Director John Brennan has admitted casting his 1976 POTUS vote for Communist Party of the USA leader Gus Hall, who was then virulently anti-American and an overt champion of the “liberating” hegemonic Soviet Communist terror state under Communist dictator (and Hall’s “Comrade”) Brezhnev. Hall articulated these views in a 1975 “Report to the 21st Convention of the Communist Party” (p. 33):

Détente is not an agreement to accept, or to turn one’s head from oppression by [US] imperialism anywhere. Comrade Leonid Brezhnev made this clear in a public statement here when he stated: ‘The Soviet Union’s support for all national liberation struggles and movements is non-negotiable.’

Consistent with this 1976 vote for American Stalinist Hall as POTUS,  Brennan, in his 1980 University of Texas MS thesis, adopted the moral relativism one associates with the Communist movement. Brennan declared “absolute human rights do not exist,” rendering “[human rights] analysis subject to innumerable conditional criticisms,” rejecting free speech and Western liberty as universal values, and rationalizing Soviet Communist totalitarianism. He proffered this unsettling apologetic for the appalling human rights record of the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union (although Brennan refrained from labeling the Soviet dictator “Comrade Leonid Brezhnev”):

Can human rights violations in the Soviet Union be as easily justified in terms of the preservation of the communist ideology? Unfortunately (looking at events from a democratic perspective), yes. Since the absolute status of human rights has been denied, the justification for the violation of any of those rights has to be pursued from a particular ideological perspective. Leonid Brezhnev could justify human rights violations in the Soviet Union as a necessary part of the preservation of the communist ideological system.

Diana West’s extensive, illuminating backgrounders contextualize the hard Left (even pro-Communist) proclivities of Nellie Ohr and Christopher Steele. Nellie Ohr, for example (summarized in this West interview), is a full-throated apologist for Stalin’s 1930s Ukrainian terror-famine, which according to great Sovietologist Robert Conquest’s “The Harvest of Sorrow” (p. 306), killed some 14.5 million souls. “Confirmed socialist” Christopher Steele worked for the subversive, Marxist-infiltrated Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Even James Comey has acknowledged his dalliance with Communism, as reported in October 2003 by New York Magazine’s Chris Smith:

I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.

Having imbibed Norman Vincent Peale’s positive, pro-freedom, pro-capitalist, anti-totalitarian ideology, Donald Trump’s own muscular anti-totalitarianism stands in stark contrast to the hard left — even overtly Communist — sympathies of the cabal of anti-Trump pustchists aligned against him.

Also see:

Racism, Xenophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination – Oh Dear! (ODIHR)

OSCE Debra Anderson is interrupted for “islamophobia” while asking to protect secular law in the USA

The Center for Security Policy and it’s allies have been giving some serious push back to threats against free speech at the this year’s Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. Participants are 56 countries, which includes Europe, Central Asia and North America, as well as large and small NGO’s from the area. Why should you care? Because statements and recommendations from these conferences heavily influence political decision-making and so it is quite an influential organisation.

The following are some of the highlights starting with an OSCE official laying out their agenda. Please also see my recent post on the conference:

Center Highlights Speech Restrictions At International Conference

 

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

Video: Robert Spencer Gives Three Lessons From Islamic History for Today’s Policymakers

  1. Jihad has always been a mainstream feature of Islam. Jihad is not a modern development.
  2. There has been no organized internal resistance or majority of moderate Muslims trying to stop Jihad violence. Islamic reform means adhering to fundamentalist Islamic doctrine. Any reformers advocating changing Islamic doctrine have been killed or marginalized.
  3. Jihadis have always had help from infidels.

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, September 19, 2018:

If these lessons were heeded, we would avoid numerous foreign and domestic policy mistakes.

On September 13, 2018, I spoke at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club in Los Angeles. Introducing my new and bestselling book, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I discussed three lessons from Islamic history that are unknown in the West today, and are often outright denied by those Leftists who are rewriting history in service of contemporary political agendas. I show how these lessons, if heeded, have massive implications for American foreign and domestic policy.

Order The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here now.

Google Employees Discussed Tweaking Search Results to Counter Trump Travel Ban

Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari, September 20, 2018:

Google employees brainstormed ways to tweak the tech giant’s search functions to encourage users to push back against Trump policies following the President’s proposed travel ban on certain countries in 2017, according to a report on Tucker Carlson Tonight that was also confirmed by the Wall Street Journal. 

Via the WSJ (paywalled):

Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails.
The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ’Iran’, etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms `Mexico’, `Hispanic’, `Latino’, etc.”

According to the WSJ, the email chain was “sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity,” but nonetheless discussed ways to use the company’s power over search as a response to Trump’s proposed travel ban on certain Muslim-dominated countries.

The report follows Breitbart News’ release of a leaked recording of Google’s post-election meeting in 2016. The video shows company executives, including co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Sundar Pichai, lamenting the election of Trump, and brainstorming ways to ensure that the president’s election and the populist movement were just a “blip” and “hiccup” in history.

Google did not deny the existence of the emails, but insisted that none of the ideas discussed were ever acted upon.

“These emails were just a brainstorm of ideas, none of which were ever implemented,” a company spokeswoman said in a statement. “Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology—not in the current campaign season, not during the 2016 election, and not in the aftermath of President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Our processes and policies would not have allowed for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

***

***

Also see:

Killing Free Speech

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, September 21, 2018:

  • The OIC’s media strategy encourages “accurate and factual portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric… such as labeling criminal terrorists as ‘Islamic’ fascists, ‘Islamic’ extremists.”
  • That part of the strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as “mentally ill.”
  • The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is trying to curb your freedom of speech — yet again[1].

In June, the first “I 1st Islamic-European Forum for examining ways of cooperation to curb hate speech in the media,” initiated by the OIC, ironically but sadly took place at the Press Club Brussels Europe.

The director of the information department of the OIC, Maha Mustafa Aqeel, explained that the forum is part of the OIC’s media strategy[2] to counter “Islamophobia”:

“Our strategy focuses on interacting with the media, academics, and experts on various relevant topics, in addition to engaging with Western governments to raise awareness, support the efforts of Muslim civil society bodies in the West, and engage the latter in developing plans and programs to counter Islamophobia.”

Unlike almost all other intergovernmental organizations, the OIC wields both religious and political power. It describes itself as:

“…the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world… espousing all causes close to the hearts of over 1.5 billion Muslims of the world.”

According to the OIC’s Charter, one of the objectives of the organization is “To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage,”[3] as well as “To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions.”[4]

At the 11th Session of The Islamic Summit Conference (Session of The Muslim Ummah in The 21St Century) in Dakar, Senegal (13-14 March 2008), the member states of the OIC decided to “renew our pledge to work harder to make sure that Islam’s true image is better projected the world over…”[5] and to “seek to combat an Islamophobia with designs to distort our religion”[6].

In 2008, the OIC published its 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia. This document listed a number of interactions that OIC representatives had with Western audiences — including the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and academics and others at universities such as Georgetown and Oxford — and stated:

“The point that was underscored in all these interactions was that Islamophobia was gradually gaining inroads into the mind-set of the common people in Western societies, a fact that has created a negative and distorted perception of Islam. It was emphasized that Muslims and Western societies would have to address the issue with a sense of commitment to ending Islamophobia… Islamophobia poses a threat not only to Muslims but to the world at large.”[7]

Since that 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, the OIC opened its Permanent Observer Mission to the EU (in 2013) and also cooperates with the OSCE and the Council of Europe “to combat stereotypes and misunderstandings and foster tolerance.”[8] In December 2017, the OIC and the EU agreed on strengthening bilateral cooperation, when they held their second Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM) at the OIC headquarters, during which both sides agreed on “strengthening bilateral cooperation through concrete actions”.

The OIC was concrete in its demands to the West. In a statement delivered at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the OIC Secretary General called for Europe to “Prosecute and punish for racial discrimination… through the framework of appropriate legislation” and also to “Strengthen existing legislation on discrimination and discriminatory and ‘unequal treatment’ adopted by EU council directives”[9].

Today, many Western European governments are prosecuting their own citizens for criticizing Islam or Muslims in, for example, SwedenGermany and the UK, although it is unclear, whether or how much of this development can be directly attributed to the OIC.

In Sweden, for instance, pensioners especially have been prosecuted for making critical comments about Islam on Facebook. A 71-year-old woman referred to so-called unaccompanied minors as “bearded children” and said — not inaccurately (here and here and here) — that some seem to be “engaged in rape and demolishing their [asylum] homes”. In February 2018, a Swedish court sentenced her to a fine for “incitement of hatred against an ethnic group”.

In Germany, a journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, was handed a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam” by publishing the photograph.

In addition to cultivating high-level contacts with Western actors, the OIC also is pursuing a comprehensive media strategy, agreed upon in Saudi Arabia in December 2016 and focused on the West.

This OIC media strategy claims as one of its goals:

“To increase the interaction with media outlets and professionals, while encouraging accurate and factual/portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric in the war on terror, such as labeling criminal terrorists as ‘Islamic’ fascists, ‘Islamic’ extremists.”[10]

Part of that strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as “mentally ill.”

The OIC also notes that it would like media professionals and journalists “to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia”[11], while at the same time engaging Western governments “in creating awareness against the dangers of Islamophobia by addressing the responsibility of media on the issue”[12]. The OIC additionally states that it would like to train foreign journalists to “deal with the phenomenon of hatred and defamation of the Islamic religion”[13]— as exemplified by the recent European-Islamic Forum, where attendees were introduced to the OIC’s “Program for Training Media Professionals on Redressing Stereotypes about Islam”.

As maintained earlier here, European journalists — helped along by the EU — are already very adept at censoring themselves, which means that the OIC’s work is probably already more than half-done when it comes to Europe.

Finally, the OIC media strategy calls for fostering a “network of high profile western public figures supporting efforts to combat Islamophobia in politics, journalism and civil society” as well as teams of scholars academics, and celebrities, who will be the faces of the campaign.[14]

The IOC mentions the following, among others, as examples of mass media campaigns it aims to launch as part of its media strategy[15]:

  • Television and advertising campaigns “targeting public transport (bus and metro) famous newspapers and magazines for each country two times in one year”.
  • Arranging three talk shows per year in key TV channels in US and Europe about Islam with the participation of selected members from Muslim countries.
  • 10 lectures per year in each country (universities, unions and suggested important centers) “about Islamic role in building cultures and connect between religions”.
  • Visits to schools and universities by OIC “specialist teams”.
  • Hosting 100 “Western activists” from various fields in selected Muslim countries where they “can interact with intellectuals, politicians, media figures, and religious scholars”.
  • Produce one-hour documentary “examining the growth of Islamophobia in the West and its impact on Muslims around the world and interfaith relations” for broadcasting “on mainstream networks such as Britain’s BBC and Channel 4 or America’s PBS”.

The OIC is being assisted in all these efforts by “prestigious public relations companies such as UNITAS Communications which is based in London, UK and Golden Cap based in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”[16].

The OIC promises that it will also create a fund to support local anti-Islamophobia initiatives, and monitor media and place commentary and news stories in key Western publications.

It is important to note that in the years 1998-2011, the OIC sought to advance an agenda in the UN, banning “the defamation of religions”, but the OIC gave up on the ban after realizing that there was not sufficient support there for the proposal. “We could not convince them,” said Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish head of the IOC at the time. “The European countries don’t vote with us, the United States doesn’t vote with us.”

Instead of pursuing the ban on defamation of religions, the OIC shifted its focus to UN Resolution 16/18 [17] which calls upon states to take concrete steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, “foster religious freedom and pluralism,” and “counter religious profiling which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.”

Andrew C. McCarthy, a critic of Resolution 16/18, maintains that:

“Sharia forbids any speech — whether true or not — that casts Islam in an unfavorable light, dissents from settled Muslim doctrine, has the potential to sow discord within the ummah, or entices Muslims to renounce Islam or convert to other faiths. The idea is not merely to ban gratuitous ridicule — which, by the way, sensible people realize government should not do (and, under our Constitution, may not do) even if they themselves are repulsed by gratuitous ridicule. The objective is to ban all critical examination of Islam, period…” [Emphasis in original]

The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream Western journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.


[1] See also “Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s ‘Islamophobia’ Campaign against Freedom” and “The OIC vs. Freedom of Expression”

[2] See also “The OIC/NGOs cooperation in combating Islamophobia” from the International Conference on Islamophobia, Istanbul 2007.

[3] OIC Charter Article 1(11)

[4] Ibid., Article 1 (12)

[5] 11th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, Dakar Declaration, p 4

[6]Ibid., p 4

[7] 1st OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2007 to May 2008) p 24 (section 4.5.)

[8] 1st OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2007 to May 2008) p 30. (sections 4.5.7 and 4.5.8)

[9] Ibid., p 30 (Section 4.5.8)

[10] OIC Media Strategy in Countering Islamophobia and Its Implementation Mechanisms, p 2, (section I (2))

[11] Ibid., p 4, Section III (1)

[12] Ibid., p 4, Section III (3)

[13] Ibid., p 5, Section III (7)

[14] Ibid., pp 3-4, Section II(2) and (7)

[15] Ibid., pp 8-9, Section 7

[16] Ibid., p 6

[17] Resolution 16/18 on Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief. The resolution was passed in the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 with support from both OIC member countries and Western countries, including the United States.

Investigating Islam

The United West, by Steve Kirby, September 19, 2018:

Folks who are concerned about Islam often ask what they can do.

Here is what you can do:

1) Educate yourselves so that you are able educate others about the reality of Islam;

2) Step out of your comfort zone, look for opportunities to talk about Islam with family, friends, and religious and secular leaders; and

3) Go to events where presentations on Islam are being made and ask the hard questions, based on the information you have gained from authoritative Islamic sources.  When you go to these events, take along some like-minded, knowledgeable friends so you won’t feel all alone.  Hold Muslims and non-Muslims accountable for accurately presenting Islam.

Here is how you can get started.  I spent the latter half of my 31 ½ years in law enforcement as a detective investigating white collar crimes and public corruption.  For each investigation I put together a case file of information.  Below is a link to a case file you can create so that you can investigate Islam yourself, learn about the reality of Islam and then take your case file with you when you talk about Islam and go to Islam-related events:

Investigating Islam: Creating a Case File

https://islamseries.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/investigating-islam-creating-a-case-file.pdf

Knowledge is power, but only if that knowledge is used!

Steve Kirby
IslamSeries@gmail.com
IslamSeries.org

If you wish to join Steve Kirby’s distribution list, please sign up at this link: http://eepurl.com/c59_Zv

***

Also see the United West’s Webinars:

Mosques playlist:

***

Sharia Crime Stoppers Webinar, Week 1: THE TRAINING PURGE AND PLAGUE OF SELF-CENSORSHIP:

***

Sharia Crime Stoppers Webinar, Week 2: THE CURRENT THREAT:

***

Sharia Crime Stoppers Webinar, Week 3: SHAR’IA LAW AND WOMEN: