What is the OSCE?

CJR: Even as the OSCE proceedings were going on, Donald Trump was coerced into signing an anti-hate Resolution aimed at right wing groups and not left wing such as Antifa. And now there is a report that Hillary Clinton funded Antifa!

Gates of Vienna, Sept. 17, 2017:

In the interventions by Bashy Quraishy and Henrik Clausen, you’ve just seen the Yin and Yang of the OSCE Human Dimension conference in Warsaw. Yet interventions like Mr. Clausen’s consistently earned the rebuke of the moderators, while those like Mr. Quraishy’s did not.

What’s going on? What has happened to the OSCE?

In the video below, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Clare Lopez explain the way in which the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been subverted by the Red-Green Alliance and turned into an Inquisitor designed to hunt down and stamp out “hate speech” wherever it may be found.

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

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

***

Clare Lopez on Civil Liberties and Natural Rights

The following video shows the intervention read by Clare Lopez, representing the Center for Security Policy, at OSCE Warsaw today, September 14, 2017, during Session 6, “Fundamental Freedoms, Including Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion, or Belief”.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below is the prepared text for Ms. Lopez’ intervention:

America’s Founding Fathers understood that tyranny takes hold when men allow governments or religious systems to usurp the rights of the individual unto themselves

For this reason, they enshrined freedoms of belief, conscience & speech in 1st Amendment of our Constitution

These principles & these freedoms are Judeo-Christian-based, first articulated among the brilliant thinkers of the Enlightenment in Europe — although their roots trace back to Athens, Rome & Jerusalem

They derive from the revolutionary idea that the individual is the key pillar of society — not the clan, or tribe, or a religious belief system

The individual human being is entitled to these rights & freedoms because the laws of nature — which are knowable thru human reason — endow each & every person – men women equally — w/human dignity & the right to live free

Freedom of speech is among the most essential of our human liberties & one that gives voice & meaning to all the others – especially freedom of conscience & belief

Islam doesn’t have such beliefs or freedoms — there’s no such thing as ‘freedom of speech’ or belief articulated in Islamic Law (shariah)

Instead there is the “Law of Slander” — which defines ‘slander’ as anything that a Muslim would dislike — including the truth

Slander under shariah can carry the death penalty – indeed the Sira & hadiths tell us that some of the first assassinations ordered by Muhammad were precisely against poets for writing verses that he found insulting – apostasy from Islam likewise is a capital crime

I refer to the Council of Europe report from October 2016 on the ‘Compatibility of Sharia law with the European Convention on Human Rights: can States Parties to the Convention be signatories of the ‘Cairo Declaration’?

And I suggest the answer is ‘No.’ A government or system that defines itself as liberal, Western & democratic does not impose restrictions on free speech to shield itself from criticism – much less impose a death penalty for belief or lack of belief

We of Western Civilization dignify the individual by permitting all speech, no matter how we dislike it, if it is not explicitly inciting to immediate violence – and all beliefs or lack of belief

And so I recommend for the ODIHR 2017: Let us leave here today, renewed & inspired to reject liberty-crushing concepts like ‘hate speech’ & death penalties for religious beliefs or rejection of belief & instead committed to defend freedoms of belief, conscience & speech & all the principles of liberty we hold so dear.

CAIR Forms an Outpost at Georgetown U

American Thinker, by Andrew Harrod, Sept. 3, 2017:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “will always hold a very, very special place in my heart until the day I die,” declared Arsalan Iftikhar on April 1 at CAIR-Oklahoma’s annual awards banquet in Oklahoma City.  The commentator’s affection for the Hamas-derived, Islamist CAIR has now landed him a position at Georgetown University’s fount of Islamist propaganda, the anti-“Islamophobia” Bridge Initiative.

Iftikhar will fit right in at Bridge, a “multi-year research project” of Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).  Bridge’s claim “to fulfill Thomas Jefferson’s dream of a ‘well-informed citizenry'” is laughable to anyone familiar with ACMCU’s Potemkin village of academic integrity.  Past ACMCU speakers have included 9/11 Truthers, while the center disinvited an Egyptian neo-Nazi only after public outcry.

With Iftikhar’s hire, Bridge/ACMCU becomes effectively a branch of CAIR, as this self-proclaimed “Muslim Guy” worked with CAIR beginning in 2000 while in law school and then served as CAIR’s national legal director until 2007.  At CAIR he formed relationships with other organizational leaders, including his fellow banquet speaker and “dear brother” Hassan Shibly, a radical Israel-hater and Hamas- and Hezb’allah-supporter.  Such are the less than pacific associations of Iftikhar, a “proud American Muslim pacifist.”

Reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s savvy spokesman Vladimer Pozner, Iftikhar has functioned as an Islamism apologist whose sophistic excuses mask threats with a benign visage.  He strains to suggest that disproportionate attention to terrorism exaggerates jihadist violence, which he claims are merely isolated acts.  There is a “double standard that exists today where terrorism only applies to when brown Muslim men commit an act of mass murder,” he stated at a 2016 Newseum panel in Washington, D.C.

Thus, Iftikhar asserted without evidence that Robert Dear, a bizarre man who killed three in a 2015 assault on a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic and was later declared incompetent at trial, had a “Christianist ideology.”  Iftikhar himself had earlier written that Dear was “deranged,” even while wondering why his crime “was never called Christian terrorism or domestic terrorism.”  Similarly, following the 2015 Paris Charlie Hebdo jihadist massacre, Iftikhar, speaking to CNN’s Don Lemon, employed the canard that the Ku Klux Klan is a “Christianist organization.”  He also falsely claimed that 2011 Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik described himself in his deranged 15,000-word manifesto as a “soldier of Christianity” while omitting that Breivik hoped to enlist “Christian atheists” in his cause.

By contrast, Iftikhar sought to disabuse Lemon of any association of Islam with the Charlie Hebdo killings, stating that “bringing religion into it at all is actually serving the purposes of the terrorists.”  Despite numerous worldwide precedents of lethal Islamic blasphemy doctrines, he laughably claimed that the killings were “against any normative, mainstream teaching of Islam” and involved “irreligious criminals.”  Iftikhar maintained that Islam’s seventh-century prophet Muhammad “was attacked and defamed many times in his life and there was not one time that he told people to take retribution,” notwithstanding contrary Islamic accounts.

Iftikhar’s whitewashes extend beyond Charlie Hebdo.  To Lemon’s citation of a surveyed sixteen percent of French citizens sympathizing with the genocidal Islamic State, Iftikhar contradictorily claimed that “you can have sympathy for an ideology and not support the mass murder of people.”  He has previously praised the radical Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi as “one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt” while denying his documented support for suicide bombing.

Furthermore, Iftikhar utilized the ubiquitous, deceptive, out-of-context interpretation of Quran 5:32 to claim that “murder has no religion” in the wake of the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas jihadist massacre.  Responding to the 2014 abduction of Nigerian Christian girls by the jihadist group Boko Haram, he asked, “Boko Haram, have you read the Quran lately?” and asserted that Islam has no well documented doctrine of sex slavery (yet see here and here).  His ignorance would surprise his Bridge Initiative Steering Committee colleague, Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown, who has scandalously justified Islam’s history of sex slavery.

Iftikhar’s biases encompass Israel, against which he made the usual baseless charges of “war crimes” during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead Gaza military campaign.  He equivocated while perfunctorily condemning the Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza that precipitated Cast Lead: “This catastrophic strategic blunder should bring utter shame upon the house of Hamas for needlessly picking a fight with ‘the neighborhood bully.'”

Nothing can top Iftikhar’s racist derision of former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.  He “might be trying to scrub some of the brown off of his skin as he runs to the right in a Republican presidential exploratory bid,” Iftikhar ranted in a statement that got him banned from MSNBC.  Meanwhile, he has impugned conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer for the completely fact-based “ridiculous assertion” that “no one is starving in Gaza.”

Iftikhar adds a trophy to the Bridge/ACMCU rogue’s gallery of Islamism’s “honor brigade.”  ACMCU’s director, the humorless Brown, is a genuine Islamist surrounded by fellow travelers among his Georgetown professor colleagues, such as Jocelyne CesariJohn Esposito, and Tamara Sonn.  ACMCU is thereby transforming from a nest of apologists for Islamists worldwide to an active cell of Muslim Brotherhood-connected apparatchiks.

In Georgetown, CAIR has secured a prized spot in the heart of the nation’s capital for exerting an outsized influence on lawmakers, policymakers, and the national media.  America’s national security will weaken proportionally.

Andrew E. Harrod is a Campus Watch Fellow, freelance researcher, and writer who holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School.  He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project.  Follow him on Twitter at @AEHarrod.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Calls Out the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Blasphemy Enforcement

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 24, 2017:

And that’s exactly what it is.

There’s been a consistent pattern of groups fighting “Islamophobia” including ex-Muslims and even Muslim liberals on their hit list. There’s a limited amount of fuss when it happens. And then it dies down again. But the real story is why it happens. It happens because the act of policing “Islamophobia” is really about enforcing Islamist agendas and their codes.

And like their ISIS cousins, the top priority of Islamists is purging Muslims for heresy and blasphemy. When the Southern Povert Law Center got into the Islamophobia business, it began enforcing blasphemy.

Now Ayaan Hirsi Ali challenges the corporations, like Apple, and George Clooney, for enforcing SPLC’s Islamophobia policing and the wilful blind eye that the group turns toward Islamism.

I am a black woman, a feminist and a former Muslim who has consistently opposed political violence. The price for expressing my beliefs has been high: I must travel with armed security at all times. ..

Yet the S.P.L.C. has the audacity to label me an “extremist,” including my name in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” that it published on its website last October.

In that guide, the S.P.L.C. claims that I am a “propagandist far outside the political mainstream” and warns journalists to avoid my “damaging misinformation.” These groundless smears are deeply offensive, as I have dedicated much of my adult life to calling out the true extremists: organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Yet you will look in vain for the S.P.L.C.’s “Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.” No such list exists…

Like neo-Nazis, Islamic extremists despise liberalism. They deny the equality of the sexes, justify wife-beating and, in some cases, even the enslavement of female unbelievers. The Islamic State and groups like it regularly murder gay people in the most heinous ways. Islamic extremists are also virulently anti-Semitic, like the Nazis before them. And like today’s American Nazis, they brandish swastikas, chant slurs and peddle conspiracy theories.

The terrible consequences of Islamic extremism are on display on a weekly basis around the world. In the days after Charlottesville, five men in Barcelona used a van and knives to kill 14 and injure scores of innocent people. Another Islamic extremist went on a stabbing rampage in Finland. In wealthy societies like the United States, most plots to kill in the name of Islamist supremacy are foiled. But poorer societies in the developing world lack the means to do that, which is why the majority of victims of the extremists are in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria….

It is not surprising that, when I point out such facts, I am viciously attacked and threatened by those who are dedicated to Islamic extremism. But it has always struck me as odd that so many supposed liberals in the West take their side rather than mine, as happened three years ago, when Brandeis University rescinded their offer to me of an honorary degree. I would have expected a civil-rights organization supposedly committed to justice to speak out against those who would oppress women, gays and people of other faiths. But the S.P.L.C. has nothing to say about Islamic extremists; only about their opponents.

They are only “supposed liberals”. Actual liberals don’t support

1. Beating people they disagree with

2. Domestic coups

3. Islamic theocracy

Leftists these days do. The left has made its dirty deal with Islamists. And is incapable of intelligently defending it. And the SPLC, which is absurdly sloppy, is even less capable of doing so. It’s simply going to double down on the “protecting Muslims” meme. In this case, that means protecting them from an ex-Muslim black woman. And shouting that they oppose hate.

And the corporations will go on virtue signaling because until they get a different signal from the left, donating to the SPLC is the “right thing” to do. And no amount of facts or argument will change their mind.

But it’s all a reminder that the Southern Poverty Law Center is in bed with Islamists. It’s allied with Islamic Supremacists and their hatred for women, gays and all non-Muslims. And when corporations fund the SPLC, they’re funding the suppression of Muslim and ex-Muslim critics of Islamism.

Also see:

The Term “Islamophobia” is Enemy Propaganda

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, June 7, 2017:

The global Jihadist movement relies heavily on information operations to advance their cause–to establish rule under sharia worldwide.

They have become very adept at conducting information operations, to the point that some experts have determined that they have information dominance over the West, and America’s bureaucratized countertterror apparatus in particular.

One of their key weapons in the information battle space is a term that has gained currency with the Left and the media in the West: Islamophobia.

Before we begin our commentary on the subject of Islamophobia, we must draw your attention to an excellent video on the subject just posted by the indispensable Robert Spencer of http://www.jihadwatch.com:

Spencer covers the history and use of the term Islamophobia with brevity and authority.

We’d like to focus a little more on the organization that hatched this misleading and outright damaging term.

Islamophobia was coined by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a northern Virginia-based Muslim Brotherhood think tank with a history of ties to terrorism. Here some facts about IIIT:

• IIIT was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization in the largest terrorism financing prosecution in US history, the US v the Holy Land Foundation.

• IIIT was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, a prosecution in which all defendants were convicted on all counts for providing material support to Jihadist terrorists. It was the intention of the Dallas US attorney’s office to prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators in that trial, but the then-new attorney general, Eric Holder shut it down.

• IIIT was a major financial supporter–the largest donor in fact–of the Islamic Committee for Palestine, a front group for the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Islamic Committee for Palestine was founded by Sami al-Arian, who was convicted on terrorism charges and deported. The organization itself was shut down by the US government.

• According to terrorism financing expert Matthew Levitt, “Tarik Hamdi, an IIIT employee, personally provided bin Laden with the battery for the satellite phone prosecutors at the New York trial of the East Africa Embassy bombers described at the time as the phone bin Laden and others will use to carry out their war against the United States.”

• IIIT employed Bashir Musa Nafi, one of the original founders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Nafi was deported in 1996.

What all of this adds up to is that the term Islamophobia was invented as a weapon of Jihadist propaganda.

So, when you see a journalist, blogger, television network or politician in the West start accusing people of Islamophobia, they are in fact parroting enemy propaganda, helping the terrorists with their overall war effort.

‘Islamophobia’ as Murder Weapon

PJ MEDIA, BY ROGER L SIMON, JUNE 5, 2017:

If you’re looking for what’s behind the killing and wounding of all those people in London last Saturday night, why it was able to happen in one of the most modern and powerful cities in the West, the cradle of many of the founding principles of the free world, I can tell you the depressing answer — Islamophobia.

Or, to be more precise, Islamophobiaphobia — fear of being called an Islamophobe.

As has occurred so many times before, so often that it has become, as Patrick Poole has shown us, all too predictable,  some of the culprits were “known wolves.” Friends and neighbors knew they had radical thoughts or worse.  In this instance they had known it for some time.  They even told the police about it, who had evidence, but nothing happened.  And not just because, as is well known, the UK is close to overwhelmed with such people. Difficult as that is, that is no excuse and no doubt could have been dealt with except…

There was a more powerful motivation to stop, to do nothing — Islamophobia.  No one wants to be accused of being a racist, after all. Oh, no. That’s humanity’s biggest faux pas — worse than pederasty. I mean these were nice people who played ping-pong with kids, right?  Well, maybe, but they were also religiously motivated and homicidal maniacs.  And worrying about being called an Islamophobe ended with people getting their throats cut.

So Islamophobia was effectively a murder weapon just as it was in San Bernardino, where people didn’t want to report the bomb-makers next door lest they offend someone (or get their own throats cut in the process). They saw something, but fear of being called an Islamophobe prevented them from saying something.

We think of  Islamophobia as something invented by CAIR or some similar Hamas-tainted organization, but, ironically, in reality it has its provenance in the UK. To quote someone… well… me, from page 74 of my most recent book:

Roughly at the same time (1997), the term Islamophobia was coined.  Commonplace as this neologism is today, it came through the back door via an obscure report by the Runnymede Trust, a left-wing British think tank.  Six years before 9/11 someone in that group thought to apply the phobia (irrational fear) suffix to Islam.  Whoever did it was something of an evil genius, equating criticism of Islam to a clinical neurosis.

So Islamophobia was a construct of the left.  That shouldn’t be a surprise. The alliance of the left with extreme Islamic causes is an old story.

Are we at a point when this could possibly break apart?  That Qatar — the great supporter of Hamas — is under fire from other Sunni powers because of its alliance with Iran is promising. We are at a moment when forces are beginning to spin in different directions for the first time in decades.  This is a propitious moment to discard Islamophobia once and for all.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt, at least at the leadership levels, probably have no use for it.  Islamophobia is being kept alive largely by an unlikely alliance of the liberal/left media in the U.S. and Europe coupled with the political parties they represent and the more reactionary forces of the Islamic world (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies).  Strange alliance indeed, but that is what has happened.  What next?  An alliance of the “American street” with the “Arab street”?  Saudi Arabia and Israel together against Iran?  That already seems to be happening.  Pretty soon the only people who will be promoting the nonsense of Islamophobia will be CNN and the mayor of London. Well, we can hope anyway.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning novelist, Academy Award-nominated screenwriter and co-founder of PJ Media.  His latest book is I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If  It Hasn’t Already.

***

***

Bazian Uses Islamist Convention to Push “Islamophobia” Scare

by John Rossomando
IPT News
May 5, 2017

University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian has made a career out of demonizing critics as Islamophobes and flipping the script, arguing jihad is not the problem, but its critics are. He accuses opponents of promoting a type of McCarthyism and a racist clash of civilizations against Muslims.

“…Islamophobia comes in as a way to rationalize a clash of civilizations, using cultural markers as a way of constructing difference,” Bazian said in a speech last month at the Muslim American Society’s  (MAS) joint conference with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) held in Baltimore. “Let me say the following: Cultural racism is another signpost for biological racism.”

Bazian’s anti-Semitism runs deep. As a San Francisco State University (SFSU) student in the late 1980s and early 1990s he campaigned against Hillel, the student Jewish organization. He allegedly participated in an assault on the SFSU campus newspaper, The Golden Gator, claiming it was filled with “Jewish spies,” a 2011 Campus Watch report said. Bazian also allegedly worked to prevent a Jewish student from being appointed to the Student Judicial Council. He also served as president of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), which was aligned with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Bazian has a long association with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to isolate Israel. He helped found Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in 2001 as an outgrowth of GUPS; SJP is known for its pro-Hamas stance and anti-Semitic acts such as disrupting an on-campus Holocaust remembrance event at Northwestern University. In recent years, Bazian has served as chairman of the national board of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). It is closely connected with groups that comprised the Muslim Brotherhood’s defunct anti-Israel network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. Bazian also raised money for KindHearts, a Hamas front whose assets were frozen by the U.S. government in 2006.

Bazian’s Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project that he founded in 2009 churns out academic papers through its Islamophobia Studies Journal that blames the West for terrorism. He also helped found Zaytuna College, the first Muslim liberal arts college in America.

For Bazian, screaming “Islamophobia” is a way to build a smokescreen against inconvenient truths when debating the facts about Islamist aggression.

Some in the Islamic community, such as California Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad, contend the entire concept of Islamophobia is about shirking responsibility.

“By declaring [Islamophobia], the number one threat to Islam and Muslims in the United States, we effectively bypass the central doctrines of self accountability, and moral fortitude; principles upon which our faith is founded,” Ahmad wrote in The Lotus Tree Blog in 2010. “The sooner we wake up and take an intrepid and honest look at ourselves, the better.”

Bazian’s hosts for his recent speech have their own ties to international Islamist movements.

Prosecutors describe MAS as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., and it has been alleged to have financial ties to Hamas. ICNA retains a strong spiritual connection with Islamist pioneer Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, founder of the radical South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. In his book Jihad in Islam, Maududi argues that Muslims should destroy “all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.” ICNA’s 2010 Member’s Hand Book advocates the “struggle for Iqamat-ad-Deen,” or the establishment of Islam in its totality, “in this land.”

In his MAS-ICNA remarks, Bazian specifically named Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes as drivers of the “Islamophobic industry” dedicated to preserving Israel’s interests.

Playing off the foundations of Islam, Bazian defined the “five pillars of Islamophobia” starting with the government’s “constant war on terrorism that defines it as a war on Islamic terrorism.” He misleadingly cited data to argue that Muslims are responsible for only 4 percent of terrorism in the United States and Europe. He did not cite a source for his data, but did note that it covered a period ending in 1995 – before al-Qaida, ISIS, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and other Islamist terrorist movements that have recruited westerners and attacked Western targets.

Other “pillars” Bazian mentioned include the counter-jihad movement, neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists. But Bazian’s emphasis on “Islamophobes” is to be expected. One cannot expect to attract funding for an Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project without concocting the frightening specter of “Islamophobes.”

Bazian similarly denounced Emerson, Pipes and Geller following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings for connecting the bombings to jihad before the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the attacks were identified.

“…[The] crime of the terrorist is immediate, while that of the Islamophobes is long-lasting, for it creates and impresses on our collective public mind the logic of hate and racism …,” Bazian wrote in an academic paper called “Boston Bombing, Islamophobia and Sudden Ignorance Syndrome.”

But this was no wild leap of logic. The pressure-cooker bombs used in Boston were just like those recommended by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s English language magazine, Inspire. Dhzokhar Tsarnaev later told investigators he and his brother, Tamerlan, got their idea for the bombs from the magazine.

In Bazian’s world, however, it’s Islamophobic and racist to connect violent and imperialistic interpretations of Islam to acts of terrorism today. The Tsarnaevs, indeed, were the bombers, he acknowledged. “But the Islamophobic machine committed crimes against our collective consciousness by exploiting the suffering and pain of our fellow citizens.”

Much of his MAS-ICNA speech was spent attacking Samuel Huntington’s 1993 essay, “The Clash of Civilizations?” which predicted global conflict would be driven more by cultural differences than ideology and economics.

Bazian dismisses this as a “clash of ignorance,” arguing that the past sins of white Western Christians are more important to discuss than jihadist terror.

“Bernard Lewis’ question about Islam of ‘What Went Wrong?’ should be asked in relation to European history with emphasis on the Inquisition, genocide of the Natives in the Americas, the European Trans-Atlantic slave trade, colonization, 8 Apartheid South Africa, WWI and WWII, with the good White Aryan Christian Europeans responsible for the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons against civilians recorded in history to this day,” Bazian wrote.

Then as now, Bazian charged that “Islamophobes” relished in a clash of civilizations.

“It’s interesting that repeated aggressions by Islamists, both violent and non-violent [including Bazian’s speech] don’t count for anything, while criticism of Islamists is used to say that the Bill of Rights is being rescinded,” Pipes told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “That’s highly untenable considering that we’re not the cause of jihad.”

Islamophobia has nothing to do with misunderstanding Islam or Muslims integrating into Western societies, Bazian said at the MAS-ICNA convention. It’s about protecting Western dominance over the rest of the world.

“So often [what] you get with debate and discussion, immediately the Islamophobes who jumps in – ‘well Islam is not a race.’ Well, again, race is a socially constructed category, but the directions of how people are racialized could be for a number of areas,” Bazian said. “You could be racialized because of your language; you could be racialized because of your skin tone; you could be racialized because of your religion.”

Bazian’s cultural racism concept is a flawed one, said American Islamic Forum for Democracy founder and President Zuhdi Jasser. Islam is a belief system. It cannot be treated as a monolithic entity  exempt from criticism.

“If you are going to believe that Islam cannot be debated and cannot be reformed, and cannot be changed, the bottom line is you have to make it into a racial identity,” Jasser said. “That’s why Islamists are wedded … to the idea of Islam as a single tribal identity that is defined by the leaders of that tribe who are imams, clerics or theocrats.”

Islamists then use this tribal identity to depict Christians, Israeli Jews and the West as the enemy, Jasser said.

Fellow Muslims also can be “Islamophobes” if they disagree with Bazian. That’s the word he used to slur Muslims who supported the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, which ended the Muslim Brotherhood’s brief rule. Presumably this included Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s most important clerical institution, who blessed Morsi’s ouster.

When it comes to aggressive clash of civilizations rhetoric coming from Islamists, Bazian turns a blind eye. He chose to write for UCLA’s newsmagazine Al-Talib in the late 1990s and early 2000s despite the fact that Al-Talib regularly featured pro-jihadist articles. For example, an article he wrote in the March 1999 issue appeared along with a piece praising Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini.

The July 1999 edition contained an editorial titled “Jihad in America” that criticized calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist. Bin Laden, it said, was a “freedom fighter” who spoke out against oppressors.

By that time, bin Laden had publicly declared war on the United States, “Jews and Crusaders.” That fatwa invoked the Quran to declare that killing Americans “an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…” The al-Qaida suicide bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania took place the year before Bazian’s Al-Talib article.

Bazian could have opted to stop writing for the newsmagazine after the pro-terrorist articles were published, yet he chose to submit articles in Al-Talib’s September 1999 issue and again in Al-Talib‘s March 2000 issue.

“I think he is a classical civilizational Islamist supremacist,” Jasser said, “meaning that until he is caught and exposed on various positions he’ll do whatever possible to advance the concept that where Muslims are a majority that an Islamic state is the best avenue for governance.”

Islamists love clash of civilizations rhetoric because they view the world in terms of the Land of Islam and the Land of War ruled by non-Muslims,  Jasser said.

Bazian’s effort to accuse “Islamophobes” of a racist clash of civilizations at the MAS-ICNA conference and on other occasions distracts from the Islamists’ stated desire to supplant Western civilization.

Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws

Gatestone Institute, by Khadija Khan, March 8, 2017:

  • Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.
  • People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.
  • Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.