When I followed the link, I found an article dated May 24 and titled "Islamic Nations Praise Obama’s Outreach and U.S. Plans to Close ‘Islamophobia Prison’ at Guantanamo".
It appears that the source of the guff is the OIC's annual Islamophobia Report. I confess that I had only skimmed it, without giving it close attention. The report is a 74 page pdf file.
The first provocative quote comes from page 27 of the report.
Defamation of Islam as well as personalities and symbols sacred to Islam and Muslims as well as other religions is a matter of grave concern to the OIC.
As if they are poised on the edge of the grave, ready to fall in. Muslim rulers are concerned about criticism of Islam because they know that that the cult is false, contrived for a mercenary purpose, contrary to right religion, logic and human rights. If Islam is fully exposed, resulting in mass apostasy, their satrapies and their lives would be at risk.
Gratuitous inclusion of personalities sacred to other religions adds immeasurably to the insult. Islam denies the paternity, deity, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To cap it off, Islam co-opts Jesus as a genocidal warlord who will "fight the people for the cause of Islam". When Islam points a finger at their critics, four fingers point back at Islam.
On page 27, they expose their intentions.
OIC believes that the International Human Rights Law is not static but evolutionary in nature.
The existing international legal infrastructure, therefore, needs to be evaluated and evolved in
the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.
The existing international legal infrastructure, therefore, needs to be evaluated and evolved in
the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.
How can immunity from criticism for Islam be a human right? Human rights apply to individuals, not to groups; not to ideologies. Phobia implies irrational fear. Is it irrational to fear a war cult that has slaughtered 270*106 people in the last 1387 years?
The OIC also appeals to argumentum ad numerum, a logical fallacy.
The safe-passage of the resolution, voted by a majority of states beyond the OIC membership, at each of the three venues
lends international legitimacy to the concept of defamation of religions.
lends international legitimacy to the concept of defamation of religions.
Examine the recent trend in HRC votes on the annual resolutions. If the number of votes conferred legitimacy, it would seem to be declining.
Taking on Islamophobia from another angle, they corrupt our language.
It is indeed a contemporary form of racism whereby the faith and beliefs of
Muslims are denigrated and demonized with all that it entails in terms of adverse impact on
their dignity and identity.
Muslims are denigrated and demonized with all that it entails in terms of adverse impact on
their dignity and identity.
Islam is a war cult, a predatory way of life, not a race. It originated in Arabia, but was spread by the sword into Africa, Asia and Europe. Our objection to Islam is not based on race, it is based on Islam's assertion of a divine right and mandate to rape, pillage, plunder and enslave us until we join them. For the doubters & dissenters, I offer a piece of evidence similar to the barbarian response to Jefferson & Adams when they asked by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked us.
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386
Take a look at what they say on page 15 about our government's policy.
At the policy level – with more substantive implications in terms of the international discourse
on combating Islamophobia – the criticism leveled by the US Administration on the OIC
proposed legally binding instrument was not in line with the expectations raised by promise of
engagement in the Cairo speech by President Obama. In October 26, 2009 the U.S. State
Department released its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. It was critical of what
it said were international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of
religion, criticizing the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for pushing such antidefamation
measures in U.N. bodies. It said the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by
the OIC would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded
in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech. In its
Executive Summary10, the Report stated: “…the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to
religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past
decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)…has worked through the United Nations
(UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions"…the United States…do not agree with the
"defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and
expression.”
A positive response by the US to the OIC’s call for engagement towards evaluating and evolving
norms towards combating Islamophobia – with particular reference to defamation of religions –
would constitute a positive step forward in terms of backing President Obama’s words with
action.
on combating Islamophobia – the criticism leveled by the US Administration on the OIC
proposed legally binding instrument was not in line with the expectations raised by promise of
engagement in the Cairo speech by President Obama. In October 26, 2009 the U.S. State
Department released its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. It was critical of what
it said were international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of
religion, criticizing the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for pushing such antidefamation
measures in U.N. bodies. It said the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by
the OIC would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded
in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech. In its
Executive Summary10, the Report stated: “…the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to
religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past
decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)…has worked through the United Nations
(UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions"…the United States…do not agree with the
"defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and
expression.”
A positive response by the US to the OIC’s call for engagement towards evaluating and evolving
norms towards combating Islamophobia – with particular reference to defamation of religions –
would constitute a positive step forward in terms of backing President Obama’s words with
action.
It appears that President Obama's obeisance created false expectations. Our Constitution forbids the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. The reason for that amendment should be obvious to everyone. Free speech is necessary to preserve freedom. We must be able to criticize corrupt or ineffective government. We must be free to criticize proposed legislation. We must also be free to identify and discuss threats to our lives and liberties.
Islam is a real, proximate and continuing existential threat. An Islamic attack on our soil nine years ago killed 3000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic loss. Because of our First Amendment, we can not be arrested, fined and imprisoned for revealing the damnable doctrines of Islam. We need to preserve our First Amendment rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment