In the wake of negative publicity over two high level assassinations in Pakistan, the OIC switched tactics, adopting a style suggested by Article 19 and other NGOs. This new style replaces the 'defamation of Islam' concept with 'negative stereotyping', 'stigmatization', 'discrimination' & 'incitement to violence' against 'persons' based on their religion.
If anyone can find a significant difference between 'defamation' and 'negative stereotyping', please post it in the comments.
Recall what Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders which put the Qur'anic imperatives and Islamic actions side by side for easy comparison. Ban said it was 'hate speech' & "incitemen'; that the right of free expression was not involved.
Whenever we bring up the fact that Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal conquest featuring terrorism as a victorious battle tactic or the fact that its 52 year old founder consumated marriage to 9 year old Aisha, we will be accused of 'negative stereotyping' and 'inciting' 'hatred' & 'violence'. The name has changed, the strategy has not: cut the watchdog's throat to prevent him from warning of impending danger.
On March 24, the Human Rights Council passed two resolutions by acclamation:
http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/combating_intolerance_neg_steretyping.pdf
http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/A_HRC_16_L.10.pdf
My analysis of those resolutions is in these blog posts:
Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!
Article 19 & SCIRI hail those resolutions as a great victory. In fact they represent a tragic defeat for truth, justice & liberty. They represent victory of al-Taqiyya over truth. A skunk dyed solid color still stinks. A rattlesnake with its rattles cut off remains deadly. These resolutions continue the outrageous demand that Islamic blasphemy law be imposed upon us, making these blog poswts illegal.
If you have any doubts about this fatal fact, consider the statement of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, concerning International Judge the Koran Day. Here are some highlights.
- “the worst example of extremism”
- need for a normative approach to discourage such practices
- Prof. Ihsanoglu urged the international political elite to take the necessary steps with a view to avoiding recurrence of such acts of extremism that could inflame religious sentiments with grave repercussions towards interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security and stability.
Those are code phrases for international and national blasphemy laws, backed up by intimidating threats of riot and war.
The whole ball of feces is predicated upon two false premises:- "Islam is a religion of peace" and an "equally valid path to God".
- "Muslims have a right to practice Islam".
In fact, Islam is jihad. Jihad is offensive warfare. Jihad is established as the 'original religion' of Islam; commerce & agriculture are stipulated as alternatives to jihad. Abandoning jihad for commerce or agriculture is cursed by Allah.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
Therefore, the right to practice Islam includes a right and demonic mandate to conquer us. It is not possible for such an egregious evil to be a right! If we have a right to live, secure in our persons, property and liberty, then there is no right to practice manifest and propagate Islam. Choose one, the two can not coexist.
No comments:
Post a Comment