At FrontPage today I discuss the disturbing implications of the new UN resolution condemning defamation of religions:
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, has succeeded in pushing through the UN a resolution condemning the “defamation of religions.” That’s “religions,” not “religion” – yet according to Cybercast News Service, “although the resolution refers to defamation of ‘religions,’ Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.” The OIC has been pushing hard for such a measure ever since cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten late in 2005.The resolution denounces “laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration.” Muslims, it says, have suffered from “ethnic and religious profiling...in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.” This is the fault, in part, of “the negative projection of Islam in the media.” The UN voices its “deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
Such statements betray the assumption that any association of Islam with violence and terrorism is entirely the fault of non-Muslims. The fact that Muslims themselves routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact we are not supposed to notice -- and indeed, if the sponsors of this resolution had their way, we would not be allowed to notice.This UN resolution is part of an ongoing effort. Several weeks ago, the OIC’s secretary-general, a Turkish historian named Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, was one of the speakers at the International Islamophobia Conference held in Istanbul. Ihsanoglu, according to CNS, denounced freedom of speech “as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.”
Some of the world’s leading lights on Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, also spoke at the conference: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister and advocate of political Islam; Iqbal Sacranie of the CAIR-like Muslim Council of Britain; Saudi-funded academic John Esposito of Georgetown University; Karen Armstrong, the renowned dhimmi author; Louay Safi of the unindicted co-conspirator ISNA; Lord Nazim Ahmed, the British Muslim peer; Professor Norman Finkelstein, late of DePaul; the notoriously slick “Muslim Martin Luther” Tariq Ramadan, who is not allowed into the U.S.; the American neo-Nazi William Baker, who has addressed Muslim audiences in the U.S.; and many, many others.
Surprise of surprises, these assembled dignitaries discovered that “Islamophobia” is a serious, serious problem, that must be addressed at the government level. Of course, attacks on innocent civilians are never justified. Louts, thugs and vigilantes have no excuse, and anyone who targets random Muslims and commits violence against them deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, however, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to Ihsanoglu or anyone else at this Conference that Muslims might done anything to provoke this rise in “Islamophobia,” if there has been such a rise, or that they can do anything themselves to eradicate it. No one seems to have realized how easy it would be to stamp out “Islamophobia” once and for all. Yet it could be done in a trice. If Muslims really wanted to end “Islamophobia” and the “defamation of religions” instantaneously, here’s how they can do it:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just “terrorism,” as many Islamic groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have done many times in the past, but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims did those five things, voila! There will be no more “defamation” of Islam. But instead, this UN resolution is just the latest example of the evasion of responsibility and finger-pointing that we have seen from Islamic groups since 9/11 and before that. If a Muslim commits an act of violence and justifies it by reference to Islamic texts and teachings, it’s the fault of non-Muslims – either because they oppress Muslims, or because they dare to take note of the connection the perpetrator made between Islam and his act of violence.
This evasion and denial should end. Government and law enforcement officials in the West should make sure it ends, by demanding that Islamic groups in the West be transparent and cooperative with anti-terror efforts. But this UN resolution only emphasizes that the movement is all in the other direction. We may only hope that this latest iteration of the Islamic jihad can be defeated before it becomes a crime to do so.
"The UN voices its “deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
Geee, I dont why anyone would ever get that impression.
"The UN voices its “deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”
That's one of the most blatant lies I have ever read.
What, these UN people think we're stupid or something?
Here's a site some JW's might be interested in: "christianpersecution.info"
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
Regardless of what the nitwit dhimmis in the UN say, Islam's war against non-Muslims will continue and more and more people will make the correct connection between Islam and terror. No matter how many fingers they stick in the wall, the wall is crumbling and the truth will be evident. Hopefully enough will wise up soon enough to defeat the Jihad.
...The resolution denounces “laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration.”...
They just dug their own grave.
Under that resolution prosecution of Jews and Christians is prohibited.
They're going on a counter offensive too, Robert, claiming Christianity as a violent religion and its ridiculous caricature of Luke's gospel.
I downloaded this from the conference's web-site, an abstact of a paper by a chap called Yusuf Suicmez.
'ABSTRACT
The roots of Islamophobia in Sacred Books and Ancient Traditions
Dr. Yusuf Suiçmez
Near East University, TRNC
As it is known the legacy of Islam and Christianity left their signs on both East and West cultures. In the recent years Islamophobia has become a topic of increasing sociological and political importance. But it is not a new concept; it has its roots in sacred books and traditions. When we look to the Bible we can find many verses which impose radicalism and hostility toward non-Christians like: "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Mat 10:34)`. Another version of this verse is: "Do you think that I came to give peace on the earth? Not at all, I say to you, but rather division! (Luk 12:51).
With the coming of Islam, some Christian communities immediately reacted to the perceived threat to Christian doctrine, and the earliest Oriental works of Christian apologetic and anti-Islamic polemic date from the seventh century. John of Damascus (c.675-4:.750), who is in many ways the founder of the Christian tradition, ridiculed the Muslim claim to Abrahamic ancestry, by explaining that the Arabs were called 'Saracens' because they were 'empty of Sarah', and 'Hagarenes' because they were 'the bastard descendants of the slave-girl Hagar'. Similarly, he dismissed Islamic doctrine as no more than a hotchpotch, culled from the Old and New Testaments by the pseudo-prophet Muhammad, with assistance from an Aryan monk. This aggressive approach reached a climax in the famous Apology attributed to al-Kindî, which probably dates from the early tenth century, in which Islam is portrayed as the law of Satan, and Muhammad as an idolatrous libertine.
From that time to this date, the dominant reaction of Christendom towards Islam remained violently xenophobic. The majority view was that Muslims were subhuman brutes, diabolically Inspired, and unworthy of the rights and considerations due to mankind. Most Europeans do not seem to have perceived, still less to have been uncomfortable with this contradiction. Pope Gregory VII could write to a Muslim ruler that they worshipped the same God, but, to a Christian audience, he would refer to Muslims as 'pagans'.
Christianity is a missionary religion and that missionary mostly based on teachings of The Bible. According to the Bible God promised Christ to put under his feet all those who are against him (Luk 20:42,43)”, Therefore for Christians the kingdom cannot be given up till all rule and government be cast down. So that while the world lasts, Jesus, as the Messiah and Mediator, must reign; and all human beings are properly his subjects, are under his government, and are accountable to him. So he is reigning now, and will continue to reign until he has conquered all his enemies. Those who oppose his high priesthood and sacrificial offering shall be defeated, routed, and confounded; and acknowledge, in their punishment, the supremacy of his power as universal and eternal King, who refused to receive him as their atoning and sanctifying Priest.
When we look to the origins of all these beliefs we can find its roots in The Bible and in its commentaries. According to the traditional Christianity and Judaism the property of Abraham was divided among the sons of his legitimate wives, the eldest son getting a larger portion than the rest. The Mosaic law made specific regulations regarding the transmission of real property, which are given in detail in the Bible. The Christians, after coming of Christ claimed that he became the “heir of all things” and his followers became heirs of the “promise,” “of righteousness,” “of the kingdom,” “of the world,” “of God,” “joint heirs” with Christ. The destiny of those who oppose these beliefs determined in another verse: `But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me (Luk 19:27)`. According to Adam Clark, this verse refers to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.
The concept of the enemies of God is familiar in pre-classical and classical antiquity, and in both the Old and New Testaments as well as in the Qur'an. So we can find some Quranic verses which imposes hostility to non-Muslims as well. But as Spencer mentioned that Christendom has gotten a bad name for its treatment of non-Christians, Islam’s reputation in this regard is not so bleak. Bernard Lewis acknowledges that the Muslim record of tolerance is poorer than that of the modern, secular West, but he asserts that Muslim regimes historically have far surpassed their Christian counterparts on this score. "There is nothing in Islamic history," he says, "to compare with the Spanish expulsion of Jews and Muslims, the Inquisition, the Auto-Da-Fé's (Portuguese, “act of faith”), the wars of religion, not to speak of more recent crimes of commission and acquiescence."
One of the most common charges against Christianity is that it stimulates believers to kill and torture in the name of their creed—either in order to spread Christianity to others or to keep coreligionists in line when they show signs of straying from the faith. Christians have been so sure that they and they alone possessed the truth, and so determined to "save" the rest of humanity, willing or not, that they have waded joyfully through pools of blood in their effort to proselytize. This violence commenced against pagans in the Roman Empire and achieved its greatest excess in such sanguinary exercises as the Crusades. Christianity is, in short, an inherently militant religion—a religion of war.
Those like Richard Hawkins who assert that "religion causes wars" have some truth on their side. But what they neglect to announce with equal fervor is that religion also prevents wars. The question is, which effect is greater? Is religion more or less dangerous than irreligion, and is Christianity more or less dangerous than its alter¬natives?
Harvey's view is commonplace—in the news media and pop¬ular culture, certainly, but even among scientists and scholars. "Religious fanatics are the worst fanatics," insists Garry Wills. "More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world," maintains Gore Vidal. "Violence is authorized by religion because religion is inherently absolutist in the type of authoritative claims it makes and in the all-encompassing nature of its demands upon its followers," argues Brian K. Smith in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. At the national prayer breakfast in February 1999, President Bill Clinton spoke solemnly about the religious roots of Nazi Philosophy as he understood them. `Throughout history`, the President said, `People have prayed to God to aid them in war. I do believe that even thought Adolf Hitler preached a perverted form of Christianity, God did not want him to prevail`. In 1997 the Roman Catholic Church finally said it was sorry for collaborating with Nazis in World War II. It is known fact that the Church in addition to participating in violence, they justified such violence during history.
As a result we can say that, what is going on today has its roots in sacred books and history. Being unaware of this reality, we can not comprehend the issues of today’s events and we can not find real solutions.'
I do hope some intelligent groups make representation to the UN under this new policy against some of the blatantly defamatory writing of prominent muslims and Islamic governments regarding other religions. This may turn out to be a very beneficial piece of legislation if the international community responds properly.
to defeat the Jihad.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at January 3, 2008 9:41 AM
Speaking of, Proud Infidel, I put one of the "Defeat JIHAD/Jihad Watch.org" stickers that I ordered from this site on the back of my new silver Honda CRV. Oh, it looks so good!
If anyone happens to see me, honk and we'll go out for coffee, discuss how to defeat the Jihad.
Darcy, I'm guessing we live about 750 miles from each other based on past exchanges, but I have some ideas put together on defeating the jihad.
http://foehammer.net/2007/06/anvil-spotlight-project-samson.html
http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/08/vulnerable-mecca.html
When I think of "negative projections of Islam", the first things that come to mind aren't laws and measures designed to protect free people and keep them free from Muslim attacks. "Negative projections of Islam" put me more in mind of the psychotic way Muslims attack us, and then cynically twist the facts and attempt to portray us as the attackers, and themselves as the only true victims of their attacks. It is detestable. And they did it nearly universally after 9/11, and have continued to do it in virtually every other Islamic attack against us ever since. They even blame us for the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq, whwn they know full well that it was their fellow Muslims who conducted the deliberate slaughter, but to muslims ot's more important to blame the infidels than to adhere to the truth. It was this psychotic and poisonous trait of Muslims and Islam, as much as any other thing, that forced me to delve into that sewer labelled Islamic "thought" and "belief" underpinning all the gore and hatred spewing from them like a fountain of necrosing filth.
In another sense, "negative projections of Islam" also make me think of feces and poisonous chemicals laced with ball bearings, nuts and bolts, scrap metal, and flying body parts all turned into lethal (and negative) projectiles of Islam, fashioned by pious Muslims, paid for by pious Muslims, worn by pious Muslims, and detonated by pious Muslims to inculcate terror, to cause mass murder and mass casualties, and thus to further the cancerous projection of Islam into the world.
"Islamophobe" - an Infidel who has read the Qur'an and realizes the implications in it.
Okay, so can Jews go to this group and ask that all anti-Semitic references in the Quran and Hadith be roundedly condemned, and their removal demanded from the OIC? Can Christians complain about the references to Jesus in these books, and how they blaspheme the name of Christ? Can Hindus and Buddhists demand that 9:5 and similar verses be deleted from the Quran?
Oh, and follow this up with a threat of serious action (aid, sending minority protection troops to Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Malaysia) to Islamic countries that continue to descecrate and destroy temples of other religions.
How about it, UNHRC?
Since when is non-acceptance of aggression a crime. Yusuf Sucmez is complaining about attitudes of Christianity, but the fact is that the Christian Holy Books do not prophess hostility towards islam by name, while muslim "holy" texts openly and by name reject Christianity. Aggression has come on our part as a consequence of INTERPRETATION, whereas in islam it is demanded of heir faithful in OPEN TEXT.
However this is irrelevant, since the issue at hand is not comparison of religions, but the fact that in countries of Judeo-Christian tradition, there is fear and rejection of islam. Well this is not a crime or even a bad thing. People have the right (and obligation)to react to a percieved threat. It is normal human behaviour. We are only trying to build a excellent society, not claiming that it is already finalized. However this society is the fruit of the current public contract, the working solution while no one was trying to replace the result of public effort with sharia. We have the right and the historic obligation to reject sharia completely and to take the necessary measures to prevent it in the future. Neither our faith, nor our philosophy, nor anything else in our civilization compels us to accept sharia. We have no duty to accept islam. In the cliche about "making-enemies-out-of-one-point-something-bilion-muslims" our rejection of sharia and islam is our only fault. Meanwhile all the bilions of non-muslims have been rejected by islam for 14 centuries as, in one or another sence, "kafirun".
Briefly, we have the right to be islamophobic. We have the right to act upon it, to change our laws, our policies, our attitudes. UN (also created without any islamic effort), or any other globalist institution can not dictate the thinking of individuals or censor their political views. People will percieve other individuals or groups the way their judgment and common sense dictates, not in compliance with the orders of any UN voting block. Resolutions against common sense will only make this stolen tool of international pressure (UN) useless for the islamists.
So the UN, errr, I mean the OIC, well six in one 1/2 dozen in the other. It passed a resolution. Yipee. Hoorah.(monotone) Shall it be added to the list of ignored resolutions? When was the last time the UN had a resolution with teeth, has it ever? Seems only resolutions from the Security Council(what a misnomer) have ever had teeth. And then rather infrequently, good or bad. The UN is nothing but a giant soapbox organization that wastes billions on worhtless resolutions and "humanitarian" missions. At this point it only serves to illustrate the inability of humanity to actually cooperate for the greater good. Not to mention to further prove just how closed minded islam is.
Infidel pride:
'Okay, so can Jews go to this group and ask that all anti-Semitic references in the Quran and Hadith be roundedly condemned, and their removal demanded from the OIC? Can Christians complain about the references to Jesus in these books, and how they blaspheme the name of Christ? Can Hindus and Buddhists demand that 9:5 and similar verses be deleted from the Quran?'
That's what I wondered too. I couldn't figure out whether they'd been incredibly clever or incredibly stupid. Still thinking about it.
Clever: Because Islam calls itself a religion. Therefore its defamation is 'religious' so you can't defame their defamation; Catch 22, if you see what I mean.
Stpid: Because Christians and Jews face discrimination on the grounds of religion in Muslim countries, so, de facto, they've scored an own goal as this resolution could be used by minorities everywhere to counter Islam's bullying.
It only reinforces the conclusion that religion cannot ever be placed above criticism.
How does one 'defame' anyway? What does 'defame' mean? That's a weasely word for a kick-off.
It would appear to mean something along the lines of 'cause to have a diminished reputation'.
Well under sharia, defamation occurs if the recipient dislikes what was said. Even if it is the truth. Hence the ease at which muslims are offended. Being Roman Catholic there have been much said that I dislike, yet to date I have not burned cars, set off explosives, filed frivolous lawsuits, etc. This is another attempt by muslims to codify sharia into another entities law. Now the insidious part is that it is not a centralized attempt, but rather a decentralized attempt by various groups acting on their own to achieve the ultimate goal. The OIC is a joke, and has made the UN into a joke. The desire is for some foolish western government to adopt the UN resolution as it's own law. In the US this is harder, not impossible, because of the Constitution, which is why it's imperative to elect officials who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Sharia by it's very nature is a complete anathema to the Constitution, however as long as we elect multi-culturalists we endanger the very document that has served us so well. Time to start withholding funds again from the UN.
Don't like the UN? Please consider becoming a member of the national Rifle Association. The NRA has consistently (and successfully) fought against the machinations of the United Nations aimed at disarming private citizens.
The resolution denounces “laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration.”
So that must mean Muslims object to:
- laws that prohibit the building of new churches in Muslim-majority countries
- the prohibition of the Bible in Saudi Arabia
- the absence of non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina
- imposition of the jizya on people simply because they are non-Muslim
These and many other sanctions surely can be lumped under "security". After all, the Islamic societies are worried about a cultural invasion.
Darcy:
I don't have a "Defeat Jihad" bumper sticker but I do have the "Defeat Jihad" t-shirt. It has stimulated many interesting debates with the clueless who believe Islam is a religion of peace.
I try to talk about it every chance I get. It's the biggest issue the world faces today.
Hi Kevin,
'Well under sharia, defamation occurs if the recipient dislikes what was said. Even if it is the truth.'
International lawyers would thus have a field day contesting what does and does not constitute 'defamation'. It is clear from our discussion so far, that, as in much of 'law' it is culture-specific. So which culture???
Since there is not yet (!) a global culture on which there is universal consensus, this word 'defamation' and this resolution is a minefield which would be unworkable in practice.
Unless dhimmis kowtow, of course.
Darcy:
I don't have a "Defeat Jihad" bumper sticker but I do have the "Defeat Jihad" t-shirt. It has stimulated many interesting debates with the clueless who believe Islam is a religion of peace.
I try to talk about it every chance I get. It's the biggest issue the world faces today.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at January 3, 2008 2:40 PM
Oh Yes, it is "the biggest issue the world faces today."
No doubt. Agreed. We have GOT to stop Islam.
Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, and ... Robert Spencer -
Please, stop the march of Islam in the early 21st century.
I really *do* like the idea of using their own resolution against their own practices of defaming and discriminating against other religions.
On the other hand, I really do *not* like this kind of "hate crime" legislation and mindset.
Hmmmm.
United Nations, has succeeded in pushing through the UN a resolution condemning the “defamation of religions.”
Muslims want to be free to riot, murder and rape in the name of Islam when they get offended and they UN wants to help guarantee this right. The UN needs to ask if it is seeking to condemn the defamation of religion or if it is just giving in to the terrorists.
The UN, a place where Muslims go to enjoy the rotten attributes of the West.
It would be Ironic if the Entertainment Industry refused service to these Dignitaries on the grounds that it violates their Religion.
Hell may freeze over first but it is a wonderful thought.
It is time for the Tenth Crusade Movement.
For a model, the Tenth Crusade Movement should mimic what the Kosovo Muslims have been and are doing to the Serbs.
Islamophobes, arise!
Sounds like we need another "Boston Tea party", in the harbor of N.Y., within sight of the U.N.