And, natch, as "a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance."
Among the elements of this strategic plan:
■ “They should also make use of their good relations with Western countries to enact laws preventing the denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities”
■ "Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims."
"Forum calls for strategic plan to reach out to non-Muslims," by P.K. Abdul Ghafour for Arab News, December 4 (thanks to Paul):
JEDDAH: An international conference organized by the Muslim World League has called for a strategic plan to introduce Islam as a solution to major problems facing humanity and as a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance.The three-day conference, titled “Introducing Islam to non-Islamic countries: Reality and aspirations,” stressed that non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by Muslims.
Really? All of them? In this they run counter to the provisions of traditional Islamic law regarding the subjugated status of the dhimmis, as mandated by the Qur'anic injunction that they pay the jizya (poll tax) "with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (9:29).
"The subject peoples," [i.e., the dhimmis] according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, must "pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)" and "are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, 'Peace be with you']; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork . . . recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches." ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5).
"All of the rights"? Really? Is this a statement of reform? Somehow I doubt it, in light of their other statements -- particularly about restricting free speech (see below).
It said Muslim countries must introduce Islam to non-Muslim countries as part of efforts to improve foreign relations.
So this is avowedly a political effort, not solely a religious one.
“They should also make use of their good relations with Western countries to enact laws preventing the denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities,” said a final communiqué issued after the conference.
Ten to one they consider "denigration of Islam" to be any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. Why do I say that? Because we have seen it before. Here are four examples (one, two, three, four) of Islamic groups objecting to non-Muslims making accurate statements about Islam or Muhammad -- statements much like ones jihadists make without encountering serious opposition from their fellow Muslims.
The goal, in other words, is to silence non-Muslims regarding Islam, thus rendering us mute in the face of the global jihad. Mute and therefore defenseless.
The conferees stressed the need to produce Islamic TV programs in major world languages to introduce Islam to non-Muslims. They also urged Muslims to behave righteously with non-Muslims and understand their culture. “We should come up with innovative ideas to propagate the message of Islam, using the Internet and satellite channels,” it said.The conference stressed the need to produce special media programs to address non-Muslims and urged support for their social development programs. Permanent and temporary exhibitions must be held to reach out to people, and specialized centers and academic chairs should be established to defend Islam. [...]
There are already specialized centers and academic chairs established to defend Islam. See, most notoriously, John Esposito's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
The conference noted anti-Islam smear campaign was one of the major challenges facing Islamic preachers in non-Muslim countries and urged Muslims to address this problem with unity. Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims.
That is already happening as well. See the discussion of the Islamization of American public school textbooks in my book Stealth Jihad.
Blah blah blah. It's always the same, always about them and their precious feelings, about the unfairness of the world refusing to validate their exaggerated sense of self-importance, or to accord them the "respect" they feel they are owed but in reality do not deserve. Not one word about the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, only complaints that the victims of that violence have the temerity to report the facts. Screw'em.
The three-day conference, titled “Introducing Islam to non-Islamic countries: Reality and aspirations,” stressed that non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by Muslims.
A friend last night asked the common question, "Why do Saudis build church buildings in America, but not allow Christians to do the same in Saudi Arabia?"
My response was, "To them, their position is entirely logical. Islam is true, and other religions are false. It only makes sense that you would want to build mosques to spread the true religion, but forbid the building of churches to prevent the spread of false religion."
To which he replied, "I guess that is Saudi logic."
Note how carefully the article above was worded. It did not say "non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy full and unhindered right to practice their religion, whatever it might be". What it said was, "non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by Muslims". In other words, Muslims have the right to purchase the Quran at any bookstore, attend the mosque of their choice, and listen to Islamic broadcasts on radio and TV 24 hours a day if they want to. Non-Muslims should have this same right." It's all part of their logic.
In case anyone was confused...
A friend last night asked the common question, "Why do Saudis build MOSQUES in America, but not allow Christians to BUILD CHURCHES in Saudi Arabia?"
Please can I be un-introduced to Islam?
"We know what's good for you, just let us rule over you and hand over your weapons.."
S#*t, where did I hear that before?
From the article:
"Islam as a solution to major problems facing humanity and as a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance."
Because of this passage, I have filed the whole article in an electronics clipping file which I have titled 'Nonsense and Lies Department'.
The two hundred and seventy million (rough estimate) human souls butchered by Muslim jihadists on the bloodstained altar of the Arab god of war, in the name of Arab supremacy, over the course of 13 centuries of neverending jihad and mass enslavement and imperial oppression, say that the Muslim World League are damned, damnable liars.
As far as Islamic TV goes they already have Al-Jazeera - while watching the channel one night - there was a show on how best to spread Islam around the world.
I think what these OIC guys are so baffled about - is that in their own countries they have so much control over their people - their big question becomes how can we get control over westerners -
Through their kind of religious outreaches they have tried to bring the Christian clergy on board - while giving nothing in return [there is no effort to introduce freedom of religion to the Islamic world] but these Muslim leaders have found that the Christian clergy can't force people to go along with their scheme -- to get people to moderate their views on Islam -
So now they are trying other methods - like the UN ~{you know it is doomed to fail}~ for them it is how can they best extend their religious authority outside of the Islamic world - out into the west to control it as well.
A very strong picture comes to mind and that's to get off the oil - electric cars are a significant part of the answer here - let's get off the oil and significantly reduce the amount of money going into that part of the world
Then the reverse might/or is likely to happen - we can work on changing them - we can see that women have rights and that churches are erected and that one has the freedom to choose their religion in the Islamic world -
They are perhaps unknowingly building the structure - of their own demise - if they want to open relations - on how we should change with regards to Islam - that structure might easily be used to request that they release the stranglehold they have on their people's individual rights.
And, natch, as "a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance."
There are less and less people who are falling for that al-taqiyya crap anymore.
"Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims."
Yes, mustn't forget to teach the youth about how and when to beat, stone and crucify Shari'a offenders ... or the proper way to 'strike at the necks' of unbelievers.
It's the only way to keep the peace...
"...denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities"
Which "personalities" might those be, I wonder. Do they include the deceased Farfour the mouse? Ahmadinijad? bin Laden and his merry men? Adam Gadahn? John Walker Lynde? Mohammed Atta? Ayatollah grease-them-up-and-use-them-to-masturbate- Khomeini? Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali of "uncovered meat" fame?
No! None of these! Muhammed is the "personality" whose reputation they want to varnish and preserve.
"The conferees stressed the need to produce Islamic TV programs in major world languages to introduce Islam to non-Muslims".
Not while I have a DVR. Not while I have DVD's. Not while I have an abhorrence of both dubbing and subtitles. Not while I'm aware that the Muslims say one thing to the filthy Kaffur and something else to their gun clubs. Not until they pry my eyes open a la Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange.
Oh, and not while I still have control of the remote. ;)
'Note how carefully the article above was worded. It did not say "non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy full and unhindered right to practice their religion, whatever it might be". What it said was, "non-Muslims living in Islamic countries should enjoy all of the rights enjoyed by Muslims".
Posted by: staringattheview.blogspot.com
A very astute observation. In Islamic countries, Moslems have no right to: go to Christian churches or Hindu temples; to criticize Islam; to encourage people to leave Islam; to practice homosexuality (except with their "dancing boys"), etc, so neither should non-Moslems. Moslem women have no right to go about less than completely covered, so non-Moslem women should not have that right either.
Basically, in Moslem countries, even Moslems do not have "rights", they have "non-rights" or "anti-rights". In other words, they have "wrongs".
"John Esposito's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center"
"John Esposito" and "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal" should be mentioned conjoined as often as is feasible, to reflect the real financial and ideological conjoining of the two, and the obvious conflict of interest that such conjoining entails.
"Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims."
"Distortion" should be changed to "discussion".
They have been so disappointed at our inaction and apathy regarding the the success of their covert "strategic plan" that they now feel compelled to publically repackage it as an overt "strategic plan". They've stolen our wallet and and our car keys, but can't find a pulse, so now, out of simple curiosity, they're checking to see if we are alive enough to bleed. How dead are we?
The West so far has been perfectly fine without Islam. We have done well and will do well without you, thank you. Please quit nagging us and quit snatching or hanging on to the seam of our robe of civilization.
Islam: We are everything without you. You are nothing without us. That said: Leave us alone. Before we will seperate you from us.
"a strategic plan to introduce Islam as a solution to major problems facing humanity"
That wouldn't be the "Final solution" would it? This all sounds so familiar...
Ok, it's "syllabi," not "syllabuses." I would imagine that we can't check out their curricula (not "curriculums," MWL) so as to determine whether or not their graduates are suitable for admission to free-world universities. Narcissistic hypocrites.
And here I've been thinking Islam is the major problem facing humanity.
"syllabi" not "syllabuses" or "curricula" not "curriculums." Don't you just hate being lectured like that? Our rules for science writing are that one can use either Latin plurals or their Anglicized forms, but once the choice is made be consistent. Where do you stand on the datum/data question?