OIC blames free speech for “Islamophobia” in the West

286.jpgThen-Secretary of State Clinton with OIC top dog Ihsanoglu and other anti-free speech warriors

The OIC continues to war against the freedom of speech, so as to silence any resistance to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism. Their Leftist allies cheerfully aid and abet them in this.

“OIC Blames Free Speech for ‘Islamophobia’ in West,” by Soeren Kern at the Gatestone Institute, December 11:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.

The “Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013” is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”

But the primary objective of the OIC””headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews””has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report””an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West””is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.

The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting “incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits.”

But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”

According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”…

Chilling Effect for Me, But Not for Thee
India: Muslim cleric issues fatwa and files police complaint calling for arrest of writer who "hurt the feelings of the Muslim community"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    “..by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations..”

    In his book “Majma al-Zawa’id”, Al-Haythami, a Sunni Shafi`i Islamic scholar from Cairo wrote:

    “I saw the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) putting Hussein’s thighs apart and kissing his (little) penis.”

    Then he adds:

    “Related by Al-Tabarani and its authenticity is good.”

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2012/03/grandpa-muhammad.html

    Where are the distortions here? where are the misrepresentations?
    Are we the ones who are denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims?

    Muslims, read your books!

  2. says

    Anyone who believes in democracy, free speech, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, the freedom of people to live their lives as they choose (provided that choice does not harm others) the right of women to be treated as more than sub-human animals, is by definition Islamophobic.

  3. says

    A culture of intolerance? There are few, if any, better examples of hypocrisy than Muslims complaining about intolerance of Islam. Islam is built upon intolerance, one only has to look at how non-Muslims are treated in predominantly Muslim lands for confirmation of this. By contrast, Muslims in Western nations can build their mosques and practice and preach their faith openly but the poor dears still think they’re victims because, oh my God, some Westerners don’t like many Islamic doctrines. What hypocrites. Babies too.

    Furthermore, it can be seen again that between Islam and freedom of speech there can be no co-existence. You can have one or the other but you can’t have both.

    Islam produces hypocrites aplenty and is an enemy of liberty. And let’s be clear here: I don’t fear Islam; I despise Islam. Everyone should despise Islam who cherishes freedom and detests hypocrisy.

  4. says

    This may be the straw that will cause all Western “peoples” to rise up and crush this insanity once and for all. That my friends will probably mean our politicians at the same time. They are fools if they think we will take this sort of law laying down.

    No one and no Government will EVER tell me who I can, or can’t talk about. If I want to call down Christians on something they believe, or a Buddhist, or a fuc*ing muslim, I will dam well say what I please. If some one is INSANE and has to say PBUH after every time they say a word, or write a word they are afraid of the boggy man and it’s pure and utter bullsh*t.

    That’s there problem. Stop letting these clowns into our countries NOW. Problem solved.

  5. says

    Sorry Lemon, I see your point, but Wellington is not only correct in equating it with Nazism, he/she didn’t follow through far enough to state the FACT that TWO of Hitlers eight war divisions were made up ENTIRELY OF MUSLIMS!!! Top Islamic leaders in the war are documented meeting with Hitler (in pictures) discussing the ‘Jew Solution’ as it was called, shortly before the horrific genocide was carried out at the death camps.

  6. says

    It’s all BS. The Obama Administration persecutes a token jihadi or two to show the American public that there on the case while they enable the Umma. The public is still buying into the narrative it’s a small minority of radicalized fanatics and the Koranimals are free to terrorize the free world.

  7. says

    But the primary objective of the OIC”headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews”has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”
    ===============================================================
    “negative sterotyping of islam”????
    When these rag head lunatics stop throwing rocks at Israeli children, burning US flags while dancing in the street, blowing themselves up in a crowded mall, screaming allahu akbar everytime someone farts, in general acting like a bunch of dumb ass clowns, and start acting like a civilized people maybe the negative sterotyping will stop. But I doubt it.

  8. says

    Islamophobia is not a nebulous concept, it is an anti-concept. The word does not refer to anything that exists in reality and undermines the legitimate concept of phobias as irrational fears.

  9. says

    Only democrats would support such censorship.

    -In April 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC did not have the legal authority to regulate the Internet. Despite this ruling, in December Obama’s FCC voted 3-2, along party lines, to begin the Net Neutrality regulation process anyway.

    -11/18/10 huffingtonpost.com: Senator Jay Rockefeller said: “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, “Out. Off. End. Good-bye” (knowing that pro-Republican Fox is at the top cable news channel and pro-democrat MSNBC is at the bottom).

    -1/7/11 CBS News: President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans.

    -3/22/11, The Blaze: “They [the Tea Partiers] don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution, but we’ll give it to them anyway.” Democrat Senator Lautenberg.

    -5/1/12 The Guardian: A Washington-based ethics watchdog is calling on federal regulators to revoke News Corporation’s 27 Fox broadcast licences in the wake of the highly critical report on phone hacking from the UK parliament.

    -9/6/12 breitbartnews.com: Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted The Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President. After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ.

  10. says

    God gave man freedom to speak. Nations and dictators and human kings have denied that gift both to men and women. Recognizing that freedom to speak is a gift from man’s Creator, the *founders* wrote it into the Constitution as one of the primary doctrines of this *Western* nation.

    The members of the oic, both nations and individuals,and those for whom they *speak*…with that *free* gift…all benefit from the *free speech* available to all in the *West*. So, if blame is to be laid on the freedom which allowed the coining in the last century of the idiotic term *islamophobia,* rather than *gratitude* for the freedom to coin such a term, then certainly, the *west,* as opposed to the oic, shoulders the responsibility. But, the *real blame* for *islamophobia* which truly doesn’t exist, lies with the *coiners* of the term.

    While watching the movie “Key Largo”…with Bogart and Bacall (great movie)…one of my favorite lines to hear is when Bogart says, “Some words.” Then I watch for the reaction of Edward G. Robinson. I’ve seen it many times and it never fails me.
    Words can hurt, words as used in Courts of Law can kill, words can teach, create a laugh, and adventure; words can heal, sooth, comfort, etc.
    The oic and the muslim brotherhood and other groups use the power of words to try to take away the *freedom* they are also using to destroy that very freedom.

    God gave it to me. The oic will not take it away.

  11. says

    I am deeply concerned about my country the U.S. and my other country, Canada (I have dual citizenship) and about the U.K. When Sennacherib came to make war against God’s people, the king of Judah, Hezekiah, encouraged his soldiers, “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him… with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles.” (2 Chron.32:8)But our king Obama is even in cohoots with our enemy and stupidly cries out, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” He refuses to even acknowledge that Islam is at war with us. Let us all pray, please, that God the Holy Trinity will have mercy on us all and save us from our enemy, Islam.

  12. says

    “By contrast, Muslims in Western nations can build their mosques and practice and preach their faith openly.”

    Let me add that they’re allowed much more than that in their mosques: incitement to sedition and violence, sweeping rejection of all infidels, and in some, storing of arsenals. The muzzies enjoy privileges in their house “worship” no other religion does.

    They can’t push the envelope further than that because there IS no further place to go. Now they’ve won that hand, they’re of course entitled to control us in another arena: our western constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

    The solution is to shut down their mosques and outlaw their filthy Koran. Then watch them fight for freedom of speech and their press!

  13. says

    I think it neither necessary nor Constitutional to “shut down their mosques and outlaw their filthy Koran,” anymore than I think it necessary to ban Marxist and Neo-Nazi meetings or outlaw the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. What does have to occur is that Islam is looked upon as a negative by the vast majority of Americans—–no more bullshit about it being a noble religion of peace and tolerance. If (when) this occurs, Islam will become a fringe ideology like Marxism and Nazism and it will then be largely defanged.

  14. says

    Yes; I suspect that the OIC is more anxious about “Islamoridicule” than “Islamophobia”. After all, they WANT us to be fearful of them – fearful and therefore compliant.

  15. says

    Points very well taken, Well — you are of course correct about NOT stamping down on free speech (meetings) or the press (books we don’t like). Got a little carried away, there… wonder why…

    How hard the road, what an uphill battle it is to try and educate our civilized world. I tried to proselytize one-on-one in a several places and was met with politically correct deafness. My fellow Americans resisted the education.

  16. says

    I think it would be perfectly constitutional to argue that because of the Sharia punishment of death for apostasy/treason that to be Muslim is a citizenship issue no less significant than renunciation of citizenship in the U.S. This is not diminished, but rather enhanced, by their claim of exclusive sovereignty over all the world.

    Their insistence on the supremacy of Muslims on all matters, particularly legal, also triggers the titles of nobility clause within U.S. Constitution. The title of Muslim is itself a title of nobility recognized by hostile foreign powers and should prohibit any Muslim from “holding any Office of Profit or Trust[.]” in the U.S. (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) CAIR/WTF routinely asserts exclusive authority to act on behalf of all Muslims as if they were citizens of a foreign state.

    We can expel them all just as we can expel all citizens of France. Their choice of exclusive loyalty is wholly voluntary, except when it is not in which case an individual would not really be Muslim anyway.

    It is too problematic to claim to oppose Islam without simultaneously opposing (differentiating, distinguishing and yes discriminating against) individual Muslims for their faith. Faith is not the right metric, national loyalty is. It is how you must frame the issue so as to escape the superficialities stemming from “all religions are equally good and bad.” Judges routinely achieve a desired outcome by skillfully framing the question to be answered. A Muslim is thus neither bad nor good, they are just on another team. That is enough.

  17. says

    “I think it neither necessary nor Constitutional to “shut down their mosques and outlaw their filthy Koran,” anymore than I think it necessary to ban Marxist and Neo-Nazi meetings or outlaw the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.”

    Islam is comparable to Nazism & Communism, but to go further as Wellington does and equate them is boneheaded. Islam is far worse, and is far deadlier, with Muslims right now killing us and planning to kill more of us in horrific ways. I see no Marxists or Nazis anywhere killing us and planning on killing more of us in horrific ways. Given this mountain of data about Islam & Muslims on which we sit now, typing here, this mountain of data called Jihad Watch, it is bizarre — especially for a veteran Jihad Watcher — to make that equation.

  18. says

    To ridicule the cult is much smarter than to be on the defensive about being tagged an Islamophobic.

    It’s appropriate here to restate my admiration for Wafa Sultan in her taped interviews, where she charges full-speed ahead with what she knows, regardless of the absurdities spouted by her opponents, whose only education clearly is no more than their Koran.

    In other words, no matter what they say, she won’t stoop to defending herself, but attacks them with all the advancements and moral practices of the West, and RIDICULES their untenable positions. And she does it so brashly; what a gal!!

    You’re reminding me to dig into the bottomless well of ridicule and hypocrisy in response to the thing they call Islamophobia.

  19. says

    Good term, “Islamoridicule.” I shall remember it. Indeed, that’s what Muslims really fear. After all, the next best thing to eradicating an evil like Islam is mocking it. Thanks.

  20. says

    If Islam were seem for what it really is, a spiritual totalitarian ideology which is an enemy of many fine things like freedoms of all kinds and equality under the law, then this could be a barrier to Muslims (for immigration and citizenship purposes) not already American citizens. For those Muslims who are American citizens, what should first and foremost be kept in mind is that belief is virtually completely protected under the Constitution. For instance, a Neo-Nazi or a Communist, already an American citizen, could quite publicly state that the Constitution should be abolished and replaced with a constitution that would benefit the totaltiarian ideology of choice and nothing could be done to such a person. Of course, if they tried to act upon this belief, then this is a different matter. And so the same for Muslims and their religion, which is indeed inimical to so many of the basic principles to be found in the Constitution.

    I don’t think your argument that being a Muslim is equivalent to a title of nobility (and thus not allowed under the Constitution) would go anywhere in the courts. What was clearly meant there by the Founding Fathers were your standard secular titles.

    I welcome your arguments. They are interesting and also indicative of just what a pain in the ass Islam is to America and to Britain and to France and to The Netherlands and to… and to… and to…

  21. says

    You’re right about the power of ridicule, Bettina, as well as being correct about the continued ignorance of Islam by way too many Americans, though I am cautiously encouraged by the fact that more and more Americans (and Westerners in general) are slowly but steadily learning about just how awful Islam really is.

    Ah, truth is a a great ally and a very stubborn thing and, of course, a great enemy of Islam. Just as Islam and freedom are incompatible, so are Islam and the truth.

  22. says

    Ah, LL, I’m boneheaded to you because I “merely” equate Nazism and Marxism to Islam. And I certainly would be a bonehead to all those out there who think the very idea of equating Islam to Nazism and Marxism (never mind that Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill did) is, let’s see, bizarre. Ah, can’t win anywhere, eh?

    Look, Islam has an awful track record. Marxism has an awful track record. Nazism has an awful track record. Equating the three as essentially and for all purposes roughly malevolent, I submit, is pretty much on the mark.

    I’m not interested in arid and abstruse gradations of great evil. Tremendous evil is tremendous evil. And even assuming that Marxism and Nazism are not as bad as Islam, though both managed to kill tens upon tens of millions of people in a shorter period of time than Islam did, though granted this was possible in part because of a larger population in the twentieth century than existed in previous centuries, they’re bad enough to make a full comparison to Islam defensible and accurate.

    In short, I retreat not a whit of what I have already averred. It’s accurate enough.

  23. says

    With due respect, LL, what’s so bizarre about fascism which, by any other name, is always fascism?
    If the Maoists, Bolcheviks and Nazis succeeded in eliminating their opposition by purging their countries of intellectuals, school teachers, writers, artists, journalists, and others… they really did those evil works in pretty much one fell swoop lasting from 5 years to a few decades, right?

    Just because Islamofascistas are nefariously active today can’t obfuscate the millions of atrocities perpetrated by those previous regimes, right?

    I’d also argue that, when Dad repatriated our family to the States in 1967, I had to sign a paper attesting to NOT belonging to the Communist Party.
    Wellington, we should at least revive this measure, against the Islamic invaders, and DEPORT all Muslims who refuse to sign.
    What thinkst thou?

  24. says

    Ah, LL, I’m boneheaded to you because I “merely” equate Nazism and Marxism to Islam. And I certainly would be a bonehead to all those out there who think the very idea of equating Islam to Nazism and Marxism (never mind that Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill did) is, let’s see, bizarre. Ah, can’t win anywhere, eh?

    You are conflating two distinct things here, which muddies the waters. In the era of Bertrand Russell and Churchill, Islam had not penetrated hardly at all into the West; there had been not a single terrorist attack on Western soil, nor any plots uncovered to escalate that metastatically. I trust that a man like Churchill (and perhaps also Russell), had they lived to 2013, would have adjusted their interpretations according to the changing data; to conclude that Islam is a far worse evil and danger than are Nazism and Marxism — a rational process that seems to elude so many JWers.

    Look, Islam has an awful track record. Marxism has an awful track record. Nazism has an awful track record. Equating the three as essentially and for all purposes roughly malevolent, I submit, is pretty much on the mark.

    It’s on the mark if one wants to remain theoretical and ignore the concrete data that is killing us now and portends horrific mass murders of Western people far worse than occurred in WW2. Ironically, Wellington goes on to chide me for indulging in “arid and abstruse gradations”, when it is he who is fixating on the theoretical equation.

    Tremendous evil is tremendous evil.

    I’m not talking merely about “evil”. I’m talking about macrocosmic danger now. A small cult of Satanists who have abducted little girls in some rural hamlet of Iowa and plan on doing more is “essentially” as evil as Islam; but to conclude from that that we should treat the problem of Muslims following their Islam on the same level and with the same policy as we would that Iowa cult, is bizarre and boneheaded.

    And even assuming that Marxism and Nazism are not as bad as Islam, though both managed to kill tens upon tens of millions of people in a shorter period of time than Islam did…

    To repeat: Muslims are killing us now and have every intention, fanatically so, more fanatically than the Japanese kamekazes in WW2, to mass murder more of us in horrific ways. We don’t have time for theories about the past and making comparisons based on them.

  25. says

    I completely agree with your point that Islam now poses an almost infinitely greater danger to America and all the West than does Marxism or Nazism. It would be foolish to contend otherwise.

    But when I compare Islam to Marxism and Nazism it is to force the issue that Islam is a totalitarian ideology just like the other two, not that all three pose an equal danger to the West at the present time (c’mon, you can’t really believe I meant it this way). The issue needs to be forced, to be impressed upon the body politic of every Western nation, since so many, way too many, still refuse (for whatever indefensible reason) to see Islam as the giant negative that it is. And just imagine if the vast majority in the West, including the still appallingly clueless elites, regularly spoke of Islam as a kindred ideology to Marxism and Nazism. We would have turned the corner of corners and be in the driver’s seat so to speak.

  26. says

    Well, Bettina, I think as long as Islam is looked upon as a positive instead of a negative then the nonsense will continue.

    There are many steps which must be taken to deny Islam what it seeks in the West (and throughout the world). The most important of these steps is to identify Islam as a totalitarian ideology, similar to Marxism and Nazism, except that the latter are secular and Islam is a spiritual version of this destroyer of liberty (thus giving it more cover). Once this step is taken, the remaining steps will follow as a matter of course. Not there yet.

    Finally, even if Muslims aplenty did sign something to the effect that they reject Islamic supremacist designs, it would be of little account since taqiyya (deception) is a significant feature of Islam, or because many Muslims (e.g., Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji) are clueless about their own religion. In short, a Muslim’s word can never be trusted, for one reason or another, where Islam is concerned. Non-Islamic polities should act accordingly with this truth about Muslims (though I fear they won’t due to ignorance and PC/MC garbage).

    I confess I’m intrigued by your background. From what Commuinist country did your family repatriate?

  27. says

    “With due respect, LL, what’s so bizarre about fascism which, by any other name, is always fascism?”

    Straw man.

    “If the Maoists, Bolcheviks and Nazis succeeded in eliminating their opposition by purging their countries of intellectuals, school teachers, writers, artists, journalists, and others… they really did those evil works in pretty much one fell swoop lasting from 5 years to a few decades, right?”

    Red herring.

    “Just because Islamofascistas are nefariously active today can’t obfuscate the millions of atrocities perpetrated by those previous regimes, right?”

    Ditto.

    “I’d also argue that, when Dad repatriated our family to the States in 1967, I had to sign a paper attesting to NOT belonging to the Communist Party.”

    “Rasheed, Raoul and Abdul: The Kuffar think they can stop us by having us sign a paper. Ha ha ha! What fools they be! Oh, and remember to smile with your white teeth and say all the right things. I hear that even many of those ‘Islamophobes’ are… how you say… suckers for that. Mashallah!”