| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots." Not against the violent supremacists who have allegedly "hijacked" their religion, mind you. No, no battle plan needed against them.
By Rukmini Callimachi for AP (thanks to all who sent this in):
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.
The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.
Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.
"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."
Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.
"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group.
No, Ihsanoglu. Muslims are being targeted by truth-tellers who object to jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. If you dealt with them, this "defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination" would melt away.
The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up."In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement."
Sue me, fellows. Come on. I invite you to. And I will base my defense solely and wholly on Qur'an, Hadith, Sira and fiqh. Come on, sue away. Let's get this out in the open.
Posted by Robert at March 14, 2008 9:45 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"'Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,' charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group."
-- from the article above
Any chance Infidels have to introduce into evidence, in the courts or in the larger court of public opinion, what is actually in the Qur'an, in the Hadith, in the Sira, any keener attention paid by the masses of Infidels to these texts, and what they inculcate, and the behavior that results from such inculcation and that can be observed, on the evening news or in the daily press, every single day, will be a good thing.
The more these texts are revealed to non-Muslims, the more they begin to grasp the meaning, and menace, of Islam for Infidels, the better.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 14, 2008 10:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWq5QsZLCrg&feature=related
The Libel Tourist
Posted by: devorgilla at March 14, 2008 10:10 PM
"'In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time,' Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly."
Not difficult enough. You are still getting into our countries, our culture, as well as threatening us and endangering our children.
You hold us in contempt as "unbelievers." Why should you expect us to pay homage to your ideology and what you hold sacred?
You came and messed with us. Now, you do not like the consequences. You are never satisfied, you whine, act the victims. You are disgusting.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 14, 2008 10:20 PM
It's doctors again.
Someone tell me why we need to import moslem doctors.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-bk-doctors041308,0,5724772.story
Read the comments.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 14, 2008 10:26 PM
Groups like CAIR, ISNA, et al, are buidling their legal capacity to start accelerating their efforts againts critics. To counter this, initiatives like this one (http://www.meforum.org/legal-project.php) should be fully supported and funded.
Posted by: Haidon at March 14, 2008 10:28 PM
http://www.meforum.org/legal-project.php
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 14, 2008 10:32 PM
Wow interestinconundrum looks like those commenters at the Orlando Sentinel are a bunch of Islamophobes, Islamophobes being:
Islamophobe (is-slahm-o-fohb) - A non-Muslim who knows too much about Islam.
Posted by: Sounder at March 14, 2008 10:38 PM
How amusing this all emanates from that flyblown cesspool known as Senegal. What a great place to hold an Islamic conference. Senegal is a real Muslim success story. A worthy example for all mankind to emulate
The only time I hear of Senegal is when some Senegalese parasite in France does something criminal or crazy
Posted by: dennisw at March 14, 2008 10:47 PM
re "The Libel Tourist"
These primitives (Saudis) would never have attained wealth through their own efforts.
They are where they are, only because of Western technology and post-colonial mentality.
They have bought traitors in our governments and unethical academics in our universities.
Is no one aware that our survival is at risk, that the Islamics are ruining us economically?
The individual when faced with fighting for survival will take drastic measures. Why should a nation not follow suit.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 14, 2008 10:53 PM
"The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up. "
Ironic that it was the OIC in January of 08 that pushed a resolution through the UN for condemning discrimination based on religion (mind you only Islam was actually mentioned in the draft of course) and how convenient now that they're pointing to their own handiwork for further actions, legal actions to silence free speech.
Team Ummah has been working this since 2001, that Jan/08 resolution that was pushed through quietly was a trojan horse, and was only meant to be built on, as we see the OIC strategically planning now in Senegal.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 14, 2008 11:01 PM
"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade ...
Exactly! It means freedom to commit blasphemy.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down New York State's blasphemy law (1952):
"It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."Posted by: Greg Z
at March 14, 2008 11:07 PM
>>Sue me, fellows. Come on. I invite you to.
I really do hope that they can be successfully confronted. My fear is that they could sue, and win, in places such as California, a la Michael Savage.
Posted by: Fried Spam at March 14, 2008 11:17 PM
In the long run, it is cheaper, easier and more lucrative to sue them. Something in the eight figure range the next time they defame you.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 14, 2008 11:23 PM
We demand reciprocity in suing then? Iran, Syria, Libya, and other countries have all sponsored terrorism. Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have been negligent in not stopping Islamic terrorists. I am sure that the cost to Western Society is in the hundreds of Billions of dollars.
Keep on telling the truth and let the Muslims howl!
Posted by: James Martel at March 15, 2008 12:10 AM
How can that be religious defamation is not allowed in the west? This Gentleman here only had his occupation insulted.
A clergyman was attacked in the grounds of his church by two youths in what police are treating as a "hate crime".
Canon Michael Ainsworth, 57, also had his "OCCUPATION INSULTED" during the attack at St George-in-the-East Church in Shadwell, east London.
He was treated for cuts, bruises and two black eyes on 5 March.
A police spokesman said the three men, two of whom attacked the canon, were described as Asian and fled the scene by the time officers had arrived.
at March 15, 2008 12:43 AM
"Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric."
As much as I hate too, I have to admit they have a point here. There should be no laws in a free society that punishes a person for their speech, no matter how disgusting.
I can well understand the temptation to jail someone for denying the holocaust, but it's a temptation that should be resisted at all cost.
Once a democratic society abandons the principle of free speech out of disgust or anger, no matter how justified it might seem, you open the door for others to demand the same considerations and protections, and that's exactly what these Muslims are saying, "you have laws protecting Jews from being insulted by anti-semites, so we are entitled to the same protections," and it's only a matter of time before Western governments cave in and give them what they want. Then you won't be able to print or say anything offensive to Muslims.
In the U.S. these are called hate crime laws. They might seem fairly benign now, but now that we've conceded to the government the right to pass such laws, some day they'll be used against us, just as they'll be used in Europe to stifle any critism of Islam.
Posted by: rational
at March 15, 2008 12:57 AM
There they go again, making us hate Islam even more.
And it's not "Islamophobia," it's Islamomisia, which means that we rightfully hate Islam.
To be a devout Muslim is to be a sociopath, period.
Posted by: Suziq at March 15, 2008 1:07 AM
There they go again, making us hate Islam even more.
And it's not "Islamophobia," it's Islamomisia, which means that we rightfully hate Islam.
To be a devout Muslim is to be a sociopath, period.
Posted by: Suziq at March 15, 2008 1:08 AM
The more these texts are revealed to non-Muslims, the more they begin to grasp the meaning, and menace, of Islam for Infidels, the better.
Posted by: Hugh at March 14, 2008 10:06 PM
Oh, yeah. Those texts need to be revealed for all the world to see! Keep complaining, you dumb Mohammedans.
at March 15, 2008 1:09 AM
There they go again, making us hate Islam even more.
And it's not "Islamophobia," it's Islamomisia, which means that we rightfully hate Islam.
To be a devout Muslim is to be a sociopath, period.
Posted by: Suziq at March 15, 2008 1:10 AM
There they go again, making us hate Islam even more.
And it's not "Islamophobia," it's Islamomisia, which means that we rightfully hate Islam.
To be a devout Muslim is to be a sociopath, period.
Posted by: Suziq at March 15, 2008 1:11 AM
rational, I tend to agree with you, but how can it be argued that publicizing what the Qur'an actually says, and what it demands of all Muslims, should be treated as a hate crime?
Posted by: Lex at March 15, 2008 1:13 AM
Good luck finding a court in a city, state, province, or nation which is being sued that will actually honor the sharia law which form the basis of this "defamation" lawsuit.
Free speech forms the basis for most laws in the democratic west, not Islamic sharia laws from Jordan, Senegal, or wherever the Islamic radical may be demanding them.
Posted by: Johnathan at March 15, 2008 1:20 AM
It's doctors again.
Someone tell me why we need to import moslem doctors.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-bk-doctors041308,0,5724772.story
Read the comments.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 14, 2008 10:26 PM
I did read the comments. They're great! A huge silent majority who feel just as we do. So heartening.
at March 15, 2008 1:20 AM
Good luck finding a court in a city, state, province, or nation which is being sued that will actually honor the sharia law which form the basis of this "defamation" lawsuit.
Free speech forms the basis for most laws in the democratic west, not Islamic sharia laws from Jordan, Senegal, or wherever the Islamic radical may be demanding them.
Posted by: Johnathan at March 15, 2008 1:21 AM
And it's not "Islamophobia," it's Islamomisia, which means that we rightfully hate Islam. --suziq
Islamophobia/Islamophobe
Islamomisia/?
Posted by: darcy at March 15, 2008 1:23 AM
Here's a 2005 post from Dhimmi Watch:
A few of us at JW/DW have had discussions about how to replace the "islamophobia" term, which is grossly incorrect, as by definition it denotes an IRRATIONAL fear of islam - for those truly afraid, that fear is rational and indeed completely justified, characterized by NORMAL, not abnormal psychology. What we need is a term that denotes utter hatred of and contempt for the "belief system" which is islam, without the connotation of a fear-based approach.
Someone in a post awhile back suggested "islamomisia" based on the Greek "misos", but this is usually applied in English as a prefix (misogyny, for example) and I can't find in my rudimentary searches whether or not this is a correct construct, and how those who would embrace "islamomisia" would be designated.
Any Greek or Latin experts out there that could help with this? Any and all suggestions are welcome - the point is that we need a label that we have assigned ourselves and embraced rather than one derogatorily thrust upon us by the enemy. Letting them define us is unacceptable.
Posted by: CGW at February 15, 2005 11:00 AM
at March 15, 2008 1:31 AM
"...to defend its religion..."
Hello... any intelligent people who profess to be Muslims out there?? No? That's understandable, after all, you were brought up in a backwards and ignorant madrassah.
The sooner the US, the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the CIVILIZED western world realize that islam is NOT a religion but a dangerous and psychotic ideology followed by a crowd of unintelligent, moronic, backwards, idiotic people who believe the dangerous, vicious, ignorant and vile rantings of a stupid camel driver who was also a practicing pedophile, the better. I wish these wishy-washy, namby-pamby, weak-kneed politicans in the west who bow and scrape to their multiculturalism policies would wake up to the very real danger and threat that islam offers.
Come on, western world. islam does not believe in freedom, does not believe in equality, does not believe in human rights, and wants to change the world so that we all live in the ignorance and backwardness of 1400 years ago. In fact, there is not a single islamic country that has fully signed the UN Human Rights declaration.
These backwards people can go jump in a lake.. How dare a vile, repulsive, and dangerous political ideology threaten the free west with lawsuits because of what some courageous people and nations say about the rubbish that is islam.
It boggles the mind.
at March 15, 2008 8:21 AM
"The more these texts are revealed to non-Muslims, the more they begin to grasp the meaning, and menace, of Islam for Infidels, the better." -Hugh
In light of your statement, I wish you would take a moment to visit and comment on the following site:
www.TheTrialOfMohammed.com
Posted by: JihadHotline(360)326-6730 at March 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Rachel Ehrenfeld has demonstrated the effect of libel tourism and it's impact on western liberties, which is not limited to freedom of expression. At this point, it is my understanding that Ms. Ehrenfeld cannot travel to the UK.
Now consider the implications of this proposed "legal instrument" proposed by the OIC and how it can eventually be implemented by the greater EU.
If I'm not mistaken, the Schengen and Prüm and Lisbon treaties provide for cross border enforcement of such 'legal instruments' throughout the EU.
Unless we are willing yield to foreign judgements and pay damages, this 'legal instrument' can severely restrict foreign travel to countries signing onto such treaties.
Posted by: justamomof4 at March 15, 2008 11:43 AM
"rational, I tend to agree with you, but how can it be argued that publicizing what the Qur'an actually says, and what it demands of all Muslims, should be treated as a hate crime?"
Lex,
Just quoting the Qur'an couldn't be treated as a hate crime, but if you suggest that there might be something immoral about the quote, and that they are the inspiration for terrorism, oppression of women and non-Muslims, that would surely be offensive to Muslims, and that could very well be construed as a hate crime.
These kinds of laws don't suppress hate. They suppress free speech. That's what they're really all about.
Posted by: rational
at March 15, 2008 1:52 PM
"Defame Islam, Get Sued?"
Islam defames itself without any help from Sue.
at March 15, 2008 7:52 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)