Coddling the ‘Islamophobia’ Police

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.


Pages: 1 2

From December 12 to 14, the State Department is hosting the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a body of 57 Muslim countries that presents itself as a representative of all Muslims. Its top objective is eliminating “Islamophobia” by promoting legislation to punish those who criticize the religion or uses language is deems offensive.

This week, the OIC is in Washington D.C., enjoying the company of the State Department. Sources within the OIC told the International Islamic News Agency that the event’s objective is to work on “developing a legal basis for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s resolution which [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”

The conference is closed to the public and free of transparency. Nina Shea, an official with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, was only permitted to attend the opening and closing sessions. She is forbidden from providing quotes or writing about the statements and actions of specific attendees.

She writes that one speaker: “reassured the audience, which was packed with diplomats from around the world, that the Obama administration is working diligently to prosecute American Islamophobes and is transforming the U.S. Justice Department into the conscience of the nation, though it could no doubt learn a thing or two from the assembled delegates on other ways to stop persistent religious intolerance in America.”

Shea and Paul Marshall explained in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial that the OIC’s charter dedicates the body to “combat defamations of Islam” and it openly lobbies countries around the world to enact “deterrent punishments” to achieve this. They write that in 2009, the OIC’s International Islamic Fiqh Academy called for international laws to defend the “interests and values of [Islamic] society,” including punishments for those that talk about why they left Islam.

The leaders of the OIC are not coy about what they seek. Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu says “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs” and Chairman Abdoulaye Wade says, “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy.”

Presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich slammed the administration during the last debate for the meeting, saying that the U.S. government shouldn’t work with “those who would censor the world on behalf of Islam.” Representative Ted Poe wrote a letter to Secretary of State Clinton on December 8 asking her to cancel the meeting because of the OIC’s attacks on free speech.

“The OIC’s charter, however, clearly is against this most basic human right, and we ask that you use all the resources at our disposal to protect freedom of speech around the world,” Poe wrote.

To its credit, the Obama administration successfully fought against an OIC-backed resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council that would have called for outlawing “defamation of religions.” However, the reaching out to the OIC helps empower an organization whose agenda directly conflicts with Western values and interests.

The hypocrisy of the OIC is plain for all to see. While Ihsanoglu claims that “Islamophobia is reaching the level of the anti-Semitism of the 1930s,” the organization has never condemned the anti-Semitic preaching of extremist clerics or leaders like Ahmadinejad. It doesn’t even take a firm stance on terrorism.

Its 1999 Convention to Combat Terrorism stated, “Peoples struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” This is virtually every single justification for virtually every single act of terrorism.

Pages: 1 2

  • kafir

    So if someone were to mock or insult islam as it should be mocked and insulted, that would be against the law? What if someone were to point out that islam is a gutter cult invented by a pedophilic madman named mohamat, or mad momo as he’s been known? Would that be against the law?

    allahu snackar!!

    • gsw

      People in Europe are being prosecuted for that very statement, although actually the P* word was not used, just that his obvious rape of a 9 year old has send a very bad precedent in islamic jurisprudence.

  • Nitzachon

    La illaha Allah. Muhammadar rasul al-shaytan.

    • StephenD

      What?
      If you've something worth saying you should probably say it so we can understand it. So that you know, most of us are not in the desert tending sheep or riding camels.

    • Mike

      Hey Nitzachon, grow some balls and say that in English. Jump down off your camel you sand critter and meet us face to face you coward.

      • Chiggles

        I hope you have read the replies below and now realize what a total horse's hind end you have made of youself.

    • Sound&Fury

      He is saying "goddamn Allah. Allah is Satan."

      • winoceros

        Mohammad is the disciple of Satan.

    • jonmc

      Translated: "No god but the god. Mohammed prophet of the Satan."

      • Nitzachon

        Mike – sorry for the misunderstanding. My bad. It's a reworking of the shahada, or muzlim statement of belief.

        jonmc – It means: "There is no god called Allah. Muhammad is the prophet of Satan."

    • Ewill707

      allahu snackbar!

      • Jaladhi

        I modify it to allahu snakebar for beiunf such a snake!! No offence to snakes!!LOL…

        • Jaladhi

          Typos correction: "I modify it to allahu snakebar for allah being such a snake!! No offense to snakes. LOL..".

    • aspacia

      Aceh!

  • WildJew

    Only an insecure religious community demands laws be enacted which forbid any scrutiny of its tenets. That is because Islamic supremacists are not able to successfully defend their faith or its savage injunctions, its treatment of women, non-Muslims, etc. What can we conclude other than the U.S. State Department is full of moral cowards of the lowest order, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her boss, Barack Hussein Obama.

    • winoceros

      What I'm really hoping, is that it was just a giant ruse by the CIA to get tracking devices into all of their luggage over at the Watergate.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Its top objective is eliminating “Islamophobia” by promoting legislation to punish those who criticize the religion or uses language is deems offensive.

    Study the evolution of Islam; actually Islam is not a religion. Instead, it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the gullible societies that it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    Thus, the OIC's top objective of eliminating Islamophobia, which in itself is Islamic taqiyya (deception) created to dupe gullible non-Muslim unbelievers, by calling for the punishment of everyone that legitimately criticizes Islam is in effect the imposition of Sharia on a worldwide basis. Indeed, it is just the next stage in their stealth global jihad, as it would prevent the dissemination of information exposing the truth about Islam and at the same time render the world for all intents and purposes defenseless.

    Of course, their secondary reason for pushing such an objective is to prevent Islam from being outlawed in the West and mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, from being banned and reversed. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    Meanwhile, Muslims are the biggest serial violators of the defamation of religions in the world, as they not only fully intend to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world to make Islam supreme, but they also violently oppress and systematically persecute, when not outright slaughtering altogether, Christians and all other non-Muslim unbelievers unfortunate enough to be living in Islamic countries as second-class dhimmi citizens today throughout the Islamic world. Not to mention that when it comes to Jew bashing and anti-Semitism, the Muslims are the world champions. Indeed, just look at all the conferences held in the Islamic world to denounce the holocaust as a hoax. In addition, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” perennially is a best seller throughout the Islamic world year in and year out.

    It doesn’t even take a firm stance on terrorism.

    Oh yes it does? Terrorism in the Islamic world is a capital offense because it is blasphemous and un-Islamic since it is a Western manifestation only. Apparently, this writer can't write an article without miserably failing. At the least, he should be banned from writing about matters regarding Islam until he can demonstrates that he understands what he is writing about. Indeed, he is one of the most misleading writers on FPM.

    “Peoples struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.”

    Of course, not! As jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive and two entirely different manifestations altogether. Jihad, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and can be both violent and non-violent. While, terrorism, on the other hand, can be for any number of political causes and in stark contrast to jihad as its name implies is always only violent. Indeed, jihad is a manifestation of Islamic civilization only and terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only. It's pretty sad that this writer is too mentally handicapped to be able to distinguish between the two entirely different manifestations.

    This is virtually every single justification for virtually every single act of terrorism.

    Not really, since Muslims never ever perpetrate terrorism because again it is a capital offense in Islam since it is a product of Western civilization only and therefore blasphemous and un-Islamic.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In 2002, the OIC issued its “Declaration on International Terrorism.” It was hailed as the Muslim world’s repudiation of terrorism, but it included a line legitimizing terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas: “We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism.”

    Of course, since again jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive and two entirely different manifestations altogether. Indeed, jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and is not terrorism, and also Hezbollah and Hamas are jihadist groups, not terrorist groups. Apparently, this writer is so married to PC multiculturalism that it has rendered him completely mentally incompetent when it comes to understanding Islam and Islamic society, making him at the same time completely unfit, incompetent, and unqualified to write about issues pertaining to Islam and Islamic society.

    The blasphemy laws and “anti-Islamophobia” laws promoted by OIC are simply a means to stop criticism of Islam and especially, critics of radical Islam—a term that the OIC would surely love to make unspeakable.

    Again, I hate to keep raining on this clueless writer's parade, but nonetheless radical Islam, extremist Islam, peaceful Islam, and moderate Islam, just like radical Muslims, extremist Muslims, Islamist Muslims, and moderate Muslims, are all false PC multicultural myths. Indeed, they don't exist, except for in the deluded minds of people that have been rendered blind by PC multiculturalism exactly like the unhinged writer of this article. There is only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM and only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS.

    As Shea and Marshall point out, such laws have been used to oppress Muslim reformers promoting women’s rights and relations with Israel.

    Uhm…not only is reforming Islam completely impossible and an exercise in wishful thinking and futility, but Muslim reformers are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    She has been sentenced to death for criticizing Islam to her co-workers after she converted to Christianity.

    Of course, blasphemy and apostasy are both capital offenses. Again, blasphemous apostates per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    A former imam says he was at a meeting with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood​ front, when the term “Islamophobe” was invented.

    He is also a former Muslim and therefore a blasphemous apostate that per the dictates of Islam must be executed, and if he didn't live in the West, he would already be dead.

    • WildJew

      "….radical Islam, extremist Islam, peaceful Islam, and moderate Islam……are all false PC multicultural myths"

      Nevertheless, the use of the term "radical Islam" is pervasive on the political right. Brigitte Gabriel (Act For America) and her people use the term radical Islam. I have tried to reason with them; unsuccessfully.

  • StephenD

    Using terms that would isolate violent acts from the main is exactly how you would have it if you were the tactical planner of such violence. Think about it, we can go on preaching our hate, misogyny and subversion and allow for some of us to do violence all while maintaining plausible deniability because after all, we are not part of the "Radicals."
    I don't let it slide. When it comes up I ask for the clarification. What distinguishes "Radical Islam" from Islam? To date, all I get is violent acts. I then immediately point out that such acts are promoted in Islam and truly is not considered Radical at all. To this I usually encounter a change of subject.

  • Geneww

    The root cause for the problems of today are not from politics, economics, or social injustices. The problem is Evil versus Righteousness. The Judeo-Christians were [are] sleeping in warm water tubs being heated by a roaring fire. We see the fires under the other tubs but do nothing because it does not effect our comfy pool. Now we are cooked.
    I'd estimate more than 90% of our conservative readers do not have 100% assurance of eternity in heaven and most do not believe God Authored the Bible until they read http://jc.does-it.net. The site provide the contact to prove Satan authored the Koran.

  • steven l

    This is freedom to incite violence and murder in the US. All these people must be identified and prosecuted. This is what the EU is fighting by forbidding the wearing of the veil!
    "Pseudo political correctness" a weapon of the left will eliminate democracy in this country.

  • steven l

    This is freedom to incite violence and murder in the US. All these people must be identified and prosecuted. This is what the EU is fighting by forbidding the wearing of the veil!
    Islam condemned all act of terrorism but considers its own acts as resistance therefore "legally" acceptable.

  • michaelle

    Obama is an islamofascist supporter.

    • Chiggles

      And his ears are big and funny-looking.

  • No Dhimmi

    …the event’s objective is to work on “developing a legal basis for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s resolution which [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”

    Well, that would pretty much end Islam, wouldn't it, since Islam is essentially based on defaming everyone else's religion.

    Bring it on! Should be amusing to watch. There goes half the Koran!

  • http://zillablog.marezilla.com zillaoftheresistance

    Can someone please explain to me how attempting to force anti-Constitutional compliance to sharia law against free speech is not TREASON? Every single official involved in this needs to be removed from office and prosecuted, and every single elected official who has failed to stand up for US against this islamotyranny also deserved to lose their jobs – at the very least! Gutless cowards.

    • curmudgeon

      but that would require prosecuting the muslim-in-chief, aka the first "black" president. that would be raaaaacist!!!!!!!!!!!!!! surely you would not prosecute the treasonous racist first black muslim-in-chief.

    • IceStar

      Obama is going around Congress and the will of the American people to empower our enemies.
      I don't think even if they agree to the UN contracts they can ever enforce these mandates. They are also going after our second amendment right too, not just free speech.
      Each time BO and the UN will try to enforce it, it will be challenged in court, eventually going to the Supreme Court.

  • patsjc

    Good article. We (US) must not let our country become like England. In England anything perceived as being anti-muslim is considered hate speech. Gert Wilders was initially not even allowed in England because he was going to show a film called Fitna and the labor govt at the time considered it hate speech. We must protect our Freedom of Speech. Obama is not doing that!!

    • IceStar

      I believe it is human nature to want to be free…to speak freely.

      The OIC will fail because our free speech is protected by the constitution.

      Besides Americans tend to be challenging and belligerent when it comes to protecting our Bill of Rights.

  • rulierose

    I'd like to say "it can't happen here" but with Obama in the WH who knows?

    when are we going to realize that radical Islam IS, in fact, the enemy of all we hold dear? that the freedom to say what you want, love who you want, dress how you want–that all of those things are forbidden under Islam? those freedoms are the basis of America.

    my dream is that every newspaper in the world agrees to reprint the Danish cartoons on the same day, on the front page of their papers. the Muzzies would go crazy trying to figure out what to burn down first!

  • rulierose

    btw…remember Obama's gaffe about having visited 57 states? is it merely coincidence that the OIC has 57 member states? I think not.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Yeah…that was pretty good. In any event, how about the incompetent writer's gaffe in this article? It's not the Organization of Islamic Conference. Instead, it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

  • Carolyn

    That foolish Hillary encourages this insanity while telling the backa$$ countries they should have human rights for gays et al. Who could come up with this? Their very insistence on killing or imprisoning gays because of sharia and even the beliefs about women are against every B.S. belief she has worked her whole political life for. And now she is sucking up to these shria$h!ts. I have disliked her since she was first lady in Arkansas with her stupid notions on education. Of course, I had no idea of her socialist views and priorities at the time. We really are doomed in this country unless the Good Lord steps in.

  • IceStar

    Obama and his administration are stealth jihadists. BO has welcomed with open arms the Muslim Brotherhood as advisers.
    The purge the words that define our enemies, jihad, Muslim, Islam, Sharia etc.

    Even defining the Fort Hood Jihad attack is called "workplace violence", not to mention all the other jihad attacks by devout Muslims, which at the very least should be prosecuted as "hate crimes", yet are ignored by the MSM and viewed as "extremists" and not representative of the actual teachings of Mohamed.

    It seems to me that Islam is the ideology that has the most to loose with open dialogue and scrutiny.

    The miscalculation here is the internet and free people who are use to thinking for themselves. People who are willing to read the actual Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah and come to their own conclusions.

    They may succeed in silencing free speech in Europe, but here in the USA???? Fat chance.

  • Ron Carnine

    They can outlaw it but they cannot silence us. I came to the conclusion of the danger of Islam on my own. Mr. Spencer didn't turn my mind and opinion against Islam, Islam did that. I just took Mr. Spencer's challenge, I checked out the books he mentioned from my local library, although I admit that some of them were hard to acquire. I contacted CAIR and was sent a very nice copy of "The Message of the Koran". which I read several times. They spent a good amount of money giving this book away as it was published on very fine, glossy paper with a multitude of notes by Mohammad Assad. I even borrowed a copy of his autobiography from the library "The Road to Mecca" which I found interesting and well written. I spent about 4 yrs. studying, using both pro and con materials. I came to my own conclusion that Islam is deadly and intolerant. I also came to the conclusion that Islam, after spending several hundred years dormant, is again on the road to world domination. It aims for the destruction of Israel and every other religion in the world. If laws are published in this country against speaking out against it (I do not call for a war against it) I will disobey them and will, in my own small way, do what I can to tell the truth about it. Speaking out against a system that is against our republic is the work of a patriot. I take that work upon myself willingly, and will be in good company if arrested.

  • dajjal

    I have determined, by analyzing the welcoming and closing addresses, that the new paradigm is "consequences" : false assignment of blame by logical fallacy.

    Had the new paradigm been in effect last March, Pastors Jones & Sapp would have been sued for civil damages and persecuted for inciting violence because riots in Pakistan were falsely attributed to their trial and execution of the Qur'an.

    Everyone with a thinking mind knows that the riots resulted from incendiary kutba at Jumah Salat, not from the Qur'an burning.

    This must not stand!!! We must rise up and raise Hell. We must throw out as many LibTurds as possible Nov. 6, 2012.

  • steven l

    The left using political correctness (communist weapon) is assisting Islam to destroy other civilizations. The human spirit will annihilate both evils.
    Mohamed revelation was to plagiarize the old and new testaments and add its own barbarian views.