A Monumental Concession To Islam

The following are excerpts from an article entitled: Jihad Against Free Speech.

In 2005, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution called “combating defamation of religions.” Although the title of the resolution referred to religions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically. Not surprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolution included many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostile glances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goal of the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in European parliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Human Rights Commission). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and run contrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You might be asking yourself, "Who cares what they want?" This might give you an idea of just how dangerous conceding to the OIC really is:

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist supremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslim majority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in the world. It is also the largest international organization of any kind, second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

And to further demonstrate the power of the OIC, what happened this year will set your teeth on edge:

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where it produced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itself against all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers, reporters, politicians or governments.

Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom without limits.”

As a result of this summit, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed the resolution!

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islam that disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, are utilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals. By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech and religious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Islam has gained a major concession. This is an important first step in the ultimate political goal of worldwide Shari'a law. The attainment of this political goal is a religious duty for all Muslims. One way to wage jihad is with violence. Another way is to wage jihad by gaining concessions, and the first, most important concession to gain is silencing criticism of Islam itself. The passing of the United Nations Human Rights Council's resolution was a step in that direction.

Read the whole article here: Jihad Against Free Speech.