Posted on 10/14/2012 6:57:45 AM PDT by Milagros
The rest is history, be it in Benghazi (Libya), Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Germany. Very quickly we went from anti-Judaism and anti-Americanism to a widespread hatred of the West in general. In Pakistan, whites were attacked, threatened or insulted just because they appeared to be Westerners.
Recall that it was Ayatollah Khomeini who in 1989 launched the term Islamophobia and who was the first to test the response capabilities (and submission) of the West he despised and considered cowardly. Even then, rather than defending the Salman Rushdie block, the political and religious leaders of the West fragmented in regard to the blasphemies of the writer, blamed for the wrath of the crazies who also killed the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses.
Thus Mahmoud Gozlan, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, whilst acknowledging the criticism by the French government of Charlie Hebdo, immediately invited France to enact laws to criminalize Islamophobia, even daring to draw a parallel with the memorial laws condemning Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism: Anyone who doubts the existence of the Holocaust is imprisoned, but if someone insults the Prophet, his companions or Islam, the maximum (France) will do is to give a two word apology. This is neither fair nor logical, said Mahmoud Gozlan. We reject and condemn the French caricatures which dishonor the Prophet and we condemn any action that defames the sacred, Meanwhile, Essam al-Erian, a senior Freedom and Justice Party (PJD, Muslim Brother) in power in Egypt demanded that the French justice addresses the problem with as much firmness as it did for the topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, published in Closer.
In this process of reversal of responsibilities aimed at curtailing freedoms, the organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, bringing together 57 Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, of which Turkey and Egypt are the leaders, plays a vital role in the world. Under the guise of defending threatened Muslim minorities, the OIC uses its influence to prevent the integration of Muslim immigrants in the West, who are instead taken hostage by the bearded ones and abandoned by our capitulating governments who for many years have entrusted them to foreign preachers and Islamic ally States who fight Christian proselytizing at home and refuse any reciprocity but who spread the true faith in Europe and elsewhere
To confirm this total absence of reciprocity and impose the supremacy of sharia on the secular and universal conception of Human Rights, in 1981 and 1990, the OIC declared two Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights giving precedence to the spirit of the Sharia and limiting religious freedom (conviction of blasphemy and the right to choose ones own religion). And since 1999, the OIC has attempted to transcribe into international law, particularly in the United Nation, the concept of defamation of religions and Islamophobia real weapons of war against legal freedom of expression and to promote Sharia in the world.
Height of paradox: the main states lobbying for the criminalization of Islamophobia within the OIC are the most intolerant Christianophobes: Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan and Turkey (candidate for EU entry but still denying the genocide of a million and a half Armenian and Aramaic Christians ) Recall that within the OIC and the Council of Human Rights of the UN (HRC), the most virulent promoter of the criminalization of Islamophobia, Pakistan, persecutes minorities officially through the Penal Code which condemns to death blasphemers or proselytizing Christians who insult Islam. Recall that in 2011, the former Pakistani minister for minorities, Christian, Shahbaz Bhatti, and former Governor of the Punjab, Muslim, were killed for proposing the abolition of the blasphemy law and demanding the release of the famous Christian mother sentenced to death for blasphemy, Asia Bibi. This is the same State who, in 1999, presented to the HRC a resolution on defamation of Islam (later sweetened to defamation of religions).
Even two weights, two measures at the Council of Human Rights of the UN, where Islamophobia in the West is officially condemned, while the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Nigeria and Egypt are systematically denied with the complicity of Western countries that only intervene in these proceedings to punish that country (generally pro-Russian and pro-Chinese or pro-Iranians) which threatens their strategic and oil interests, and always defend the allied slave Sunni monarchies in the Gulf or Pakistan who persecute Christians and Shiites
With this inversion of responsibility, we observe that since September 11, 2001, not only have the Islamic states most associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan) not yet started their necessary self-criticism but have self-exempted themselves from combatting the ideological roots of Islamist totalitarianism (which they promote in their embassies and madrasas) accusing Westerners and Zionists of persecuting Muslims and so-called dirtying Islam.
Thus, in March 2008, after three years of violence Islamist reaction to the cartoons of Muhammad or the Islamophobic speech of Benedict XVI, the UN passed a resolution condemning the OIC defamation of religions ( in fact Islam). The General Assembly declared itself deeply hurt by the defamation of religion and Islam in the world and especially in Western democracies, claiming that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a genocide of Muslims, but it went totally silent about the massacres of Christians in southern Sudan or elsewhere.
The OIC demanded that Western democracies criminalize Islamophobia. In 2010, another resolution was adopted by the HRC condemning the Swiss popular initiative banning minarets. In June 2011, a Committee of the Council of Human Rights decided to abandon the concept of defamation of religions, noting that the anti-blasphemy laws like those in force in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan violate Human Rights.
But this draconian concept was reformulated by OIC Resolution 16/18″ adopted on 19 December 2011 in the Council on Human Rights resolution that fought intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence against persons because of their religion or belief.
The text of the OIC urged to create the necessary environment for the prohibition of defamation of religions and incitement to hatred, violence and discrimination on religious grounds ( ) stressing the importance of limits on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in a structured multilateral and in the light of events such as the burning of the Koran, according to the test of consequences.
But this very dangerous concept, which brings us to the news of the Mohammed cartoons and anti-Islamic film, is based on a great inversion of responsibility: it does not render the fanatics responsible for the violence but the cartoonists themselves accused of causing violent reactions of the Islamists, simple consequences of Islamophobia, hence the imperative to punish legally. The Istanbul Declaration alerts the world about implications (consequences) The dangerous rise of Islamophobia on peace and security. We emphasize the need to develop the UN, including the Council of Human Rights, a legally binding institutional instrument to promote respect for all religions and cultural values and prevent intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred against any group or followers of a religion. After the first meeting in Istanbul on 12 to 14 December 2011, the OIC met the Obama administration in Washington to persuade the U.S. President to join the Istanbul Process and to implement Resolution 16/18 of 2011.
With the official approval of Hillary Clinton, the OIC marked a major diplomatic coup. Now it is the European Union plans to host the next meeting of the Istanbul Process.
The worlds democracies must reject any form of penalty or limitation of freedom of expression, including the right to criticize religions, even the most obvious. For certain universal principles are not negotiable or adaptable based on religious cultures, or they would have to accept human sacrifice, slavery or inferiority of sub-castes under the pretext that they are allowed in some religions. It is therefore necessary to turn against the fanatics the same deadly weapons they use to crush secular democracies, noting in particular that many OIC countries persecute or kill non-Muslims, liberal Muslims and unbelievers with impunity. Western democracies of Judeo-Christian culture must also act within the United Nations to denounce the mirror-accusation of the OIC who blames Islamophobia in the West but endorses Christianophobia legitimized by Islamic blasphemy or anti-proselytizing laws
The sad reality is that anti-Western radical Islamism, as developed and distributed into European suburbs by Salafi preachers trained in countries of so-called allies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) is the most combative and efficient system of global hatred, anti-Semitic and totalitarian ideology Christianophobia and the most popular. Everywhere, anti-Western green fascism increases due to the fear it arouses and the violence that unfolds. And this unfortunately owes much to the Western media who make more visible the bearded fanatics rather than liberal Muslims. Now, obviously, the first victims of this religious fascism are minorities and moderate Muslims who live under permanent threat and terror. A growing phenomenon such as the Arab Spring (quickly becoming an Islamist winter) has not halted, but rather accelerated. For Rabat to Sanaa, to Tunis, Damascus or Baghdad, the source of legitimacy is the Shariah, which, when applied in its orthodox or radical, is never a good thing for minorities and followers of freedom.
Eat, or be eaten. But remember, some days the bear gets you.
And likewise, America has approximately zero friends out there. Starting with the fraud in the Oval Office.
In Arabic, the word for "black African" and "slave" are the same. In English, the word "slave" is derived from "Slav", reflective of the massive slaving operations of the Turkish empire.
It is incorrect, I think, to say that Musselmen introduced slavery to sub-Saharan Africa, but they certainly accelerated it and massified it; and once the European empires rolled away, they reintroduced it.
Credit actor Omar Sharif (who is Egyptian) and his friends Peter Ustinov and William Holden for making the commercial-loser movie Ashanti in the late 1970's with their own money, to bring the reintroduction of the trans-Saharan slave trade to the attention of the Western public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.