You may be interested in an article that appears at the Arab websiteÂ Asharq Alawsat, by Ibrahim Kalin, senior adviser to Turkish premier Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Kalin warns the West about the dangers of “Islamophobia” and proposes that it be designated a crime against humanity.Â continue readingÂ (Brussels Journal)
So much for the pedigree of the word “Islamophobia”. We know its function: to delegitimize the opponents of Islam by transforming their political opinions into a mental illness. And not just a neutral mental illness like obsessive-compulsive disorder or schizophrenia, but an evil sort of lunacy, for which one should be committed to an asylum for the criminally insane.If the OIC achieves its goals, and Islamophobia is outlawed in the West, lawmakers, bureaucrats, and the police will require guidelines about the ways in which this ugly disease manifests itself, so they can recognize those who suffer from it and assign them to a secure facility for treatment. DHS will need to write up a handbook for its local agents describing what to watch out for. Federal and state legislators will need a clear definition of the word to include in the laws they pass against it.So whatÂ isÂ Islamophobia? What’s a good working definition of the word?Fortunately, someone has already done the hard work of laying out the concept in detail. And, needless to say, the defining was done by Muslims themselves.TheÂ following article, “A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia”, was written last year by a European group called the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an umbrella organization of Muslim NGOs from all over the continent.Even though it was composed from a European perspective, this definition is probably similar to what will be used in the United States when required. I’ll go through it by sections, bolding phrases and sentences that merit further discussion:
Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discriminationmotivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of IslamÂ and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.
Notice that this lead paragraph presupposes an understanding of what is in the mind of an Islamophobe. It assumes that opposition to Islam must be motivated by fear and hatred. It excludes the possibility that opponents of Islam may be motivated primarily by rational self-interest, rather than angry passion.
The text does not specify it, but one may assume that EMISCO’s definition denies the existence of any other motives for opposing Islam. It is simply considered impossible that any non-Muslim could inform himself about the scriptures, teachings, and laws of Islam, read the history of Islamic expansion, observe the behavior of Muslims in his own time, and come to the reasoned conclusion that Islam is a dangerous political ideology that has degraded and impoverished every society in which it has become dominant.
Such rational conclusions cannot be drawn. The possibility of doing so will be defined out of existence. “Fear”, “mistrust”, and “hatred” are the only acknowledged motives that anyone could have for opposing Islamization.
Manifestations of Islamophobia includeÂ hate speech,Â violent actsÂ andÂ discriminatory practices, which can be manifested by both non-state actors and state officials.
“Hate speech” is already well-established as a stand-alone crime in Europe, but in the United States it must accompany a “violent act” or other statutory crime before it can be prosecuted. Perhaps the intention here is to help it become a crime by redefining the scope of “discriminatory practices”, which are already illegal in the USA.
This seems to be the general tactic being pursued by Hillary Clinton and the State Department in their consultations with the OIC â€”Â to identify those who oppose Islamization as “discriminatory” as they engage in their “defamation of religion”.
She submitted a longer version of the same paper to the conference organizers. It contained more detailed arguments, an appendix citing Islamic law, and footnotes for sources. It has been accepted, and was registered by the OSCE. An HTML version of the paper is below.
Buergerbewegung Pax Europa
In cooperation with and endorsed by
International Civil Liberties Alliance,
Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund
Today’s meeting is ostensibly concerned with confronting intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in public discourse. Actually, however, it focuses on “Islamophobia”, a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1990’s. According to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, “it has become ‘a matter of extreme priority’ for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” It appears that the UK-based Runnymede Trust in 1996 coined the “accepted” definition, which includes any and all of the following components:
|1.||Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.|
|2.||Islam seen as separate and other:|
|(a)||not having any aims or values in common with other cultures,|
|(b)||not affected by them, and|
|(c)||not influencing them.|
|3.||Islam seen as inferior to the West â€” barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.|
|4.||Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in ‘a clash of civilizations’.|
|5.||Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.|
|6.||Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand.|
|7.||Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.|
|8.||Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and ‘normal’.|
Runneymede has been in a close relationship with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation for some time. Pax Europa and its affiliations note with grave concern that this definition â€” or any definition â€” of Islamophobia cannot and does not address the underlying problems with Islam and its teachings.
For example, Pax Europa believes that Islam denies equal rights to men and women. According to the above definition, simply raising this point has been considered Islamophobia. Pax Europa believes that for many, there is a political ideology component to Islam. Since its ideology informs the doctrine of political organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, it is indeed a political ideology. Pax Europa is accused of Islamophobia for speaking to this reality, even when it can demonstrate a factual basis for the statements it makes in this regard.
Pax Europa is of the opinion that criticism of a religion, including Islam, must remain legitimate. This is echoed by the OSCE: “Criticisms of religious practices (just religious practices, not religions themselves?; BPE) are legitimate speech.” We believe, however, that while Muslims are not a monolithic group,Â for those Muslims who accept Islam as an ideology, there are elements of Islamic law that are monolithic, in that all Muslims worldwide, whether they live in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, consider the Koran and the Hadith (authentic sayings of Mohammed) as the basis of theirÂ legal system. Certainly groups like the Muslim Brotherhood profess this! How are groups like Pax Europa to discuss such issues if not allowed to speak to the language and doctrines that define them?
We further note that the distinction between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” speech is one of grave concern. We would like to recall the OSCE commitments (Copenhagen 1990) which state with respect to freedom of expression:
The participating States reaffirm that
9.1) – everyone will have the right to freedom of expression including the right to communication. This right willÂ include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorityÂ and regardless of frontiers. The exercise of this right may be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are consistent with international standards.
The participating States express their commitment to
10.1) – respect the right of everyone, individually or in association with others, to seek, receive and impart freely views and information on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights to disseminate and publish such views and information;
When we review the OSCE Commitments, their direct nexus is to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19 UDHR.Â Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Pax Europa is of the opinion that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) require public expression to conform to Shariah law. This includes perceived “anti-Muslim discourse” as well as cases of “discrimination”, whether intentional or unintentional. This is not speculation. In December 2005, at the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, the OIC implemented a ten-year plan “to meet the challenges facing the Muslim Ummah”. Article 6 of the OIC Charter states:
The Islamic Summit is composed of Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States and is the supreme authority of the Organisation. It convenes once every three years to deliberate, take policy decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah.
Section 1 of the ten-year program covers “Intellectual and Political Issues”, and under category VII, “Combating Islamophobia“, we read this:
2. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments,Â to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation. [emphasis added] 3. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitorÂ all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, andÂ ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental OrganizationsÂ (NGOs) in order toÂ counter Islamophobia. [emphasis added]
If the OIC’s Ten Year Plan really does come from a “Summit,” and it does, it means that the plan reflects the policy objectives and state actions of non-EU state actors against citizens of EU Member States. Further, as Article 6 of the OIC Charter makes clear, the “Combating Islamophobia” initiative has been undertaken as an objective of OIC Member States and the Ummah. Neither the European Union nor any of its Member States belong to that Ummah. Hence, not only are the OSCE Commitments and Article 19 of the UDHR being compromised, but it appears that it is happening on behalf on foreign state actors in concert through the OIC. This should not come as a surprise. From the Secretary General of the OIC himself, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on behalf of all 57 OIC Member States: