SHARIAH LAW MANDATES ISLAMIC WARFARE ON A MAIN TARGET:THE SILENCING OF THE WEST. HILLARY CLINTON, OBAMA INC. LEND SUPPORT! Commentary By Adina Kutnicki
Western audiences must internalize and FULLY understand the tactics utilized through Islamic warfare – by Sunni and Shia alike – as they seek to grab global domination. Today’s commentary, as a “green alert”, is neither scare-mongering nor pie-in-the-sky dreaming by avowed Islamists. FAR from it.
Their efforts engage many pressure points, but those which must remain our TOP priority revolve around a two-tiered jihadi prong: stealth on the one hand and frontal on the other. The underpinnings cited herein are all part and parcel of Shariah Law. Non-negotiable. Immutable. Set in Allah-stone.
The most insidious of all are those which fly “below the radar”, hence, the “stealth” appellation. The Muslim Brotherhood developed a brilliant psychological tactic – one which is repeatedly referenced at this site.“Islamophobia” is a strategy used by Islamists and their propagandists, as western enablers act as shields for Islamic supremacists!
The reason for the term’s coinage is its visceral imagery, as if to IMMEDIATELY tar those who DARE to question Islam’s underpinnings as“phobics”, demonstrating that they are the problem, not Islam. As if they are “racists” of the highest magnitude and that is that. As if to scream there is no “there there”; that those who step out of line are doing so due to their own fevered imaginations, as such, they are the ones in need of “re-education” camps. Really. That’s their modus operandi.
POLITICS OF “ISLAMOPHOBIA”The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by theInternational Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT’s ideology — now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.
This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “General Strategic Goal for North America,” by which the organization aimed to wage “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” To implement this plan, the Brotherhood enlisted the help of 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” (one of which was IIIT), whose task would be to depict themselves as civil-rights groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded fear of them — i.e., by a society replete with “Islamophobia.”
Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11. Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-rights activists have regularly accused the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. The accusers charge that as a result of this “Islamophobia,” Muslims are disproportionately targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and acts of discrimination.
But FBI data on hate crimes show that the foregoing accusers are wholly incorrect. The incidence of anti-Muslim abuses nationwide has actually declined since September 2001.
And herein belies the crux of the danger, as Obama Inc., including front-line players like Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin work assiduously to impose restrictions on criticism of Islam, all the while stomping on America’s (the west’s) underpinning of free speech! YES, Hillary Clinton & her mobbed up Muslim Brotherhood terror associates: INEXORABLY tied. Politically AND business-wise. Treasonous.
Their targeted assaults incredibly bore into every powerful recess of American influence (and beyond), not even eschewing spiritual cornerstones as “no go” zones:“red/leftists” merge forces with “green/Islamists”, in a frontal attack against free speech and Rabbis (Priests too) used as bait. How dare they? Is nothing off limits? Is nothing holy, other than their jihad for Allah? In any case, for the visually inclined, this should bring the danger home - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YsdbhIbZoc.
But if the above isn’t enraging enough, understand that a HUGE and concerted effort is continually waged through a powerful Islamic entity at the UN, and Hill is front and center egging them on! Other American leaders (some in the open, some behind the scenes) are working for the same result – the castration of free speech!
Powerful Islamist Org. Ramps Up War on Free Speech in West
The primary objective of the OIC is to pressure Western countries
into passing laws that would ban ‘negative stereotyping of Islam.’
BY SOEREN KERN
December 12, 2013
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) participated in and supported the ‘Istanbul Process.”- The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.
The primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”
In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.
The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting “incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits.”
But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”
According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”
Chapter 1 of the report deals with “Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims,” and purports to reveal the “unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies.”
According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the “perpetuation of Islamophobia,” which:
“…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination, particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries.”Another factor favoring “the climate of intolerance” is:
“In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations.”
“…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other.”Chapter 2 of the report deals with “Manifestations of Islamophobia in the West.” According to the OIC:
“The number of Islamophobic incidents continues to rise in the US, as a result of anti-Muslim propaganda. It is particularly alarming that anti-Muslim sentiments are taking deeper roots infiltrating further in the educational system. Notable among several other worrying trends/cases are: the initiatives taken by a leading and powerful US legislator [US Representative Peter King] to convene special Congressional Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in the US… In the same vein, the Republican Party in the recent 2013 [sic] US Presidential elections also used the anti-Islam card as a strategy.”The OIC concludes that “journalists and media organizations have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a platform for its widespread dissemination.”
“With regard to Islamophobic trends in Europe, various reports and polls have revealed growing misperception vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Among the most common and recurring… are the ideas that Muslims are inclined to violence including revenge and retaliation; that Islam is an inherently expansionist religion, which strives for political influence, and whose followers are obsessed with proselytizing others, and more generally that Islam deprives women of their rights and encourages religious fanaticism and radicalism. According to the same polls, only a minor portion of the public tends to see Islam in a more positive light, as being a religion of peace that preaches love for neighbors, charity, openness and tolerance… Muslims who live in xenophobic environments are more exposed to daily stress and other forms of moral prejudice.”
Chapter 3 of the OIC report highlights “Some Positive Developments” in terms of initiatives and other steps and positions taken to combat Islamophobia, including:
“…the condemnation of anti-Muslim hate speech by various quarters, including non-Muslim religious leaders; the barring from entry of certain Islamophobes to a number of countries where they intended to take part in anti-Muslim rallies or deliver inflammatory lectures; the recognition of Muslim holidays and other strict sanctions taken against acts of manifest religious intolerance. It was noted with satisfaction that a number of international organizations, including UNSECO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, have recognized the danger posed by Islamophobia and have taken concrete steps to combat it, notably by laying down Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims.”Chapter 4 of the report, “OIC Initiatives and Activities to Counter Islamophobia,” focused on the OIC’s ongoing efforts to promote the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.
In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration)—together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011—is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations and non-state actors to:
“Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws;The report states that “the OIC and the Member States should not be complacent in underscoring the fact that our present day world is gradually being driven towards the dangerous precipices of growing intolerance of religious and cultural diversity. This is the clear and present danger that the OIC has been consistent in warning the international community against. The sooner the phenomenon of Islamophobia is addressed, the better it is for ensuring peaceful coexistence of the present as well for the future generations to come.”
“Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards;
“Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;
“Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam.
“Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate, exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified stance.”
The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and European political leaders for their help (here and here) in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West.
“The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton … must be carried forward … the Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation …” Ihsanoglu said.
Most significantly, the so called “liberal” left set are in the forefront of censuring free speech, all in the name of protecting a made up out of whole cloth phobia!
YES, even as the first Black (though a half breed) POTUS is the most powerful man in the west, they still would have us believe that conservative folks, aka“knuckledraggers”, and rational anti-Islamists are simply incapable of ferreting out this and that. Hence, strictures muzzling speech are for our own good. In fact, AG Holder already assembled said omerta: ALERT : Radical-in-Chief Obama tasks (il)legally-bent (AG) Holder to “criminalize” Islamic speech via thuggish UN dictates!
Never and never. They can all go to hell – and back.
Alas, as they hold aloft “civil rights” as the sine qua non for PC behavior, they behave like fascists and worse.
Now, few understand this subject like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, as they attempted to silence her hither and yon trough a tactic called “lawfare”, but they lost!
In her book, “Funding Evil”, Dr. Ehrenfeld alleged that Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz had financed al Qaeda through his bank and charitable organization. Mahfouz denied the allegations. Dr. Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen based in New York, had not written or marketed her book internationally and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the British court over her case. Her refusal resulted in the British Court awarding a default judgment against her.
Represented by her attorney, Daniel Kornstein,[5] Dr. Ehrenfeld pre-emptively countersued Mahfouz in New York to obtain a declaration that the judgment would not be enforced in the United States and that her book was not defamatory under United States defamation law. When the New York courts ruled that they lacked personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, the New York State legislature took immediate action and unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act[6] (also known as “Rachel’s Law”). Rachel’s Law was signed into law on April-29-2008. The law “offers New Yorkers greater protection against libel judgments in countries whose laws are inconsistent with the freedom of speech granted by the United States Constitution.”[7]
As of July 2010, six other states have passed analogs to Rachel’s Law: Illinois,[8] Florida,[9] California,[10] Tennessee,[11] Maryland,[12] and Utah.[13] A federal bill based on Rachel’s Law was passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee and has since then been approved by both Houses of Congress. President Obama signed the bill into law on 10 August 2010. The bill, S. 3518, the titled Securing and Protecting our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act (Speech Act),[14] includes several measures aimed at closing loopholes in First Amendment protections for free speech. The act bars enforcement of foreign libel judgments that do not meet with American constitutional standards of due process and First Amendment protections. The burden of proof is also placed on the party suing for enforcement. The party suing to prevent enforcement may also sue the libel plaintiff for a declaration that the foreign libel judgment is “repugnant” to American constitutional law, and is entitled to attorney’s fees for resultant legal proceedings. The new federal law, and the existing seven state laws that predate it, do not, however, protect American persons who exercise First Amendment freedoms but who then travel abroad and then become subject to physical application of foreign libel laws and judgments. Many countries, for example, Thailand, maintain laws that cite jurisdiction over speech exercised outside their countries and which mandate punishment for libel inside the foreign plaintiff’s country even though the speech may have occurred outside. Extraterritorial jurisdiction over First Amendment rights has not been the focus of attention in international legal jurisprudence or focus in the diplomatic community.
Dr. Ehrenfeld’s efforts at libel law reform in the United States inspired the Libel Reform Campaign[15] an NGO campaign with over 55,000 supporters. The British government has published a draft defamation bill, The Defamation Act [2013] which comes into action later this year. .[16]
BEATING back Islamic warfare, through the silencing of all dissent, is a major linchpin to beating back Shariah Law ! One and the same.
NOT on our watch…kadima…קדימה…as we continue to expose the facts at Islam Exposed Online.
No comments:
Post a Comment