User Rating: / 31
PoorBest 

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey defended his appointment of a Muslim lawyer who supports sharia law. Now The U.S. has sided with the OIC on outlawing blasphemy (against Islam).

On July 26, Gov. Chris Christie had another tantrum. This time it was when he was asked by a reporter about his appointment of Sohail Mohammed as a state superior court judge on the day of Mohammed’s swearing in.

Christie went off on all those that questioned the appointment back in January, myself included. He stated,

“this Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. I mean, you know, it's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.”

Yes, it’s crazy. It’s crazy to think that Sharia law can happen here in the U.S.; after all, we have the Constitution.

We also have Sharia courts in Texas now too as well as case after case from Florida to New Jersey that blatantly has used Sharia when deciding cases rather than our laws.

Now the U.S. and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) are working together on religious tolerance? Talk about an oxymoron, I mean we all know how tolerant Islam is when it comes to other religions or beliefs.

The OIC, formerly known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the U.S. along with other Western countries has hammered out a deal, a pledge to combat intolerance. As reported by Arab News,

In what can rightly be described as a seminal step in relations between the Muslim world and the Western world, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the leading nations of the Western world led by the United States and the European Union agreed Saturday to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.

Perhaps we need to dig deeper to understand what all this really means. As explained by the International Islamic News Agency on August 1,

JEDDAH, Ramadan 1/Aug 1 (IINA)-During the next few months, Washington plans to host a coordination meeting to discuss with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) how to implement resolution no. 16/18 on combating defamation of religions, and how to prevent stereotypes depicting religions and their followers; as well as disseminating religious tolerance, which has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council last March, in agreement with Western countries. The resolution was adopted after lengthy discussions held between the OIC and countries in which the phenomenon of Islamophobia is in the rise.

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced the intention of the U.S. State Department to organize a coordination meeting during her participation in the meeting which she co-chaired with the OIC Secretary General, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Istanbul on 15 July 2011. The meeting issued a joint statement emphasizing the dire need for the implementation of resolution 16/18.

According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN resolution.

The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which 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.

On the other hand, the OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, stressed that the crime committed recently in Norway was a result of the rise of the extreme right in Europe and its easy mobility in political circles. He said that the OIC had warned several times against of what might be called institutionalization of the phenomenon of Islamophobia through the involvement of the European extreme right in government institutions and political action.

He added that the reports of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory for the years 2009 and 2010 had included several warnings about an organized political form which the extreme right may transform into through its parties’ legislation.

Wait a minute… Stop. The first paragraph of the report says “The resolution was adopted after lengthy discussions held between the OIC and countries in which the phenomenon of Islamophobia is in the rise”.

The last FBI report compiled on Hate Crime Statistics, specifically on “anti-religious hate crimes” states,

Of the 1,575 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:

71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.

8.4 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.

Religious crimes against Jews have gone up year by year, while crimes against Muslims have decreased.

My mistake, they did say “Islamophobia” not crimes. I have argued there is no such thing as Islamophobia before. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. If Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are more frequently the target of hate crimes and anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years where is this so-called phobia?

I know about Anthrax. I know it can kill me and the forms it can come in, but I don’t worry about it daily. I am not afraid to open my mail because it may have Anthrax powder in it.  I do not have a toxiphobia or the fear of poisons.

My point is this: just because someone is aware of something, has educated themselves to the truth about it and does not like it, does not make it a phobia.

So, basically more people are becoming aware of the truth about Islam and groups like the OIC don’t like that. Especially when those people start to educate others and the best way to stop that? Call it a phobia and make it a criminal offense.

The OIC would have you believe that Islamophobia lead to the recent tragedy in Norway. As stated in the article above, “the OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, stressed that the crime committed recently in Norway was a result of the rise of the extreme right in Europe”.

Well, if we were to use that same logic could we not say that 9/11, the death of 3000 Americans as well as 17,560 deadly terror attacks since 9/11 were all caused by Islam? No, not if the OIC has their way that would be hate speech. It’s irrelevant that it’s true; it’s hate speech just the same.

We already have something here in the U.S., like most other Western countries, to combat religious defamation. It’s called the law. I’ve been using the words throughout this article, “hate crimes”.

So let’s look at what is really behind the OIC and the “defamation of religion”.

The article stated that “the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which 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.”

I won’t even begin to discuss what it means for the UN to even have any sort of legal basis to “help in enacting domestic laws”, we have a Constitution. Enough said about that.

But what about the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution, according to the UN website,

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War.

But the OIC has their own version of a Declaration on Human Rights. I wonder if that ever came up in the discussions with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu or if it will come up in the upcoming meetings in Washington?

The OIC declaration is usually seen as an Islamic response to the post-World War II United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. It is titled Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) and can even be found on a UN website, the UNHCR or the UN Refugee Agency.

The very first sentence of the declaration states, “The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference” so there is no doubt who this is, it was adopted in Cairo on August 5, 1990 and in 1992 the CDHRI was presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Sharia or Islamic law is mentioned 14 times in this declaration. But more importantly is the context in which it is used, for example in the Preamble,

Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah

Article 2 discusses how life is given by God,

(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and state to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari'a prescribed reason.

Can’t “take away life except for a Shari'a prescribed reason”, that would be what; a case where after a woman has been raped, but she could not prove it for lack of 4 male witnesses she would be put to death under Sharia law for adultery?

Article 7,

(b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of Shari'a.

Guess that explains the lack of women and girls in schools in countries such as Afghanistan and other Islamic countries.

Article 19,

(c) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'a.

No comment needed.

Article 22,

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a.

(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.

Now are we beginning to see a pattern here for the OIC, free expression so long as it conforms with the Shari’a?

Article 24

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'a.

That last one I believe to be the most important. Why? Because Article 1 states,

(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or oilier considerations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.

But of course all “freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'a”

As the other group that our Government recently teamed up with, the Muslim Brotherhood has stated,

“eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated”

So, I guess Gov. Christie and the OIC are correct. The more we learn about Islam, Sharia and the overall goal of an Islamic Caliphate, the crazier it all seems.