Contributing Authors

(Americans seem to be catching on to the OIC’s game)

Each year, the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation publishes an annual report on Islamophobia, and their latest report was not optimistic about the success of their agenda. The U.S. based think-tank, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which invented the word Islamophobia, considers it to be anything that slanders or defames Islam whether it is true or not. Despite their concerted efforts, the leaders of the OIC had to report that the “onslaught …continue [sic] unabated,” with incidents in Western countries surpassing previous reports. The incidents in the United States actually reached a ten year high.

That shouldn’t be the case: Thanks to the infiltration of our administration by Muslim Brotherhood operatives, most government documents and briefings have been purged of such hot-button Islamic words as jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Sharia, and Islam. The government has redefined Islamic terrorism as “workplace violence” or “manmade disasters.” The State Department has endorsed the “Istanbul Process” to criminalize Islamophobia (despite the First Amendment), using what Hillary Clinton called “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.” Companies and organizations face severe sanctions if they dare to ban headscarves, even for safety reasons. And dhimmi Christian churches are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims, oblivious to Sharia Law that says Christianity and Judaism are “remnant cults”, which are no longer valid.

So what went wrong? According to the OIC report, Muslims have suffered from a “sustained Anti-Muslim campaign by numerous far rightwing parties and other hostile quarters.” The OIC report concludes, “Islamophobia is an affront to human rights as a contemporary manifestation of racism.” This statement needs a bit of explanation. Their “human rights” are not based on the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which includes freedom of expression), but rather the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which states in Articles 23 and 24 that rights are based on Sharia Law and no other document. Article 22 of that document limits expression to what is allowed in Sharia Law, which prohibits saying anything that would defame Islam or slander a Muslim. In addition, the Islamic definition of “racism” is not biological, but rather it is defined by culture and beliefs. Therefore, opposing the ideology of Islam is a manifestation of racism, according to the OIC.

The other important aspect of this report is the criteria for what it calls an Islamophobic incident: A Muslim sensing that he/she is being treated or viewed with suspicion, called an offensive name, singled out by airport security, singled out by police, and/or physically threatened or attacked. Never mind that the cause of such an incident might be the person’s own behavior, such as:

• Dressing conspicuously non-Western clothing

• Refusing to cooperate with law enforcement

• Engaging in disruptive public religious demonstrations

The OIC report was carefully edited to maximize the theme of Muslim victimization. For example, the “annual” report covered May 2011 to September 2012 in order to include the Peter King hearings and the Yerushalmi/Kedar “Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques” report in June, 2011, as well as the “Innocence of Muslims” outrage in September, 2012. The OIC report also used data from 2009 and 2010 if it served to highlight Muslim victimization.

The OIC presented pages of data showing that, lately, there have been fewer acts of Islamic terrorism, and begged the question, if Muslims are killing fewer non-Muslims why hasn’t our image improved? Rather than addressing the issues that amplify the gaps between Islamic ideology and Western culture, the OIC strategy is to address “critical cases of religious intolerance notably by condemning and responding to Islamophobic acts or publications” and to foster multi-cultural youth programs to “consolidate the cultural, moral, social and educational grounds needed to ensure tolerance and understanding among people.”

With regard to the former strategy, OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu stated that the real test of the Istanbul Process lies in the implementation of the 16/18 resolution, i.e. setting up code of conduct against defamation of religion. Since Sharia Law states that Christianity and Judaism are remnant cults that are no longer valid (See Reliance of the Traveler, section w4.1), the only religion actually subject to defamation is Islam. The Quran itself is replete with disparaging passages about Jews and Christians. With regard to the latter strategy involving the youth, the OIC wants to “facilitate intercultural dialogue at the grassroots level to foster better understanding among people of different cultures and break through stereotypes and misconceptions.”

But the goal of these efforts is not the assimilation of Muslims into Western society, but rather non-Muslim accommodation of Islamic prerogatives: “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but rather be accommodated as equal citizens with equal and equally important rights.” As Dr. Phil would ask, “How’s that working out for you?”