OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?
Last March, the HRC passed a new resolution which was said to abandon the nefarious "defamation of religions" concept, substituting "negative stereotyping" & "incitement".  That is the official position; divergent from objective factual reality. The distinction is without difference, and the amended verbiage is persiflage.

    That fact is exposed by a March 24 address to the HRC by Mr. Zamir Akram, Pakistan's Ambassador.   He made it clear that the new resolution does not abrogate previous resolutions, instead, it confirms them.  His speech is dissected in detail here.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating  defamation. which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion or belief.

    The Secretary General of the OIC also addressed the HRC on the subject of the new resolution. 

OIC has a principled postition against defamation of any  religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of symbols  sacred   to  all     religions.    The  developments  including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts towards burning of Qur'an and the use of Islamophobia
as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term as ‘preventive  cultural    diplomacy’.   We   need  to  move beyond  event based calls for action to create spaces for structured engagement   The Human Rights   framework provides with a concrete basis for this engagement.   We believe that tbe workshops on incitement to hatred under the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.

    The Secretary General has spoken out again, this time uttering & publishing a lie so egregious that it must be refuted immediately.  It is necessary to rub his snout in his mess of deception.

 "The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. "

•  never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content.[Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh]
  • Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax. [http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/] 
  • "Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."[BBC News]

    For the benefit of those suffering from anal cranial juxtaposition, I will clear away the chaff:

• never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • urging the Danish government to stop the publication
  • pressure Norway to stop publication
  • told the Dutch ambassador
    • to prosecute Mr Wilders

    From the viewpoint of a rational and honest person, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is a damned liar, having deliberately made an egregiously untrue statement.  From the Islamic point of view, he is not a liar because Islam does not recognize disbelievers as human, denying our rights. They can not violate our freedom of expression because we have none. Human rights do not apply to us in their point of view.  The sanctity of life is conditioned on being Muslim.

[...]And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah[...] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

    Having exposed the most egregious deception, I will continue fisking this screed, which is being widely propagated. I perceive that this and related articles are the first wave of a tsunami of pressure focused on the next General Assembly session beginning September 20. 

    As is my habit with target rich environments, I will link my comments to superscripts in the text. Click the superscripts to read the comments and use your Backspace key to return to the text. 

Norway attacks reinforce need for united stand against intolerance Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Istanbul, Turkey - The horrific and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the importance of combating religious intolerance1 and promoting cultural understanding2. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities3, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing4 political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant5 and anti-multiculturalism6 policies, as was evident in the manifesto of the Norway killer7. Their views8 are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression9 while claiming that Muslims do not respect that right. A few days before the Norway attack, on 15 July in Istanbul, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the United States agreed to a united stand on “[c]ombating intolerance10, negative stereotyping11 and stigmatization of12, and discrimination13, incitement to violence14, and violence against persons based on religion or belief15” through the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The meeting – co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and myself, with the attendance of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs together with the foreign ministers and officials of OIC member states and Western countries, as well as international organisations – reaffirmed the commitment of the participants to the effective implementation of the measures set in the resolution.16 This was a major step towards strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity17 as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world18. The OIC, which was the initiator of Resolution 16/18, worked in close cooperation in the drafting process with the United States and the European Union in bringing about a breakthrough on 21 March. The 2011 HRC resolution is a genuine effort to usher in an era of understanding on the issue of religious intolerance. It gives the widest margin of freedom of expression, and reiterates the rejection of discrimination, incitement and stereotyping used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions. 19 The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. The Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, colour or faith20. It falls on all the OIC member states as a sacred duty to protect the lives and property of their non-Muslim citizens and to treat them without discrimination of any form. Those elements who seek to harm or threaten minority citizens must be subjected to law. Our strong stand condemning violence perpetrated against non-Muslims whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan has been consistent. No one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice. That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised. We also cannot overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western perception on certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need to be sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to criticising or expressing views on issues related to religion and culture. 21 The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred22 that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility23. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally. It is not enough to pass resolutions and laws against religious incitement. We should also be diligent in launching more initiatives and measures towards better intercultural dialogue and understanding at all levels – the political, social, business, media, academic and religious. Resolution 16/18 includes an eight-point approach that calls for various measures to foster tolerance, including developing collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and constructive action, creating appropriate mechanisms within the government to identify and address potential areas of tension between members of religious communities, and raising awareness at the local, national and international levels on the effects of negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred. The implementation of the 2011 HRC Resolution 16/1824 would take us a long way in making our world a more peaceful and harmonious place to live in. ### * Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference), an international organisation consisting of 57 member states. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication.

• Search: "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu"+ "stop publication"
  • Results: 35
    •   Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh [Emphasis added.]

      2 October 2010 JEDDAH — The Organisation of the Islamic Conference has condemned the publication of the book Tyranny of Silence in Denmark.
      The book, containing blasphemous caricatures, hit the stores in Denmark on Thursday amid concerns over a backlash from the Muslim world.

      The cartoons were first published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, resulting in condemnation from Muslims around the world.

      OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content. [...] Emphasising the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark, Ihsanoglu said the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudice and animosity. This would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community to promote understanding and peaceful coexistence among people of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

    • http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax.

---

1. Religious intolerance indeed. We must tolerate Islam, but Islam is not obligated to tolerate Judaism or Christianity. Tolerance is a one way street 
* whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted [3:85}
* fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. [8:39]
* those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind[2:161]
2. Cultural understanding, yeah, right. They do not want us to understand Islam, they want us to accept a false image; a web of lies spun by Islam and its apologists. What passes for cultural understanding is really kitman: deception by obfuscation.
3. Translation: resistance: Kuffar attempting to defend themselves and their culture. Phobia implies irrational fear and loathing. There is nothing irrational about loathing an institution which has a 1400 year track record of genocide, murdering an estimated 270*10⁶  people. 
4. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear tactic.  
5. The Immigrants in question are primarily Muslims, living as parasites on the state and breeding like rats. They tend to rape, riot and block the streets raising their butts to the moon. Whats not to oppose about that?
6. Multiculturalism is the idea that an inferior culture which dominates women, assaults Queers, rapes indigenous girls, declares superiority, refuses to assimilate, threatens war, supports terrorism and constantly escalates its demands is equal to Western Civilization. Whats not to oppose about suicidal idiocy?
7. Breivert's Manifesto discusses 'martyrdom operations'. "Yes, for certain religious members,
   certain measures are obviously in violation to biblical teachings but the amount of grace
   and divine goodwill generated at the point where you sacrifice everything (in the
   martyrdom operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more than
   nullify any minor or serious sins committed prior to operation." [pg. 846] On page 849 he lists three pieces of music to be played during 'martyrdom operations'.  It is obvious that Breivert adopted enemy doctrine & tactics. It is obvious that he is not sane. While objective facts reproduced in the manifesto remain true and accepted by others, the manifesto is his alone. The manifesto is violent, see pages 1028 & 1344; rational resistance is educational and political, not violent. Ihsanoglu is engaging in smear tactics, attempting to tar others with Breivert's violence.
8. Our views of Islam are founded on facts discovered in Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Check out ICCPR, Article 19. §1 guarantees the right to hold opinions. §2 guarantees freedom of expression.  The spewers of feces assert that rights are interdependent and cling bitterly to exaggerated ideas of Article 20.
9. In America we have the Declaration of Independence; God gave us the right to live;  & Bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." If prohibited from truthfully communicating warning of approaching danger, we would be rendered defenseless. We perceive Islam to be a threat because of its declaration & prosecution of perpetual war.
   • 2:216
   • 8:39
   • 9:29
   • 9:111
   • 9:123
   • 47:4
   • 61:4
   • 61:10-11
   • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386
   • Tafsir Ibn Kathir  The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
   • Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8
   • Risala
   • Hedaya


10. If they were sincere about combating intolerance, they would outlaw the Qur'an because it inculcates intolerance.  Is there anything more intolerant than declaring us the worst of living creatures, cursing us and declaring perpetual war against us? 
11. When we share the facts outlined in point 9 above, we are accused of negative stereotyping. Exposing the fact that Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us, Moe confirmed the imperative & implemented it and Islamic law codifies it is not negative stereotyping, it is revealing objective factual reality. It does not mean that every Muslim is violent, it means that Islam requires every Muslim to pray for, pay for and or participate in aggressive conquest. 
12. Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma? Why then should membership in Moe's war cult not carry a stigma? 
13. Should members of the Mafia be subject to discrimination? Should they be closely observed; suspected of criminal activity? Why then should members of the cult which sanctifies & celebrates terrorism not be suspected, observed and excluded from our societies? 
14. If incitement were to be combated, the Qur'an would be outlawed. Of course, that is not the intention of the resolution's authors and few will read 8:65, 9:38-39, 9:123 & 61:10-12 to learn why it should be. The Motoons simply depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. They did not suggest that viewers should assault or wage war upon Muslims. The associated violence was incited by Imams in Mosques, not by the cartoonists or publisher.  Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, displayed the incitement contained in the Qur'an, which flows through Mosques.  Fitna did not incite violence, Imams did, resulting in riots.  They are demanding that all criticism of Islam be outlawed, twisting and perverting language in the process.

CNN.Com's European outlet has a reminder of what the Secretary General said about Fitna, the documentary video by Geert Wilders.

• "The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance,"
  

BBC News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

"Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

After the release of the film, a number of international organizations released statements or otherwise responded to the film. United Nations' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated on on March 28, 2008 that

I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.^[133][134]

1. If they really gave a damn about violence against persons based on their religion, they would be acting to protect Christians in Muslim dominated areas of Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and other places where Christians are bombed, shot, burned and hacked to death with impunity.  
2. If there was any possibility of balanced & effective implementation the resolution, no Muslim would vote for it because it would require the outlawing of Islam. 
3. Tolerance respect for diversity? Really? Yeah, right. "Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm". "Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), "
   

   -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

   -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

4. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?  "then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush." "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land." Get a clue: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
5. The sentence is unmitigated hypocrisy. What did Ban Ki-moon say about Fitna? Something about "hate speech" & "incitement". Oh, yes, he said that freedom of expression was "not involved:.   Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  called it a "deliberate act of discrimination"  intended to "provoke unrest and intolerance.  Reality check: Fitna shows the  violent Qur'an verses side by side with the Imams who  invoke them and the resulting riots.  Describing is not doing.  
6. Like most Muslim screeds, this one is redundant. One lie must be pointed out: discrimination. Reliance of the Traveller is Islamic law. This provision affects conquered Jews & Christians.

   O11.5

   Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

   -1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

   -2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

   -3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

   -4- must keep to the side of the street;

   -5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

   -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

   -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

   O11.6

   They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

   O11.7

   A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

7. Diversity, yeah, right.  Because there is more than one "religion" in the world, we must not mention the fact that one of them is a war cult, hellbent on conquering us, not a legitimate religion. 
8. Incitement to hatred? Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror. Allah declared that he would cast terror. Allah declared that he cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish settlement and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. The fatal facts of Islam are truly worthy of hatred and contempt but exposing them is not incitement.  
9. Those of us who have become familiar with the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam have a responsibility to share our knowledge with our fellows and to encourage them to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  There is no responsibility to be silent or soft pedal the truth. 
10. Examine the resolution's call to action :

    5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

    (a) Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education;

    (b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within Governments to, inter alia, identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;

    (c) Encouraging training of Government officials in effective outreach strategies;

    (d) Encouraging the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities the causes of discrimination, and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

    (e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

    (f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief; {Review the definitions implicit in criticisms of Fitna and the Motoons!!!}
    

    (g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness-building;  {Indoctrination.}
    

    (h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence;

    6. Calls upon all States:

    (a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief;

    (b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society;

    (c) To encourage the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

    (d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

    7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

    8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

    9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session, within existing resources.

Sphere: Related Content