Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

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.

President: this resolution addresses a number of issuesover 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 consensuson 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 incitementand
discrimination and incitement to hatredand violencebased 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
      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,
      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. []
      , 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. []
    • 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
      news agency reported.”[

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
        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

Istanbul, Turkey – The horrific
and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the
importance of combating religious intolerance1
and promoting cultural

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

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.

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.

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

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
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

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,

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.

        Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay
        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.

        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. []
        , 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

* 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]

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is
      democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear
    4. The Immigrants in question are
      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?
    5. 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
    6. 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

      operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more

      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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.



  1. 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
    and declaring
    perpetual war
    against us?
  2. 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.
  3. Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma?
    Why then should membership in Moe’s war cult not carry a stigma?
  4. 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?
  5. 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

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

News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

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
 Secretary-General Ban
 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
  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
    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.


    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 stree

    -5- may not build higher than
    or as high as the Muslims’ building
    s, 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


    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).


    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:

    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;

    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

    Encouraging training of Government officials in effective outreach

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

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

    (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!!!}

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

    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
    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

    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

    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.

August 18, 2011 - Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: