Den stora islamistiska offensiven mot yttrandefriheten

Lawful Islamism's Greatest Attack Yet

- The OIC Resolution Against Defaming Religion
By Supna Zaidi

Have you seen the little old lady who passes out

Jehovah's Witness literature in your neighborhood?

Some people stop and show interest. Others roll

their eyes, and keep walking. But, would you ever

expect anyone to threaten her? Call her a racist,

and try to get her arrested?

*
Islamists would. And that is exactly what happened

to two English Christian ministers who had the

nerve to proselytize on a street corner in a pre-

dominantly Muslim immigrant area in the UK

in 2007.

*
Such freedom of speech violations won't be an

anomaly if the Organization of the Islamic

Conference (OIC), which has a permanent

delegation to the United Nations, succeeds in

passing a UN resolution against "Defamation of

Religion". Noboby in a western country will be

able to discuss the socio-political consequences

of Muslim immigration, for fear of being labeled

"Islamophobic" and slapped with a fine, or even

jail time.

*
Islamists are increasingly using lawful Islamism,

or non-violent and legal strategies to spread

Sharia, (Islamic law) in the West, encroaching

on non-Muslim life everyday. Other examples

include:

*
1. Sharia Finance;

2. Islam in public schools;

3. Violations of basic hygiene policy by

Muslim medical staff;

4. Workplace violations in the name of

religious freedom;

5. Censorship of literature.

*
Under the banner of "religious freedom," Islamists

attack the very fabric of democracy in favor of

Islam in the public sphere. The above examples

are not examples of pluralism, but a violation of

the separation of church and state doctrine meant

to keep people of all faiths, or no faith, equal under

the law. Liberals have forgotten that secularism is

not a free-for-all, but has boundaries in order to

remain meaningful.

*
Freedom of speech has already been attacked

repeatedly. Islamists tried to censor criticism

of Islamist terrorism when the Muhammad

cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten

in 2005. Strangely enough, the "cartoon intifada"

arose 5 months after their original printing, but

only weeks before the UNHCR was due to consider

the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation

of Religion."

*
Such a coincidence caused the National Secular

Society to state in its Memorandum (Section

E, point 2) to the UK Parliament that, the Danish

cartoon crisis was manufactured… to exploit

sensitivities around racial discrimination and to

promote (or even exaggerate) the notion of

"Islamophobia" in order to restrict possibilities

for open discussion or criticism of Islam….measures

calling for legislation banning "defamation of religion"

- …. aims to remove religion, especially Islam, from

public scrutiny and public debate.

*
If any religion is to be integrated into the daily

social, economic and political life of a nation, it

must open the door for evaluation of its goals

and application. Otherwise, OIC nations will be

able to govern unilaterally without respect to

international law.

Consider the following precedent.

*
Saudi Arabia ratified the UN Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW) in 2000, with reservations,

stating, "In case of contradiction between any

term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic

law, the Kingdom is not under obligation to

observe the contradictory terms of the Convention."
Thus, Saudi Arabia confirms that it will only offer

lip service to human rights by signing documents

like the CEDAW charter. It will not actually

improve the status of women, because it is a

theocracy, and every move a woman makes is

governed by Islamic law. CEDAW can do nothing

for them. Moreover, if the Defamation of Religion

resolution is passed, all human rights activists will

feel even greater censorship, since protests from

abroad will be construed as racism.

*
Consider the "Qatif girl" case.

A Saudi girl was gang-raped in 2005 and blamed

for it, since she was in the presence of unrelated

men when it happened. Her attorney lost his license

for challenging the Saudi courts. Only after

generating global media pressure did the situation

change in her favor. The king pardoned her and

the attorney got his license reinstated. In a post-

Defamation of Religion world, the attorney would

have been trapped, unable to help the girl and

disbarred if he dared to challenge Saudi Islamic law.

*
Lastly, the OIC resolution must fail because it is

patently hypocritical. While professing great

sensitivity toward religion, OIC members

ironically regularly fail to show any respect

for other faiths:
1. Saudi Arabia continues to use

bigoted textbooks, and export

them to American Islamic

schools despite promises to change.
2. Iran sponsored a Holocaust cartoon

contest in retaliation for the Danish

cartoons of Muhammad in 2005.

Yet, Jews had nothing to do with

the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
3. Pakistan's blasphemy laws attack

Christians as a pretext for personal disputes.

*
The Defamation of Religion resolution is a free

pass for Islamists to continue denigrating other

religions and minorities through lawful Islamism.

It ties the hands of any politician that questions

the spread of Islamism in the West, and prevents

critical evaluation of the treatment of women and

minorities in Muslim societies.
Liberal and conservative citizens of the

West must work together to prevent this

resolution from passing in the UN.

*
(Supna Zaidi is editor-in-chief of Muslim World

Today and asst director of Islamist Watch at

the Middle East Forum)

Muslim World Today

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the author.