Who Is Behind The Campaign To Silence The Debate on Islam- by Muslim Journalist Asra Q Nomani

A former Wall Street Journal reporter and American Muslim, Asra Q. Nomani, has written an interesting article on the "organized campaign" to silence criticism of Islam. She, herself, has been a target for her progressive views, including the bullying attempts to silence her, the ad hominem attacks: "Zionist media whore" and "House Muslim,"  and, of course, the obligatory death threats.

She writes about when and where it all began:

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil.

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com and Ikhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. They bank on an important truth: Islam, as practiced from Malaysia to Morocco, is a shame-based, patriarchal culture that values honor and face-saving from the family to the public square. Which is why the bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism.

It works for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The rest here.  Well worth the read.  We need more voices like Asra's. There are some, but they are very few.

Pat Condell's Latest On The OIC's Attempts To Squelch Free Speech

The latest from Pat Condell on the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and its continuing attempt at squelching free speech.

The Dutch Ditch 1930s Blasphemy Law

It's hard to believe that there are still a slew of Western countries that still have blasphemy laws in their penal codes. Those laws don't belong in modern, free societies. It's not up to the court systems to punish people who blaspheme, that's up to the individual and his/her God, if they are believers. The West is not Pakistan (or any other Shariah compliant nation) with draconian, backward laws. This is the 21st century, and we need to start acting as if we live in a modern world.

At least the Dutch are on the right track. After a decade of trying, they've finally trashed their blasphemy law which was still on the books since the 1930s, though it had not used for fifty some odd years. Ironically, it was the conservative and far right parties in the Netherlands that wanted the law to remain intact. Their loss in the general elections this past September is credited for facilitating the lifting of the ban, along with Geert Wilders trial last year. According to Marc Veldt, of the University of Applied Sciences in Utrecht, says:

... the move to lift the ban on blasphemy was also an indirect result of the legal case involving anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders. In June 2011, a Dutch court ruled that Wilders had the right to criticize Islam, even though his opinions insulted many Muslims.

Wilders, who leads the Freedom Party, had described Islam as "fascist" and compared Islam's holy book, the Koran, to Adolf Hitler's autobiography and political manifesto "Mein Kampf." Amsterdam judge Marcel van Oosten said Wilders' statements were directed at Islam and not at Muslims. Van Oosten said the statements were "gross and denigrating" but still "acceptable within the context of public debate."

Wilders said at the time that the verdict was "not only an acquittal for me, but a victory for freedom of expression in the Netherlands."

The Netherlands still retains hate speech laws, however, and some Western countries have replaced old (Christian) blasphemy laws with revamped versions, like England with its law "against incitement to religious hatred."  Ireland took it one step further:

Ireland introduced a new law in 2010 that makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of up to 25,000 euros ($32,485). The Irish law defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defenses permitted."

That's a hefty fine, and if Ireland has any similar organization to the U.S. Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), anyone critical of Islam better watch out.

Many are advocating getting rid of all blasphemy laws, with good reason.  Padraig Reidy of London-based "Index on Censorship" says:

... blasphemy laws are no longer relevant in the 21st century. He says there is no place for a law defending religion, which he calls an "ideal." He says it should be people who have rights, not ideals.

"There's no question that blasphemy laws are a severe restriction on free speech. Any push back against blasphemy laws -- [against the notion that ideas] should be protected -- is a good thing. It's very important that blasphemy laws should be repealed," Reidy says.

On the other hand you have the Organization of Islamic  Cooperation (OIC) pushing for a global blasphemy law, because they have no clue about the notion of free speech.

If we want to ensure that those of us who are critical of radical Islam, or any religion for that matter, continue to have the freedom to do so, then we need to make sure that every Western country that still has blasphemy laws on the books throws them out.  And we must fight any organizations or special interest groups that try to make criticism of a religion a crime. There is a difference between criticism and inciting to religious hatred.  Blasphemy laws belong in another century, not this one.

Pakistani Accused Of Blasphemy For Not Joining Anti-Islam Film Protests

Pakistan loves its blasphemy laws. It's man's best friend over there. Got a gripe or a bone to pick with someone? Your barber gave you a bad haircut? Just accuse them of blasphemy, that'll settle the score. And Pakistanis took full advantage of that during the latest anti-Islam movie protests. Naturally, they took the streets, just like all their buddies over in the Middle East, and Africa, and Australia, and a bunch of other places- nothing like a good rage-induced protest, after all. Egypt and Libya beat them to it, but they eventually packed the streets across Pakistan.

Not everyone jumped on the rage-boy bandwagon, however. There were some who refused to participate, like businessman Haji Nasrullah Khan. He owns about 120 stores, and refused to close up shop after protesters tried to force him to during Saturday's protest in Hyderabad. An argument ensued which then prompted some to accuse him of blasphemy. According to police officer Muneer Abbasi, a  police report was filed, and now Khan and his kin are in hiding.

The protesters claimed Khan insulted the Prophet while arguing with them, said city police chief Fareed Jan. But he said there was no evidence to suggest the insults really occurred and that police only opened a blasphemy case because they were pressured by the mob.

Opening such a case doesn't mean the person is necessarily charged with the crime but that police are investigating him or her.

Protesters ransacked Khan's house, and surrounded a police station, refusing to go away until officials opened a blasphemy case, Abbasi said.

The situation became even more inflamed when religious leaders from one of the biggest mosques in the city issued an edict calling for Khan's death and announced from the mosque's loudspeakers that he should be killed, Abbasi said.

The police officer said Khan and his family members had gone into hiding in fear for their lives.

 As for the blasphemy accusations against Khan? Abbasi thinks it had more to do with unhappy shopkeepers who Khan was trying to evict for late rental payment than righteous indignation about the film and his refusal to join them in their anger-fest.

Some have tried to lobby to repeal those barbaric blasphemy laws, but they usually wind up dead:

Last year, a minister and a governor were assassinated when they spoke out about misuse of the laws and suggested changing them. The governor was shot and killed by his own guard.

Rights activists and critics of the laws had hoped that the recent case of a 14-year-old girl charged with insulting the Quran would help bring about changes in the laws, or at least help curb abuse.

The case gained widespread attention and sympathy both in Pakistan and internationally due to her young age and questions about her mental capacity.

She was granted bail after a religious cleric was accused of planting evidence to incriminate her, and her lawyers have said they will move to throw the case out entirely.

And  those mobs, that the police obviously have no control over,  often take the law into their own hands and have killed accused blasphemers, innocent or not.

Earlier this summer a mob in one Pakistani city dragged an accused blasphemer from a police building, beat him to death and burned the body.

And the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants a global blasphemy law? Over my dead body.

Islamic States (OIC) Try Again For Global Blasphemy Law

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been attempting to squelch freedom of speech for a very  long time.  Now, members are taking advantage of the latest firestorm in the Middle East (over the "Innocence of Muslims" film, and the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons) to resurrect their efforts to force their way of thinking on the West.  They want a global ban on insulting religion; in fact, they want to make it a criminal offense, just like it is under Islamic Shariah law. And we all know what that means: a sentence of life in prison or death.

The secretary-general of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, called on the rest of the world to:

 “come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression.”

He said the “deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom” were a danger to global security and stability.

Uh, no. Freedom of expression is not a danger to global security and stability, a religion that has failed to modernize and evolve along with the bulk of its followers is what poses a threat to global stability. Instead of a decade-long effort trying to force those of us who cherish  freedom of expression (regardless of whether we find some things offensive or not), why not try reforming a religion that is in desperate need of it.

And then this:

Separately, the Human Rights Commission of the OIC, which has 57 members and is based in Saudi Arabia, said “growing intolerance towards Muslims”, had to be checked and called for “an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material”.

There would be no "growing intolerance towards Muslims" if they weren't trying to shove their religious ideology and doctrine down our throats, or running around destroying property and killing people, including fellow Muslims. Ironically, there is far more intolerance within the Muslim community itself, but in their case they don't merely criticize they blow each other up.

Sorry, but hands off the West. You keep your Shariah, we'll keep our freedom of speech.