Peaceful Muslims Combine with Terrorists to Establish Islamic Caliphate
Today, a week after the Chattanooga alleged Islamic terrorist attack, I was listening to a local NPR station. American Muslims were interviewed. Each was disgusted by the Jihadi attack that in no way represented their peaceful religion. Thus, listeners were reassured that sane Muslims were in the majority and would likely prevail over the few extremists.
This is where things get interesting.
In the wake of another incident (the You Tube release of the satirical Innocents of Muslims) that allegedly inspired violence (the attack on the Benghazi Consulate for one) in 2011, the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) met in Washington and introduced Resolution 16/18 to combat terrorist acts by confronting intolerance. Spearheaded by the respected OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation, representing the 56 Islamic States and Palestine at the UN) and supported by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the resolution condemns all who would defame religion (and thereby provoke violent acts). While nominally endorsing Freedom of Expression the resolution seeks limits on speech and recommends criminalization for such individuals who hurt the feelings of millions worldwide who in turn become justifiably violent. The operative phrase used in the Resolution addresses speech that is an “incitement to violence”.
While the resolution uses the term “religion”, there can be no doubt that they are talking about Islam. Are Buddhists or Catholics killing people for criticizing their faith and walking around with “hurt feelings” in their heart and an AK-47 in their backpack?
According to Sharia Law, “slander” and “defamation” apply to any speech that the subject of the statements “doesn’t like”. In US courts which still operate independently of UN resolutions, plaintiffs must demonstrate that “false statements” be made.
Clearly, principles of Sharia Law have been introduced and approved of at the UN in an effort to appease outraged Muslims prone to violence. The UNHRC endorses a definition of “slander” that is oddly subjective and whose enforcement would represent a dramatic constraint on freedom of speech. While bending to Muslim’s “hurt feelings”, it aims at another outcome: that the exposure of the violent tenants of Islam never gets a public hearing.
While Islam prescribes killing for its critics, Islam must not be blamed; rather the critic must be blamed as he chose to engage in “negative stereotyping” and Islamophobia.
This study, for instance, might be interpreted as an “incitement to violence” according to UN Resolution 16/18. However, according to current US law there is no problem. While I am speaking ill of Islam I am reporting facts.
So here’s the breakdown:
- Despicable extremists commit acts of terror which every sensible Muslim and non-Muslim denounces.
- The mischief-makers are identified: those criticizing Islam
- At the UN, proclamations are issued where Freedom of Expression is applauded but necessary modifications are recommended to assuage “hurt feelings” so as to avoid further bloodshed.
- Jihadists can celebrate a step towards establishing the acceptance of an important prohibition found in Sharia: one that effectively squelches an honest discussion of Islam.
- So called “moderate” Muslims, have “saved face” among their Western colleagues by condemning violent behavior. In addition they have effectively influenced a prestigious UN forum to parlay the behavior of their naughty “brothers” to further legitimatize Sharia.
Thus, the Umma (the whole Muslim community) knowingly or otherwise works together to establish the vision of the Prophet: To replace the law of all nations with Sharia and usher in a world-wide Caliphate. It’s the “good cop”-“bad cop” routine.
Terror and grievance diplomacy; apparently it is an effective tool.
One might be inclined to imagine that the end purpose of “terror” is to kill non-believers. While a benefit in the eyes of the Prophet, it is not its principle purpose. That purpose is to erode the will of the enemy to resist; and then to gain concessions by way of “accommodation” as with UN Resolution 16/18. Tenants of the US Constitution stand in direct opposition to Sharia Law on many counts. If the law of the land can come to increasingly reflect Sharia principles then the object of terror is achieved.
If one were to imagine that the Sharia interpretation of legal principles does not have a sympathetic ear in the United States consider:
At UN during 2012 when much was made of the “Innocence of Muslims” You Tube video, the President Obama put aside his own legal training to express the Sharia standard, “the future will not belong to those who slander the Prophet is Islam.” (Shorthand: “It’s not about telling the truth anymore, just shut-up about Islam.”)
Following Benghazi, Clinton took out her 1st Amendment ax to promise the father of one of the slain Navy Seals, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested!” Not the gun-toting killers, but the filmmaker!
You go git ‘em Marshal!
The filmmaker lives near Los Angeles. Having protected speech in this country he was not charged with hate speech, although he was arrested and was subsequently jailed on a different charge.
Finally, there are no doubt clear-thinking Muslims who see the value Protected Speech and who denounce such tactics to degrade it. They need to be acknowledged.