The ‘Fear’ Part is Intentional . . .
Vol: 132 Issue: 29 Saturday, September 29, 2012
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu urged the UN General Assembly on Friday to impose limits on various forms of Western freedoms — freedoms that he says are simply a disguise for Islamophobia.
“Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy,” he told the GA.
One wonders if he was being intentionally ironic in his choice of words. The religion of peace, love and tolerance cannot tolerate freedom of expression? And if words mean what the dictionary says they do, then “Islamophobia” means an unreasonable or irrational fear of Islam.
The operative words here would be “unreasonable” and “irrational” — the “fear” part is intended.
Dozens are dead, hundreds injured and millions of dollars in property went up in flames as a consequence of Muslim rage over a movie nobody saw and a film trailer posted on Youtube that hardly anybody saw.
The movie was made by an Egyptian who lived in America because he was afraid he’d be killed by Islamists who now demand his handover so they can kill him for making a movie expressing his opinion of a religion to which he owes no allegiance.
The movie, which was in no way connected to America or the US government, prompted such fear that no less than the President of the United States and the Secretary of State both humbled themselves before Islamic rage, denouncing the film and the filmmaker while repeating the fact the US had no part in making the film.
The US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement about the movie saying that it, and by extension, America;
“. . . condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims [and] firmly reject[s] the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
At the UN, the President of the United States mentioned the movie no fewer than seven times and devoted almost 1000 words of his speech to denouncing it, the filmmaker, the uploader and telling the Islamic world how sorry he was that America guarantees the right to free speech, (clearly implying that his hands were tied in the matter.)
Speaking after Obama, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, where more than a dozen people were killed in protests against the film, demanded that disrespect for Islam be criminalized. Or, looked at another way, demanding that respect for Islam be mandated by international law.
“The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression,” he said.
For clarity, Zardari wasn’t referring to the destructive mob of chanting, flag-burning, mindless violence tearing up his own country along with the rest of the Islamic world.
No, no. What will “destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security” is the failure of the West to submit to Islamic authority by making blasphemy against Mohammed an international crime.
In essence, it is a demand that the world submit to the demand that Mohammed be honored as a Prophet whether one is a Muslim or not — the very definition of dhimmitude.
The fifty-seven foreign ministers that are part of the Organization of the Islamic Conference also met on Friday following the Turkish Foreign Minister’s speech. (Did I mention Turkey is a full member of NATO?)
“This incident demonstrates the serious consequences of abusing the principle of freedom of expression on one side and the freedom of demonstration on the other side,” OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told reporters.
The 47-member UN Human Rights Council, dominated by developing states, has passed non-binding resolutions against defamation of religion for over a decade. Similar ones were endorsed in the UN General Assembly.
If the Islamic Conference, the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council had their way, all the peoples of the world would be forced to accept Mohammed as an actual prophet and would be required by law to submit to Islamic rules concerning Mohammed, the Koran and whatever rules Islam decides to impose.
Remember, “Islamophobia” means the “unreasonable” fear of Islam.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference is attempting to draw a moral equivalence between “Islamophobia” and anti-Semitism. Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram took the argument to the UN Human Rights Council.
“Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent need on the part of states to introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions, and incitement to religious hatred, as well as denigration of venerated personalities.”
States have an “urgent need” to “protect” Mohammed from “hate crimes” and to prevent incitement.
But in the very next breath, he said that the video, as well as the burning of the Koran and the publication of defamatory cartoons, amount to “deliberate attempts to discriminate, defame, denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs”.
Such acts constitute “flagrant incitement to violence” and are not protected by freedom of expression, Akram said. Rather, he said, Islamophobia must be acknowledged as a contemporary form of racism and be dealt with as such.
“Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism, especially in legislations.”
The irony here is breath-taking. This is nothing less than the imposition of fear of an Islamic backlash as the justification for requiring laws against “Islamophobia” or, the unreasonable fear of Islam.
Anti-Semitism is defined as “belief or behavior that is hostile towards Jews because they are Jews.”
Islamophobia, as Pakistan defines it here, is the failure to revere Mohammed, the Koran, Islam, (or whatever,) in a manner acceptable to Muslims.
The two are as similar as chocolate milk and a bag of hammers.
To treat the fear of an Islamic backlash as being equal to the hatred of Jews is the logical next step in the redefinition of logic and common sense to make it fit with the dictates of political correctness.
It is politically correct to pretend to oppose anti-Semitism — while simultaneously lamenting the Jewish “occupation” that put up an “apatheid wall” — while ignoring the reason why Israel would need a wall — to protect its citizens from suicide bombers convinced by the religion of peace, love and tolerance that by killing Jews, they are assuring themselves a place in Paradise.
It is forbidden by political correctness to note the religion of peace teaches its adherents to kill unbelievers or those that defame the religion of peace. Or that the religion of love permits the killing of one’s female family members to recover the family honor. Or that the religion of tolerance demands the death penalty for blasphemers.
All of these facts are forbidden to mention in public. Bringing them up results in immediate accusations of racism or “Islamophobia” or worse. And those that would shout “Islamophobe” the loudest would leap to the defense of anyone accused of defaming Christianity.
Why is that? What is there about Islam that makes the politically-correct look the other way, while holding Christianity to an impossible standard?
The answer is obvious. These guys are bullies and bullies are careful to choose targets that won’t retaliate. The politically-correct types aren’t afraid of Christianity.
But they are terrified of Islam. One might even call them “Islamophobic.”
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)
Or at a minimum, strongly deluded.