This woman (sitting by the islamofascist OIC Fuhrer/Caliph Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu) is now pelted by rotten tomatoes etc by those Egyptians who wanted a secular spring, not an islamist spring backed by US.
Think about the worst crimes, war criminals, genocides etc and you will almost always find islam and the OIC Fuhrer/Caliph Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu conneceted to it!
3
The relentless and inevitable decline of islam has begun. The time has come to fight against its misery, so easily historically distinguishable if you remove slavery, piracy, and Western oil and aid money from the equation. Time to obliterate the injustices and suffering caused by islam’s only original ideological asset, i.e. parasitism in the name of "Allah". Time for the only correct system against slavery, sexism and racism. The real basic (negative) Human Rights which protect every human being from ideological (positive) impositions.
It took a lifetime for this man to understand the evil of
ideological impositions.
I understand what Obama is and what
he is doing because I was once like him: I am a former communist. As a youth
growing up during the Vietnam War, I was influenced by some of the more
extreme, anti-American opposition to that conflict and began to identify with
the enemy. I became convinced the U.S. epitomized all that was evil in the
world. During high school, I was arrested in what we called “anti-war
demonstrations” that should be more accurately termed “anti-American riots.”
Just like Obama, my youthful radicalism attracted the attention of powerful and
influential people in the country. I was recruited for full-ride scholarships
at colleges like Antioch, known for grooming the next generation of leftists.
When I got into trouble for refusing to salute the flag, the American Civil
Liberties Union was there, johnny-on-the-spot, to defend me and bring the
school principal to his knees.
According to islamist extremists (like OIC Caliph Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a secular tradition,
which cannot be implemented by muslims without trespassing the islam and Sharia.
Therefore predominantly Muslim countries, such as Sudan, Iran, and Saudi
Arabia, frequently criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for
its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context
of non-Western countries.
Some other voices than Klevius on the evilness of islam*
* Do note what every islamist knows, i.e. that there is no islam without Human Rights violating Sharia, i.e. islamofascism! There is no loophole for islam to be islam without its evil origin!
The Cairo declaration on "human rights" in islam (CDHRI) has been criticized for being implemented by a set of states with widely disparate islamic policies and practices who had a shared interest in disarming international criticism of their domestic human rights record.
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."[7]
The CDHRI has been criticised for
failing to guarantee individual freedom as a fundamental and
nonderogable right.
In a joint written statement
submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special
consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the
Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the
CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It
concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an
attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants.
It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."
The Centre for Inquiry in September
2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI:
"undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by
imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia
law."
Rhona Smith writes that because the
CDHRI's reference to Shariah implies an inherent degree of superiority of men.
Adama Dieng,
a member of the International Commission of Jurists, argued that the declaration gravely threatens the
inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments
are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims
and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive
character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point
that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a
number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a
(Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such corporal punishment,
which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
Turkish OIC Fuhrer Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu himself openly strives for a reborn Ottoman Caliphate (you know, the islamofascist construction that fell apart when slavery was aboilished by the West)!
Bob Unruh: A senior fellow for a Madrid-based
think tank is alerting freedom-loving people about a caliphate-planning
conference being held by Muslims soon, a move he said was given a boost of
support by the Obama administration recently when it allowed a three-day
“Istanbul Process” conference in Washington.
That event, writes Soeren Kern, Senior Fellow for European Politics at Madrid’s Grupo de Estudio, “gave the [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.”
The coming event, Caliphate Conference 2012,
is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Kern describes as a “pan-Islamic
extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate,
ruled by Islamic Shariah law.”
The 57-member OIC has been proposing
a special international law that would make it criminal to speak ill of
Muhammad or his followers. It proposed Resolution 16/18, a plan for countries
to “combat” things like “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization
of … religion and belief.”
The idea was adopted in the U.N. General Assembly and
Kern’s analysis notes that it would be largely ineffectual as long as the West
doesn’t jump behind it.
That is why it was a “diplomatic
coup,” according to Kern, when Obama held the three-day conference
in Washington, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to the
key principal Muslims have been seeking for years: holding people responsible
when “free speech” … “results in sectarian clashes.”
The critical question that has been
among the reasons the so-called “anti-defamation” plans previously have failed
is that such limits suggest, even require, that the blame be placed on the
person making a statement if the situation is that someone else reacts to it
violently.
Free speech advocates are worried
over her comment that, “It’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is
fair game. That’s free speech. But if it results in sectarian clashes, if it
results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of religious
sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must held
those – hold those who are responsible accountable.”
In Western civilization, the
standard for responsibility would be to hold those accountable who do violence,
not those who make statements that those who do violence blame for their
actions.
The U.N. strategy, proposed by
Pakistan “on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,” again
creates an open door to blame someone for making a statement about Islam to
which Muslims would react violently, by raising concerns about “incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence.”
Further, it “condemns any advocacy
of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
violence.”
Repeated concerns have been raised
by such statements, as they open the door for attacks on people making
statements about their own beliefs, which someone else would choose to decry as
“hatred.”
In fact, the resolution calls for
“measures to criminalize” some related behaviors.
Sharona Schwartz at at
the Blaze noted that the German-language promotion video for the conference
starts: “The relentless decline of capitalism has begun. The time has come to
fight against poverty. Time to obliterate the injustices. Time for the correct
system.”
Which is identified as Islam.
In a report
published by the Stonegate Institute, Kern said the “explicit aim” of the
Istanbul Process is to make it a crime to criticize Islam.
He writes, “According to Steven
Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is
emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first
Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year
632.
“During the first stage, Hizb
ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage
in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now
entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order
to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its
revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to
establish a Shariah-ruled Islamic government.”
“Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC
headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step
forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming
Islam”.
The Islamic-led Defamation of
Religions proposal in the United Nations was “nothing more than an effort to
achieve special protections for Islam – a move to stifle religious speech,”
according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and
Justice.
According to the Human Rights First
organization, the plan simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.
Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First
said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will
surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as
well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”
The issue also has been addressed by
Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA:“This is a battle for our basic
freedoms,”. “This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness,” he said. “To
use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak
worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.”
He said Muslim nations would use it
as an endorsement of their attacks on Christians. Worse would be the “chilling”
effect on language that the U.N. plan would create worldwide, he said.
“This would be a huge blessing to
those who would silence dissidents in their countries, Islamic regimes,” he
said. “This stands as a monument to the gullibility of the masses in the United
States and other places who don’t see this for what it is.”
How islmofascism is misrepresented for the sole purpose of keeping YOU ignorant about islam
Islamofascist OIC Fuhrer/Caliph Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu lies you straight up in your face when he says: “The way Sharia law was presented in the last few decades, last three decades of the 20th century, was horrible. Has nothing to do with Islam, or with the word Sharia itself. Sharia means “way,” a way. It means canonical law, in a way. It does not mean chopping hands or heads of people, or stoning them. These measures were abrogated centuries back, and it has never been, except one or two cases in the whole history of Islam, that they were implemented”.
Klevius correction of this utter lie by the OIC Fuhrer: A very low and cheap trick, indeed. Ihsanoglu tries to exploit ignorance about the fundamental evilness of islam by referring to customs he know can be spoken away in such a manner that they leave islam itself untouched. But what he should have said if he had any decency is that islam disapproves of giving the same rights to women and non-muslims as do the true Human Rights!
Islamofascist OIC Fuhrer/Caliph Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu: “Now, to bring this back to the fore and say that this is Sharia, or this is Islam, or this is Islamic law, was an attempt of a few dictators who came to power through military coup d’états. They wanted to enforce their dictatorial regimes by giving themselves an Islamic religious authority, and saying “this is the law of God. I am implementing the law of God. If you come against this, I will chop your head or cut your hand or I will stone those who have these kinds of relations.” I think that was a kind of fear mongering by dictators to use the law of God in their hands in a very wrong way. Islam has nothing to do with this, and we should really re-address the issue again, and we should not allow anybody to talk in the name of Islam in such an ugly way. I’m glad that there are no more dictators who claim they are applying Sharia law in the Muslim world”.
Klevius cortrection: Well, there are! You and the Saudi, Qatar etc islamofascist dictators, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut-Tahrir etc etc!
Organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir have waited patiently for the days they are witnessing now. A political organization founded 60 years ago; they call for an Islamic State, and an Islamic leader, a Khalifa. They believe the Islamic Awakening is a call from the masses for exactly that.
A fat hijab momma tells it like it is:
‘This is no ‘twitter revolution’, this is not an uprising of secular youth, this is an uprising for Islam”-
In the West the role of Islam in these movements is downplayed or even dismissed. It’s called ‘an Arab Spring’or the twitter revolution, created by secular youth who want a secular state.
Barry Sommer on OIC's islamofascist Sharia declaration
To the
surprise of many, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has shown a new
commitment to advancing human rights by establishing an Independent Permanent
Human Rights Commission within the organization. In the Commission’s first
meeting in Jakarta, Secretary General Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu asked the 18-member
Commission in his opening address to “review and update OIC instruments,
including the Cairo Declaration [of Human Rights in Islam]…” If the Commission
intends to indeed advance human rights, then the Cairo Declaration is the first
among these instruments in need of serious revision.
In 1990,
the OIC approved a document that is now referred to as the Cairo Declaration in
an attempt reconcile the concept of human rights and Islam. The
Declaration protects many of the universal human rights: it forbids
discrimination; supports the preservation of human life, supports the
protection of one’s honor, family, and property; and affirms the human right to
education, medical and social care, and a clean environment.
From an international human rights perspective, the controversial nature of the Cairo Declaration lies in its claim of adherence to Shari’ah. Its preamble affirms that“fundamental rights and universal freedoms are an integral part of [Islam]” and these rights and freedoms are “binding divine commandments” revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. The central role of Shari’ah can be clearly seen in the Declaration’s articles. Article 22 states that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to principles of Shari’ah.” Article 12, affirms that “every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement” (nothing is said about every woman). Articles 24 and 25 further makes Shari’ah supreme by asserting that Shari’ah is the Declaration’s “only source of reference.”
Such shorthand and cursory use of Shari’ah gives rise to four important shortcomings. The first is that it renders the document too restrictive. Shari’ah represents an extensive moral and legal code, and limiting rights such as free speech to a Shari’ah compatible framework of values would essentially render free-speech meaningless. Furthermore, the document is rendered ambiguous., as it does not specify what constitutes Shari’ah. Given the diversity of opinions on the subject across time and between and within madhabs (schools of Islamic law), it is impossible to know what rights are protected.
Interestingly, the declaration empowers states, not individuals. In the modern world, Shari’ah has increasingly become integrated in states’ domestic legal systems. In the absence of any international authority to decide on Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration effectively diminishes the universality of human rights by relegating them to the discretion of governments.
Finally, the declaration conflicts with international human rights. The document provides only a subordinated status to religious minorities and also prohibits conversion from Islam. It also presents glaring evidence of discrimination against women, as it provides the right to freedom of movement or marriage only to men.
From an international human rights perspective, the controversial nature of the Cairo Declaration lies in its claim of adherence to Shari’ah. Its preamble affirms that“fundamental rights and universal freedoms are an integral part of [Islam]” and these rights and freedoms are “binding divine commandments” revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran. The central role of Shari’ah can be clearly seen in the Declaration’s articles. Article 22 states that “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to principles of Shari’ah.” Article 12, affirms that “every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement” (nothing is said about every woman). Articles 24 and 25 further makes Shari’ah supreme by asserting that Shari’ah is the Declaration’s “only source of reference.”
Such shorthand and cursory use of Shari’ah gives rise to four important shortcomings. The first is that it renders the document too restrictive. Shari’ah represents an extensive moral and legal code, and limiting rights such as free speech to a Shari’ah compatible framework of values would essentially render free-speech meaningless. Furthermore, the document is rendered ambiguous., as it does not specify what constitutes Shari’ah. Given the diversity of opinions on the subject across time and between and within madhabs (schools of Islamic law), it is impossible to know what rights are protected.
Interestingly, the declaration empowers states, not individuals. In the modern world, Shari’ah has increasingly become integrated in states’ domestic legal systems. In the absence of any international authority to decide on Shari’ah, the Cairo Declaration effectively diminishes the universality of human rights by relegating them to the discretion of governments.
Finally, the declaration conflicts with international human rights. The document provides only a subordinated status to religious minorities and also prohibits conversion from Islam. It also presents glaring evidence of discrimination against women, as it provides the right to freedom of movement or marriage only to men.
These shortcomings render the Declaration useless at best and at worst
harmful for human rights. Not surprisingly, the only people who take the
document seriously are critics of Islam who invoke it to argue the religion’s
incompatibility with human rights. Muslim advocacy groups, scholars on Islam
and human rights, and even the OIC Secretary General İhsanoğlu have either
ignored the declaration or have avoided defending it publicly.
Read on a site not completely ignorant about islam
None of what you read here has anything to do with Islam,
because Islam is a Religion of Peace. Everybody knows that good Muslims never
do the things they do, (because Allah does it for them, Quran 8:12) and we know
that only our misperceptions, ignorance and stereotyping of Islam makes Muslims
chop off heads, kill and rape women and children, bomb subways, buses,
nightclubs and fly jets into buildings. If it wasn't for the media and da
Jooozzz, we wouldn't even know its happening. We welcome open, honest,
thoughtful, and vigorous discussion in the comments threads, so do yourself a
favour and don't accuse us of being 'haters' because we are loving, tolerant
people. Don't curse us, don't threaten us with death or hellfire, and don't
accuse us of being "just like the terrorists" because we don't do to
Muslims what they do to us or to themselves. Yes, we know that only idiots
oppose Islam and sensible people submit, but you should know that we are
ignorant bigots, hypocrites and Islamophobes, and we prefer to remain that
way...
. .
No comments:
Post a Comment