At last a convention to openly speak about what need to be spoken. Please do participate in the convention.
This December 10th will mark the 61st anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Yet even today, Human Rights violations continue to take place, even where UN peace keeping forces are deployed. Facts about human rights violations that have been documented by peace keeping forces and human rights groups have been stamped "censored" and hidden in a dark corner of a document storage bank. The UN is proving its useless, as ongoing assaults on humanity continue.
The latest genocide is currently taking place in Darfur, and once again perpetrators have a free hand as UN imposed censorship is giving them the sense that no one is watching. Beside the UN's censorship, political excuses over cultural lines and an unwillingness to accept the suffering of others has created a fertile ground to harbor hatred, fanatacism, and impunity in the global society.
As the assault on humanity continues, a group of individuals that have either themselves faced genocide or are the descendants of genocide victims (including unrecognized genocides such as the Armenian genocide, Indian partition genocide, etc.) have decided to come out and cross social, ideological, national, religious, and cultural boundaries to stand up and give shape to a global convention. Initially sponsored by realcourage.org, we now have a few more organizations supporting our mission to hail human rights over other issues.
In our 'Stop Ideological genocide convention', we are not gathering to blame individuals but rather to point out the factors that are giving shape to systemic failures, due to which children are being raised in an environment of hate. Our stand is not against individual identity, but rather on cultures, states, religions, or political identities that eclipse our shared human identity. We see these policies giving shape to human suffering in the 21st century. We're victims as a result of the above, but none of us are bitter. We are however concerned about how politics are taking away the right of people to complete their grieving and start a new life.
Some of these global political policies of providing excuses for the action of perpetrators have not only marginalized the victims, but have also pushed the victims into a vulnerable state. This irresponsible attitude of mainstream politics has opened a totally new chain of global-organized crime in which political parties from all sides can hire global Jihadis to fight for their designated political goals, which can then jeopardize civil society, such as has been observed during theYugoslavian war, Iran-Iraq war, and Afghanistan war, sri-lankan LTTE conflict, or British PIRA conflict.
Further, a designated financial banking system has evolved to fund these genocidal projects, and has penetrated into our democratic system. These concerns and more will be the issues covered by speakers, experts and victims involved directly, and will reveal the realities on the ground.
Come with friends, and join us in recognizing people's suffering while trying to understand and discuss the problems. Hear Moderate Muslims speak of how their right to interpret their own religion is being denied to them strategically, forcing the entire 1.3 billion member society to either accept the Khomaeinist, salafist or Saudi sponsored Wahabi version of their religion. Hear the Darfuri describe the horror being visited upon the people of Darfur. Hear about Bangladesh genocide, discrimination of womens and Kashmir suffering, and much more.
We invite you to stand with us in our 'Stop Ideological genocide convention', as political correctness sight cultural sensitivity as an excuse to condemn Human killings.
15:45 Hrs - 16:00 Hrs Candle light march to Human Rights street (Stra?e Der Menschenrechte)
Washington DC, United States.
12:30 PM ET to 2:45 PM National Press Club News Conference, 529 14th Street, NW 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045 — Zenger Room
4 PM ET to 6 PM Washington DC Public Outreach - Freedom Plaza, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Events also being held in: New York, United States. Los Angeles, United States.
GENEVA — The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.
The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through "negative racial and religious stereotyping."
American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.
"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.
Rights groups cautiously welcomed the resolution as an improvement on earlier drafts, but said Egypt was in no position to lecture other countries about free speech as it has a poor record on the matter.
"Egypt's cosponsorship of the resolution on freedom of expression is not the result of a real commitment to upholding freedom of expression," said Jeremie Smith, Geneva director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
"If this were the case, freedom of expression would not be systematically violated on a daily basis in Egypt," he said.
Others warned that the resolution appears to protect religions rather than believers and encourages journalists to abide by ill-defined codes of conduct.
"Unfortunately, the text talks about negative racial and religious stereotyping, something which most free expression and human rights organizations will oppose," said Agnes Callamard, executive director of London-based group Article 19.
According to information obtained by ANRHI, Saudi authorities detained Hamoud Bin Saleh on 13 January 2009 and blocked his blog, Masihi Saudi - http://christforsaudi.blogspot.com, due to his opinions and the announcement on his blog that he had converted from Islam to Christianity.
Based on information obtained by ANHRI, the Saudi authorities jailed the young blogger at the infamous Eleisha political prison in Riyadh, a prison which in 2004 witnessed the arrest of the reformists Matrouk el Falih, Ali el Domini and Eissa al Hamed.
The 28-year-old alumnus of the al Yarmouk University in Jordan has been arrested twice before, for nine months in 2004 and in November 2008. Hamoud Bin Saleh must be set free, especially given that Saudi Arabia sponsored an interfaith dialog conference in New York in November and because the blogger's arrest may tarnish the country's image and expose the Saudi government's false allegations. The interfaith conference was attended by representatives of 80 countries. Read more ...
I am responding to Editor Marc Charisse’s column about my work, a column I found striking for its mud-slinging crudity. In Charisse’s words, my work, the product of careful research and reporting, may be summed up thus: West “never met a Muslim she didn’t hate.” There is no more apt word than “grotesque” to describe such an irresponsible and flippant mischaracterization of my weekly column, which very often grapples with the terrible, largely unspoken reality that Western liberties—freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equality before the law, including women’s rights and the rights of non-Muslims—are increasingly threatened by a growing deference to the laws of Islam. To underscore my point, I don’t write about “Muslims.” I write about Islam, the supremacist ideology constructed on laws (sharia) that justify censorship, repression, violence, inequality, and even maiming and murder of those whom the sharia leaves voiceless and powerless: dissenters, Muslim apostates, non-Muslims and women. I write about its agents—violent jihadists as well as soft jihadists, all of whom are working to extend the rule of this law across the non-Muslim world. And I write about politically correct non-Muslims who, as a public point of what is hailed as tolerance and inclusiveness have surrendered their common sense, their courage and, increasingly, their countries to the advance of this Islamic law.
“Pull the plug” on me if you like. But do not slander me or my work as a manifestation of hatred toward individuals. If anything, it is a manifestation of fear—fear that our liberties are not just under assault but have already been diminished, and are destined for still more restriction in that “sharp new subtext” Charisse says the recent presidential election has added “to the subject of Muslims.” Whatever that means.
I’ll take Charisse’s assessment of my work as “confrontational” as a compliment, even if he didn’t mean it that way. After all, what columnist worth his space, from Paul Krugman to Pat Buchanan, isn’t confrontational? But as for branding my ideas as “inappropriate” and “out of place”—well, isn’t that less the language of an American newsroom than an old Soviet politbureau?
He wages a sometimes lonely battle against voices on extremism and intolerance within the American Muslim community. But M. Zuhdi Jasser has again demonstrated why his voice so important with comments about - of all things - a video game.
On Monday, Sony announced a delay in the much-hyped release of the Playstation 3 game Littlebigplanet after realizing some background songs contained Quranic expressions. The game's release was delayed out of a concern the music might offend and anger some Muslim players.
Littlebigplanet is a game involving a fantasy world of limitless imagination and a character known as Sackboy.
Jasser gave a statement to Edge magazine, which focuses on the burgeoning gaming industry, to say the company over-reacted:
"Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted. The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive. But to demand that it be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based." Read more ...
The Russian newspaper Gorodskiye Vesti has been closed down after it published a pacifist cartoon featuring Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus, and Moses yesterday.
THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY: Raja Petra accompanied by his wife Marina Lee Abdullah leaving Kuala Lumpur magistrates’ court on July 15 after he was released on RM2,000 bail. Yesterday, he was charged under ISA following his article titled ‘I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim’ in his blog.
BAGAN DATOH: The arrest of blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin under the Internal Security Act (ISA) yesterday afternoon should serve as a warning to irresponsible bloggers who flout the law, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
He said many bloggers might be thinking that they could get away from facing the ISA if their blogs were based overseas and therefore not subjected to this country’s laws.
“It is not appropriate that the ISA is used against Raja Petra while the other irresponsible bloggers are free to do as they please,” he told reporters at Kampung Sungai Burung, here yesterday.
He was commenting on Raja Petra’s arrest following his article titled ‘I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim’ which contained remarks that insulted Muslims, besides allowing postings that insulted Islam and Prophet Muhammad in the article, ‘Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet’, that appeared in the ‘Malaysia Today’ website. Read more ...
Last spring, legislators in New York State joined with the governor, David Paterson, in passing a law entitled the Libel Tourism Protection Act. The act has a narrow focus. It empowers the state’s courts to invalidate a judgment of libel or defamation against a writer or publisher who resides or does business in New York, so long as that judgment was obtained in a country that affords writers and publishers a lesser degree of free-speech protection than does the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Though the law does not say so explicitly, it was passed without much controversy because a writer in New York State was in danger of being driven into penury by one of the world’s richest men—a Saudi banker with Irish citizenship who has undertaken to intimidate and silence writers, editors, and publishers daring to examine his role in the murky world of Islamic charitable giving. Over the past decades, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has become the world’s foremost “libel tourist,” journeying beyond his own country to find a hospitable judge’s ear in Great Britain. According to the late Robert O. Collins—whose 2006 book Alms for Jihad, co-authored with J. Millard Burr, was one of bin Mahfouz’s targets—the tactic has been brilliantly successful. In three dozen cases in which legal action has been either threatened or carried through to trial, bin Mahfouz has succeeded in securing apologies and cash damages. Cambridge University Press, the publisher of Collins and Burr’s study, had every copy of their book put through a shredder and pulped.
Muslims Against Sharia (account name - reformislam) have been banned. Apparently our comment has also been deleted. The comment on Hannity.com was this post without an image, updates and polls.
Are we witnessing a pattern of hypocrisy here? Senator Obama claims to be inclusive, but his website equates "Muslim" with smear. Sean Hannity claims to despise bigotry, but his website bans pro-Muslim discussion.
GENEVA (AFP)--The top U.N.human rights official said Wednesday she was concerned at possible "taboo" subjects at the U.N. Human Rights Council after the chair blocked any discussion on Islamic Sharia law.
The 47-member council "should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression," Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour told journalists.
"There are obstacles at the council level," said Arbour, who steps down from her post at the end of the month.
Her comments follow the decision of Council chair Doru Romulus Costea on Monday to cut off a speaker who raised the subject of Islamic Sharia law in relation to human rights. Read more ...
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday. Read more ...
I don't like "art" like this. I don't approve of "art" like this. But do not be deceived: if Sooreh Hera had exhibited a series of photographs of homosexual men wearing masks of Jesus and the Apostle John, no one would be issuing death threats, John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, would not be pontificating about limits to free speech, and the papers would instead be full of editorials about the dangers of censorship and the growing power of the Christian Right. Read more ...
Al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, just recently declared on one of the websites al Qaeda uses to spread its propaganda that "the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims."
Strange that Zawahri would kick a gift horse in the mouth. In fact, the UN is one of the best friends that Zawahri and his Islamic cohorts have today on the world stage. It has become the enemy of Israel and of Western democratic values. Dominated by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council in particular provide political cover for virtually every crime against humanity that the Islamists commit.
The OIC's party line is that freedom of press and speech must give way to respect for Islam by avoiding any criticism that could be considered "defamation' in the eyes of Muslims. UN member states belonging to the Organization of Islamic Conference have managed to push resolutions through the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council that condemn 'defamation of religions.' The only religion singled out for protection is Islam. Read more ...
Initial post by The Admiral; updates by Muslims Against Sharia
The Removal of "Fitna" Official LiveLeak statement.
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, LiveLeak has been left with no other choice choice but to remove Fitna from our servers. This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank thousands of people, from al backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one. Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to get heard, but in the end the price was too high.
LiveLeak.com
Muslims Against Sharia Offer $10,000 Reward for Information Leading to the Arrest and Conviction of anyone who threatens any person associated with production or distribution if "Fitna".
Viva La LiveLeak!
On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "Fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don’t consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.
Fitna is available on YouTube & Google. How long before it is gone?
"Insulting our Prophet is freedom of expression, but criticism of a small Jew rabbi or a church is a big crime. Bombarding the buildings which collapse onto our women and children is spreading democracy, but defending ourselves by killing the invaders and their agents is terrorism".
The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran -- which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- from the Netherlands.
After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.
Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.
Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.
Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.
The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.
Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.
Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.
There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?
Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.
While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.
What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.
Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.
European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.
I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.
A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.
These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Don’t be a victim of Sharia. If you are a Muslim in the West who appreciates the individual rights and freedoms you have enjoyed under a secular government, this memo is for you.
As you may be aware, many Muslims are Islamists, pushing for Sharia to be implemented in the West. If they succeed, you will be among their first victims.
Here’s how Sharia victimizes Muslims
All Muslims lose freedom of expression. In a Muslim country, Muslims are not free to criticize Islamic doctrines such as Sharia. There are individual cases of people who get by with it, but there are also many who are punished. The path of history is littered with the corpses of executed Muslim reformers, and to this day, certain sects deemed heretical are heavily persecuted.
All Muslims lose freedom of conscience. In the West, we take for granted the fact that people can choose to be a member of any religion or non-religion. This is of great value to people of any faith; first, because they can worship as they choose free of persecution; and second, because their faith has more meaning since they personally choose it, rather than faith being forced on them. Under Sharia, non-Muslims (at least, those of the Book) retain the right to follow their conscience as low-class dhimmis, but Muslims have no right to follow their conscience. They must be Muslims, without considering other faiths and making an actual choice in the matter.
Muslim women lose basic rights. Under Sharia, Muslim women are treated as minors their whole lives, and worse. They are always under the protection of their fathers, brothers, husbands and/or sons. They may be married off at a very young age, even before puberty, with no say. Their testimony counts as half that of a Muslim man's in court. Their inheritance is half that of a Muslim man's. They can only prove rape with four pious male witnesses; otherwise, to allege rape could get them punished for illicit sex, which is the woman's fault. There's no such thing as rape in the context of marriage. Wife-beating is clearly sanctioned in the Koran. A man can divorce his wife by saying "I divorce you", in which case he has custody rights; a woman cannot divorce her husband. Although it is legal, at least in some circumstances, for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, the reverse is not legal. Abortion is most likely illegal. Then there's the headscarf (burqa, hijab, et al), which may seem like the least of their worries, but under Sharia it can be a symbol of Islamic domination of women.
Gay Muslims lose basic rights. In the West, reasonable people may disagree on what rights specifically gays should have; gays themselves disagree over this question. However, we can all come together in agreement that they should not be killed. This is not true under Sharia.
In addition to the four ways Muslims are victimized by Sharia I’ve listed above, I believe there’s also another way Muslims are harmed by Sharia. This is a subjective opinion, for which there is no proof, nor can there be. I believe that spiritually, Muslims are harmed if they support a system that harms others. So, all the Sharia provisions that discriminate against non-Muslims are spiritually harmful to Muslims who support Sharia. As I said, this is an opinion for which I have no proof, nor will I make any effort to defend it; it’s up to the reader to agree or disagree as a matter of conscience.
If you don’t want Sharia, take a stand against it!
Organize against Sharia. The Islamists are very well organized and well funded. They like to give the impression that they represent all Muslims, including you. Therefore, the more Muslims there are in a country, the more power Islamist groups claim. The very fact that you are a Muslim gives Islamist groups more power, even if you disagree with everything they say, unless you organize against them.
A good start would be to join an anti-Sharia, pro-freedom organization such as American Islamic Forum for Democracy. The more members they have, the more power they have.
Take a stand against every imposition of Sharia, from hate speech laws banning criticism of Islam to laws requiring special accommodation for Muslim sensibilities. The forces pushing for Sharia want the whole ball of Sharia wax, and will not stop with a few measures. In the beginning stages, Islamists push forward laws which put Islam on a level higher than other religions, to create a consciousness of Islamic superiority; however, don’t be lulled into complacency by measures that seem to benefit Muslims. Once Islam is established as superior and Sharia as a source of law, from there the Islamists are in a position to implement the rest of Sharia, a bit at a time.
Speak out anonymously on the internet. You are in a unique position to damage the Islamists’ talking points by pointing out the fact that Sharia victimizes Muslims, too, not just non-Muslims. If Muslims do not speak out against Sharia, some non-Muslims begin to say, “Well, if they really want Sharia, we could just give them Sharia.” (I suggest doing a little research into internet privacy to protect yourself before launching in.)
One thing you may already be aware of: taking steps to oppose Sharia is not necessarily good for your health. Many who do so receive occasional or constant death threats. However, giving in to fear tactics would not make the problem go away--it would only get worse. It’s up to everyone who values freedom, regardless of our religions, to find ways of opposing Sharia that have risk levels we can live with.
Copyright 2008, Citizens Against Sharia, All Rights Reserved.
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
Posts
