The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamistsupremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslimmajority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in theworld. It is also the largest international organization of any kind,second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

The purpose of the OIC is to promote Islamic values, to revitalizeIslam’s pioneering role in the world, to strengthen and enhance thebond of solidarity and unity among Muslim states, to support “the Palestinian struggle” and to defend Islam.

Its charter claims that OIC works to promote peace, tolerance, and fight terrorism. However,its actions are dissonant with these claims, as it strives to definethese words through the extraordinarily skewed views of radical Islam.Since 1999, the OIC has been pushing incrementally and strategicallytoward its goal of internationally outlawing all criticism of Islam,Muslims, Muslim theocracies, and Islamic extremism. Subsequent toSeptember 11, 2001, it professed concern about alleged backlashagainst Muslims.

In 2005, the OIC urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights(“UNCHR”) to pass a resolution called “combating defamation ofreligions.” Although the title of the resolution referred toreligions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically.It lamented negativity towards Islam in the media and the use ofbroadcast, print and the internet to incite violence, discriminationor intolerance towards Islam and other religions. It revealed alarmover the backlash against Muslims since 9/11, and law enforcementmeasures that “target Muslims.” It expressed deep concern overstatements which “attack” religions generally, and Islam and Muslimsin particular, and concern over the ethnic and religious profiling ofMuslim minorities. It alleged that Islam was frequently and wronglyassociated with human rights violations and terrorism. Additionally,it proclaimed that defamation of religions plays a role in the denialof fundamental rights of the target groups.

The Commission urged resolute action to prohibit “racist, and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers…and to protect against acts of discrimination, intimidation, hatred,and defamation of religion.” It called on the international communityto begin a “global dialogue” on religious diversity and to combat defamation of religions. It further required the Special Rapporteurto report on the discrimination faced by Muslims and Arabs. Notsurprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolutionincluded many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar,Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the UnitedStates, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy,Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

The OIC’s insistence on prohibiting defamatory speech against Islamic countries was without reciprocity. No effort to silence anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli speech has been made. At an OIC Special Session in2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad freely expressed his goal to eliminate the “Zionist regime.” Indeed, the OIC backs Iran’snuclear program, supports Hamas, and rationalizes 9/11. Moreover, the OIC insists that the definition of terrorism should exclude the killing of innocent civilians where there is a “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation,” i.e. Israel. It is for this reason that the UN has been unable to pass a comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostileglances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goalof the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in Europeanparliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (whichreplaced the Human Rights Commission with the failed hope of becomingan effective advocate for human rights). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and runcontrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2007, the Secretary General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a “moderate” Muslim from Turkey, used the “International Day of Tolerance” to assert that freedom of speech is defiling Islam.He stated, “[M]uslims around the world are the first victims ofintolerance. They are facing a campaign of hatred and prejudice, what is otherwise known as Islamophobia. This growing trend of Islamophobia has subjected them to discrimination including religious profiling and stereotyping. The right to freedom of speech is beingused to defile the sacred symbols of Islam.”

He continued, “[I]t is high time that the international communityconsiders enacting legal measures against defamation of religions and religious beliefs. I would urge the Alliance of Civilizations and the Human Rights Council to take pro-active action in this regard.”

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (“IHEU”) warned that UNapproval of a law combating defamation of religions would have graveimplications for the freedom to criticize a religion or its practices. It explained that countries will have broad latitude inhow they penalize the disrespect of religion because OIC’s resolution did not define what constitutes “defamation.” Further, the resolution failed to distinguish between defamation of religion and incitement toracial and religious violence.

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where itproduced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itselfagainst all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers,reporters, politicians or governments. Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules be imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s President, and Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom withoutlimits.” To support his argument, some OIC delegates pointed to European laws that criminalize holocaust denial and anti-Semiticrhetoric, as well as to UN charters that condemn discrimination basedon religion. As a result of this summit, the UNHRC passed the resolution.

Instead of fighting terrorism to make obvious that Islam andterrorism need not be affiliated, the OIC unveiled at its summit, the first report on Islamophobia. It consisted of 58 pages of real, perceived, and alleged claims of Islamophobia. Under “negativeincidents,” it cited numerous occurrences of Muslims threatening orcommitting violence against non-Muslims in response to factual reportson Muslim behavior. Negative reports about Muslims, even if true,resulted in claims of Islamaphobia.

Some of the incidents reported as Islamophobic included: Wikipedia’s refusal to cave into Muslims’ demand to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English language website; a report accuratelystating Muslims were outraged by the opening of the first church in Qatar and insisting that Qatar is a Muslim country where others have no right to build a place of worship; the fact that Florida Attorney General (and former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime in Congress) showed the movie “Obsession” to his staff; and the fact that the European Union requested Iran to drop the death penalty inits penal code for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft. Reports of threats made to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders,producer of the documentary “Fitna,” were also deemed Islamophobic.

Finally, the bulletin suggested that Islamophobia poses a threat toglobal peace and security. It proposed the use of legal instrumentsto prohibit Islamophobic speech, urged monitoring and compiling listsof Islamophobic incidents, and encouraged the persuading of others tobelieve that Islam is a moderate, peaceful and tolerant religion.

In June of 2008, the OIC reported on the 2007 opening of itsWashington, DC office which works to engage OIC politically. KarenHughes, then-undersecretary of public diplomacy at the StateDepartment, spoke at the opening ceremony. She lauded OIC’s effort topass the resolution on combating defamation of religions. She alsoadvocated a program called “citizen dialogue” which she started inorder to address Muslims’ sense of isolation. However, Muslims abroadindicated that they were not interested in meeting with U.S.government officials or non-Muslim Americans, so she sentMuslim-Americans as envoys to foreign countries for the so-calleddialogue.

The OIC also boasted about the inroads it has made at the UN. Itpledged to place Islamophobia at the forefront of its next summit inApril 2009.

Additionally, a rule has been implemented at the UNHRC, requiringthat all speaker presentations and discussions omit any “judgment orevaluation about religion.” The word “sharia” does not have to beexpressly stated to violate this rule. All discussions must avoidmaking any mention of controversial fatwas (religious rulings) orhuman rights abuses that are implemented as part of Sharia or inIslamic countries. This includes, for example, protests against theforced marriages of young girls.

The OIC construes the word Islamophobia very broadly, using it toinclude news reports, observations, and accurate accounts of violenceor intolerance on the part of Muslims or Islamic theocracies. Ineffect, the OIC is requesting a legal exemption from free speechrights of any criticism of the effects of an extremist interpretationof Islam. Any individual, group, or government acting in the name ofIslam would be entirely off limits for open debate or discussion.

The obvious result of OIC’s push to internationally outlaw defamationof Islam, would be not only to stifle free speech and freedom ofreligion, but to devastate efforts to fight human rights abuses and tocounter terrorism. Fighting for human rights in Islamic countriesmight be deemed Islamophobic even if it pertains to the human rightsof Muslims.

Therefore, OIC’s comment that Islamophobia jeopardizes global peaceand security was not an expression of fear of Islamophobia. Rather,it was a warning that anyone who claims Islam is not a religion ofpeace might have violence perpetrated against him. Its simultaneouspropaganda campaign to convince people that Islam is a “moderate,peaceful, and tolerant religion” demonstrates that its words andactions are at odds with each other.

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islamthat disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, areutilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals.By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech andreligious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Claiming victimhood can score big political points in a free andcompassionate society. If the OIC can convince people that those whostone women, behead apostates, sexually abuse minors, fly planes intobuildings, and blow up subway systems are really the victims of evil,rather than the perpetrators, then the OIC’s proposed restrictions onfree speech will accomplish more damage throughout the west than 9/11ever could.

It is important to understand that only individuals should beafforded rights. Ideas, thoughts and religions should not beprotected from criticism. There is no such thing as defamation ofreligion. To the degree that it is concocted, the rights of ideas andreligions will stand in direct opposition to the rights and freedomsof humans. The right of free speech is, in part, designed to offendothers. The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitutionerected the First Amendment for the purpose of fostering cantankerouspolitical speech. They believed that the way to counter offensivespeech and bad ideas is to engage in more speech, espousing goodideas. In this case, however, it is the OIC that clearly has the badideas, and not the alleged defamers. Perhaps the reason the OIC seeksto prohibit free speech rather than to rebut it, is because it tooknows that free speech works.