Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:30 AM
Almost exactly three years ago, President Obama addressed "Muslims around the world" from Egypt's al-Azhar U in Cairo. He said he "consider[ed] it part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
As Geert Wilders writes in his must-read book Marked for Death: "I remember thinking, But what if these so-called `negative stereotypes of Islam' are the truth?-- will you denouce people for telling the truth? And if violent Islam is really just a `negative stereotype,' then why have I had to live like a virtual prisoner for more than four years [now more than seven years] due to threats from Muslims?"
Among America's elites, such questions don't even break the surface stillness.This is due to the de facto rule in the US of Islamic laws against "slander" which have been embraced, duck-to-water-style, by these same elites. In accordance with sharia, "Islamophobia" has become the target of their ire, much as "anti-anti-Communism" was more than half a century ago.
Take the Clintons, which have make the fight against Islamophobia a family affair.
Infamously, SecState Hillary Clinton has teamed up with the OIC -- the Islamic body dedicated to imposing Islamic law on the world even as it awaits the "liberation" of Jersusalem so it can move its HQ there from Jeddah -- to "shame" Americans into silence on Islam: silence on its supremacism, its crimes, its repressions, its totalitarianism, its collectivism, and, of course, silence on jihad. Heavens, just a few facts about these subjects would certainly inflame the very "Islamophobia" Hillary and the OIC have committed themselves (and this country) to fight. And never mind that pesky First Amendment. The Islamic law against "slander" -- which includes anything negative about Islam (even the truth) -- trumps all.
Just to underscore the Islamic conception of "slander," here is a brief excerpt from an extensive essay on the topic at Gates of Vienna by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who quotes Reliance of the Traveler, a highly authoritative Sunni law book.
"Do you know what slander is?” … “It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike."
"The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid. All of the Muslim is inviolable to his fellow Muslim: his reputation, his property, his blood."
Therefore, if a non-Muslim says something about Islam that is true, but which Muslims do not want infidels to know, he is still guilty of slander under Islam. This is far different from a Western understanding of slander.
Every rule must have its exceptions, and slander under Islam is no different. There are six reasons for permitting slander, but I will list only one of them, “Permissible Slander,” r2.16:
Again, from Reliance of the Traveler:
"Slander, though unlawful, is sometimes permissible for a lawful purpose, …the legitimating factor being that there is some aim countenanced by sacred law that is unattainable by other means."
Elisabeth writes: So if a Muslim cannot advance sacred law except by deceiving someone, he is allowed to deceive that person.
Hillary has elected to deceive us all. Recently, she went so far as to eliminate "religious freedom" as a category in the annual State Department's human rights report. Any reports on the state of "religious freedom" in those garden spots of "Arab Spring" would necessarily include escalating, rampant violence against Christians and other religious minorities. That, too, would reflect badly on Islam, generating more "slander," which, as noted, is against Islamic law. And so it has been repressed by the State Department, thereby striking a blow against "Islamophobia," which Hillary Clinton has pledged herself (and this nation) to fight against.
Now NBC's Special Correspondent Chelsea Clinton is urging the same Islamic law on the media: It is "the responsibility of the media to help ameliorate Islamophobia," she said at a recent forum on "Islamophobia" at the New York Jewish Community Center, as IPT's Joel Himelfarb reports. (I.e., shut up.)
According to Himelfarb's account, it was a doozy of an evening, with Chelsea "moderating." One highlight:
And Chelsea accepted without challenge [Imam Muhammad Shamsi] Ali's disinformation about the word jihad. While he acknowledged it is a "scary word," Ali said people don't necessarily have to fear jihad, which can sometimes be a good thing. "We are doing a jihad. This is a jihad for peace, jihad for harmony, jihad for cooperation between people."
Any such challenge would be deemed "Islamophobic."
It's a jihad all right -- a jihad against rational thought.
Like mother, like daughter (left).
Follow me @diana_west_