MENSCHENRECHTE CONTRA SCHARIARECHT

Muslim Lobbyist Represents U.S. at European Human Rights Conference

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3403/salam-al-marayati-human-rights-conference

by Soeren Kern
October 18, 2012

In the non-Muslim world, „human rights“ refers to the United Nations‘ Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which affirms that all people – men and women — are guaranteed individual rights. By contrast, the Muslim world defines „human rights“ according to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which holds that men and women are not equal and that it is the duty of men and women to follow the will of Allah, „in accordance with Sharia law.“

Freedom of speech in Europe and North America is increasingly under threat because of a growing confusion among Western leaders over how to define „human rights.“ The problem is being compounded by politically correct Western governments, which seek to enforce multicultural compliance with Islamic Sharia law as a way to appease Muslim lobby groups.

These and other political and societal „drifts“ were catapulted to center stage by a well-organized and highly articulate group of free-speech activists who attended the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings [HDIM], a major international conference on human rights — this year held in Warsaw, Poland from September 24 to October 5 — and sponsored annually by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE].

In recent years, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings and the OSCE have been the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that are aggressively pressuring Western countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

In August 1990, the Muslim member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation officially adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, an alternative document to the 1948 United Nations‘ document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Cairo Declaration states that people have „freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with Islamic Sharia law.

The Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa [BPE], in a written submission to the Human Dimensions Implementation Meetings‘ Working Session on Fundamental Freedoms, pointed out that today the term „human rights“ has two incompatible meanings. In the non-Muslim world, „human rights“ refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that all people — men and women — are guaranteed individual rights.

By contrast, in the Muslim world, „human rights“ are defined according to the Cairo Declaration, which holds that men and women are not equal and that it is the duty of men and women to follow the will of Allah. Dignity is granted only to those who submit to Allah’s will. The Cairo Declaration divides all human beings into two separate legal persons within its defined categories, namely men and women, believers and non-believers. Any rights or freedoms are binding commandments from Allah as delivered through Mohammed, the Muslim prophet.

The BPE asked the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to clarify which definition of human rights is being referred to during discussions at the Conference. The statement says: „When BPE discusses the plight of young girls and women with respect to forced marriages, violence, and/or FGM [female genital mutilation], BPE always refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereas the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation refer exclusively to the Cairo Declaration, which has ramifications on the status of the girl or woman. OSCE participating states that are also member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation thus refer to a different set of human rights at the HDIM. It follows that within the Human Dimension of the OSCE there are two diametrically opposed sets of human rights.“

The International Civil Liberties Alliance, in a written statement to the Human Dimensions Implementation Meetings‘ Working Session on Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief, said: „Since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation created the Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, commonly known as the Cairo Declaration, we have witnessed a distortion of the concepts of human rights and religious freedom. This declaration has created a new and secondary standard in human rights based on Sharia Law, which is entirely incompatible with OSCE’s human rights standards, inspired as they were by the declaration of 1948.“

The International Civil Liberties Alliance statement continues: „Sharia law is a system of religious and political regulations destructive of all the principles promoted through the OSCE, i.e. democracy, human rights, freedom of religion and belief, etc. Sharia Law has been defined by the European Court of Human Rights on February 2003, as ‚incompatible with democratic principles…'“

The International Civil Liberties Alliance concludes: „Therefore, OSCE’s commitments and works done by its various departments are devoid of sense if all the partners, state-members, NGOs or other contributors are not using the same definition of Human Rights. A definition is required that clearly rejects any interpretation originating in the Cairo Declaration.“

In a report entitled, „The Battle Has Begun,“ Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese advocate for free speech, summarized her impressions of the Human Dimension’s 2012 conference: „This is one of the important observations we made: The tide has shifted. The freedom lovers are no longer on the defensive; the opposite is true. The OIC side was isolated; the Counterjihad received many supportive thumbs-up gestures. We made new allies.“

She also wrote, however: „Lastly, I was more than surprised to see a member of MPAC [Muslim Public Affairs Council, a Los Angeles-based lobbying group] take the floor on behalf of the US delegation. Since when has MPAC represented the U.S. government? And with diplomatic status! This is wrong and an outrage. We ask our friends in the U.S. House of Representatives to weigh in.“

She was referring to Salam al-Marayati, a radical Muslim whom the Obama Administration named as its official representative to the OSCE’s premier conference on human rights. Al-Marayati is the controversial founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MPAC is closely allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and has been a staunch defender of Islamic terrorist groups. Among other initiatives, MPAC has asked the US government to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of US-designated terrorist groups. Al-Marayati, a vociferous critic of Israel, has also blamed Israel for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. (See here for the full 81-page analysis of MPAC.)

The State Department defended its selection of al-Marayati, praising him as „valued and highly credible.“ It added: „He was invited to participate in this year’s HDIM as a reflection of the wide diversity of backgrounds of the American people.“

In another conference submission, the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa also drew attention to the plight of Muslim immigrants in Europe who want to leave Islam and convert to another faith. Islamic Sharia law calls for the death penalty for those who voluntarily „apostatize“ from Islam.

The text states: „One case in point is a Bangladeshi man and his wife who is currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom after claiming asylum and being detained after officially renouncing Islam. Their asylum application was denied and they are now awaiting deportation to Bangladesh, where they will be killed according to Islamic Law for apostatizing.“

OSCE member states were also urged to join the Brussels Process, an initiative launched by the International Civil Liberties Alliance in July 2012, in the European Parliament. The Brussels Process aims to „assist governments and civil society in protecting civil liberties and freedoms, and more specifically to defend the freedom of belief against attempts to implement Sharia regulations.“

In a separate statement, the International Civil Liberties Alliance also expressed „concern over the repetitive use of imprecise, confusing and ambiguous concepts and words in OSCE forums and working materials,“ namely the term „Islamophobia,“ even though this expression has no precise meaning nor internationally accepted definition. The OSCE was asked to provide a precise definition of the term.

The BPE called on the OSCE to „protect apostates, supporting their right to change their belief without the threat of death.“

A more complete collection of posts about the OSCE meeting can be found here and here.

The OSCE, the world’s largest security-oriented inter-governmental organization, is based in Vienna. Its 56 member states are located in Europe, the former Soviet Union and North America, and cover most of the northern hemisphere. The OSCE, created during the Cold War era as an East-West forum, has, among its as its mandates, issues such as arms control and the promotion of human rights, freedom of the press and fair elections.

The Human Dimension Implementation Meetings, Europe’s largest annual human rights and democracy conference, is a platform for OSCE member countries, civil society groups and international organizations. The Human Dimension Implementation Meetings is significant because of the high status the OSCE extends to civil society groups, which are on equal footing with participating nation states. In practice, this means they have the right to speak in the plenary, a status not granted by other international organizations.

Among the hundreds of conference participants this year’s Human Dimension Meetings was a group of seven freedom-of-speech activists from Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany and the United States. They represented civil society groups Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, the International Civil Liberties Alliance, the Stresemann Foundation and ACT! for America. Their primary objective was to draw attention to (and confront) the growing Islamization of the West.

Many OSCE member countries, which lack First Amendment protections for freedom of speech like those in the United States, have already enacted hate-speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is seeking to impose on the West as a whole.

Consider Austria, where an appellate court recently upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, for „denigrating religious beliefs“ after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Sabaditsch-Wolff represented the civil liberties group Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa at this year’s Human Dimensions Implementation Meeting. On the second day of the conference, the BPE provided conference participants with a history lesson about the greatest achievement of the OSCE (previously known as the CSCE), which occurred at the height of the Cold War during the Helsinki Process, when the Soviet Union was cajoled into accepting the term „human rights“ for the first time.

The inclusion of the humanitarian dimension (respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief) in the East-West dialogue was a major victory for the West and paved the way for the demise of the Communist bloc.

The BPE reminded the OSCE that during the Cold War there was never any doubt to what the term „human rights“ referred, namely the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed and ratified by almost all member countries of the United Nations.

Saudi Arabia, however, refused to sign the Universal Declaration, arguing that it violated Islamic Sharia law. In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations said the Universal Declaration represented „a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition,“ which could not be implemented by Muslims without violating Sharia law.

    Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

______________________________________________________________________

Ad „Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights“

http://neue-sichel.over-blog.de/pages/FOCUSFRAUEN_2001_Menschenrechte-3667211.html

Information Sheet on Islamic Propaganda Undermining Democracy

The Islamic Council in LONDON has issued the Universal islamic declaration of rights on the 21st Dhul Quaidah 1401 i.e. 19th September 1981 and herewith proposes to have declared human rights along the lines of Human Rights as proposed by United Nations and furthermore declares that human rights are the basis of Islamic thought and behaviour.

The declaration states that the Islam gave mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. On the front page well-sounding titles are listed from Right to Life down to Freedom of Movement and Residence. Behind these lines, however, the unmitigated ancient laws of the Qu`ran and the Shari`ah appear which is made known at the end of the site only. Reference is reiterated that God alone is the lawgiver and that the LAW denotes the Shari`ah i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qu`ran and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.

What is hereafter described as LAW as publicly declared on this website clearly offends the foundations of democracy in all countries for the following reasons:

1. The Islam strives to install Islamic LAW which states that all laws are made by God as based in the Qu`ran and Shariah inferring that laws are not to be made by the people of any given country, furthermore that laws cannot be amended or abolished unless by deduction valid by Isalmic jurisprudence.

2. Thus the Islam does not respect separation of state from relgion which is a basic democratic institution.

3. It does not respect the division of powers into legislative, jurisprudential and executive powers guarding against misuse of state power.

4. The laws are not in line with human rights because their insisting on their LAW. Studying the Qu`ran and the Shari`ah reveals ancient laws trespassing human rights as declared by the United Nations.

Thus the Islam is missonary, militant and maltreating. No allowance can be made between a moderate and extrem Islam as long as the Islam is based on their LAW. It will only adjust to modern democracies as long as it is not in power. Islam is merely paying lip service to democratic rights as long as Muslims are in the minority. When Islam refers to democracy they obviously mean their LAW which differs widely from real concepts of democracy and freedom. Their understanding is that anything is approved only within the limits of their law as put forth on the website of the Islamic Council. If the Islamic Council does not represent the mainstream of Islam, who does?

The Declaration confirms that all persons are equal before the LAW and are entitled to equal opportunities and protection of the LAW. This does not stand for women as the Qua`ran clearly states that a man is a rank higher than woman. A woman does not inherit as much as a man. That is what they understand by equality. This declation is a blank lie and a camouflage of the law behind it. In countries where the LAW is practiced women have to wear the Tschador, the Burka, or at lest a scarf covering their hair which they are told is for their dignity, honour and protection thus declaring all other women not wearing such stuff are without dignity, honour and protection.

The fact is that the LAW is an instruction book on how to suppress women. If Islamic groups deny applying the Shari`ah then why must women wear such stuff as ordered by the Shari`ah? It does not allow women to leave their homes without a male guide of their family. If this was not approved by the LAW why does the LAW not oppose this practice in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Pakistan and other countries.

Every person has the right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech but only ‚within the limits of the LAW‘. Thus whoever conceives thoughts against the LAW or worse even against Mohammed or Allah is charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death.

The Declaration points out that in a Muslim country religious minorities shall have the choice to be governed in respect of their civil and personal matters by Islamic LAW, or by their own laws.The people who write such nonsense must be shamless in view of the practice seen in Muslim countries. No woman may walk around in shorts in Riad or Teheran. Women who are found to show their blank face in Kabul are sprinkled with acid into their faces. If anybody is seen drinking a glass of wine in Riad may not survive the lashes he gets for it.
Tolerance is a mutual act. Western countries allow Muslim women do go about in their `fashion`, but women in strict Muslim countries have to adjust to their ways.
Furthermorte the LAW even contravenes the most basic principles of the proportionality of punishment for an offence. For instance the Qu`ran states that a thief`s hand must be hacked off. What else is to behacked off in case of a new offence is descirbed in detail by the Shari`ah said to be bestowed on us in the wisdom of divine guidance brought by the Prophets, whose mission is found in the culmination of the final Divine Message coveyed by the prophet Mohammand (Peace be upon him?).

Those who are not conviced yet about the real content of the LAW may read this:

From „The Life of Muhammad“:
„To test Muhammad, the rabbis sent to him a married man and a married Jewish woman who had committed adultery together. „If he condemns them to the tajah (whereby the criminals are lashed with a rope of date fibres dipped in resin) then obey him, for he is a prince. But if he condemns them to be stoned, he is a Prophet and be on your guard against him.“23 The Holy Prophet ordered the pair to be stoned: the man bent over his mistress to protect her from the stones, but they were both killed.“

The Hadith-sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad
680 The Prophet said: „When an unmarried couple fornicate they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. In the cases of a married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death. If one of the pair is unmarried, one hundred lashes and exile for a year.
682 The Prophet said: „do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child.“ After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the Prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle Prophet prayed over her and she was buried.

It is known and testified that Muhammad has raided carvans and killed people.
This year a woman was stoned to death in Northern Nigeria for adultery. Her lover was dismissed from the charge for lack of proof. Many other women are kept down and molested in the name of the LAW.

The readers are well advised to read the Qu`ran and the Shari`ah themselves and judge by themselves.

The Islamic Council will shun no effort to talk themselves out of it. From the Islam point of view rationlity without the light of revelation (by Mohammad) of God is no sure guidance wherefore we must fall back on their LAW. Reasoning is permitted only within the limits of the LAW.
WHAT LAW IS THIS?

Many people cannot do without religious comfort. They need to believe that there is a Supreme Force that will overcome their mortality and make good for injustice in a life to come. Modern democracies respect the freedom of religion and do not obstruct personal views of moral code.

Religions, however, must not profess to be channels of a law coming from God and try and implement these laws against democratic rules. Rationality ought to be combined with empathy and does not require the divine inspiration of any particular religion. The origin of empathy is biological and not religious and part of every human being.

As long as the Islam comes along as a joint religious, jurisprudential and political package it will remain fundamental. If the Islam wants to be accepted by the international democratic community it must abandon the Shari`ah and stop declaring their own LAWS or derive laws from a religious soruce. The moral code of any religion or group must not trespass human rights as declared by the UNITED NATIONS and must not harass democratic principles. The term by LAW as proposed by the Islamic Council must therefore be dropped.

The Declartion of Human Rights as presented by the Islamic Council in London is but a whitewashed tomb.

A dialogue must be maintained where it is still possible perhaps on limited topics such as genetics and birth control without sacrificing democratic values and proper human rights. Where dialogue fails, severe conflict and war will ensue. If on the other hand we beat about the bush and keep on trying to overlook hard facts for the sake of peace at all cost we will bury the foundations of our freedom for us and our children.

This text may be passed on if found correct so that everybody may form their own opinion.
The author of the text prefers to remain anonymous for fear of persecution and terrorist attacks.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s