OIC and the Modern Caliphate

Bat Ye'or

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood's strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari'a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims. The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion's share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC's docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and -- in contrast to to the European states -- to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari'a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system -- in other words, compliance with shari'a.

They also undertake to stimulate noble Muslim values, to preserve their symbols and their shared heritage, and to defend the universality of the Islamic religion -- simply put, the universal propagation of Islam (da'wa). They state that they are promoting women's rights and encourage their active participation in all walks of life, in accordance with the laws of the Member States. They agree to inculcate Muslim children with Islamic values and to support Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States in order to preserve their dignity and their cultural and religious identity.

The Charter's strategic targets seek "[t]o ensure active participation of the Member States [of the OIC] in the global political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure their common interests" (I-5) and "[t]o promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in international forums" (1-17).

Among its targets, the OIC Charter specifies the propagation, promotion, and preservation of Islamic teachings and values, the spread of Islamic culture, and the preservation of the Islamic heritage (I-11). Article I-12 promotes the protection and defense of the true image of Islam, the fight against its defamation, and the encouragement of dialogue between civilizations and religions. The other objectives deal with protecting inherent Islamic family values (I-14) and the preservation of rights, dignity, and religious and cultural identity of the Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States (I-16). This issue points to the OIC authority over immigrants abroad and its pressure on the governments of the non-Muslim host countries through the channel of dialogue, including the Alliance of Civilizations, whose Report backs OIC programs, and interfaith and immigration networks.

The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting "foreign occupation," including those in "occupied" Indian Kashmir, and condemns the "humiliation and oppression" of Muslims in India.

The Charter stipulates that the International Islamic Court of Justice shall become the Organization's main legal body (Chap. X, Art. 14) and that "[t]he Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization's [OIC] covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values" (Art. 15). It implies that the covenants which do not conform with Islamic values will not be followed.

One can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused (according to Western criteria of justice) of genocide committed in southern Sudan and Darfur, has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan.

The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari'a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.

Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU's very antithesis. Even if it employs the language of international organizations, the meaning of the words is different by their being rooted in the conceptual world of the Koran, which contradicts the basis of secular Western thought. Thus, Article 32-2 states, "The Council of Foreign Ministers [of OIC countries] shall recommend the rules of procedures of the Islamic Summit." This implies an Islamic view and understanding on policy.

Such a combined political and religious institution is at the very outer rim of Western thinking, anchored as it is in the separation between politics and religion. Even if interference between the two fields has persisted, the principle of such separation has facilitated emancipation in the intellectual and political arenas from religious authority and the development of critical thought.

Present-day aspiration of the Ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being's greatest privilege and finest adventure.

Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his human intermediary, Mohammed. According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. Faced today with this political archaism, a divided and broken West seeks refuge in denial and grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt. Taking in water from every side, this West that abandons its own identity for multilateralism and multiculturalism and ruins its citizenry by buying security has little chance of survival.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/oic_and_the_modern_caliphate.html at October 03, 2010 - 02:46:05 PM CDT

_________________________________________



SHARIAH LAW: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What is Shariah?

Shariah, often referred to as "Islamic Law," is in actuality a legal doctrine based on the Quran and Hadith (sayings and acts of Mohammed), but one which goes far beyond what Westerners would regard as religious matters or routine legal matters.

What is covered by Shariah?

Shariah covers all aspects of life, including criminal law, domestic law, statecraft and warfare (Jihad). Shariah encompasses personal ethics and legal issues, religion and state governance, this world and the afterlife. Shariah is said to enforce the will of Allah, as opposed to the will of humans. Shariah regulates belief, speech and religious practice, criminal and legal matters, and other fields including finance and war. There is no such thing as a separate secular authority or secular law under doctrinal Shariah, since religion and state are not distinct, but are one.

How is Shariah related to violent Jihad?

Shariah mandates violent Jihad as a religious obligation. Violent Jihad’s purpose against non-Muslims or former Muslims is to establish Islam’s rule worldwide. The establishment of Shariah rule is a stated goal of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, HAMAS, Al Shabaab, Abu Sayaf, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jemaah Islamiya and other Jihadist known or designated terrorist organizations, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Who interprets and rules on Shariah law?

Shariah is interpreted, adjudicated and substantially controlled by a relatively small group of Islamic Shariah scholars worldwide. Although there are differences among the six major schools of Shariah law, all have consensus on the major issues – which are also the tenets directly in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

Where is Shariah enforced worldwide?

Shariah is the strict, exclusive law of the land or basis of that law in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan. It is also enforced in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as enclaves around the world controlled by violent Jihadist organizations. Shariah is either a parallel legal system or partly integrated into the legal systems of the other Islamic-majority nations, such as Egypt and Morocco. Some pro-Shariah groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood also support democratic elections as long as they result in governments, constitutions, legal systems and societies based on Shariah.

Where is Shariah appearing in the US?

Shariah is frequently encountered in family law cases across the USA today; in Shariah-compliant accommodations that may result in discrimination against non-Muslims; and in Shariah-Compliant Finance on Wall Street and in the U.S. government

Why are Shariah courts a problem, but Jewish and Christian courts are not a problem?

Unlike other forms of religious law, such as Jewish law or Catholic Canon law, Shariah does not just apply to Muslims; it applies to non-Muslims as well. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

What are the recent initiatives against Shariah?

Tennessee and Louisiana have passed laws to prevent the infiltration of Shariah into their court systems. A ballot initiative to amend the Oklahoma constitution to prevent the infiltration of Shariah goes to a vote this November. Many more bills are reportedly in the planning stage for the 2011 Congress and state legislative sessions. For more information contact the Center for Security Policy: www.securefreedom.org

Sharia Tutorial: http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/video/vtemp.php?id=0145



___________________________
'Intolerance' to Shariah Necessary for Liberty, Freedom

Tawfik Hamid - NewsMax.com, October 12th, 2010

One of the questions being asked is, Should the United States become more tolerant to radial Islamic law (Shariah)?

President Barack Obama's comments to American Muslims at the recent Ramadan dinner at the White House suggest that he believes that the value of “tolerance” was the main driving force that made America a beacon for liberty and equality throughout history.

The president appealed to the American people to honor the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks by hewing to the values of diversity and tolerance. “We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust,” the president declared.

In another statement the president said, “Americans must cling to the shared belief in religious tolerance and clarity about who their enemies are.”

Furthermore, on the ninth anniversary of the greatest mass murder on American soil in the history of our country, far-left, faux-documentarian Michael Moore issued a clarion call to the United States. “If the [ground zero] 'mosque' isn't built,” he wrote, “this is no longer America.”

In fact, Moore said he was opposed to building the ground zero mosque two blocks from ground zero. “I want it built on ground zero,” he wrote.

The president should have had a clear distinction between the religious values that must be respected and those values that must not be granted any form of tolerance.

Those who promote the value of “tolerance” in an absolute form miss that it is simply not possible to be tollerant of every ideology. It is the delicate balance that has preserved the American dream of equality and liberty.

For example, where would we be if the United States was tolerant of slavery? If not good men stood up to be intolerant of such cruelty?

Similarly, “intolerance” of the discrimination against the blacks, the Jews, and women in the American history has been the main foundation for our current freedoms and equality.

It is fair to show tolerance to religious values that do not physically harm or threaten the lives of other people (such as fasting in Ramadan or praying in a mosque); however, showing any tolerance to oppressive barbaric, violent, religions and giving them protection under the umbrella of “religious freedom” is a form of facilitation for criminal acts as those who will practice these values advise killing apostates, stoning women, having slaves in their houses, and killing homosexuals under the name of practicing their religious values.

The United States must show the same level of intolerance to Shariah, which allows the use of violence against women and homosexuals and justifies killing Muslims who convert from Islam to another faith – or no faith at all.

Above all, if President Obama wants to make a true contribution to the debate, he must uphold American values by showing “intolerance” to Shariah.
______________________

Stakelbeck on Terror - The Muslim Brotherhood in America - Video
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/September/Stakelbeck-on-Terror---The-Muslim-Brotherhood-in-America/

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

On this week's special edition of Stakelbeck on Terror, CBN News examines the Muslim Brotherhood -- a group that's committed to jihad, sharia law and establishing Islamic domination in the U.S.

The organization shares the same goals as al Qaeda, but some experts believe -- as a long-term threat to American security -- the Brotherhood is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden's followers.

Watch as former FBI special agent John Guandolo, ex-CIA officer Brian Fairchild and leading investigative journalist Patrick Poole break down the Brotherhood's history, goals and its infiltration of leading U.S. government and educational institutions.

Also, stay with CBNNews.com for part two of their discussion on the Oct. 4 edition of Stakelbeck on Terror. The panel will give recommendations on how America can fight back against the Muslim Brotherhood's threat.