Call for Jihad to be Recognised as a Crime Against Humanity

Alain Wagner, ICLA’s chairman demands jihad to be recognized as crime against Humanity.

Working session 13 : “Tolerance and non-discrimination II” 30, September 2014

Religious intolerance can lead to war. The Islamic state’s creation in Syria and Iraq causes a contagion effect much farther than its own frontiers. Within OSCE countries, since many years, some Muslim organizations disseminate a doctrine glorifying and praising jihad.

Instead of being prosecuted as they normally should be, those organizations are recognized as partners by participating states. Sharia proponent organizations which glorify the criminal concept of jihad, are destroying social cohesion and make possible the appearance of Jew hunters as we’ve experienced in France and Belgium. They also make Islamic fighters recruitment more easy in our countries.

If they really want to uphold their commitments to fight against hate crimes and incitements to violence, participating states have to send a clear message to hate preachers and to firmly repress their activities. Military jihad concept has to be clearly identified as a crime against Humanity as defined by the Statute of Rome, chapter 2, article 7.

ICLA’s recommandations for OSCE:

Participant states must integrate in their hate crime legislations, new provisions criminalizing any apology of military jihad or of any jihadist’s feat of arm.

Participant states must aswell criminalize any public exhibition of the black flag of jihad, the white caliphate flag and the Islamic state’s flag as incitement to hatred and violence.

Those hate symbols have no place in the streets of countries forbidding incitement to violence.



Mothers to Oppose Radical Islam and Sharia at Speakers’ Corner, London, UK – Sunday 19 October

By • on October 18, 2014

We have just received news that Anne Marie Waters, Director of Sharia Watch UK, will join principled speakers on Sunday 19th October to support Mothers Against Radical Islam and Sharia.

Anne Marie said:

“Extremist Islam represents a grave threat to the safety and freedom of women, as does the political correctness which allows some men to get away with crimes against women, simply because the authorities don’t want to cause offence.  It is up to women to stand up and demand that our freedom and safety are not compromised by our leaders in the name of political correctness.  It is also significant that we are doing this at Speakers’ Corner, the home of British free speech, as we demand the right so speak our minds and tell the truth about the menace of radical Islam and sharia in our society”.

ICLA wishes those that attend this important event at Speakers Corner every success with their efforts tomorrow.





Those of us who know better, Islamic ”extremism” is exactly what Allah via Mohamed, is all about. I can understand those Muslims who have been influenced by Western thinking and morals to be appalled by what is being done in the name of their religion, but shirking from the truth is not the answer.

”As someone raised in Islam, I am horrified to my core to see killings and persecution in the name of Allah. Does Allah wish for child marriage, which is essentially rape? Does Allah want to make Muslim women into whores? Does Allah sanction the beheadings of innocents? Does Allah glory in the spilling of blood? Does Allah believe that non-Muslims are infidels? There is a dangerous perversion of an old and noble religion in our time and sadly, not enough resistance. I want to empower people to speak out against this perversion; I want to end the silence. That is where This is Not My Allah comes in”, she said.

According to the Koran, Hadiths and Sunna of Mohamed, that is exactly what Allah wants his followers to do, as did their perfect model of human behavior in the 7th century. I applaud the ICLA on many different fronts in its countering the jihad, this is something however, that I can’t sign on to.

Turkish journalist Rabia Kazan launches “This is not my Allah” global campaign against extremism.

Rabia Kazan


11 A.M.




CONTACT: Shira Dicker

shir…@sd-media.com 917.403.3989 to info@thisisnotmyallah.com

October 1, 2014 (New York, NY) Acclaimed Turkish journalist and women’s rights activist Rabia Kazan, who has lived under the threat of death for speaking out against the dangers of radical Islam, will be holding a press conference in New York City to announce the launch of her new global campaign of resistance This is Not My Allah (www.thisisnotmyallah.com)

Spurred by recent and much-publicized atrocities committed by ISIS in the name of Islam, Ms. Kazan hopes to ignite a worldwide resistance movement of Muslims and all people of conscience to denounce violence committed in the name of religion by such groups as ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and others. Having catapulted to worldwide prominence after interviewing Mehmet Ali Agca who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II in 1981, she gained further notice after writing a bestselling book in 2007 called Angels of Tehran, an expose of the practice of a coercive legalized form of prostitution in Iran called a contemporary marriage.’ Having worked at the World Federation of United Nations Associations and currently serving as a writer and women’s rights advocate at the International Civil Liberties Association (ICLA), Ms. Kazan’s career is marked by her commitment to expose extremism within her native religion.

More here.



Live blogging the event

osce human dimension Implementation meeing 29.9-3.10.2014 warsaw poland

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Stephen C. Coughlin and Arthur Brooks.


Stephen Coughlin



Text of Elisabeth’s speech for BPE:

Statement by Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 12

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination II

Warsaw, September 30, 2014

Dangerous trends in hate crimes against Jews & Christians

BPE welcomes with great pleasure the recent demonstration in Berlin against anti-semitism, which was graced by the presence of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This event, which also expressed support for Israels right to defend herself against terrorist forces, marks a new high point in awareness of this rising problem. Similar manifestations in Denmark have received significant media attention, which is good.

While not nearly as bad as in many Middle Eastern countries, intolerance and harassment against Christians is a rising problem in several OSCE pS. The rising awareness of anti-semitism is good news, but similar awareness of ‘Christianophobia’ is needed. Intolerance of Christians on religious grounds is on the rise, and this needs countering.

Danish media are reporting that in many cases Christians of immigrant background are being persecuted and even threatened with stoning, interestingly to great extent by immigrants of Muslim background. This happens also among asylum seekers, who should be escaping persecution, not propagating it. While the situation is nothing like the catastrophic levels we are witnessing in the Middle East, it would appear that the Middle Eastern conflict patterns are being replicated in European states. This must be addressed.

It is worth noting that Islamic groups (in particular salafist) have taken upon themselves to denigrate Jews and Christians. This inter-religious tension and conflict deserves attention and action from our secular states and institutions. Identifying not only the victims of hate crimes but also their sources should be standard operating procedure.

BPE recommends:

– That statistics be made not only about the victims of hate crimes, also about the perpetrators, in order to identify if any political or religious group appears to be causing particular problems in the field, and as a basis for further legal action if this is the case.

– That OSCE pS undertake a vetting of Islamic organizations in the political sphere to ensure that they do not give rise to radical views on adherents of other religions, and in particular that their literature and other material be investigated for endorsement of such views.

– That OSCE pS call upon Islamic organizations to issue official statements that harassment of and hate crimes against Jews, Christians or other non-Muslims is against the teachings of Islam, and that such intolerance of other religions cannot be tolerated.

  Update: Elisabeth Wolff: 

[14:26:40] video has been shut down
[14:26:46] I have the shutdown on video
[14:26:58] complaining about torching of mosques
[14:27:08] Islamophobia now an “ideology”
[14:27:35] Muslims enjoy more freedom of religion than in their origin countries
[14:27:53] this has changed, security forces are cracking down
[14:28:23] essentialization of Muslims through media, political discourse, social media
[14:28:32] (don’t ask me the meaning of the word essentialization)
[14:29:05] perverted images are seen in media etc.

[14:30:45]  lots of sdensationalism of Muslims in media(sound is on, BTW)

[14:31:55]”why are some young Muslim men joining Muslim organizations?”
legitimate question, should be addressed by govts and Muslims themselves

[14:33:56] halal is an important point of Muslim life, but restricted. should be addressed
[14:34:04] hate speech: increasing
[14:34:34] there should be a balanced approach to spreading of hate speech
[14:34:38] speech turns into behavior
[14:34:50] as a result, veiled women are attached in the streets

[14:35:18] legal treatment of Muslims: different policies across Europe, misrepresentation of Muslims in popular culture, film

[14:37:38] Is an idea, becoming an ideology used by uninformed politicians to gain votes
[14:37:59] this was Prof. Talib
[14:38:02]  now Bashy

[14:38:25] now Prof. Sabine Schiffer
[14:39:00] media coverage of Islam in Germany

[15:49:30] this is really rich: Prof. Senay, OSCE/ODIHR rep mocking ISIS: we should call it International Strong Ignorance Syndrome
[15:48:30] : how dare they

[17:31:10] Milli Görüs speaking now
[17:31:38] MBn Germany

mb mili gurus speaking

[17:32:36] so slick, complaining about mosque torching…

Stephen Coughlin and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff are next




Namely, protection from people within their own cult.

freedom muslimas

ICLA Calls for More Effective Protection of Muslim Women in the UK

By • on September 27, 2014


International Civil Liberties Alliance

On behalf of International Civil Liberties Alliance I would like to suggest that the United Kingdom consider the immediate implementation of one very practical step in order to ensure the effective protection of Womens’ Rights for one of the most vulnerable part of its population : Muslim women.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance ask for an immediate banning of all Sharia courts in the United Kingdom which deal and give judgments about family matters and private conflicts.

Sharia courts apply sharia rules which are denying equality of Right between men and women and generally disregard any kind of compliance or compatibility with Human Rights.

Tolerating the existence of Sharia courts and allowing them to arbitrate in private family conflicts constitute a gross violation of UK commitments in regard to gender equality and women’s protection.

In theory, any woman unhappy with a Sharia court decision has the right of appeal to a British court. But actually, we know that Muslim women are very often prisoners of family and community, bonds which deny them any real possibility to contest a Sharia court decision.

The international Civil Liberties Alliance fails to see how United Kingdom can allow Sharia courts to operate on its territory and at the same time pretend to uphold its OSCE’s commitments promoting Women ’s Rights or Muslim women’s right to a fair trial as defined by the European Convention of Human Rights article 6:

I quote : “. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” End of quote.

Sharia courts are by no way impartial toward women and will never be so because they apply Sharia regulations. It is impossible to see how such tribunals could ever have anything other than a negative impact on the promotion of Women’s Right in UK Muslim communities.

More here at ICLA.



Are British Sharia Courts Compatible With Human Rights?

Below is a video of the intervention read by Alain Wagner, representing the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA)
at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 7: “Tolerance and non-discrimination I, including equality of opportunity for women and men and the implementation of the OSCE Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality”, Warsaw, September 25, 2014.

Following Mr. Wagner’s intervention, the British government’s ambassador to the OSCE gave a brief reply:

Read the prepared text for Alain Wagner’s intervention.

More here.



And yet, the Left focuses on Israel, a small country fighting for its very existence, throughout its modern existence, and yet no calls for boycotting Pakistan, no international movement to force Pakistan to ascribe to the mere basics of human dignity. This goes also for the rest of the Muslim/Arab Middle East as well.

anti-blashpemy laws

Save Muhammad Asghar – Oppose Blasphemy Laws, Oppose Human Rights Abuses in Pakistan

We found THIS following petition, by Caroline Lynch, at the Change.org petitions site.  The introduction to the petition at Change.org states:

“Muhammad Asghar is a 68 year old from Edinburgh, currently resident in Pakistan. He has been convicted of blasphemy following a trial where his legal team were dismissed, and the state nominated replacement presented no evidence in his defence.”

This shows yet another human rights violation by Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member Pakistan.  It must be remembered that the OIC has been calling for restrictions on freedom of speech in Western countries too.  Western Governments via their support for the Istanbul Process and United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 14/18 are actually encouraging this sort of judicial intolerance.  Furthermore they want to make this sort of thing the norm in their own countries.  When there is no freedom of expression other freedoms, including freedom of religion, become impossible.

Blasphemy is a “crime” that belongs in the Middle Ages.  It is a “crime” that suggests great intolerance on the part of those who classify it as a criminal offence.  Freedom of expression is the bedrock on which all freedom is built.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance believes that blasphemy laws are an affront to basic human dignity and should be banned globally by international law.  We call on our supporters to sign the petition.

***Sign the Petition Here***



ICLA goes into the big times!

Dutch Foreign Minister Quizzed Over Matters Raised By ICLA Victims of Sharia Project

By  • on May 1, 2014

Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Hague

The Dutch Foreign Minister has been questioned about matters raised by the article that appeared on this site on 29 April.  The article Paul Weston – Victim of Sharia: Arrested For Quoting Winston Churchill inspired questions from Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon of the Party for Freedom (PVV).  It related to the treatment of British politician Paul Weston who was arrested for quoting Winston Churchill in the increasingly free speech averse United Kingdom.

We welcome such interest in our Victims of Sharia Action Network, a project that we established to monitor such human rights abuses.  We encourage other political parties across Europe and the wider world to raise these issues that are of profound concern to those who value freedom, including in the increasingly repressive Western world.

A translation of the reference to our article appears on the Gates of Vienna website:

PVV questions Dutch Foreign Minister about arrest of British politician

Today, Dutch parliamentarians Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon (both PVV) asked the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Frans Timmermans, a number of questions about the arrest of British politician Paul Weston. You can read the questions below:

Parliamentary questions of MPs Raymond de Roon and Geert Wilders (both PVV) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the arrest of a British politician for quoting Winston Churchill:

Are you familiar with the articles “Paul Weston — Victim of Sharia: Arrested For Quoting Winston Churchill” and “Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill: European election candidate accused of religious and racial harassment after he repeats wartime prime minister’s words on Islam during campaign speech”?

Do you share our opinion that the arrest of the politician Paul Weston is a gross violation of freedom of expression and an example of dhimmi behavior? If not, why not?

More here.



Since I agree with the ICLA mission, and know that ‘they know better’, I’ll give Meer Khan some leeway here. Those who follow this blog closely, already know that Islam does in fact force its ideology upon the unbeliever, through intimidation, coercion and even to the point of death. His warning against the spread of sharia however, is very much welcomed.

Pakistan’s Walk towards Sharia

By  • on February 10, 2014


By Meer Khan

Negotiators representing Pakistani Taliban insurgents said that there could be no peace until Pakistan embraces Islamic Sharia Law and US-led forces withdraw completely from the neighboring Afghanistan. Sami ul Haq, founder of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the head of the TTP’s three man talks team, said that there could be no peace in the region while there is NO SHARIA but democracy. The tough conditions appear to deal a blow to hopes that peace talks with the Pakistani government could end the TTP insurgency that has rocked the country since 2007.

Religion is not meant to be – and never was – forced upon an individual against his or her own will. Unfortunately, Pakistan is facing terrorism and some Islamic fundamentalists want to impose their rigid rituals and rights on non-Muslims. The Pakistani government is in a state of confusion about whether to confront them, which could lead to even more rabid mobs in the short-term, or allow the terrorizing of innocents to continue. Amidst all of this turmoil, government is again wasting time in attempting to negotiate, all the while knowing that this process will bring no solid result.

Taliban peacekeeping troops and Pakistani government negotiators are meeting to devise a strategy for formally kick-starting a much-awaited dialogue process. The Taliban had nominated five prominent figures – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf; PTI Chairman, Imran Khan, Jamiat Ullma-e-Islam JUI-S; Chief Maulana Sami ul Haq, Jamaat-e-Islamai JI leader; Prof. Mohammad Ibrahim, JUI-F politician Mufti Kifayat ullah; and Lal Masjid prayer leader Maulana Abdul Aziz – to act as intermediaries between them and the government’s negotiating team. Imran Khan strongly opposes the military operation in North Waziristan. He is also leading the campaign in Pakistan against US Drone attacks of terrorist outfits.

More here



These are the people needing our support, those fleeing Islam, as well as those stuck living under sharia law.

albina Kurmanbekova

VOSAN7 Feature


For press queries contact Chris Knowles at vict@gmail.com

27 December 2013, Basel, Switzerland: The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has today launched a campaign in support of the recent asylum request of Albina Kurmanbekova in the United States.

VOSAN Program Director Chris Knowles said:

“Albina’s case is very worrying. Lawmakers need to be made aware of such cases.  They need to understand the dangers that sharia can pose to individual human rights.  Granting asylum in this case might even go some way to assuage worries that sharia principles will not be allowed to take root in the United States itself.”

Miss Kurmanbekova’s case is currently being heard by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services and a decision is imminent.  She was born a Muslim in Kyrgyzstan but converted to Christianity.  Apostasy is a crime under sharia law and returning her to her country of origin may be extremely harmful to her personal safety.  Furthermore, in Kyrgyzstan the second class status of women under sharia is compounded by the local cultural practice of ‘bridenapping’.  This combines kidnapping with forced marriage and the authorities seem reluctant to stamp out this wicked and degrading practice.

Albina’s case illustrates a widespread problem – the persecution of Christians.  During the current holiday season we should be mindful that large numbers of Christians currently face severe persecution in many parts of the Islamic world.  It is time for human rights leaders such as the United States to put this problem high on the international political agenda.

Albina entered the United States legally on a work-and-travel visa and has respected American laws by going through the official channels to seek asylum.

While President Obama continues to support an amnesty for illegal aliens we hear very little from him about compassion for people who entered the country legally but seek genuine asylum through the proper legal channels.  He should make his views on the Kurmanbekova case known to the public and should intervene on her behalf if that becomes necessary.

More here.



Bishoy Armyia – Victims of Sharia

By  • on December 20, 2013

ArmyiaSharia Reference: Apostasy From Islam (Ridda) – Reliance of the Traveller (page 595, o8.0)

Human Rights Abused: Freedom of Religion

Human Rights References: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18; European Convention of Human Rights Article 9; United States Constitution First Amendment.

Report from: Voice of the Copts.

Background to the Case:  Bishoy Armyia (formerly Mohammed Hegazy) converted from Islam to Christianity.  He sought to change his religious identity on his Egyptian ID card. An Egyptian court ruled that Sharia forbids anyone from leaving Islam. It is reported that Mr Armyia has suffered death threats, has been forced into hiding, has been tortured, and is now in prison for “contributing to a ‘false image’ that Christians in Minya are a target of violence.”

Goal: That Egyptian authorities release Bishoy Armyia from prison as soon as possible and prior to Eastern Christmas.

More here.


fear in islam

Victims of Sharia

The International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) has formed the Victims of Sharia Action Network to highlight the scourge of sharia and promote action on behalf of its victims.

Below is press release issued in honor of UN Human Rights Day by ICLA:

Victims of Sharia on International Human Rights Day

10 December 2013, Basel, Switzerland: Today — on United Nations Human Rights Day 2013 — the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) launched a new program: Victims of Sharia Action Network. The program will highlight the problem of sharia-inspired human rights abuses around to world to mobilize public opinion and action on behalf of the victims of sharia.

Program Director Chris Knowles said:

“Victims of sharia have suffered in silence for long enough. The International Civil Liberties Alliance will give them a voice. The legal, political and frequently barbaric doctrines of Sharia result in human rights abuses and flagrant disregard for civil liberties in violation of international norms and national legal codes. “

ICLA now has a form on its website to enable victims of sharia, their family members, lawyers, or community activists to submit details of specific sharia-based human rights abuses. This form may be accessed here.

For many years the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to extend the reach of sharia by demanding a global blasphemy law. At the same time terms such as “Islamophobia” have been put into circulation to blame the victims of sharia abuse rather than its perpetrators. Meanwhile, within OIC countries like Pakistan, sharia is being used as an instrument to terrorize religious minorities. VOSAN will take a two-pronged approach. The program will expose and confront human rights abuses caused by sharia within Muslim-majority OIC member countries, as well as abuses of civil liberties and human rights caused by accommodation to sharia doctrine in Western democracies.

VOSAN will focus public attention on cases of sharia-based doctrinal violations of human rights and norms of civil liberties, including: undermining freedom of expression, institutionalizing inequality before the law, encouraging cruel and unusual punishments, providing justification for gender-based inequality, promoting homophobia, persecuting apostates, and inciting the expansion of this systematic discrimination and violence to all countries, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

In 2014, Victims of Sharia Action Network will expose, confront and advocate against sharia abuses, always with a focus on specific cases to engage public interest and advocacy:

  • Highlighting specific sharia-related human rights abuses and engaging in public education on representative cases, generating “Top Ten” lists for priority public action;
  • Opposing the enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
  • Campaigning for an end to sharia-based human rights abuses in OIC member states and other countries with a significant Islamic population.
  • Raising the issue of sharia abuses of human rights and denial of civil liberties in international forums such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the European Parliament.
  • Encouraging Muslim reformers to partner with the VOSAN programme on specific cases, to free sharia’s victims.
  • Lobbying national governments to make combatting sharia human rights abuses a priority of their foreign policy.
  • Supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by campaigning for the non-recognition of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam on the grounds that it withholds basic human rights from both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

VOSA is an implementation of the Brussels Declaration launched by ICLA in the European Parliament in July 2012. The Brussels Declaration aims to preserve free speech, civil liberties, human rights and democracy, against all efforts to injure and usurp those universal principles.

More information may be found at: http://www.libertiesalliance.org/victims-sharia-action-network/vosan/



While this goes on, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation would have you believe in the fairy tale of ‘Islamofauxbia’ being the scourge of world peace.

Pogroms In Pakistan – The Cultural Cleansing of Christians in Pakistan

By  • on November 21, 2013

Christian-Image-with-frameBelow is an article by Farrukh H. Saif who is the Executive Director of a Pakistan based human rights organisation called World Vision in Progress (on whose website it was first published).  The article highlights the plight of Christians in Pakistan and shows a reluctance of the United Nations and human rights organisations to do anything meaningful about this desperate situation.

This situation seems very similar to the pogroms against Jews that took place in 19th century Russia that drove them from their homes and forced them seek refuge in places like the United States of America.  Back in those days such refugees could resettle and embark on prosperous and productive lives.  It no longer seems to be the case, at least for Christians.

A kind of cultural cleansing directly resulting from Pakistan’s Blasphemy law now appears to be taking place.  It must be noted at this point that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been calling for a similar blasphemy law to apply to the whole world.  Western politicians now appear to be starting to facilitate the OIC’s demand.  The latest incarnation of the demand for a global blasphemy law, UNHRC resolution 16/18 and the associated Istanbul Process, has been endorsed by Western leaders.

More here.



Modern Western infatuation with appeasing intolerance is a psychosis worth examination.

rainbow islam

“Islamophobia” Imagined? – Crayon Wars or Harmony Through Colour

By  • on November 3, 2013

I recently came across a short article by Tim Murphy at a website called Mother Jones.  The title of the article[1] shrieked out “Anti-Islam Activists Are Freaking Out About Crayons Now”!   The alarmist tone anticipating some kind of ‘crayon war’ seemed to me to be yet another example of smearing, as unreasonable, people who have concerns about sharia.  Like the widespread usage of the term ‘Islamophobia’ to demonise people this approach seems to be part of a general refusal to discuss the issues and engage in dialogue.  It would have been far more positive if the article had tried to engage with those with whom it disagreed.

The article related to a decision by crayon manufacturer Crayola to make Islam themed colouring books for Ramadan and the negative reaction to this from some sharia critics.  Unfortunately, negative rhetoric sometimes results when people feel that their culture is being routinely discriminated against. Many people believe that Islam is being promoted while other religions are being undermined; the colouring book decision obviously touched this particular nerve.  This is the real issue and those that engage in promotions such as the one organised by Crayola should try to be sensitive to such feelings.

They should also, perhaps, do a bit more research before they begin similar promotions in future.  What immediately struck me about the Mother Jones article was that the image that was used to illustrate it may actually be regarded by many Sunni Muslims as un-Islamic.  This relates to the picture of the boy kneeling down happily reading his book (the Koran?).  The decision to include this particular image ignored the prohibition of Aniconism is Islam.  A Wikipedia article makes this basic point as follows:

“Aniconism in Islam is a proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of God in Islam, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of Muhammad, but the depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged in the hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones. This has led to Islamic art being dominated by Islamic geometric patterns, calligraphy and the barely representational foliage patterns of the arabesque…”[2]

The article in fact reminded me of another faux pas made by a school that changed the name of a play from the three little pigs to the three little puppies[3] without realising that dogs as well as pigs are haram in Islam.

Well-meaning but ill-informed people who blindly embrace political correctness often seem to know very little about the subjects on which they make judgements.  Similarly those who denounce sharia critics as somehow being “racist” often have a profound lack of knowledge themselves.  They seem to believe that feeling something in their heart makes that something so.  It is therefore ironic when “Islamophobes” are accused of lacking knowledge of Islam.  The website Unveiling Islamophobia provides the following introductory sentence in its misconceptions section:

“In many, if not all cases, Islamophobia is often fueled [sic] by a lack of knowledge of Islam itself.”[4]

This raises the question of who the real “Islamophobes” are.  Are they the sharia critics who have done extensive research or the politically correct pro sharia crowd who have not?

More here.



OSCE Warsaw: Early Recommendations

By ICLA Admin • on October 4, 2013

Group Photo OSCE 400

The following was first published at Gates of Vienna:

As reported here over the past few days, the International Civil Liberties Alliance and allied groups (including Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, the Center for Security Policy, the Stresemann Foundation, Women for Freedom, ACT! for America, and ACT! for Canada) descended on Warsaw last week to speak out at the annual OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on topics related to Shariah and Islamization.

“But why the OSCE?” you might ask. “Why bother with a little talk-fest like that? It’s of no importance in the larger scheme of things.”

And in a way, you’d be right. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has no formal power over the “participating states” (as its members are called). Its recommendations are not binding.

However, like the UN, it’s a place where fashionable trans-national political and social programs are hatched, discussed, and disseminated. It is a reputable venue where non-governmental organizations can publish papers and materials, which thereby gain a sheen of respectability and substance. They may be cited later in other bodies and within the participating states as effectively having the imprimatur of the OSCE.

A relevant example is the “Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through Education”, which was mentioned here earlier and figured prominently in the ICLA paper “The Problematic Definition of ‘Islamophobia’” [pdf]. The “Guidelines” booklet was published jointly [pdf] by OSCE/ODIHR, the Council of Europe, and UNESCO in 2011. Without even a working definition of “Islamophobia” — its authors admitted at this year’s side events that they have none — the booklet is being used a training document for educators within the OSCE region, helping teachers and day care workers combat Islamophobia among their young charges.

So the OSCE matters; it has an effect, even though it flies mostly under the radar.

It has another important advantage: any NGOs that are registered as non-profit organizations in one or more of the participating states may register and speak at OSCE conferences. Unlike the UN, the OSCE is open to ordinary people who belong to non-profit organizations. If they want to become a part of the proceedings, they may simply register at the OSCE website and pay their way to Warsaw or Vienna. There is no charge to participate in the conference itself.

This offers an opportunity for Counterjihad-minded citizens to make their own contribution, however small, in resistance to the tide of Islamization that is flowing over Europe and North America. If enough like-minded people take part, their influence can make a difference.

More here at ICLA


A ruse by Islamo-nutjobs  to stop people from accurately describing Islam

Forcing the user of the faux term to give the exact definition of it, is the least one could ask for. How is it irrational to fear an Islam that contains “intolerance”, “discrimination”, “prejudice”, “hostility”, and whose many adherents are “adverse to public discourse”?

NOTE: Personally, I’m of the opinion that Islamofauxbia be stricken from the lexicon dealing with bigotry and racism, as a totally misleading and disingenuous term.

Islamophobia gif

What Does “Islamophobia” Mean?

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

Below is the paper that will be presented for publication by International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) to supplement its intervention at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 6 “Freedom of religion or belief”, Warsaw, September 26, 2013.

This document acts as an executive summary of the ICLA paper “The Problematic Definition of ‘Islamophobia’”, which was presented here in a slightly different form as “Stalking the Mythical Islamophobe” (in five parts).

ICLA logo (new)

What Does “Islamophobia” Mean?

By the ICLA Research Group

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Working Session 6
Freedom of religion or belief

Material supplementary to ICLA’s intervention


The International Civil Liberties Alliance notes with concern a growing tendency in public discourse to use terms that are poorly defined or even undefined. This practice is especially worrisome when the topics being discussed are contentious, as it destroys clarity and hampers mutual understanding. Under these circumstances, it is crucial that precise, unambiguous definitions be provided, and that all parties discussing the issues agree on those definitions.

One such term that has seen frequent use in articles, publications, papers, and interventions is the word “Islamophobia”. Although opposition to its use is usually thought of as a “conservative” position, among those who find its use objectionable is also the British Muslim socialist Rumy Hasan:[1]

Since 11 September 2001, the epithet ‘Islamophobia’ has increasingly become in vogue in Britain — not only from Muslims but also, surprisingly, from wide layers of the left, yet the term is seldom elaborated upon or placed in a proper context. Invariably, it is used unwisely and irresponsibly and my argument is that the left should refrain from using it.

Shockingly, some on the left have, on occassion, even resorted to using it as a term of rebuke against the left, secular, critics of reactionary aspects of Muslim involvement in the anti-war movement. So what does the term mean?



The definition of “Islamophobia” as presented by Umut Topcuoglu fails to meet even minimal standards of logic, coherence, and objectivity. As such it must be rejected for any further usage in OSCE proceedings as well as in educational and official publications in participating States.

As demonstrated in the ICLA paper[11], six of the terms used in the definition (“racism”, “xenophobia”, “intolerance”, “discrimination”, “prejudice”, and “stereotyping”) are “biased”, in the sense that they are either of recent coinage or have recently acquired new meanings, which alone is reason enough to render the definition questionable for any scholarly use. Words that are commonly used to demonize, intimidate, and marginalize certain viewpoints are always unacceptable in presentations that affect public policy. Unless the controversial “biased” terms are themselves clearly defined, they should be excluded.

The definition fails utterly through its inclusion of three phrases (#7, “unequal treatment”, #13, “stigmatization of a religion and its followers”, and #4, “unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred”). Specifically:

Unequal treatment. As described in “Examination of Terms” in the ICLA paper[12], Islam itself (via Shariah) treats non-Muslims differently from Muslims. Under the given definition, Muslims would themselves be guilty of “Islamophobia”. This is a logical fallacy, and the definition fails solely because of this.

Stigmatization of a religion and its followers. The vast majority of Islam-critics do not “describe or identify [the Islamic religion] in opprobrious terms”. Their critiques are focused almost entirely on the tenets of Islamic law (and the practical implementation of those tenets), which are not at all religious. Criticism of the religious elements of Islam is rare, mild, and often non-existent. This term therefore deflects the discussion into a “straw man” argument, and the definition fails solely because of this.

Unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred. This is the heart of the definition of “Islamophobia”. Any fear, mistrust, or hatred of Islam must be shown to be unfounded if it is to constitute Islamophobia. As previously demonstrated, millions of non-Muslims all over the world have well-founded empirical reasons to fear Islam and the behavior of Islamists, and thus cannot reasonably be described as “Islamophobes”.

Furthermore, any investigation into the basis for the fear of Islam — which requires research into and discussion of the collective behavior of self-identified Muslims in real-world situations — is almost always itself condemned as “Islamophobia”. Therefore the definition of “Islamophobia” makes the word into a self-referential term. This is a violation of logic, and the definition fails solely because of this.

Other logical failures detailed in the paper[13] include those for “racism”, “xenophobia”, and “stereotyping”. Additional logical problems are presented by “contemporary” (incoherent usage in context), and “classical racism and xenophobia” (demands clarification of the meaning of “classical” in this context).

Five other terms (“intolerance”, “discrimination”, “prejudice”, “hostility”, and “adverse public discourse”) were analyzed and shown to be applicable to Islam itself. This is not a logical argument against their appearance in the definition — it would be a tu quoque fallacy to make such an assertion — but it adds weight to the failure of the definition on logical grounds. Reciprocity of behavior, commonly referred to as the “Golden Rule”, is a core cultural value in Western societies. Islam’s manifest failure to exhibit normative reciprocity argues persuasively against the inclusion of these five terms in any definition of “Islamophobia”.

We cannot help but conclude that the definition of “Islamophobia” as presented by the Turkish representative in Tirana on May 22, 2013, is prima facie void of merit, and must be abandoned.


1. To ODIHR: Based on the above, ODIHR must abandon any discussion of the term immediately. The term must be removed from any existing official publications, and may not be included in any future publications.
2. To the Participating States: Refrain in all circumstances from using the term “Islamophobia” in any public discussions, papers, publications, brochures, and other printed material.
3. Alternatively, to ODIHR: Appoint a committee whose duty will be to establish a definition of Islamophobia that is acceptable by consensus. The makeup of the committee must include Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists. The non-Muslims on the committee should include in equal numbers supporters of Islam, critics of Islam, and people with no opinion on Islam.

Read the entire piece here at the Gates of Vienna.



Well worth the time to read.


Sexual Exploitation and Violence Against Women: Unaddressed Problems In Northern Europe

By ICLA Admin • on October 1, 2013

OSCE submission by BPE-Austria.  This can also be found on the OSCE website.

Sexual exploitation and violence against women: Unaddressed problems in Northern Europe

OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Working Session 3 Tolerance and Non-Discrimination II

Prevention of violence against women and children

Warsaw, September 24th, 2013

As quoted in the Annotated Agenda, the Ministerial Council Decision 15/05 on “Preventing an Combating violence against Women”:

emphasizes the persisting level of violence against women and girls in the OSCE region, as well as at human and political costs of this phenomenon.

Furthermore, 15/05 stresses

that participating states have a duty to prevent, investigate and punish perpetrators of such violence, as well as to protect victims, especially women and children […].

BPE-Austria is deeply concerned by the fact that in some participating States these commitments are not sufficiently upheld, in spite of the Charter for European Security explicitly stating that

in order to prevent such crimes, the participating States decided […] to promote the adoption and strengthening of legislation to hold accountable persons responsible for these acts as well as to strengthen the protection of victims […].

Unfortunately, there are significant problems on the ground, including within countries in northern Europe, where where the problem seems to be growing rather than diminishing. Some examples from North European will show the undesirable trend:


Today Sweden has the second highest rape rate in the world, trailing only South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will suffer the experience of rape. In 2003, Sweden’s rape rates were 9.24 times the average, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. (FrontPage Magazine, January 29th 2013). In 77.6 percent of all cases the perpetrator is a Muslim immigrant (quoted from BRÅ, where recent figures are available).

Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ) shows that the number of reported rapes of children is on the rise. The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes of children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004, compared with 258 in 1995 (The Muslim Issue, August 20th 2012). Over the last seven years, the number of rapes in Sweden has nearly tripled. During the first seven months of this year, a thousand rapes were reported in Stockholm – a 16 percent jump from last year. In three hundred cases, the victims were girls under age 15 (FrontPage Magazine, August 22nd 2013).

In addition to the raw numbers, an independent study concludes that 85 percent of rapists in Sweden are foreign-born – primarily from North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (Before It’s News, June 18th 2013). As Scandinavia’s rape crisis has intensified, new features have emerged. For one thing, it has spread from the cities to the provinces. There has been an uptick in types of rape – such as gang rape – that were hardly ever seen in Scandinavia before. Today’s rapes, moreover, tend to be more violent than yesterday’s.


In Oslo 100 percent of all perpetrators are non-western immigrants and 100 percent of all victims indigenous Norwegian women or girls. In 2011 there was an increase of 30 percent and in 2012 an increase of 96 percent in the first quarter compared to the previous year (Aftenposten, April 16th 2012).

More here.



Clear rejection of intentionally vague Islamofauxbia definitions.

Mirrored from ICLA:

A Call to Eliminate Controversial Undefined Terms

By ICLA Admin • on October 1, 2013

DSCN0211b 500

With thanks to Gates of Vienna for the writeup, where the article was first published.


Below is the intervention read by Stephen Coughlin, representing Center for Security Policy at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Session 1 “Tolerance and Non-Discrimination”, Warsaw, September 24, 2013.

His intervention was part of the week’s push by ICLA and its allied NGOs to make OSCE and ODIHR aware that their policies and programs are increasingly based on terms which are not adequately defined. In those cases where words are defined, those definitions have not been not established through a consensus of all represented political opinions.

Many thanks to Henrik Ræder Clausen for recording this video, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading it:

The prepared text of Maj. Coughlin’s intervention is available here.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.



I’m for striking it from use entirely.

Islamophobia gif

Also read: 

Published on Sep 28, 2013

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2013, Warsaw

On the evening of September 24 2013, the ODIHR Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department convened a side event, “Educational initiatives and approaches for addressing anti-Semitism and intolerance against Muslims”. ICLA and allied organizations decided to look in on the event and point out that the word “Islamophobia” has never been properly defined…

Mirrored from The Gates Of Vienna:

The full audio of the final 48 minutes is available here, and a complete transcript of that audio is at the bottom of this post.

Transcript of the excerpts:

ICLA logo (new)

Ned May: Thank you, Mr. Moderator, about how long do I have to speak? A couple of minutes?

Moderator: A couple of minutes.

Ned May: Okay. Thank you for this opportunity.

And I’d like to thank my esteemed colleague from Belgium because I can’t help but agree with her.

We need new terminology. On behalf of the International Civil Liberties Alliance, I formally object to the use of the word Islamophobia. Any official use, including this document. It is ill-defined and was undefined for four years. We requested a definition for four years. And it’s not even defined in here. And when we finally got one, it was from the Turkish delegation this year. And it was based on a definition by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. That is a clear conflict of interest, to use a definition by an Islamic body of something that is used against non-Muslims.

That’s the first problem. The second problem is the definition itself as our extensive, well-sourced paper showed, has at least thirteen major problems including six logical failures. It cannot be used. And the biggest failure is that the definition calls Islamophobia based on unfounded fear of Muslims or Islam. That itself is difficult to prove in any given circumstance.

And any researcher who attempts to prove that someone has a well-founded fear of Islam is branded an Islamophobe. That turns the word itself into a Catch-22. It is circular; it is recursive.

The word must be defined through the agreement of people who share different points of view: those who object to Islamic law, those who support Islamic law, those who have no opinion.

It must be defined by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agreeing together what Islamophobia is. Otherwise, it should be abandoned entirely. Stricken from existing publications including kept out of future publications. Thank you.


Bashy Quraishy: We have been asking OIC for years and years now not to call it intolerance against Muslims when they call it anti-Semitism, they call it Christianophobia, they call it everything — if Muslims want to call it Islamophobia, it is none of anybody’s business to call it something else. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you. Now I will give the floor to panellists to respond and I will get back to you — you will be the first, okay? So Robin, do you want to [BACKGROUND VOICES]

Robin Richardson: I’ve got lots to say, but I’d like to hear other people, I think. It’s true that I was working for the Runnymede Trust. And the report — the definition which our friend mentioned was from the Runnymede report. But we had a huge argument at the time about it. We didn’t invent the word. And we did the best we could to define — to describe, not to define — we were describing. And we had that big argument and there’s been an argument going on ever since in academia. There’s huge academic literature on all this. And I do agree with our friend from Belgium, terminology is difficult. We’ve only got the words from the past. Human beings make their own culture as somebody once said — or make their own history. But always with conditions inherited from the past, a very famous statement about human nature. We’ll talk on — we’ll let other people talk for the moment.


Robin Richardson: Just finally, I do agree that terminology is important and we’ve got the wrong terminology. But there’s nothing new. Ever since human beings have been talking to each other, we have not had adequate words, never and never will.

We do our best with what’s there. There are lots of languages and we learn from each other’s languages. From each other’s struggles and so on.

So I’m not ashamed that our language isn’t good enough. The key thing is to work on getting better language. But, as I’ve already quoted, the great philosopher once, and without naming him, I might name him another time, it’s not Groucho Marx, but somebody with the same surname, but he said the task, philosophers have interpreted the world, the task is to change it. And we need language to interpret the world and to some extent we need language to change the world. But all the same, language doesn’t really change the world. It changes how we see it.

And I agree with — when you, you’ve got to make choices and continually you have to make choices, and suddenly the word Islamophobic was originally a French word so far as scholars can work out, came in at about 1910, it appeared in English in the work of an American Christian writer in about 1985. That was the first known use in English.

So it’s not a Muslim word, actually. But when you’ve got to make a choice, well, some of us choose to be on the side — I’m sorry to be histrionic and passionate about this, but some of us want to choose to be on the side of those who are suffering, those who are harmed and hurt. And people are being hurt and Islamophobia is as good a word as any to describe what it is that’s hurting them. But it’s not perfect.


Umut Topcuoglu: Thank you very much. It’s not a question, but rather I just want to clarify a point.

My name’s Umut Topcuoglu, I’m from the Turkish delegation and first of all, thank you for this very interesting side event. In fact, I waited until the end, because I didn’t want to interrupt the flow of comments, but I did hear my delegation being mentioned by the representative of the International Civil Liberties Alliance and I just wanted — and we’ve talked about terminology, so I won’t be going into that, I just wanted to clarify one simple point.

You, sir, mentioned that the Turkish delegation provided a definition of Islamophobia which came from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Now I’m sure I have really stated this before, the definition of Islamophobia, my delegation provided in some previous sessions or meetings on tolerance and non-discrimination was formulated by a retired Turkish ambassador, Mr. Ömür Orhun Now this retired Turkish ambassador was between the years 2004 and 2008 personal representative of the chairman in office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on intolerance and discrimination against Muslims.

So we have here, of course, right now he’s special envoy to the chairman, the secretary-general of the OIC. But the point is that the definition was formulated by someone who has deep experience in these affairs and who actually worked within the OSC in these affairs, so I think saying it’s an OIC definition is really sort of distorting the facts. I just wanted to let you know that.

I also wanted to let you know that the fact that we also discussed a very valuable tool here, the guidelines for educators on combatting intolerance against Muslims, well, the fact that this tool, that three international organizations chose to collaborate to formulate guidelines such as these obviously indicates that there is something there, whatever you call it, like other participants have said, there is a need to be addressed and I don’t think we should be, you know, haggling about terminology and giving the impression that what we actually are against is addressing the problem. Thank you. [BACKGROUND VOICES]


Bashy Quraishy: Can I just add, very quickly, the information of the delegates and for the speaker, in the last five years, there has been six international service by Amnesty International, fundamental rights agency, open society, European [UNCLEAR] and hundreds of others who have clearly documented the discrimination, prejudices, violence, hate speech, which is being, you know, used against Muslims, so we cannot just say that it is just what our own idea — it is very well documented and I can give the name, the link of the reports to [UNCLEAR] like to have. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you. Now we have last intervention and then we will have to finish.

Stephen Coughlin: Yeah, my name’s Steve Coughlin. Center for Security Policy. The name of this forum has the word Islamophobia and we’re talking about a publication that concerned itself with Islamophobia when asked for a precise definition, and I did an intervention today where we’re calling for that.

It was precisely because it’s a term that stereotypes people for the purpose of attacking them. Which in theory is exactly what this concern for Islamophobia is supposed to be countering when they do it.

We’re being told there is an epistemic reason that we cannot linguistically arrive at a definition of this. We’re told that we’re supposed to rely on these international authorities, that they bought off on it.

But what I saw today was a refusal to give a definition, and I think in large part because you can’t.

Now the thing about it is, the term Islamophobia is applied to people for the purpose of attacking them. And so I noticed, sir, you brought up the fact that you work for Runnymede. It’s not lost on me that the OIC’s observatory publications, annual observatory reports, relies on Runnymede for the terms that they go after to attack people. And in fact, I just pulled one up right now where they’re quoting Runnymede.

So I think there’s something just not quite right about how this discussion is going. I mean, all people asked was that you define the term you’re going to use to attack people, when you attack them, when it’s clear that the OIC has observatory reports to go after people for doing exactly that.

So I mean, if the people writing this book find that the terms is so complicated they can’t define it, maybe they should defer to somebody else or maybe they should suspend use when attacking people when they can’t get their hands around it. I mean, there’s just something not right about this. Cause you did say you were going to give us an in detail discussion of what it means and that has not happened. [APPLAUSE]

Woman: Okay, I think we’re going to close the discussion right here. I think —

Robin Richardson: Just could I come back, I don’t think the word Islamophobia appears in here. It appears on the title.

Ned May: It’s in there forty-nine times.

Robin Richardson: Is it really? I guess you’re right. I stand corrected. I’m surprised. But anyway, on definition. At Runnymede, we had a working definition. I don’t think the OIC existed —

Ned May: The Runnymede definition is in here.

Woman: Okay, these are detailed questions —

Moderator: So there is no way of getting an agreement on this issue. We already told that it’s a — there are a lot of discussions, disagreements, even on the term of anti-Semitism. Even if you look at the issue from an epistemological viewpoint, you can’t reach an agreement on this —

Stephen Coughlin: Then how can you use that term to attack people — [OVERLAPPING VOICES]

Robin Richardson: I’ve never used — I have never used it to attack people.

Moderator: We — sorry, one response to that, we encourage critical thinking, open discussion. There is no suggestion, no suggested educational approach to attack people.

If you read the guidelines carefully, you would find that we encourage not to — when there is a manifestation of intolerance against any group, it’s not a good approach, pedagogical approach, to even accuse a student of being racist immediately.

This is not correct approach. So there is no way of suggesting attacking anyone. This is not — sorry, we have to, we can’t — that’s very clear that we can’t reach an agreement on that point. There is —

Stephen Coughlin: I didn’t ask you to reach an agreement. I asked you just to define your terms. Can I just take it that you’re not aware that the OIC publishes annual reports and now monthly reports on Islamophobia for the purposes of bringing action against them? So you’re not aware of that?

Moderator: You can mention — you can talk about this issue with the authorities of OIC. This is not the right place. Thank you. Yeah?

Woman: Thank you very much for coming to this side event. I think everybody’s hungry and ready for the Ukrainian chairmanship’s reception downstairs in the opera room. I hear there is also alcohol [LAUGHTER] So I think we can close the evening there. Thank you very much to our three distinguished speakers who were talking about practical initiatives. [APPLAUSE]