Lappen Interviews Geller: Part III The Evils of Islamic Political Ideology

On these shari'a (i.e., Islamic law) concepts rest the Muslim
contention that the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
is inadequate: The UDHR neither appoints Muslims guardians of humanity, nor
restricts the rights of non-Muslims and women. Therefore, 56 Muslim nations in
the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) consider the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights obsolete and irrelevant. They want "an independent permanent body
to promote human rights" among U.N. member states "in accordance with" the Cairo
Declaration and its foundational shari'a legal code—denying all
essential human rights to non-Muslims and women.

The OIC ultimately hopes to replace universal human rights with universal
shari'a law, granting superiority to the Muslim ummah ("nation")
while imposing dhimmitude, — i.e., intense,
institutionalized subservience, probably best described as human rights
apartheid — upon all others. Indeed, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in
Islam (CDHRI), rooted in shari'a law and adopted in August
1990 at the 19^th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, like the
Qur'an presupposes that mankind is already obliged to follow all
commandments of Islamic law:

"[N]o one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend
in whole or in part or violate or ignore [fundamental rights and
universal freedoms for Muslims] in as much as they are binding divine
commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were
sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages
thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or
violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually
responsible … for their safeguard. (emphasis added)

The OIC has been building pressure for years. In December 2005, Saudi Foreign
Minister Saud al-Faisal revealed his "Mecca Declaration" to a
Jeddah "preparatory meeting of OIC ministers"—a 10-year
"plan of action to confront the challenges of
the 21^st century" to counter a "harsh offensive on Islam from enemies
abroad and some of its own children with deviant ideologies." Turkish OIC secretary general
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu praised the plan as a "roadmap for Islamic common action."

Indeed, the OIC has always adulated tyranny and oppression, conforming to the
classical Islamic ideology of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna—and
his contemporary Hajj Amin al-Husseini. Upon his 1929 appointment as Jerusalem
mufti, al-Husseini circulated faked postcards of Al Aqsa mosque flying a
"Zionist" flag atop the Temple Mount to inflame Muslim hatred and violence
against Jerusalem's Jewish majority. [1] The Muslim Brotherhood mimicked
this very "defense" of Islam by
establishing the OIC after a lone lunatic man set fire to Al Aqsa in 1969. The
MB in this way conveniently wall-papered its hope of eliminating the "Zionist
occupation" — that is, of entirely purging Jews and Judaism from the ancient
Jewish capitol, just as Mohamed had purged Jews from Mecca and Arabia.

In March 1970, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the First Islamic
Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs established its Jeddah General
Secretariat. (No surprise that the OIC now wants to wrest sovereignty over the
Temple Mount from Israel.) In 1973, the OIC planned to discriminate further by
creating the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) "in accordance with the principles of the
Shari'a."

For decades afterwards, longtime World Union of Progressive Judaism (WUPJ)
representative, historian David G. Littman, warned
of a concerted effort at the U.N. to supplant universal human rights with the
shari'a-based discriminatory system of dhimmitude. He was correct.

In May 2007, 36^th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM)
in Islamabad resolved to impose human rights apartheid through a new Islamic
Charter on Human Rights, a Convention on Women's Rights in Islam and an Islamic
Covenant Against Racial Discrimination. The ICFM also seeks U.N. "observer
status" for various "interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs),"
undoubtedly including many Islamic "charities." 

Naturally, Muslim leaders deny their discriminatory intentions. At the
6^th Session of the Human Rights Council on Dec. 10, 2007, for
example, Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N.
Masood Khan falsely contended on OIC behalf that its 56 Muslim member
nations had "made substantial contributions to the development of the Universal
Declaration and the two International Covenants," concerning matters of
"religious freedom, social justice, the indivisibility of human rights and the
right to self-determination."

Yet Islamic and African countries that regularly violate human rights
dominate the HRC, which favors Islamic blasphemy laws making it a capital
offense to quote Qur'anic passages or shari'a law, much less to criticize
Mohammed in any forum at the U.N. This shari'a-based mindset takes Islam
as inviolable—and all that that implies.

Thus in 2008 the Geneva office of the 47-member U.N. Human Rights
Council—where historian Littman is an NGO—began implementing
shari'a principles even as
it made the very word verboten. On March 26, 2009, followed the 23-nation
HRC "simple majority" passage of a Pakistani resolution to protect "against acts
of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation
of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

As Islamic scholar Ann Elizabeth Mayer notes in Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and
Politics,

[N]o theory in international law … supports the notion that fundamental human rights may be curtailed — much less
permanently curtailed — by reference to the requirements of any particular
religion. Under international law, non-Muslims cannot be legally deprived of
their rights by the use of Islamic standards. There is also no warrant under
international law for Muslims being deprived of their rights due to governmental
application of restrictions taken from Islamic law." (Mayer, Westview Press,
2^nd edition, p. 64) 

[…]

AAL: Does oppression of others under Islam vary or is it more or less universal?

Atlas: The oppression of non-believers exists in every Islamic country. Shari'a
law is oppressive. All those terrible acts committed in the name of
Islam—honor killings, clitorectomies, death for apostasy, death to
hypocrites—all happen under shari'a law. This is not under in any way, shape or form compatible with Democratic law. There's no such thing as a little shari'a law. It's like being a little bit pregnant. Shari'a taints the law. You cannot introduce this bad blood into good law and end up with good law.

It is like the [1958 classic horror movie] "The Blob.
The more the blob consumes, the bigger it gets, the more it eats, the
more it morphs into something bigger and bigger. Society is then
completely overwhelmed. And we see it in America. We see the
introduction of shari'a in America. When workers in Greeley [Colorado] or Emporia
[Kansas] insist on prayer time in the work place, this is a form of
Islamic supremacism. So are foot baths in public places like airports or universities, or Muslim-only prayer rooms in universities. They are special rights for special classes. So are special prayer rights for a special class, in this case Muslims in public schools, that is, giving Muslims special prayer times or closing schools on Muslim holidays. Some places like Seattle, Washington have also introduced special swim time for Muslims in public pools, often paid by taxpayers' public, government funds.

In and of itself, it seems innocent. So, the boy needs to pray. It's no
big deal. Give him a special place and time for prayer. But this is
what Muslims do. It is part of the [Islamization] movement. This needs
to be seen in the context of an overall assault on a society. Muslims
who have left their countries to escape this oppression should be
speaking out the loudest but they are not.

AAL: Aren't there are some ex-Muslims and a handful of Muslims speaking out about the assault on Western Democratic values?

Atlas: live in hiding.
She should be hidden in White House. The media's lack of coverage of
her case is criminal. Hers should be a cause célèbre. Her situation is
among the most damaging to freedom of speech.

AAL: What's the prognosis for positive change?

Atlas: If the hate crime laws pass under a very
Islamic-sympathizing president, then voices and websites like mine will
be shut down. It will be over. The line in the sand rests on freedom of
speech. That is the basis of this country.

Even ugly speech. We see and saw this in "death to the Jews" rallies.
We saw it the last generation, in 1970s Nazis rallies Skokie, Illinois.
That is freedom of speech. The media demonizes the Tea Parties
[protesting Obama's profligate spending.] This is not an Islamic issue.
But it is part of the leftist Islamic issue. You see the demonizing of
free speech. This is the most dangerous development. The demonization
of Geert Wilders is very dangerous.

AAL: Don't you think that U.S. citizens are starting to yell "basta," enough? 

Atlas: The April headlines in the New Haven
paper were the exception, not the rule. Tea Parties, nationwide, are
more routinely painted as a sinister Republican movement, organized by
right wing extremists and clowns. In New York, the media used that
description even though an estimated 13,000 people attended the Tea Party there.

These people never went to a rally before. They feel the heat. They
feel the hot breath of government on their necks. They feel a fascist
reality taking hold. They see enslavement in their workplaces, and the
encroaching government controls. People came who voted for Obama. They
said they made a mistake. There were business owners. People spoke
about the oppressive taxation and the nationalization of banks, auto
companies, and the impending bailouts of media.

Once we have a bailout of media, it is over. Who will insult the leader, when he is signing the paycheck?

AAL: What are you talking about. Bailing out the media, the networks?

Atlas: Yes, there is talk of bailing out local newspapers, on the East and West coasts, bankrupt metropolitan newspapers, as well as MSNBC and NBC.
Yes. There is talk of reclassifying newspapers as nonprofit
organizations. There are all kinds of ways to skin a cat. One includes
subsidies to go to the NBC parent company, General Electric, through
Obama's much-touted "cap and trade," his purported energy renewal
program. Obama does not call this nationalization. But we have an
Orwellian president who never calls things by their real names. The
government has banned the term "war on terror." He calls war a "contingent operation." The word "terrorism" has been replaced by "man made disaster." Obama has removed the enemy from all public discussions.

AAL: How is this related to Islamic oppression of non-Muslims.

Atlas: If you look at history, this is how Muslims have conducted Islamic jihad. And in the modern world, Orwellian language has entered the Islamic sphere, too. Obama does not want us to say the word "jihadi." These men are not conducting "jihad." They are suffering from "mental illness." So according to Obama, every jihadi is just mentally ill.

Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department has set all kinds of new
immigration quotas from countries that are the worst state sponsors of
terrorism. They are terrorist nations. The State Department does not
call them that. But Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt are terrorist nations.
And from these countries, the U.S. Is now importing the largest
invasion of enemy combatants in the history of man. We are experiencing
an invasion of a foreign enemy, of a very large proportion.

AAL: So, while freedom of speech is itself a huge issue, we are
no longer discussing freedom of speech alone. We're talking about
freedom, period. Just plain freedom.

Atlas: Yes. We are literally abdicating American sovereignty.
The Obama administration, along with the Muslim globalists, paint
everything as a global problem. And for global problems, there can only
be global solutions. So we see the rise of a transnational movement,
which advocates abdicating U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. And the U.N. is
driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).  And they
are, as you have reported before,
the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood. OIC objectives are clear. It is
a sinister machination. It is made up of 56 nations, plus "Palestine."
They unwaveringly vote together as a single bloc. No one
ever goes off the Islamic reservation. Their issue is Islamic
supremacy. That is the definition of Islam. They impose Islam. They
pass UN resolutions against "defamation of Islam." That is code for
freedom of speech. They never discuss the defamation of Judaism or Jews
or Christianity. That is the OIC currency. So yes, the worldwide global
conspiracy, the fact of Islamic jihad is tied into all things.
It is embedded in schools and universities. The Saudis give millions
and millions of dollars to affect their curricula with mendacious teachings and textbooks, whose distribution they fund through various "non-profit" organizations, by overwhelming local communities and also in co-ordination with U.S. textbook companies themselves.