The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Twitter’s Blue Bird of Sharia Compliance

Twitter seems to be in partnership with the U.S.
House of Representatives in its determination to culturally enrich America with
Sharia speech restrictions. On December 22nd I reported, in my Rule of Reason  column, “A
Congressional Overture to Censorship
,” on House Resolution 569, submitted
on December 17th to the House committee process, which in its content and
intent, preempted Twitter’s January 1st, 2016, publication of its new rules
that prohibit the promotion of hate content, “sensitive” topics, and the
advocacy of violence globally. Ostensively, it is a stab at combating
terrorists from using Twitter
as a means of communication to its allies and its enemies, but it is too
coincidental with both the Congressional resolution and the OIC’s Sharia
compliance plans. Here is a copy and paste from Twitter’s support page.

What products or services are subject to this policy?

This policy
applies, but is not limited, to:
·        
Hate speech
or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status. Violence
or threats of violence against people or animals
·        
Glorification
of self-harm or related content
·        
Organizations
or individuals associated with promoting hate, criminal, or terrorist-related
content
·        
Inflammatory content which is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction or
cause harm.
  • Offensive,
    vulgar, abusive or obscene content 
    [Emphasis mine]
What products or services are not
subject to this policy? 
This policy generally does not
prohibit:
  • News and
    information that calls attention to hate, sensitive topics, or violence,
    but does not advocate for it
  • Commentary
    about products, services, companies, or brands, including potentially
    negative commentary
 The Twitter rules do not mention Islam or Muslims, but the whole
statement is in line with the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s
(OIC) Ten-Year-Programme to impose UN Human Rights Council Resolution
16/18
globally and especially on the U.S.  The OIC “program” was inaugurated
in December 2005 and has, as of December 31st, 2015, accomplished its ten-year
goal. In Part III of its program, it specifies:
III.     
Islam – The Religion of Moderation and Tolerance
1.  Endeavour
to spread the correct ideas about Islam as a religion of moderation and
tolerance and to safeguard Islamic values, beliefs and principles in order to
fortify Muslims against extremism and narrow-mindedness.
2.  Condemn
extremism in all its forms and manifestations, as it contradicts Islamic and
human values; and address its political, economic, social, and cultural
root-causes, through development programs and resolution of long-standing
conflicts, which are to be faced with rationality, persuasion, and good
counsel.
 3.  Emphasize
that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding,
and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and
security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in developing the
mechanism for that dialogue.
4.  Encourage
inter-religious dialogue and underline common values and denominators.
5.  Ensure
the participation of the OIC and its specialized bodies, as a proactive
partner in the dialogue among civilizations and religions, as well as in
initiatives and efforts exerted in this regard.
6. Utilize
the different mass media in order to serve and defend the causes of the Muslim
Ummah, promote the noble principles and values of Islam, and correct
misconceptions about it.
7.  Strive
for the teaching of Islamic education, culture, civilization, and the
jurisprudence and literature of difference; call on Member States to cooperate
amongst themselves in order to develop balanced educational curricula that
promote values of tolerance, human rights, openness, and understanding of other
religions and cultures; reject fanaticism and extremism, and establish pride in
the Islamic identity.
Stephen Coughlin has minutely detailed the stealth jihad concerning
“interfaith dialogue” throughout his Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, but most particularly
in the Appendix, Part XI, “Interfaith Outreach,” reviewed on Rule of Reason in “Interfaith
Bridges to Islam
.” The OIC’s principal goal is to stamp out “Islamophobia.”
Stating the truth about Islam is treated as “Islamophobia,” and even stating a
demonstrable and uncontroversial truth about Islam is “slander.”

What must be kept in mind when reading Point III is that all the
benign, surfacy terms such as “understanding,” “tolerance,” “mutual respect,” “openness,”
“human rights, and “equality” do not mean to the OIC or in Sharia what they
mean to Westerners. They mean the exact opposite. Exploiting the postmodern
miasma of words having no fixed meaning, The OIC and its UN doppelganger
Resolution 16/18 have consciously engaged in what can only be called Super-Taqiyya, of saying one thing to
the public but meaning quite another thing to and among Muslims.
VII.    
Combating Islamophobia
1.  Emphasize
the responsibility of the international community, including all governments,
to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2.   Affirm
the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory
at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an
annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia.
3.  Endeavor
to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter
Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including
deterrent punishments.
4.  Initiate
a structured and sustained dialogue in order to project the true values of
Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and
terrorism.
VIII.  Human
Rights and Good Governance:
1.  Seriously
endeavor to enlarge the scope of political participation, ensure equality,
civil liberties and social justice and to promote transparency and
accountability, and eliminate corruption in the OIC Member States.
2.  Call
upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of
establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in the
Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration on
Human Rights in Islam and to also call for the elaboration of an OIC Charter
for Human Rights. Introduce changes to national laws and regulations in order
to guarantee the respect of human rights in Member States.
3. Mandate
the OIC General Secretariat to cooperate with other international and regional
organizations to guarantee the rights of Muslim Minorities and Communities in
non-OIC Member States, and promote close cooperation with the Governments of
the States hosting Muslim communities.
 If one treats the OIC as a global caliphate
entity, one can see that it is already moving to impose Sharia controls over everyone
everywhere, affiliated with the United Nations. The House Resolution, however,
is certainly copacetic with both the OIC’s program and UN Resolution 16/18 and with even the Countering Violent
Extremism narrative (CVE), which is built into our emasculated “War on Terror”
efforts
. One can only suspect that the wording of Resolution 569 is not
only indicative of Congress’s willingness to submit to Sharia, but also of the
subornation of Congress itself by a foreign power to abridge or obviate the
First Amendment. The OIC is certainly a “foreign power.”
Frank Gaffney, in his Breitbart column of January 3rd,
Shariah-Compliant
Twitter
,” reported also that a sitting president and a presidential
candidate (but then Secretary of State) are behind UN 16/18 and the OIC’s
efforts to gag America when it comes to even thinking about Islam.
In
2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit
produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the
imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos
and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.
In
July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself
personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression.
She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul
Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands
that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic
strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. 
On
that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared
her willingness “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and
shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we
abhor.” The message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the
world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms.
Clinton has since doubled down on that commitment.
Medichecker, in “Hillary Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented
— in America (UN Resolution 16-18
)
, ” reported on May 1st,
2014:
At
the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
representatives of 26
governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on
December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human
Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on “Combating Intolerance, Negative
Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence
and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”
In her closing
remarks, Secretary Clinton stressed, “The United States is hosting this
conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our
highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere,
faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides
our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are.” (Emphasis
in article; Italics mine.)
There’s that Obama meme, “Who we are,” about which he
knows nothing concerning who or what the U.S. is, or is hostile to. It has been
repeated several times since 2014 by the usual suspects. Mediachecker goes on
to point out:
The
OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual
Report
on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and
violence on religious grounds.” Incitement is to be defined by applying the
“test of consequences” to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely
“yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually
says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence
and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be
held criminally liable
.
(Emphasis
in article)
In other terms, if you called Al Capone a syphilitic
mobster, it would be a true statement, but it would earn you a pair of concrete
shoes and a permanent dip in Lake Michigan. “Yes, it’s true,” Frank NItti ,
Capone’s second-in-command and heir, might say, “but we don’t want you should
be telling others that, people might get the wrong impression, it’s slander and
a defamation of Al’s character.”
The
OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam. Neither
Christianity nor Judaism
is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose
only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge
that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of
the Islamic doctrine of jihad. (Emphasis
in article)
Per the OIC and Resolution 16/18 rules, under “Slander
and Free Expression”, Part IV, “Organization of the Islamic Caliphate,”  in Catastrophic
Failure
, Stephen Coughlin goes into detail about the implications of making
a true statement about Islam. He quotes from Reliance
of the Traveler
, a basic and fairly comprehensive manual of shariah law:
Under
the Sharia slander regime, someone can be guilty of slander even if what is
said is true. Getting more specific from Reliance:
In
fact, talebearing is not limited to
that, but rather consists of revealing anything
whose disclosure is resented
….The reality of talebearing lies in divulging
a secret, in revealing something confiddential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he
notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim
.
Slander
in Islamic law does not necessarily concern questions of truth or falsity but
rather the inviolability of Muslims and, by extension, the Qur’an, Islam, and
its Prophet. Slander is saying something disfavored by Islam.  (pp. 249-250; emphasis author’s.)

In every set of rules, even in Sharia,
there is a loophole. Coughlin continues:
There
are, however, six reasons for permitting slander, only one of which we will
review. From “Permissible Slander,” in Reliance:
Slander,
though unlawful, is sometimes permissible for a lawful purpose…the legitimating
factor being that there is some aim
countenanced by sacred law that is unattainable by other means
.”
This
means that when an issue favored by shariah cannot be advanced honestly, then
defaming an opponent or his issue becomes permissible. This can take the form of
accusing someone of defaming Islam or, as has become the narrative, of
Islamophobia. (p. 250; emphasis
author’s.)
It also means defaming Israel, defaming Germans who
protest the Islamification of Germany, slandering Britons who oppose the
Islamification of Britain, and so on. The worst adherents to Sharia law in
defaming their enemies, are not Muslims, but dhimmified Western politicians,
charitable organizations, and the Sharia observant MSM.
Twitter, five percent of whose stock is owned by Saudi
Prince Alwaleed
Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a co-enabler of Islamic terrorism
together with his princely brothers, cousins, and nephews, who in 2011 invested
$300 million
in the social network, has been dhimmified, as well.
Tweeters, be advised. And beware. Twitter is
becoming a veritable anti-social network, thanks to Sharia.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center
for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Previous

Some Cheap Shots at Islam

Next

Our Gutted and Gutless FBI: Fiction vs. Reality

2 Comments

  1. truthaboutislam

    Click the below links!

    Islamic Sharia Law
    Women In Islam

  2. truthaboutislam

    The religion of peace named Islam is one among the mightiest religion in this world. And also the one that is misunderstood a lot for several reasons. Be it a propaganda of political or of economical unfolded at all times. Our mission is to spread truth about islam by clearing entire misconceptions and to disseminate virtuous good deeds that the Muslims actually practice.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén