By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened in this country
during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully neutralized
anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin’s plans for world domination?
Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and elsewhere who
opposed its totalitarian agenda – especially after Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s
excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by accusing them of
believing communists were “under every bed.”
But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in places like China,
North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa had been able to
criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the triumph of world
communism? What if it had been an internationally prosecutable offense even
to talk about the dangers inherent in communist rule and the need to resist
The short answer is that history might very well have come out differently.
Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately and forcefully to
describe the nature of that time’s enemy – and to work against the danger
posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold War might well have
Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian ideology
characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly similar to those
of yesteryear’s communists is on the march. It goes by varying names:
“Islamofascism, ” “Islamism,” “jihadism” or “radical,” “extremist” or
“political Islam.” Unlike the communists, however, adherents to this
ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western societies toward
criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist end-state – the imposition
of brutal on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:
. In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)
prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution
requiring the effective evisceration of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right of free expression will not extend
to any criticism of Islam, on the grounds that it amounts to an abusive act
of religious discrimination. A UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression has been charged with documenting instances in which individuals
and media organizations engage in what the Islamists call “Islamophobia. ”
Not to be outdone, the OIC has its own “ten-year program of action” which
will monitor closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements
around the world.
. Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan’s Prosecutor General has
recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
According to a lawsuit, “Fitna” – Wilders’ short documentary film that ties
certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism – is said to have slandered
and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and offended the feelings
of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal code. Mr. Wilders has been
summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he fails to appear voluntarily,
international warrants for his arrest will be issued.
Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the “Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign” which
is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has “confirmed that the
[prosecutor’ s action] is the first step towards setting in place an
international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and the Prophet
Mohammed.” In the meantime, his campaign is trying to penalize the nations
that have spawned “Islamophobes” like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists by
boycotting their exports – unless the producers publicly denounce the
perpetrators both in Jordan and in their home media.
. Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are submitting to this
sort of coercion – a status known in Islam as “dhimmitude. ” Western
officials and governmental entities appear increasingly disposed to go along
with such efforts to mutate warnings about Shariah law and its adherents
from “politically incorrect” to “criminally punishable” activity.
For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the authorities
are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah Law and are using
various techniques to discourage – and in some cases, prosecute – those who
do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors’ books being burned,
ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers investigated and journalists
hauled before so-called “Human Rights Councils” on charges of offending
Muslims, slandering Islam or other “Islamophobic” conduct. Jurists on both
sides of the Atlantic are acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in
their courts. And Wall Street is increasingly joining other Western capital
markets in succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of “Shariah-Compliant
Let’s be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of Catch-22: If
you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric, repressive and seditious
Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and engaging in unwarranted,
racist and bigoted fear-mongering.
On the other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that
theo-political- legal program. If you don’t, you can legitimately be killed.
It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing. And it is
not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to bring it about
– ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently accused of being
If we go along with our enemies’ demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we
will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond
recognition. Ultimately, today’s totalitarian ideologues will triumph where
their predecessors were defeated.
To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious
program the Islamists call Shariah – and all efforts to impose its 1st
Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise of
preventing Western Islamophobia.
Source: Jewish World Review
<http://www.jewishwo rldreview. com/cols/ gaffney070808. php3?printer_ friendly>