Posted tagged ‘Hypocrisy’

Obama gave citizenship to thousands of Iranians in phony Iran deal – Iranian Official

July 3, 2018


Jackass

JUL. 2, 2018 5:00 PM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP

Source Link: Obama gave citizenship to thousands of Iranians in phony Iran deal – Iranian Official

{Iranian Elites: Death to America…but not until our children get a good college education in the USA. – LS}

Considering Obama gave billions of dollars to Iran as part of his phony Iran deal, this is totally believable even if it does come from an Iranian official:

FOX NEWS – The Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians, including family members of government officials, while negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, a senior cleric and member of parliament has claimed.

Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour, who is chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee, made the allegations during an interview with the country’s Etemad newspaper, cited by the country’s Fars News agency.

He claimed it was done as a favor to senior Iranian officials linked to President Hassan Rouhani, and he alleged the move sparked a competition among Iranian officials over whose children would benefit from the scheme.

“When Obama, during the negotiations about the JCPOA, decided to do a favor to these men, he granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians and some officials started a competition over whose children could be part of these 2,500 Iranians,” he claimed.

“If today these Iranians get deported from America, it will become clear who is complicit and sells the national interest like he is selling candies to America.”

The conservative Zolnour, who is in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s inner circle, added: “It should be stated exactly which children of which authorities live in the United States and have received citizenship or residency.”

He estimated that between 30 and 60 were studying in the U.S. while the rest of them were working in the country “against our national interests.”

Though Zolnour did not mention anyone by name during the interview, several children of current and former Iranian officials live in the United States, including Ali Fereydoun, whose father Hossein Fereydoun is the brother of and special aide to Rouhani; and Fatemeh Ardeshir Larijani, whose father Ali Larijani is speaker of parliament.

There is no suggestion either of these people received citizenship in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal. It’s also unclear if Zolnour meant citizenship or a green card.

In 2015, 13,114 people born in Iran were issued green cards, while 13,298 were issued one in 2016, according to figures from the Department for Homeland Security. In 2015, 10,344 Iranians became naturalized, with a further 9,507 in 2016.

Asked about the cleric’s claim, a State Department spokesperson said: “We’re not going to comment on every statement by an Iranian official.”

My guess is the Trump State department is hearing about this for the first time, otherwise they probably would have confirmed or denied it. So we’ll see if it’s actually true, but as I suggested, it really wouldn’t surprise me if it were.

 

Endless Accusations Cloud the Truth

November 10, 2017

Endless Accusations Cloud the Truth, PJ MediaAndrew Klavan, November 10, 2017

(Righteously demanding that Judge Moore step down, based on three decade old claims never previously ventilated, pursued or even now substantiated, seems to be an acceptable species of virtue signaling. I dissent. — DM)

Roy Moore

I can only see one rational moral response to this: If it’s true, he should step down; if it’s a political frame-up, he should fight it.

What bothers me about the story is I have absolutely no idea which is the case. No clue. Even before the allegations were made, I had been thinking about how easy it would be to set someone up in the current climate. Get a few women together. Say something happened too long ago to check. No one reads past the headline, and everyone’s done something at some point they shouldn’t have, so it’s a slam dunk smear.

In this particular case, too, everyone in establishment politics hates Moore. (I mean, he is kind of a loony-tune, but if that disqualified you to work in the capitol, the place would be empty.) So no one will come running to his defense.

Or… maybe he’s just guilty. I really don’t know.

**********************************

I have to write this quickly because any minute now, Senate candidate Roy Moore might quit or be cleared or might simply be blown out of the headlines by some fresh violent atrocity that the media will either attempt to exploit in an effort to destroy our second amendment or attempt to distort so we don’t notice that every killer involved happened to be named Mohammed. At my back, I always hear the news cycle’s winged chariot drawing near.

I’m in a hotel in New York, and this morning over my covfefe in the lounge, I looked up at a television and saw a Chyron announcing that someone I’d never heard of was finally going to “break her silence.” And I thought, “Oh, please don’t.” Silence has become a precious commodity and we need as much of it as we can get. Otherwise, it’s all noise and outrage and outrage at the noise and noise about the outrage. As far as I’m concerned, you should only break your silence in case of emergency.

But so far, my words have gone unheeded. And now controversial and kind-of-hilarious Senate candidate Roy Moore has been accused of sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl back in 1979 when he was 32. He’s said to have carried on with a couple of other young-but-legal girls as well. The contact with the child wasn’t forced but, of course, she was too young to consent to it and he was old enough to be responsible, so it’s bad.

I can only see one rational moral response to this: If it’s true, he should step down; if it’s a political frame-up, he should fight it.

What bothers me about the story is I have absolutely no idea which is the case. No clue. Even before the allegations were made, I had been thinking about how easy it would be to set someone up in the current climate. Get a few women together. Say something happened too long ago to check. No one reads past the headline, and everyone’s done something at some point they shouldn’t have, so it’s a slam dunk smear.

In this particular case, too, everyone in establishment politics hates Moore. (I mean, he is kind of a loony-tune, but if that disqualified you to work in the capitol, the place would be empty.) So no one will come running to his defense.

Or… maybe he’s just guilty. I really don’t know.

I blame feminists and the media for this cloud of confusion, mostly because I hate feminists and the media, but also because they do bear some of the blame. For instance, the New York Times, a former newspaper, now has a tip line where you can complain about something sexual someone famous did to you back in the day. How is that not going to lead to abuse? Liars will flock to it. And if someone calls up and complains about Barack Obama, and someone else calls up and complains about Rush Limbaugh — which one do you think the Times will follow up on? Me too.

And then hideous feminists (a redundancy, I know) with their snarling hatred of men and masculinity start shrieking about how it’s an outrage that any male should be considered innocent until proven guilty or that any one event should be judged less egregious than any other. With that kind of attitude, things can get very Salem-y very fast.

USA Today has a running list of Hollywood sexual offenders and I was reading through it and came upon the charges against Dustin Hoffman. The now 80-year-old Hoffman is accused of talking dirty to one woman and inviting another woman on a date some 30-odd years ago. And you know what? I don’t care. Not even a little. I think Harvey Weinstein, assuming he’s guilty, should go to prison for what he did and I think what Hoffman allegedly did shouldn’t even be mentioned in the papers. When they’re both on the same list, the whole list becomes a moral blur.

Human life is complicated. Sexuality is one of the most complicated parts of human life. Some people make errors, other people corner you in the basement and bang off in front of you, and still other people tell lies. If any voice can be raised against any man and illicit the same level of outrage, all voices will eventually blend into a silence of obscurity and indifference — and that’s a kind of silence that’s very difficult to break.

 

Kushner Added to Russian Conspiracy Theory

May 30, 2017

Kushner Added to Russian Conspiracy Theory, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, May 30, 2017

News consumers are now suffering through the practiced, hyperbolic, omnipresent outrage that follows revelations that presidential adviser Jared Kushner allegedly tried to create what the New York Times is calling “a secret channel between his father-in-law’s transition team and Moscow to discuss the war in Syria and other issues.”

According to the leaders of the ongoing witch hunt against the Trump administration, Kushner even had the temerity during the presidential transition process to exchange words with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

This supposedly important news about Kushner put the White House in panic mode, we are told by our betters in the media, forcing Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus to return prematurely from a presidential trip overseas to control the public relations damage.

The fateful conversation took place on Trump’s home turf, according to the Old Gray Lady:

The discussion took place at Trump Tower at a meeting that also included Michael T. Flynn, who served briefly as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser until being forced out when it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about a separate telephone conversation he had with Mr. Kislyak. It was unclear who first proposed the secret communications channel, but the idea was for Mr. Flynn to speak directly with a Russian military official. The channel was never set up.

And that’s all of it. There was a meeting. No deals came out of this Russian round table. No evidence exists of nefarious activities. No quid pro quo. Nothing. It is yet another nothing burger in a long series of nothing burgers.

A late-breaking Fox News story Monday night absolves Kushner of responsibility for the back channel proposal, indicating the idea came from the Russians.

The December meeting between Kushner and Kislyak “focused on Syria,” an unidentified source said.

During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News. […] The idea of a permanent back channel was never discussed, according to the source. Instead, only a one-off for a call about Syria was raised in the conversation. In addition, the source told Fox News the December meeting focused on Russia’s contention that the Obama administration’s policy on Syria was deeply flawed.

NBC reports that Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter and fellow presidential adviser Ivanka, is reportedly being investigated by the FBI as part of the fanciful, politicized probe into supposed collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

The Fox account continues:

Kushner suggested the use of Russian diplomatic facilities as a way to shield pre-inauguration discussions with Kislyak from monitoring, according to The [Washington] Post.

Kislyak allegedly then relayed the suggestion to his superiors in Moscow. That was based on intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials, although neither the meeting nor the communications of the Americans involved were under U.S. surveillance, officials told the Post.

The source has told Fox News that Kushner is eager to tell Congress about the meeting and any others of interest.

While the investigation moves forward and the manufactured mass hysteria continues to build in Congress and the media, Americans need to be reminded that merely communicating with an unfriendly foreign power in peacetime is not an inherently seditious or even suspicious behavior. It’s the content of the discussions that matters, not the mere fact that Americans and foreign officials broke bread.

Russian envoys and other pro-Russia special pleaders routinely meet with American officials, including lawmakers on Capitol Hill and administration officials regardless of which party controls the White House.

Never mind that the virtue-signaling Barack Obama routinely reached out to hostile foreign governments –swapping five Taliban generals for a single American traitor, to provide just one notorious example of the fruit of Obama’s plotting– when he was president. Obama even wore such illicit cloak-and-dagger communications with head-cutting barbarians as a badge of honor. Democrats and their Deep State allies didn’t give a farthing’s cuss at the time.

But that was when Democrats controlled the apparatus of the American state. Now that a Republican is president the rules have been changed.

Sunday on “Meet the Press,” the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel tried to inject some sanity into the debate, saying the current discussion is “astonishing” and “absolutely divorced from reality.”

“Let me set the scene for you,” she explained.

It’s 2008, we are having an election and candidate Obama, he’s not even president elect, sends William Miller over to Iran to establish a back channel, and let the Iranians know should he win the election they will have friendlier terms. Okay? So this is a private citizen going to foreign soil, obviously in order to evade U.S. intelligence monitoring and establishing a back channel with a sworn enemy of the United States who was actively disrupting our efforts in the military in the Middle East.

So, is that bad judgment? Is that a bad thing that happened? Back channels are completely normal, they happen all the time. Reagan did them. Obama did them. Everyone did. So, I am not quite sure why, supposedly having at least the president [who] is now elected setting up a back channel with the Russians, it is somehow out of bounds.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster had previously said much the same thing.

We have back channel communications with any number of countries, so, generally speaking, about back channel communications, what that allows you to do is to communicate in a discreet manner. It doesn’t predispose you to any kind of content in that conversation.

Strassel and McMaster are right, of course.

And it was President Obama himself who openly encouraged keeping in touch with governments not aligned with the United States.

Recall the answer then-Sen. Obama gave to a question during a July 23, 2007, debate. He was asked if he would be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama famously replied in the affirmative. “I would, and the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”

He added that “Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire.”

And no one colluded with Russia more than Obama when he became president.

Obama worked “behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine,” Bloomberg News reported in 2014.

Obama advanced Russia’s interests in so many ways.

In 2009 Obama killed President Bush’s missile defense program for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Then he renegotiated the New START nuclear arms agreement, which curbed the U.S. missile defense arsenal while letting the Russians add to theirs. In March 2012 Obama was caught on an open microphone telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to wait until after the upcoming election when he would be able to make even more concessions on missile defense. As Russia engaged in what one expert called the largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Obama flipped off Mitt Romney during a presidential debate. After Romney on the campaign trail referred to Russia as “without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Obama mocked him, saying “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” And Obama did virtually nothing but talk when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Obama was the most pro-Russian U.S. president of all time, which makes the Left’s conspiracy theory about Trump’s collusion with Russia seem especially far-fetched.

The claim that “Russia ‘hacked’ the American election –to the extent that it changed the outcome– never made any sense,” observes Michael Walsh, who previously described the outlandish theory as the driving force behind a “rolling coup attempt” by the Left.

This “fever dream” was “cooked up by Sore Loser Hillary and her malignant consigliere, John Podesta … [and] began its demonic life as a way to explain Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton’s astonishment and anger at losing an election all her media buddies told her was in the bag, and for which she felt sure the fix was in.”

Those of us who habitually smell rats knew right off that there was nothing to it. But from that night forward, the Clintons, the Leftist media and the Democrats have been pounding the notion that, somehow, the Russians affected the election and that Trump is corrupt, morally unfit, an imbecile and an embarrassment to America. Take a good look at their reaction, ladies and gentlemen, for not since Linda Blair rotated 360 and spewed puke on a priest have we seen such deracinated contempt.

Democrats have much to fear from the congressional investigation into the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, he adds.

Before last November Democrats “never met a communist they didn’t like or a Russian they didn’t want to embrace.” They have “overplayed their hand” and in so doing have placed themselves in jeopardy.

“They’re so fully invested in this fairy tale that when it blows up in their faces, and another underlying reason for its concoction becomes clear, years of lamentation and wandering in the electoral wilderness should follow.”

This, of course, assumes Republicans will stand up for President Trump.

It is a risky assumption.

Justice with Judge Jeanine | Fox News | May 13, 2017 – President Trump Full Interview

May 14, 2017

Justice with Judge Jeanine | Fox News | May 13, 2017 – President Trump Full Interview, Fox News via YouTube

(The wide-ranging interview of President Trump and others touches on such topics as the firing of James Comey, his replacement, the media and press conferences and President Trump’s accomplishments which the “mainstream” media have failed to cover. — DM)

 

Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietly Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests

April 25, 2017

Obama Denounces “Special Interests” At The University of Chicago . . . And Then Quietly Accepts $400,000 For First Speech From Wall Street Special Interests, Jonatan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, April 25, 2017

(Obama learned much from Bill and Hillary. — DM)

President Barack Obama was at my alma mater yesterday and used his first public statements to decry how  “special interests dominate the debates in Washington.” Then will now be setting off for his first speech . . . to Wall Street special interests at Cantor Fitzgerald, which will pay him $400,000.  This is the same politician who called such banks “fat cats” who exercise undue influence over our leaders.

Cantor Fitzgerald, a bank, has been touting how it is making a killing on health care investments.  Now, the man who created the health care program will be receiving almost half a million dollars for a single brief speech.  It raises visions of Hillary Clinton who cashed in on Wall Street  speeches while denouncing the influence of Wall Street (and later refused to disclose the content of those speeches to the public).

One distinction is that Hillary pulled in only half of what Obama is demanding from Wall Street and powerful interests.

Of course, Obama was criticized for the level of influence of both Wall Street investors and powerful lobbies like the pharmaceutical industry on his policies. He was accused of packing his administration with lobbyists and breaking his promises on limiting the power of lobbies.

What is hilarious about our current system is that we have all of these bribery and influence peddling laws in place.  However, if Wall Street or lobbyists give a former president half a million dollars for less than one hour of speaking soon after leaving office, it is entirely acceptable from a legal standpoint. So long as there is no quid pro quo, there is nothing legal wrong with absurd amounts of money going to a president as soon as he leaves office.  At this rate, just 100 hours of work will put Obama near the $100 million goal surpassed by the Clintons, who virtually walked around with credit card swipers on their belt to facilitate payments from special interests.

In his speech, Obama encouraged people to work on the community level to influence change.  He appears to be starting with the small Wall Street community of influence peddlers in his own quest for social justice.

The New Pecking Order: Muslims Over Gays

April 6, 2017

The New Pecking Order: Muslims Over Gays, PJ MediaBruce Bawer, April 5, 2017

(Much the same article could be written substituting the “feminist” movement and females for gays. — DM)

Image via Shutterstock, a man holds up a sign reading “Islam is not terrorism.”

They’ve bought into the idea that they and Muslims are fellow members of the oppression brigade. Either they’re unaware that sharia law prescribes execution for gays and that a large majority of Western Muslims are totally okay with that, or they’ve allowed themselves to be convinced that Muslims today don’t care any more about Islamic law than most Christians or Jews do about Leviticus. Or, even more worrisome, they’ve worked out some Orwellian way of knowing the truth while at the same time not knowing it. So it is that we end up seeing grotesquely absurd pictures of gay people waving banners that decry Islamophobia or that declare gay solidarity with Palestine.

****************************

Last month, when Marine Le Pen refused to put on a headscarf for a meeting with Lebanon’s “Grand Mufti,” a friend of mine, whom I’ll call Dave, commended her for it on Facebook. Dave, as it happens, is a Manhattan liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, despises Donald Trump, and thinks Le Pen is a fascist. But he’s also a gay man who’s very clear-eyed about the danger of Islam, especially to gay people, and who is angry at the left, both in the U.S. and Europe, for appeasing the Religion of Peace. And so he gave Le Pen a thumbs-up for her gutsy action.

Since Dave’s own friends list consists almost exclusively of other big-city liberal types, he was immediately savaged for his post on Le Pen. One of them wrote that just because Muslim women decide to cover their hair or body doesn’t mean they’re oppressed, and added that Le Pen, by refusing to wear a headscarf, wasn’t standing up for women but simply “trying to spread hate” towards Islam. Another of Dave’s friends agreed: Le Pen “didn’t behave properly.” So did another: “This woman is not a feminist, she is a fa[s]cist.” Several more comments were along the same lines. Many of Dave’s friends were livid at him for even daring to compliment Le Pen and criticize Islam.

In response to his friends’ complaints, Dave tried to play the gay-rights card, explaining to them that if they accepted the Muslim rule that women need to don a veil to meet a mufti or enter a mosque, they also had to accept the Muslim requirement that gay people – people such as himself – be stoned to death. Plainly, Dave expected that this argument would win the day with his oh-so-liberal, oh-so-gay-friendly friends. But it didn’t. On the contrary, their responses made it clear that they’d fully accepted the current progressive pecking order among officially recognized oppressed groups: gays (especially affluent gay American males such as Dave) are at the bottom of the ladder; Muslims are at the very top. Which means that when gays criticize Islam, a decent progressive is supposed to scream “Islamophobe”; but when Muslims drop gays to their deaths off the roofs of buildings, one is expected to look away and change the topic.

Of course, plenty of gays don’t share Dave’s critical attitude toward Islam. They’ve bought into the idea that they and Muslims are fellow members of the oppression brigade. Either they’re unaware that sharia law prescribes execution for gays and that a large majority of Western Muslims are totally okay with that, or they’ve allowed themselves to be convinced that Muslims today don’t care any more about Islamic law than most Christians or Jews do about Leviticus. Or, even more worrisome, they’ve worked out some Orwellian way of knowing the truth while at the same time not knowing it. So it is that we end up seeing grotesquely absurd pictures of gay people waving banners that decry Islamophobia or that declare gay solidarity with Palestine.

Meanwhile news stories mount up that challenge this widespread, fatuous self-delusion. Recently, during a course in “Middle Eastern Humanities” at Florida’s Rollins College, a Muslim student stated a truth about Islam out loud: according to sharia, he explained, gays and adulterers should be punished by beheading, and as a good Muslim he apparently had no problem with that. After the class was over, another student in the class, a Christian named Marshall Polston, expressed his concerns to the course professor, Areej Zufair, about the Muslim student’s statement. The result? Polston was summoned to the office of the dean of safety and informed that he’d been suspended. Perhaps because his case drew nationwide attention, his suspension was later revoked – but of course it should never have happened in the first place.

The other day, Michael Hurd, a Delaware psychologist and author, reported on yet another incident in which ISIS threw “a young man to his death from a rooftop and pelted him with rocks after discovering he was gay.” This happened in Mosul, in front of an enthusiastic crowd that eagerly took part in the stoning. Hurd expressed his continuing astonishment at the failure of such events to move those in America who claim to support gay rights (the same people who, I might add, are capable of getting apoplectic over the failure of Christian bakers to supply a cake for a same-sex wedding). Hurd wrote:

Crimes committed by Muslims against gays are largely (if not totally) ignored by the political left and the gay rights movement. Neither Madonna nor Meryl Streep will stand before mass audiences and sob over the brutal execution of gays by Muslims in Mosul, because this assaults their ideological narrative of political correctness. And that ideological narrative is what matters most to them, not the gays or others they claim to love. In fact, you’re labeled a hater and extremist if you even call attention to these events…

Indeed. The point, wrote Hurd, is clear: according to contemporary progressive ideology, Muslims are higher on the victim scale than gays. Period. Actual events don’t enter into this calculus. Gay rights only matter when the offenders against those rights are people even lower on the totem pole than gays – for example, the aforementioned Christian bakers. When gays are butchered by Muslims, the only proper progressive response is silence.

Consider this: in March, pop singer Katy Perry accepted an award from the Human Rights Campaign, a self-identified gay-rights group that is probably better described as an arm of the Democratic Party establishment. In her acceptance speech, Perry recounted her struggle to shake off her childhood indoctrination in Christian hostility toward gays. “When I was growing up,” she said, “homosexuality was synonymous with the word abomination.” Now, Perry affirmed, she was long past that primitive mentality, and was a strong opponent of discrimination, “whether it be [against] the LGBTQ community, or [our] Latino brothers and sisters, or the millions of Muslims in this country.” Should one laugh or cry?

Muslim countries to press at UN for “legal options” against “blasphemy” on social media

March 27, 2017

Muslim countries to press at UN for “legal options” against “blasphemy” on social media, Jihad Watch

“He said that sections of the Western world must get out of double standards about Islam and the Muslims. On the one hand, they have laws against any kind of distortion or disrespect towards any religion…”

They do?

“The meeting decided that after response is received from the governments of Islamic countries, the matter would be taken up at the level of United Nations besides looking into legal options available to follow up the matter legally in the courts of the respective countries from where such content was being generated.”

This is just cleanup at this point. Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter are already moving energetically against speech that violate Sharia blasphemy laws. The establishment media in the West is cowed and compromised, eager to appease and not interested in defending the freedom of speech. Their efforts at the UN will meet with little, if any, pushback.

“Muslim countries to raise online sacrilege at UN,” by Tariq Butt, Gulf Today, March 26, 2017:

ISLAMABAD: A meeting of ambassadors of the Islamic countries with Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the chair has decided to raise the issue of blasphemous content on social media in the United Nations.

The meeting was convened by the interior minister on one-point agenda i.e. to discuss the blasphemous content on the social media and how to effectively raise voice of the entire Muslim world against the madness unleashed against Islam and holy personalities in the name of freedom of expression.

There was unanimity among the participants that the entire Muslim Ummah is united to protect the sanctity and dignity of the religion and Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

It was decided that a comprehensive strategy paper encompassing all legal and technical aspects would be circulated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs among the ambassadors of the Muslim countries which they would be sharing with their governments to evolve the future plan of action.

FORMAL REFERENCE

It was also decided that a formal reference would be sent to Secretary General of the Arab League (AL) and Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), raising the issue of blasphemous content on social media and how such a tendency had been hurting the sentiments of the Muslims across the world.

The meeting decided that after response is received from the governments of Islamic countries, the matter would be taken up at the level of United Nations besides looking into legal options available to follow up the matter legally in the courts of the respective countries from where such content was being generated.

The interior minister pointed out that distortion of religious beliefs and sacrilege of holy personalities of any religion is intolerable. He said that no law permits showing disrespect or distortion of any religion.

BIGGEST VICTIMS

He said it was unfortunate that the Muslims, being the biggest victims of terrorism, were being portrayed as the perpetrators. He said the Islamic Ummah must strive together to impress upon the international community to shed off Islamophobia. The minister said that distortion of any religion is also another form of terrorism that the international community must acknowledge.

He said that sections of the Western world must get out of double standards about Islam and the Muslims. On the one hand, they have laws against any kind of distortion or disrespect towards any religion and, on the other hand, the most revered personalities of Islam are being ridiculed….

The ambassadors and envoys present the meeting represented UAE, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Qatar, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Palestine, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Maldives and Brunei Darus Salam.