Muslim World League Calls for “A Strategic Plan to Introduce Islam as a Solution to Major Problems Facing Humanity” [incl. John Esposito]

And, natch, as “a religion that promotes peace, freedom and tolerance.”

Among the elements of this strategic plan:

■ “They should also make use of their good relations with Western countries to enact laws preventing the denigration of Islam and Muslim personalities”

■ “Islamic organizations have been asked to monitor school syllabuses in non-Muslim countries to prevent distortion of facts about Islam and Muslims.”

“Forum calls for strategic plan to reach out to non-Muslims,” by P.K. Abdul Ghafour for Arab News, December 4 (thanks to Paul):

Really? All of them? In this they run counter to the provisions of traditional Islamic law regarding the subjugated status of the dhimmis, as mandated by the Qur’anic injunction that they pay the jizya (poll tax) “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

“The subject peoples,” [i.e., the dhimmis] according to a manual of Islamic law endorsed by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, must “pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)” and “are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [the traditional Muslim greeting, ‘Peace be with you’]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork . . . recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals or feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o11.3, 5).

“All of the rights”? Really? Is this a statement of reform? Somehow I doubt it, in light of their other statements -- particularly about restricting free speech (see below).

So this is avowedly a political effort, not solely a religious one.

Ten to one they consider “denigration of Islam” to be any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. Why do I say that? Because we have seen it before. Here are four examples (one, two, three, four) of Islamic groups objecting to non-Muslims making accurate statements about Islam or Muhammad -- statements much like ones jihadists make without encountering serious opposition from their fellow Muslims.

The goal, in other words, is to silence non-Muslims regarding Islam, thus rendering us mute in the face of the global jihad. Mute and therefore defenseless.

There are already specialized centers and academic chairs established to defend Islam. See, most notoriously, John Esposito’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

That is already happening as well. See the discussion of the Islamization of American public school textbooks in my book Stealth Jihad.