Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Organization of Islamic Cooperation planning legal action against Charlie Hebdo for publishing blasphemous cartoons

By

Iyad-MadaniIf anything shows the falsity of the mainstream narrative about Islam and jihad, it’s this. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the world’s largest Islamic world body, and the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. If the Barack Obama/David Cameron/John Kerry/Theresa May narrative about Islam were true, the OIC would be denouncing the murders of the cartoonists and developing programs to teach Muslims why the freedom of speech is so important and why the death penalty for blasphemy must be discarded. Instead, this.

The OIC and the Charlie Hebdo jihad murderers are playing a game of Good Cop/Bad Cop that we have seen Islamic supremacists play before: on the one hand there are the murders, and on the other hand there are calls for legal restrictions on criticism of Islam, presented as a means to foster community cohesion and harmony. And behind those calls, there is always the subtle threat of more violence if the restrictions are not implemented. And the goal of the Charlie Hebdo murderers and the OIC is the same: to force the free world to submit to Sharia blasphemy laws, which would foreclose on any honest investigation of the motives and goals of the jihadis (we are pretty much there now) — and that would allow the jihad to advance unopposed.

“OIC weighs legal action against French magazine,” Arab News, January 18, 2015:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) intends to take legal measures against the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, for publishing blasphemous cartoons, Secretary General Iyad Madani told a local daily on Friday.

“OIC is studying Europe and French laws and other available procedures to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo,” he said. “If French laws allow us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine,” he said.

“This (the publication by Charlie Hebdo) is an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures,” Madani said on his Twitter account while condemning the republication of the anti-Islam cartoons.

“These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world,” said Madani. “Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others. No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,” he added.

UK plea to imams to fight "extremism" draws charge of "Islamophobia"
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: The Free World Under Siege
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Filed Under: free speech, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Islamic supremacism, blasphemy, Featured Tagged With: ,

Comments

  1. “No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his belief being ridiculed.”

    This is PRECISELY what a sane, free person MUST accept.

    There’s just no talking to some people.

    • Muslims neither understand nor believe in free speech. Their death cult is a fascist ideology

    • What common acceptance is there in the Muslim World of what the Prophet looks like? None. They have no known sculpture, illustration, painting or other depiction of Him. so, I can literally draw with my limited ability a stick figure, call him the Prophet (drawing an image of him is enough to lose my head) and under blasphemy be killed not to mention that I’m a non-Muslim drawing this stick figure Prophet. You declare no one likes to have their religion rediicouled. I’ll say this no one likes to have their Churches burnt to the ground and Parisioners murdered in the name on Islam throughout the Muslim World because they would not convert or leave. No one wants to see centuries old Hindu Shrines destroyed in the name of Islam because it mocks the Prophet. I don’t like being told that there is no historical or religious connection as a Jew to the Temple Mount where 2 Jewish Temples stood 2 Millennium and more before Islam was born. Also over the past 10 years in the middle of the night antiquities (artifacts) being dug up destroyed and hauled away from the Mount in convoys of dumpsters discarding their loads so it can’t be made sees from. This so in the mind of the Waqf a connection to Jews won’t be made
      So, cartoons offend them rough to riot and murder. If one person alone did this you would him an animal and put him in a cage (jail)

    • http://www.ummid.com/news/2015/January/18.01.2015/oic-legal-action-agnst-french-magazine.html

      “Jeddah: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) intends to take legal measures [PLEASE!] against the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, for publishing blasphemous cartoons, Secretary General Iyad Madani told a local daily on Friday.”

      Dear Ms Iyad Madani: Please go ahead, if you have the GUTS. YOU and the 56 whining jihadist states behind you are MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES.
      Again!
      You were DUPED by Akkari and Laban into fulminating about 12 cartoons from Denmark (plus others added by those two sons of pigs and apes), resulting in the deaths of over 200 mad islamists.

      You will NOT succeed. You are blowing smoke out of your mohammedan arsehole.
      I look forward to your DEAFENING SILENCE in the weeks to come, as you bash your head against a brick wall, instead of the floor. MILLIONS of bloggers will hear the chants of: “I told you so.” as you have your IMPUDENCE and IMPOTENCE broadcast across the WORLD WIDE web.

      “OIC is ‘studying’ Europe and French laws and other ‘available procedures’ to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo,” she said.

      “IF French laws allow us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, [and if pigs fly] OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine,” she said.

      “This (the publication by Charlie Hebdo) is an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures,” Madani said on her Twitter account while condemning the republication of the anti-Islam cartoons.

      “These cartoons have hurt the ‘sentiments’ of Muslims across the world,” said Madani.”

      Boo-fucking-hoo! Can you hear 5.5 billion CIVILIZED people crying over the hurt feelings of 1.5 billion spoiled brat SAVAGES?

      “Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and MUST NOT OFFEND OTHERS. [WHO says?] No ‘SANE’* person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts her beliefs being ridiculed,” she added.”

      * Thank you Mme for that logical explanation. Since no sane person accepts the worship of mohammed, that means the umma gets a free pass here to accept ridicule.

      If YOU and your Satanic cabal succeed in driving your existing WAR against Dar Al-Harb into ALL-OUT destruction, it will be the end of islam. Your puppets: obuMBoy, Camoron and Hollandaise will not save you. They will end like Mussolini.

  2. “These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world,” said Madani.

    The feelings of those who’ve seen them or of the majority of angry muslims?

    ““Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.”

    Hate speech? Muslims keep using that word to describe the cartoons of muhammad (not to mention criticism of islam). I don’t think it means what they think it does. On the short term it may seen a good strategy to silence critics of islam, but sooner or later the average Joe on the street is going to ask himself “what’s so hateful about this, or that?”. Then what?

  3. Dearest Iyad Madani and the OIC,

    Fuck off and die, and may your prophet Mohammad continue to suck penises in hell.

    Sincerely,

    A Free Man

  4. No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,” he added.

    You don’t need Charlie Hebdo to ridicule your beliefs, your own “holy” books are more than enough!!!

    “The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine).”
    Bukhari 7.71.590

    “Aisha has narrated to me that she heard the Prophet saying, ‘This black cumin is healing for all diseases”
    Bukhari 7.71.591

    Allah’s Apostle said, “If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (into the vessel) and then throw it away, for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is healing (antidote for it) i e. the treatment for that disease.”
    Bukhari 7.71.673

    A man came to the prophet and said, ‘My brother has got loose motions. The Prophet said, Let him drink honey.” The man again (came) and said, ‘I made him drink (honey) but that made him worse.’ The Prophet said, ‘Allah has said the Truth, and the abdomen of your brother has told a lie.”
    Bukhari 7.71.614

    Sayyidina Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Messenger said, “Ajwah is from Paradise and it is a cure for poison.”
    Sunan al-Tirmidhi 31.22.2073

    “… pregnancy duration of four years, or five, or seven; depending on the different accounts of our scientists. The most common of which is five years.”
    Tafsir al-Qurtubi 18/165

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2013/06/islamic-medicine.html

  7. The U.S. should withdraw its Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain, as a response to this contemplated lawsuit.

  8. If the mahometans can sue Charlie Hebdo, does that mean that Christians can sue mahometans? After all, mahmetanism utters horrible blasphemies against our Savior.

    I bear witness there is NO GOD but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ is God Incarnate crucified and risen from the dead!

    • absolutely ! islam is blasphemy against all that is Holy. islam itself is an antichrist religion because it denies that Jesus is the Son of God ie God incarnate.

  9. ” Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others. No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed ”

    Let’s have it your way, OIC. Let’s ban hate speech, and mockery of other religions.
    Let’s ban the Quran.

    • Good one: unlike Mahometans’ usual one-way bridge, application of their own blasphemy laws to the words in the very Koran would censor it out of existence. Very good strike point.

  12. Again can be seen for the umpteenth time that you can have Islam or you can have freedom but you cannot possibly have both. There is no reconciling Islam with freedom and the hate speech excuse that some use to say that free speech can exist but not hate speech is rubbish. It is an excuse, and a terrible one at that, masquerading as an argument.

  13. At the “Stand with the Prophet” conference that was just held in Garland Texas, the Muslims holding the conference declared that Muhammad really preached peace, tolerance, and understanding. Thus, by “standing with the prophet” they were opposing terrorism, and opposing the suppression of free speech.

    This is all well and good. If these conference organizers and publicists are not liars, they should not issue press releases opposing the actions of the OIC. They should accuse the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, for advocating something as un-Islamic as the suppression of criticism of Islam or Muhammad.

    I just did a Google search on “Muslims opposing OIC”. Needless to say, the actual hits are zero, but it did pull up plenty of Islamic declarations against “terrorism”, such as this one:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/islamic-leaders-condemn-paris-attack-some-warn-against-backlash.html

    Even when compiling declarations such as this, designed to lower the Western level of alertness arising from wanton political murders by Muslims, they can’t help themselves from bringing in diatribes against offensive speech, and how offensive speech will reap its own rewards.

    I can only conclude that the organizers of the “Stand with the Prophet” conference are lying, are prevaricating and dissembling to the press and Western sensibilities by declaring the purpose of the conference to be to oppose radical Islam and Islamic interpretations that run counter to Western liberties. They stand utterly condemned by the juxtaposition of their own words and actions.

    The message is crystal clear: Muslim influence intends to erode and demolish Western culture, liberties, and civilization. Physical terrorism serves as a distraction to a very successful campaign of stealth jihad. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with Muslim plans for the future that they condemn acts of physical terrorism while maintaining their stealth jihad at full speed.

  14. The fundamental problem after all things considered, the basic and essential reason why Mohammedans are a threat to our system, which one can refer to as the Western World and to which one can also include other civilized societies, is not a difference of opinion over what free speech comprises, or that they, the Mohammedans feel perpetually aggrieved or insulted by some contrived slight, but at root is the fact that the Mohammedans do not and will not recognize and abide by our laws when those laws conflict with theirs. It is all a matter of which laws will they follow: ours or theirs? The answer is always theirs. If there is a solution to be reached, begin with that fact.

    • “but at root is the fact that the Mohammedans do not and will not recognize and abide by our laws when those laws conflict with theirs”

      Yes. And this isn’t merely a negative fact, but there’s a positive fact beneath it: Muslims believe their laws are not only ethically superior, but ethically supreme (hence, they are supremacists).

      P.S.: I of course use the word “positive” in the same sense, by way of analogy, as when one’s oncologist enters the examining room gravely to inform his patient that the tests for cancer came back positive.

      • I will agree to state that the problem boils down to this:
        Mohammedans do not and will not abide by our laws when they conflict with theirs, because they believe that their laws are (ethically) superior to ours. When there is a conflict between our laws and theirs, they follow theirs. Let’s not get befuddled by the details of the conflict. Let’s begin with the first and basic assertion and build a case for what to do to resolve the problem.

        • Well, it’s more complicated than that: there are many Muslims who ostensibly abide by our laws in pursuit of their Stealth Jihad Hijra infiltration-cum-invasion — thus fooling our naively gullible PC MCs (and in addition, to an apparently lesser degree, quite a few asymptotics in the Counter-Jihad, like Phillip Jihadski here, and Angemon, and Neil Jennison, and mortimer; to name some of the more egregious) into thinking that Western societies can in fact abide the ongoing presence of Muslims.

        • voegelinian posted:

          “fooling our naively gullible PC MCs (and in addition, to an apparently lesser degree, quite a few asymptotics in the Counter-Jihad, like Phillip Jihadski here, and Angemon, and Neil Jennison, and mortimer; to name some of the more egregious) into thinking that Western societies can in fact abide the ongoing presence of Muslims.”

          And, in usual leftist-fascist fashion, voeg doesn’t back his claims about me, Phillip Jihadski, Neil Jennison and mortimer – I, for one, would like to see a post where I say what voeg is claiming I said. But he can’t point to such a post for the very simple reason it doesn’t exist.

          Voeg handles criticism as well as any fascist. Since this is the internet and he can’t get his hands on those who disagree with him on even the slightest comma, he engages in the only type of assassination he can – character assassination.

          So voegy, how about you show us a post, for each of the users you mentioned, where he/she says that he/she thinks that “Western societies can in fact abide the ongoing presence of Muslims“?

        • I disagree with Jihadski. Having good laws and a Constitution has been shown to be insufficient to protect our society from the Mohammedans. I also disagree with the suggested tactic of answering attacks on free speech with more free speech. Where does that cycle lead? Can you think through to an end using such strategy? What is the purpose? In truth, with such a strategy, I know where that will end. It will end with our cowering under relentless violence and threats of violence by the Mohammedans, with the end result of self-censorship on our part. As you can see, we are living that outcome now.

  15. IF it were possible to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo for printing the cartoons, then it would surely be all the more possible to take legal action against anyone printing the Qur’an and Hadith, which contain numerous statements like (I have swapped the offended party for Muslims in the verse below. Written like this the true nature of the material hits one in the face like a brick!):

    Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Muslims for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely God does not guide the unjust people.”

    In fact what France should do is print a new Qur’an with the Word “Muslims” swapped for the words Christian, Jew, Kafir etc. and make it their constitution. Then see how enriched Muslims feel about that!

    • Try this persuasive video by George Garbow:
      The Qur’an and Hadith with one word changed.

  16. Muslims and their feeling. Have them rip a page out of the Koran and put their feelings in there roll it up and shoved up….m

  18. Slander of the Prophet hurts so much…
    Me Sioux Indian but no collect…Hillary’s friends can maybe sue if they can show damages, but what are the IOC damages? Hurt feelings? Have any of them sought psychiatric help, or been put on medication to stop the pain?
    How many have been hospitalized for extreme grief? Did any member attempt suicide?…Sorry Abu…No damages, no lawsuit…

  19. Can we take the middle east to court for violence against humanity? Can I take Hammas to court for firing rockets into Gaza from civilian populated areas? What about that guy in Saudi Arabia for being whipped? Can I take Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Syria to court for breaking international law and human rights laws?

    What about Africa, Boko Haram? Can I take them to court as well? What about just Africa?

    I’m offended by rape and murder, corporal punishment onto those that are just expressing their opinions.

    hmmm?

  20. Is there an organisation of French Jewry? if so, could it not take the OIC to court for inciting violence against Jews? If the OIC exists to promote and protect Islam, is it not clearly guilty of promoting and protecting the idea that Jews must be killed or subjugated.
    The OIC is confident it can act using EU and French laws. Which laws can be used to counter-punch?
    I know Europe is practically gone, but surely there is a bit of a kick left in the old beast?

  21. If the *threats* or whining about a *backlash* don’t work, they stage their own, which don’t work, and so they must take the *offenders* to court each time they themselves commit a wrong.
    And if there ever is a *backlash*…it is saying something they don’t like, or writing something or just frowning in the direction of a muslim or a mosque.
    They use freedom of speech, which they despise, and the courts, with which they disagree, and the laws of the different countries, which they seek to abolish and replace with sharia. If only, they had to live without the benefit of any of these…no freedom to say what they wish to say, no courts in which to sue, and no secular laws to use to diminish the freedoms of those of whom they show contempt…

    Does he really think they will get their way if they have a group, made up of the same nations, but called by a different name…a new, but old, *united nations*?
    Perhaps this is the latest…and hopefully…the last step in the construction of the beast of Revelation 13.

  22. “No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,”

    Rather, no sane person believes all the bullshit included in the Thora, Bible, Coran and Baghavad Ghita….

    • ericB, you are entitled to your opinion. The thing is that no Jew, Christian, or Hindu is going to threaten you over your right to such an opinion, even if they find your views offensive.

      Would that this were true of pious Muslims…

  23. Am I the only one to notice this: Muslim protesters around the world are, I suppose in response to the “I am Charlie” placards, carrying “I am Mohammad” placards. These Muslims are declaring themselves Mohammad! That’s blasphemy of the highest degree. They not only lose the argument, but their hypocrisy works in favor of free speech!

    This isn’t about hurt feelings, this is about Islamic supremacism and every effort should be made to publicize their hypocrisy.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/16/uk-france-shooting-algeria-idUKKBN0KP1XE20150116

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910126/Muslims-stage-angry-protests-Charlie-Hebdo-s-Mohammed-cartoon-Boko-Haram-terror-leader-hails-Paris-massacre.html

    http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/01/17/latest-charlie-hebdo-cover-continues-to-roil-muslim-world/

  26. Organization of Islamic Cooperation planning legal action against Charlie Hebdo for publishing blasphemous cartoons
    ………………………………

    The “slow Jihad” was too slow, and the murderers of the “fast Jihad” got there first.

    The aim of both, however, is to cow Infidels into censoring themselves, and not being able to voice any criticism about Islam.

    More:

    “These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world,” said Madani. “Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.
    ………………………………

    Daring to say that Islam is violent offends Muslims. Saying that Islam is hateful—which it is—is being characterized as “hate speech”. Talk about projection!

    More:

    No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,” he added.
    ………………………………

    What crap. Any civilized person knows that if his beliefs are ridiculed, that he he has the right to criticize the ridiculers, and to make the case for his own beliefs.

    This is the essence of civilized life.

    Also, note the absurdity of the statement above, that *no doctrine* can ever be criticized.

    But of course, Muslims don’t actually mean this—they regularly not just ridicule other faiths, they oppress and murder their followers.

    Muslims are all too happy to twist the language of human rights and twist it to impose Shari’ah law.

    The only difference between the OIC and the Jihadists who murdered the staff of Charlie Hebdo is that the latter are more impatient.

  27. ““These cartoons have hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world,” said Madani. “Freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others. No sane person, irrespective of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed,” he added.

    Who decides what is hate speech?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/video-robert-spencer-at-cal-poly-may-13-2014

    watch at about 2.00 for the question and answer.

Please help spread the truth about jihad

Sign Up for Our Daily Digest