| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Presumably the member-states of O.I.C. were consulted on this attempt to suppress freedom of speech, as it is commonly understood, all over the advanced Western world, and to substitute for it a non-freedom freedom-of-speech, that is the one recognized in Islam, which is a very different thing. Therefore, one wishes to know, before another trillion dollars goes down the drain, if the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, which owe their existence, as well as uncountable (save possibly by those locals who have decamped with so much of the loot) billions of dollars lavished on them and their permanently ungrateful (they are Muslims, we are Infidels) peoples, also subscribe to this attempt by the O.I.C. to suppress not only freedom of speech in Denmark and all over Western Europe, but in the United States as well.
As for Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, he was chosen to be the head of the O.I.C. because he was a "moderate" Turkish Muslim and a presumably-respectable "historian of science." But he turns out to be not that but rather an historian, and defender, of "Islamic" science, who attempts to tortuously explain away the absence of science in the Islamic world since its brief flourishing thanks to Christians, Jews, and those who, while they were called Muslims, were only a generation or two away from being something else, in a milieu still heavily influenced by non-Muslim elements -- which, when greatly reduced, also reduced the atmosphere in which science could be conducted.
Ihsanoglu has explained to an American audience how splendid was the system of "protection" that Islam offered Christians and Jews -- "protection" offered by Muslims, for the payment of Jizyah, from those same Muslims. A system that would have impressed Al Capone.
Taken from a web-site that follows the OIC:
In March 2006, OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu embraced Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal at a press conference at OIC’s headquarters. Ihsanoglu whitewashed: “With its win, Hamas begins a new stage in the development of the Palestinian issue. We assure that Hamas will deal with all national and international requirements in a practical and logical way.”At a “special session” of the OIC in August of the same year, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for “the elimination of the Zionist regime,” a statement that OIC failed to condemn. Moreover, the OIC has repeatedly backed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As Ishanoglu said in April, 'All member states of the OIC and I have obviously supported Iran's right to access peaceful nuclear technology,' despite clear indications that the Iranian regime’s uranium-enrichment program is designed chiefly to make nuclear weapons.
And then, there is OIC’s explaining away of the 9/11 attacks, which “'expressed the frustration, disappointment, and disillusion that are festering deep in the Muslims’ soul towards the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West.'"
No Western country should be extending aid to any member of the O.I.C. that does not expressly disclaim any support for this current attempt by the O.I.C. to change Western freedoms, in the Western world, so that that Western world may submit to a Muslim diktat -- as the effort to change the non-Muslim world from within and without proceeds, without stopping, as it will continue to do forever, if it is not firmly stopped.
Not a dollar of aid should be transferred from Infidels to Muslims. Let those who need money get it from their fabulously rich fellow Muslims. Let those Muslims who at this point take for granted their continued access to the West, to its medical care, its educational institutions, its advanced technology, its everything, learn that they can no longer take such access for granted, and that they are very close to having it denied outright.
What can they do, after all? Stop selling us oil, the one thing that they have for sale? Of course not. Can they deny us their investments? Not easily, for they are not going to invest such sums at home, but even if they did, we can start to recoup the enormous sums that we spend dealing with the menace of Jihad (including the monitoring of Muslim populations, and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) by seizing, as enemy-owned assets, whatever can be seized from known jihadists and jihad sympathizers -- and it isn't all in the form of easily dissolved liquid assets. This would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Unfair, you say? Why?
Didn't the same thing happen during World War II -- seizure of enemy-owned assets? Of course it did. We have simply failed to recognize a "war" unless it is of the conventional kind. But the Jihad is not of such a kind. Its main weapons are not on the battlefield. The most important weapons are the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa inside the West, and demographic conquest, which Muslims assume can continue, unnoticed and unopposed, forever, because they assume the Western world simply does not have the necessary minimal self-confidence to deal as it once would have dealt with such a perceived -- and in this case, rightly perceived -- threat.
Posted by Hugh at February 16, 2008 12:05 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
No Western country should be extending aid to any member of the O.I.C. that does not expressly disclaim any support for this current attempt by the O.I.C. to change Western freedoms, in the Western world, so that that Western world may submit to a Muslim diktat, as the effort to change, from within and without, the non-Muslim world, proceeds, without stopping, as it will continue to do, forever, if it is not firmly stopped.
The above sentence should have ended before the first "that".
No Western country should be extending aid to any member of the O.I.C.
Otherwise it gives every OIC member country the wiggle room to say: but our government doesn't support this. It lets them disassociate themselves from the statement at the same time that they support those who would destroy the West. Hugh, that sentence took all meaning out of the one that followed:
"Not a dollar of aid should be transferred from Infidels to Muslims."
The first sentence has infinite shades of gray. The second is black and white.
Posted by: PMK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 16, 2008 12:27 PM
Hugh - great minds think alike.
I have been wondering why the west hasn't seized the assets of terrorist groups and their thinly veiled supporters. All muslim charities are suspect in my mind and certainly CAIR is fair game. Somebody should pay for all the money we've spent to prop up Iraq, Afghanistan and Fatah.
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 16, 2008 1:14 PM
Ihsanoglu has explained to an American audience how splendid was the system of "protection" that Islam offered Christians and Jews -- "protection" offered by Muslims, for the payment of Jizyah, from those same Muslims. A system that would have impressed Al Capone.
is not possible. The idea of protection being paid to the Mafia theme for the idea of jizha the Muslims demanded when they overran Italy call it what you will protection rackets are projected rackets and something that is quite common in the Mafia
And then, there is OIC’s explaining away of the 9/11 attacks, which “'expressed the frustration, disappointment, and disillusion that are festering deep in the Muslims’ soul towards the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West.'"
let's see, there is a West giving medicine and food to Muslim populations in areas that are suffering from famine thats real aggression and then allowing their children to be educated in the West, and worst of all insisting on separation of church and state and the freedom of religion and the freedom to worship in your own way, that is the absolute worst aggression again for Muslims. After all, they are told to fight until all religionis for àllha and not stop until the poll tax aka jizha is piad with willing submission
and that we do not allow sharia law in the West be the law of the land. That is an absolute horror of disappointed and disillusioned that the West is not willing to follow sharia and worship Mohammed as the final prophet. So they can no longer live as the top dog over Christian Jews or many other religions the way they would back in Somalia for example
at February 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Ihsanoglu has explained to an American audience how splendid was the system of "protection" that Islam offered Christians and Jews -- "protection" offered by Muslims, for the payment of Jizyah, from those same Muslims. A system that would have impressed Al Capone.
is not possible. The idea of protection being paid to the Mafia theme for the idea of jizha the Muslims demanded when they overran Italy call it what you will protection rackets are projected rackets and something that is quite common in the Mafia
And then, there is OIC’s explaining away of the 9/11 attacks, which “'expressed the frustration, disappointment, and disillusion that are festering deep in the Muslims’ soul towards the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West.'"
let's see, there is a West giving medicine and food to Muslim populations in areas that are suffering from famine thats real aggression and then allowing their children to be educated in the West, and worst of all insisting on separation of church and state and the freedom of religion and the freedom to worship in your own way, that is the absolute worst aggression again for Muslims. After all, they are told to fight until all religionis for àllha and not stop until the poll tax aka jizha is piad with willing submission
and that we do not allow sharia law in the West be the law of the land. That is an absolute horror of disappointed and disillusioned that the West is not willing to follow sharia and worship Mohammed as the final prophet. So they can no longer live as the top dog over Christian Jews or many other religions the way they would back in Somalia for exampleand then there's the fact that we insist on women's rights in the West in the East and Muslim countries. A woman has a right to shut and be barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen. That seems to be women's rights in the Muslim world. To be a man's property and sex slaves and built-in housekeeper. All in one were in the West, a woman is allowed to think and act... and he wishes. That must be an absolute horror to the Muslim soul, and the worst form of oppression, because it means that men are not top dog in the world. But have to consider women are equals to men, and no Muslim male will ignore what the Koran says about women2:223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).
2:228And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise
at February 16, 2008 1:30 PM
“…the absence of science in the Islamic world since its brief flourishing thanks to Christians, Jews, and those who, while they were called Muslims, were only a generation or two away from being something else, in a milieu still heavily influenced by non-Muslim elements -- which, when greatly reduced, also reduced the atmosphere in which science could be conducted.”
This, IMO, deserves a book. We all keep hearing or reading the myth that there has been great contributions by Islam or Islamic culture to Western science & philosophy. I wish Mr Fitzgerald or Mr Spencer or someone would publish a book giving a thorough examination of the truth of this matter.
at February 16, 2008 2:36 PM
""Islamic" science..."
That's... what? A single semester course?
Posted by: Abscedere at February 16, 2008 2:38 PM
But he turns out to be not that but rather an historian, and defender, of "Islamic" science, who attempts to tortuously explain away the absence of science in the Islamic world since its brief flourishing thanks to Christians, Jews, and those who, while they were called Muslims, were only a generation or two away from being something else, in a milieu still heavily influenced by non-Muslim elements -- which, when greatly reduced, also reduced the atmosphere in which science could be conducted. - Hugh
And the economic and intellectual aspects of that very much intertwined. Similar phenomena occurred early in communist regimes-- such as North Korea's "Chollima" period (named, coincidentally, after another legendary flying horse), in which the North Korean economy was said to be in better shape than that of the South. The process of plunder-- material and intellectual-- is easily spun (especially when freedom of speech and press have been done away with) to give the impression that the revolution was right, and all the leader's bright ideas are working.
But the same process of plunder simultaneously destroys the means of producing new wealth-- in both material and intellectual production: And in cases of various 20th century revolutions as well as Islamic conquest, a "command economy" discourages (whether by fiat, or through cultural and mental habits that discourage individual initiative) or is just plain hostile to spontaneous innovation, the trial and error required to hone a new concept, and the courage to "think outside the box."
Quite to the contrary: You'll produce what and when we tell you, and you'll think what and when we tell you, because, hey-- look at how great things were in that brief early period. And besides, who are you to think you could have a brighter idea than The Leader (or prophet, prophet's companions, chief cleric, etc.)?
When the plunder runs out, the party's over. And the ideologues have some 'splainin' to do. Widespread blame and purging of the ranks usually follows, along with looking outward for more plunder.
And those who are to be plundered are told: Well, the system (whatever it may be) isn't working over there because they're doing it wrong. But let us try it here and that won't happen this time. Why? Often, the apologist slyly invokes the very values the new regime aims to destroy, i.e., the very things that distinguish "here" from "there."
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 16, 2008 2:40 PM
Hugh-
I think part of the problem as to why people don't see Muslim activity as a violation of civil rights is because multiculturalism has created the false dogma that there is such a thing as group rights. The protection of political speech is a civil right that belongs to the individual. Granted, individual civil rights may be exercised in a group, but they are exercised individually in the group.
If only one person expresses their opinions-ideas-thoughts re Muhammad in a cartoon and any Muslim attempts to silence that person, the Muslim has violated that person's civil rights. In a democratic society the majority must protect the minority right to expression of opinions-ideas, thoughts-political speech, or else democracy is a farce.
The Muhammad cartoons are political speech. In the US the cartoons are constitutionally protected speech. Muslims who violate the right to free speech (re the expression of individual opinions-thoughts-ideas) should be prosecuted under existing civil rights laws. Such prosecutions for violation of civil rights will get their attention and communicate that Muslim behavior in this matter (threatening an individuals right to free speech) will be met with
zero tolerance.
at February 16, 2008 5:55 PM
The reason we (temporarily) have not seen Muslim behavior (re cartoons, e.g.) as a civil rights violations of their targets is that we are distracted by the multicultural dogma that there are "group rights". There is no such things as group rights (race, religion, etc.). There are only individual rights to the free expression of opinions-ideas. Muslims who threaten anyone who express opinions-ideas that they don't like are violating their civil rights and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This is a civil rights issue.
Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2008 6:12 PM
O.I.C membership include:
-Observer Muslim Organizations and Communities
Moro National Liberation Front 1977.
No Comment.
at February 16, 2008 6:38 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)