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.