Ideological Violence Against Muslims

Hoist on our own petardWe are hoist on our own petard.

The Arabs know it. They know we’re running away as fast as we can, with our buttocks full of multicultural shrapnel.

Muslim leaders are fully aware of the rules of Western discourse. They can talk the talk as well as the most progressive Swarthmore alumna, and they know how to turn every phrase into yet another little grenade detonating under our infidel tushes.

Just read the press release published yesterday by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Every word lines up perfectly with Western politically correct thinking — tolerance, discrimination, incitement, cultural understanding, harmony, etc. etc. — and every word adds another peck of gunpowder to the explosive device being prepared at our gates for the siege engine of the Great Jihad.

Here’s the entire text of the statement. I’ve highlighted a few interesting phrases for later discussion:

Statement on Islamophobia Issued by the OIC Ambassadorial Group at the UN in New York on 29 February 2008

The increasingly negative political and media discourse in the Western World targeting Muslims and Islam is a matter of grave concern for the Islamic Ummah. Over the years the growing intolerance and discrimination against Muslims, and insults against Islam have become pervasive and often condoned in certain Western countries and communities.

Among the instances of Islamophobia are the publications of blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by newspapers in Europe, multiple campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations in several European Countries including the imposition of restrictions on the construction of places of worship, and the impending screening of a documentary by a Dutch lawmaker, which insults the Holy Quran. They constitute incitements for negative sentiments and hatred against Muslims. Apathy and inaction on the part of the governments concerned in preventing such provocations and discrimination against Muslims and Islam cannot be justified by the plea of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, such insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against Muslims. Slogans such as “Islamo-fascism”, “Islamic Terrorism” and “radical Islam” are manifestations of and justifications for provocations and systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects the Islamophobia which afflicts segments of Western society.

The OIC Group believes that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and does not provide a license to insult and hurt the sentiments and beliefs of others. It is the obligation of all States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with Article 20 thereof, to enact the necessary legislations to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The OIC Group observes that the European Court of Human Rights has previously ruled in favour of the interference by the State to prohibit media material in cases involving other religions to guard against igniting religious sensitivities, and expects equal treatment in cases involving Islam and Muslims’ rights.

The OIC Group in New York strongly deplores all acts of ideological and physical violence and assaults, and incitements thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and those acts directed against the Holy symbols, sites or places of worship of all religions. The Group is particularly and deeply alarmed by the intensification of the campaign of defamation against Islam, as it impairs Muslims’ enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and impedes their ability to observe, practice and manifest their religions freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal.

– – – – – – – –

Such acts against Muslims and Islam are inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter which seeks to promote peaceful co-existence amongst nations. They are in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolution 62/154 on combating defamation of religions, General Assembly resolution 55/23 on Dialogue Among Civilizations as well as the Security Council resolution 1624 (2005) which call upon all Member States, inter alia, to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures. Such acts also erode the positive momentum generated by the launch of the Alliance of Civilizations and General Assembly’s High Level Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace, which, inter alia, aim to overcome misunderstandings between Islam and the West,

In the above context, the OIC Group in New York wishes to remind the joint statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations with the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Conference and the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union in Doha on 7 February 200& [sic — presumably intended to be “2008”] which recognized that ‘in all societies there is a need to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those who do not share the belief in question.”

In particular, the OIC Group believes that lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the Holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect of and among cultures and civilizations.

The OIC Group urges the Secretary General to call upon the Governments of the States that condone the publication of these blasphemous caricatures and media material as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the repetition or continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam. The OIC Group requests the Secretary General to publicly express his unequivocal opposition to all acts of Islamophobia, and to declare that no government should be complicit in undermining the ongoing efforts to promote harmony and friendly relations amongst the various cultures, religious and civilizations.

intolerance and discrimination against Muslims

This phrase means that Muslims are denied the political expression of their “religion” as prescribed by their holy book. It means that they are unable to organize the infidel polities they live in according to the dictates of the Koran.

So yes, they are discriminated against, just as we discriminated against Communists who wanted to overthrow the capitalist governments of the West and usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Islam wants to overthrow our blasphemous infidel governments and usher in the dictatorship of the Caliphate.

So we’re right to discriminate against Muslims.

The Big Lie in this case is that this is religious discrimination. It’s not; it’s the discrimination of a civilization and a way of life against those forces that would destroy it.

blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet

The caricatures are “blasphemous” only if you believe in Allah and the tenets of the Islamic faith. Blasphemy cannot exist absent that faith.

The use of this expression serves to highlight the urgency of repealing the remaining blasphemy statutes in Western countries. They are an atavism that we can no longer afford.

incitements for negative sentiments and hatred against Muslims

Only in the last forty years or so has there been any recognized right not to be the object of another person’s negative sentiments. No such right exists. If this were not an era characterized by mass insanity, no one would even entertain such foolish notions.

But the lunatics are now running the asylum.

I have a right to hate you if I want. You have no right to be free of my hatred. I can even scowl at you, or — gasp! — stick my tongue out at you, and your human rights are not thereby violated.

At least that used to be true until the dawning of the Multicultural Age. Muslims have noticed the new regime and have taken advantage of the fact that everyone (except for white males) has a right not to be offended.

ideological violence against Muslims

This is part of the ongoing effort to reclassify certain non-violent activities as violent ones. If you’re a Mormon, and I offend you with my cartoon of Joseph Smith dressed in drag, then I have committed “ideological violence” against you, and the consequences to me will be the same as if I had beaten you to a bloody pulp.

justifications for provocations and systematic insults against Islam

The discussion of Islamic violence, radicalism, and terrorism is thus ruled off the turf because it allegedly causes bad feelings against Islam.

The original topic of discussion — murder, mayhem, theft, and enslavement in the name of Allah — is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the case. It’s not allowed.

The only crime is that of mentioning it.

the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and does not provide a license to insult and hurt the sentiments and beliefs of others

Ah, yes: “I believe in freedom of speech, BUT…”

There is no freedom of speech if we all have a responsibility to say only inoffensive things. We then have the freedom to choose vanilla or chocolate, but no right to say, “I hate all ice cream.”

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Notice how adept the OIC is at citing the various covenants, resolutions, charters, and agreements promulgated under “international law”. The UN and the EU receive a special mention. Coincidentally, these are the corporate entities most riddled with corruption and ineffectiveness, and are the most totally removed from any accountability to the people they supposedly represent.

incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

Once again, the precedents set by supranational bodies are used designate free speech as incitement, and make a cartoonist functionally equivalent to a mob leader urging his followers to kill.

deplores all acts of ideological and physical violence and assaults, and incitements thereto

Here it is again: “We deplore all violence, and all incitements to violence.”

In other words: “You ridicule me. It makes me angry, and I kill you. Thus the two acts are morally equivalent.”

Rejecting this kind of specious nonsense should be our number one priority, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the elected leaders of the West to do so.

Except in Denmark, of course.

impedes their ability to observe, practice and manifest their religions freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal

Once again, the observations, practices, and manifestations of Islam which are being impeded consist of political actions which violate the statutes and constitutions of Western countries.

I can’t stress this too strongly: We are asked to give up our existing legal structures in order to accommodate the “human rights” of Muslims.

Nothing less will satisfy them.

impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam

No Muslim in the West lacks freedom of thought. He may sit at home or kneel in the mosque and think and say whatever he wants about Allah and his messenger. He may stand on street corners and hold up signs proclaiming the perfection of his faith.

But all too often his “conscience” directs him to kill his sister, or mutilate his daughter, or kill any non-Muslim who fails to respect the Prophet. His religion puts him in direct conflict with the most basic moral laws of our society.

So whose conscience will win? Whose definition of “human rights” will be observed?

Who lays down the rules?

Hat tip: TB.

Update: I originally left out the link, but now it’s fixed.

19 thoughts on “Ideological Violence Against Muslims

  1. “anti-Islamic agendas.”

    Yes, yes, let’s admit it. WE ARE ANTI- ISLAMICS – because islamics are anti-humanity.

    So which should be the bad guy? Which has validity as evil:

    being anti-islam or anti-human?

  2. The OIC is quick to quote from the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, but several member states of OIC, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, have refused to sign this Covenant. I would recommend that OIC stop beating the West over the head with a document until they all endorse it themselves.

  3. Fairly slick. Referencing UN resolutions, i.e., not UN Security Resolutions doesn’t work. The UN largest organized group is the ummah. By far. It’s really a circus and we keep paying to attend. Now hurting feelings is a crime. Muslim feelings that is.

    Can ALL of the world’s leaders other than a few be so clueless about what is going on.

  4. Here’s a link to this document:

    It is very much in line with these quotes:

    “The universality of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed upon the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”

    – Majid Khaddduri, “War and Peace in the Law of Islam,” cited in “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad” by Stephen Coughlin (p.170)

    “We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’.”

    – S.K. Malik, “The Quranic Concept of War,” cited in Coughlin (p. 310)

    The full Coughlin thesis may be accessed at:

  5. The problem is that as a regular citizen I read this crap and think “you have to be kidding.” But, they are not kidding and most “regular citizens” don’t read this crap.
    They are safely esconsed in their world view and don’t want to be blown out of their slumber.

  6. What’s the point of freedom of speech if you’re not allowed to offend anyone’s ‘sentiments’ or ‘beliefs?’ Actually the whole point of political discussion is to change another person’s beliefs. Every single point you make is in fact an attack on someone else’s beliefs. Even violence to that belief! If they choose to get offended over everything you say, then yes, it’s an attack on their sentiments, violence on their sentiments! Cry me a river. Criticism and debate are necessary to a free people, necessary to a free mind, necessary in every single moment of your life. Only ‘slaves to Allah’ could throw out freedom of speech because it might change their mind. The rest of us are hoping to progress, learn, and innovate through changing our minds from ‘wrong’ to ‘right.’ We’re willing to follow the truth wherever it might take us. The difference between these two cultures is unassimilable, it’s a simple choice of which one do you prefer. They cannot coexist, they have not coexisted across all history, and they will not coexist any time in the future. As Einstein said, the surest definition of insanity is when people repeat the same experiment over and over and expect different results. 1400 years of experimentation have proven that Islam cannot coexist with any other people on earth. What more need be said? Quarantine or genocide, there is no other option.

  7. The OIC Group urges the Secretary General to call upon the Governments of the States that condone the publication of these blasphemous caricatures and media material as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the repetition or continuation of these deliberate offensive acts

    The bolded part is especially scary.

    It seems that cartoons, movies and a few blogs really are their biggest worry. In America at least, the rate of hate crimes against Muslims according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program are extremely low. The only spike in hate crimes against Muslims in the US was in 2001 at 27.2% of religious based hate crimes. It’s been around 10 to 11% since 9/11/01 and was at 1.86% the year prior. Ironically, hate crimes against Jews in America only fell mildly in 2001 to 55.7%. Jews continue to be America’s biggest recipient of hate crimes at between 74.5% and 65.4% from 2000 to 2006.

  8. Wow, the last highlighted statement was funny. Christians cannot practice their faith in Islamic countries without reprisal. They are persecuted like they were Jews in the 40’s. Yet they (the muslims) want freedom to do what they please for their religion? That is funny. Suck a fat ____ you ignorant bastards.

  9. It would be refreshing if some of our so-called leaders would point out how the OIC countries treat their religious minorities, how Christians and Jews are treated as second class citizens, murdered, exploited, etc. Or in the extreme case of Saudi Arabia how even owning a bible can get you in trouble or killed. These people can be beaten if someone had the stones to just call their bluff and force them to play by the same rules.

    And if Muslims in the West don’t like how they are treated, disrespected, suspected, etc. then they have the freedom to get the Hell out!

    We need to achieve energy independence just so we can defund the Saudis. They are extremely dangerous.

    Rubet ensis sanguine Aabum!

  10. Wow! I tried an experiment on Wikipedia and made some “fun” edits to the History entry for the OIC and they edits were changed back in under a minute. Some group somewhere has OIC on their watchlist. I wonder how many other entries have Islamic babysitters.

  11. If you notice, there are 3 individuals part way through. 2 asians and one white guy. Do they know that Farrakhan raised the old Nation of Islam after Warith Deen Mohammad, the son of Elijah Muhammed threw away his fathers racist rhetoric and made Islam into a more calm and society friendly religion? I am not keen to any muslim, but he did denounce the stupid ideas such as the white man is an experiment of Yakob so why be part of a group that thinks your an evil experiment?

  12. The whole statement should be rewritten FROM Western leaders TO the OIC with complaints about the real deaths and destruction of property perpetrated by Muslims on non-Muslims instead of the fictitious western phobia the thin-skinned crybabies whine about. Gee, after raining death and destruction down around the world, 200 000 dead in Darfur alone, they’re not feeling the love! LOL.

    The return statement should conclude that until these much more serious abridgements of non-Muslim rights in Muslim countries are attended to (like no freedom of religion, no access to rule of law or citizenship), then of course we in the West must bend our efforts to ameliorate the fate of infidels suffering in muslim countries rather than Muslims who are merely inconvenienced in ours.

  13. I’ve noticed young liberal college kids repeating this meme about freedom of speech being tied to responsibility. Apparently their teachers are passing along the islamist/socialist view of free speech, as opposed to the traditional American one. I’d like to see an internet teach-in on this subject. As long as we in the West understand our rights, our enemies can’t accomplish much here, but our own school system is destroying our traditional cultural understanding and replacing it with something more in line with this freedom/responsibility meme. I’m more worried about our own people’s lack of understanding of this issue than anything the enemy can do or say.

  14. Always best to accuse others of what you are doing to psychologically (and legalistically, if possible) entangle and disarm your opponent.

    Like a pickpocket pointing at someone down the street and saying: “Stop thief!” then running away with the stolen loot in the confusion, these clever buggers are using the ‘rope’ (moral codes we provide for civilized behavior )to hang us.

Comments are closed.