Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has forcefully condemned Tyranny of Silence, a new book by Flemming Rose.
Mr. Rose, you may remember, is the editor who published the infamous Mohammed Cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten back in 2005. His book gives an account of that incident and related events, and includes a copy of the full page of cartoons. Needless to say, the reappearance of the Motoons is what twists the knickers of the OIC.
“Baron,” you say, “This is a dog-bites-man story. Why do you even bother mentioning it?”
That’s a good question.
This is a small skirmish in a much larger battle: the OIC’s ten-year plan to combat “Islamophobia”, which is chronicled by its much-touted Islamophobia Observatory. There’s more to Prof. Ihsanoglu’s statement than meets the eye, but you have to know how to decode the utterances of the OIC to get at the full import of what they’re putting over on us.
When the OIC issues public declarations, they are carefully constructed to be in full compliance with sharia. Islamic law is “coded”, in the sense that a computer program is coded; that is, lengthy instructions and pieces of information are condensed into a relatively small number of words and phrases, which are packed with pre-defined meanings. What is significant for our purposes is that those words and phrases often signify something completely different from what we commonly understand them to mean.
We’ll begin with the full statement by Prof. Ihsanoglu, with selected portions bolded to receive greater attention later on. According to the OIC’s website:
OIC Secretary General Condemns Publication of the Book “Tyranny of Silence”
The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu today strongly condemned the publication of the book entitled “Tyranny of Silence” in Denmark. The book contains a compilation of denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) published by the Jyllands Posten in 2005 which aroused worldwide condemnation and denunciation, and caused hurt and insult to the sentiments of Muslims around the world.
The OIC Secretary General expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he and some other leaders of the Muslim countries had personally addressed letters to the Foreign Minister of Denmark urging the intervention of the Danish government against the publication due to the highly provocative and inciting contents of the book. He reiterated his position when the Foreign Minister of Denmark called on him to discuss the issue at the sidelines of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly.
Emphasizing the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard, the Secretary General said that the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudices and animosity which would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community for promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence among peoples of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.
Referring to the statement issued by the Danish Foreign Ministry, the Secretary General said that the publication constituted a flagrant violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In this connection he also referred to the Danish Criminal Code which in its section ‘140’ stipulates protection of religious feelings against mockery and scorn, and in section ‘266 b’ stipulates protection of groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religions among other things.
He added that the publication of the book substantiated the OIC’s concerns over the abuse of freedom of expression by motivated groups and individuals to fuel hatred towards Islam and Muslims in some parts of the western world.
— Jeddah, September 30, 2010
The first thing to notice is this lovely Trojan Horse which the UN has kindly provided for the OIC, and inside which the Soldiers of Allah have been wheeled into the heart of the citadel of Western human rights:
“Violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights”
As published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Article 20 prescribes the following:
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law [emphasis added].
The above wording has proved very useful to the Ummah. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the OIC has been hard at work for more than a decade to persuade the UN that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism. And they have largely succeeded in their efforts, especially now that the current American administration has given their initiative the Obama seal of approval.
With all that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some of the words and phrases that are so densely packed with meaning when used by the OIC.
1. Abuse of freedom of expression
So what does the OIC mean by freedom of expression?
The OIC identifies English as one of its official languages, so to understand the official position of the OIC on any issue, one need only visit the OIC website, choose the “English” tab, and read what is found there. Those English-language descriptions represent the official policy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
From the OIC’s perspective, “freedom of expression” is a precisely-defined term. Its meaning is controlled by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which in turn is controlled by Islamic law. So the OIC’s understanding of “freedom of expression” is drawn directly from sharia.
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a formal legal instrument that was promulgated by the OIC on behalf of OIC member states. The official document is dated 5 August, 1990, and was formally served at the United Nations in 1993. From the point of view of the OIC’s member states, the Cairo Declaration is real law, and has real consequences.
Below are some of the relevant provisions spelled out in the Cairo Declaration:
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason. […] (c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah. (d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason. […]
(a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled. […] (d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah. [emphasis added]
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is really the application of sharia law repackaged as “human rights”. For its signatories, there is no right that can contravene or lie outside of sharia. Articles 24 and 25 give a concise expression:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
Now we know that sharia contains the sole criteria by which these rights are measured. For all OIC member states — that is, all signatories to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam — human rights are defined as sharia law.
Therefore, when analyzing statements from either the OIC or an OIC member state, the reader should keep in mind that Articles 24 and 25 are in effect.
And what does the Cairo Declaration have to say about freedom of expression?
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah. (b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah. […] (d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination. [emphasis added]
The Cairo Declaration thus lists racism and the incitement of doctrinal hatred as exceptions to the right of free speech. The European Union has already criminalized “racist” speech, and “incitement of doctrinal hatred” is the basis of one of the charges filed against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. The United States is not as far along as Europe (yet), but, as you can see, the European Union is well on the way to full sharia-compliance with respect to freedom of expression.
Officially or not, intentionally or otherwise, the EU is moving towards the implementation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
Having absorbed the above lessons in basic sharia, it’s easy to understand the significance of the next phrase:
2. Incite prejudices and animosity
As we now know, it is an abuse of freedom of expression as defined by sharia to “excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred”, and “inciting prejudices and animosity” constitutes one method by which such hatred might be excited. What precise abuses might constitute the incitement of prejudices and animosity? The Secretary General’s statement includes several variants of the same offense:
3. Denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Highly provocative and inciting contents of the book
- Hatred towards Islam
- Insult to the sentiments of Muslims
- Mockery and scorn
- Scorn and degradation on account of their religions
This last item contains a “term of art” that is artful enough to verge on kitman, or theologically-mandated misdirection.
When the OIC refers to “religions”, it seems to be embracing modern Western principles by acknowledging the need to show tolerance for other religions.
But what other religions does Islam recognize?
When a Westerner — generally a Jew, a Christian, or an atheist — uses the word “religion”, he knows exactly what he means: a group of people who share a body of beliefs, recognize a supernatural creator, and adhere to moral doctrines as laid down in scripture and codified by tradition. He also recognizes that there are many religions, and accepts that other people may adhere to a different one than he does — if he himself even has one.
But that’s not a Muslim means by “religion”. Assuming that he follows the tenets of Islamic law, when he says “religion”, he means “Islam” — there is no other.
The grounds for this assertion may be found — surprise! — in the Koran, which recognizes only one religion. Surah 3 tells us:
God said, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah)418, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” (Koran 3:85, Yusef Ali’s translation)
Yusef Ali footnotes this passage with #418:
The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. It was the religion preached by all the earlier Prophets. It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of Allah and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to Allah’s Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance. [emphasis added]
If the Koran — which is the basis of all Islamic law — tells us that any religion other than Islam is false, then what does the OIC mean when it proposes “to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation”? What other religions does the OIC acknowledge besides Islam?
The most authoritative compilation of Sunni Islamic law, as understood by the Shafi’te School, is Reliance of the Traveller. In Book W, “Notes and Appendices”, al-Misri tackles the topic of “Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions”. Quoting Mohammed (citing a rigorously authenticated hadith from Muslim), he says:
By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad (pbuh), any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.
Furthermore, in Book W, Section 4 “The Finality of the Prophet’s Message”, al-Misri tells us:
(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world.
To believe that “remnant cults” such as Judaism or Christianity are acceptable is a form of unbelief. And “unbelief” is explained in Book O, “Justice”, Section 8, “Apostasy from Islam”:
Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. (o8.0)
Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.1)
If “denying or not mentioning” the abrogation of the other religions is “unbelief”, anyone who believes that Christianity or Judaism is “acceptable” is an apostate, and may be put to death.
The passage at w4.1 continues:
This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars…
When there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, the matter in question has been permanently and completely settled. Scholarly consensus (ijma’) puts an issue beyond ijtihad, or interpretation. As far as Islam is concerned, the matter is closed.
So we may conclude that published Islamic law — relying on recognized authority, citing authoritative hadith, validating the plain reading of Koran 3:85 — tells us that the set of all religions that are considered valid has only a single element, and that element is Islam.
When any member state of the OIC — or any other entity of the Ummah — speaks of “defamation of religions”, it cannot refer to any religion other than Islam. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Wicca cannot be defamed. According to Islamic legal definition, the only religion that can possibly be defamed is Islam.
This is why the OIC, using its overwhelming influence at the UN, is making such a concerted effort to force non-Muslim countries to enact laws against the defamation of “religions”.
This also helps us understand what it is meant by:
4. Moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard
5. Promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence
The non-Muslim nations of the world have a moral responsibility, and that responsibility can only de defined by Islamic law, since Islam is the only recognized moral authority.
The political leadership of Denmark, like any other political entity in the world, exercises the authority delegated to it as a dhimmi state subordinated to the Ummah. Using that authority, it must execute the moral code specified by sharia by protecting Islam from insults and defamation.
For Muslims, “understanding” means to accept their submission to the will of Allah as revealed to his messenger Mohammed.
For non-Muslims, “understanding” means to recognize their inferiority, and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam.
“Peaceful coexistence” means that dhimmis — non-Muslims who are allowed to live within an Islamic state on a provisional basis — must obey the tenets of sharia, pay the poll tax by their own hand with full submission, and feel themselves subdued.
These are the meanings that are encoded in the OIC statement. The same meanings are encoded in various forms in every OIC statement.
All of this is quite clear. None of it is occluded. It’s not hard to understand; you just have to study the actual texts that make up the body of Islamic law.
It’s not a secret. It doesn’t require any special insider knowledge to figure it out. Read what Islamic legal authorities write with Muslims as their intended audience, and that will explain it all.
You also have to ignore what the glib-tongued impresarios of Islam say for the benefit of non-Muslims.
You have to recognize that you’ve been snowed up until now.
You’ve been scammed.
They’ve been filling your head with pretty lies.
You have to say, “We won’t get fooled again.”
Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:
Hat tip: TB.
This is a great post. I’ve never seen it explained so clearly and concisely.
Excellent work, Baron Bodissey!
Islam takes advantage of the liberal who sees the liberal in everybody except anti-liberal westerners.
Nice job, Baron.
The fact that words take on a completely different meaning when dealing with Islamists is hardly understood.
Another thing which we can’t stress enough is the queer and twisted psyche of the Muselman, explained here by the excellent Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi:
Those who oppose Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.
At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. ”We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (dawa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the dawa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam. Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Quran and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the dawa, are blamed for this state of war, for the dawa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is temporary truce (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of temporary).
There is a German translation of this article on:
I just read it.
We cannot explain often enough how they speak with the double- tounge, how they lie and spit in our face, how they use our liberal systems to install their theocracy.
Thanks a lot to Baron B.