Saturday, October 11, 2008

Confronting Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Ekmeleddin IhsanogluWe’ve written numerous times in this space about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) — see the bottom of this post for a full list of previous articles on the topic.

The OIC functions as a sort of Islamic United Nations, and in the last ten years or so has become the tail that wags the UN dog. Since the OIC almost always votes as a block in the General Assembly, it can force through resolution after resolution condemning Israel, Zionism, Islamophobia, the “defamation of religion”, etc., etc.

The OIC has implemented a ten-year plan to eradicate Islamophobia, and has set up an “Islamophobia Observatory” to keep an eye on Islam-unfriendly activities among the infidels. Prof. Ihsanoglu is the point man for this operation, traveling the world to confer with leaders and speak to both Muslims and kuffar about the dangers of Islamophobia.

OIC logoWhen you read Prof. Ihsanoglu’s speeches, you’ll notice a certain disconnect between the Islam he describes — peaceful, tolerant, modern, benign, and ecumenical — and the one that is seen nightly on the TV news, even when laundered through the PC washing machine that is the MSM.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu offers bromides, clichés, and banalities when describing Islam to Westerners, and he is not generally challenged when he does. This past week offered a rare exception, however, when the Secretary General came to Helsinki to give his stump speech to a Finnish audience. Tundra Tabloids was there, and was able to confront Prof. Ihsanoglu face to face.

Below are some excerpts from a report by KGS. Visit the original post for more details, plus photos and video:

[KGS said during question time] “I must take exception to the remarks by OIC Sec-Gen Ihsanoglu, that “there is no such thing as the right to insult.” Contrary to what the Secretary-General says, Freedom of speech does in fact mean the right to insult. Regardless of how tasteless it may be, it is a crucial, integral part of freedom of speech, one simply can’t survive without the other.

Also, while it’s understandable that professor Ihsanoglu presents the Organization of the Islamic Conference in the best light possible, I find it necessary however, to bring to light some of the troublesome aspects of the OIC itself and its agenda, that Sec-Gen Ihsanoglu is unwilling to touch.

While the OIC presents itself as being concerned with human rights as well as being a bridge for peace and understanding to the non-Muslim world, many of its own member states are the chief violators of human rights and promoters of the vilest forms of anti-Semitism seen since the rise and fall of National Socialism in Germany, during the 30’s and the 40’s. The evidence is undeniable, it’s a fact which has led the US House of Representatives to approve Resolution 1361 adopted on Sept. 23 of this year, with the expressed aim, and I quote:

“defeating the campaign by some members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to divert the United Nation’s Durban Review Conference from a review of problems in their own and other countries, by attacking Israel, promoting anti-Semitism, and undermining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

So my question to professor Ihsanoglu is: In light of the US Congress resolution, Can OIC sec-Gen offer his own personal assurances that the O I C is not going to use the conference, to attack Israel, as well as focusing on global blasphemy, which “would legitimize arbitrary restrictions of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the freedoms of expression and opinion, all in the name of protecting religions from ‘defamation’ and ‘blasphemy.?
- - - - - - - - -
OIC Sec-Gen Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: “Well there are many other things to speak of… I don’t know what you mean by eh… this person asked me, “What is the alternative to Islamism?” I don’t know anything called Islamism, I know Islam, in fact I don’t know what Islamism is. Now, coming to the very important question, addressed by the last person, sir you are under the wrong impression.

Tundra Tabloids: How so?

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: We are not anti-Semitic, (unclear) believing in moderacy and decency as part of my belief, my doctrine, I am a Muslim, and when I pray, I pray for all prophets including Moses, Jesus and Mohamed. So you cannot speak about any Muslim, good or bad, as anti-Semitic, this is a theory, this is not the case.

Now coming to the Durban Conference, We have to, for those who follow these issues. The Human Rights Council in Geneva has been issuing resolutions related to the defamation of religions and the protection against hatred. This is the Human Rights Council, and the Human Rights Council mandated to discuss this, and there are certain rapporteurs appointed by the High Commission. They do the report and according to this report they accept or refuse this resolution. This is the framework, legal framework.

When it comes to OIC’s position, I have to tell you our group there is very active, and we’re proud of it. But we being active there, we say, to European countries who are members of this, eh, and other Western countries of this commission, the Council, the Human Rights Council, “Please, lets work together… please lets work together”.

We are not anti-Christian, we are not anti-Semitic, we are not anti-anybody. but we are anti-insult, we are anti-defamation, we are anti-abusing the freedom. The freedom sir, does not mean insulting, this is not acceptable, this is incitement to hatred on a religious basis, on a racial basis is prohibited by international convention.

If you say that this publishing of the cartoons is still a matter of freedom of expression…

Tundra Tabloids: Yes it is.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu: I must then as you one question, why did the same newspaper refuse, the same editor who allowed these uncivilized cartoons, “on my prophet”, why he did not allow publishing a similar cartoon on Jesus Christ? The same newspaper?

It’s hard for me to believe that Jyllands-Posten — or virtually any other European newspaper — has never published a single cartoon that depicts Christ in an insulting fashion. During my time in England, I remember seeing several such cartoons — one of them depicting Jesus in drag.

So this is disingenuous, to say the least, as is most of what Prof. Ihsanoglu says. As usual, he is long on platitudes, but short on specifics.

We should all “work together” — OK, a nice sentiment, and it makes for a good sound bite.

But what specific form should our “working together” take? Would it perhaps involve the building of Orthodox and Catholic cathedrals in Saudi Arabia and Iran, even as mega-mosques rise to dominate the skylines of European cities?

Should we expect that something resembling English Common Law will take root in Pakistan, even as Sharia Courts are officially implemented in the UK?

C’mon, man, tell us what you propose!

Unfortunately, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is not going to give more detailed explanation of what “working together” means, because the nasty little truth is that Islam is never going to work together with the infidel West, except on Islam’s terms. Those terms are as follows:

1. All other religions are to be subordinate to Islam.
2. Non-Muslims are to pay a special tax to Muslims.
3. Non-Muslims who refuse #1 and #2 are to be fought until they either submit or are killed.
4. There will be no law other than sharia, the law of Islam.
5. Non-Muslims must at all times display a proper respect towards Islam. The exact terms of this respect will be defined by the Muslims themselves.

This is working together, Islam-style. We’d best get used to it, because it represents our future.

Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:

2007 Aug 31 The OIC is Barking Now
  Sep 7 OIC: Insulting Islam is an Illness
    12 Sweden Apologizes Again… Or Not
  Dec 10 Countering Islamophobia
2008 Feb 17 Nice Little Civilization You Have Here…
  Mar 6 Our Man in the OIC
    13 An American Dhimmi in Dakar
  Apr 30 Is Europe a “Christian-Muslim” Continent?
  Jun 10 OIC: Time to Crack Down on Provocative Speech
    17 The OIC’s Plan for Fighting Islamophobia
    22 The OIC’s Crusade Against Islamophobia
  Aug 3 The Islam-Aligned Movement
  Sep 25 The OIC Fights Islamophobia at Columbia University


Gregory said...

These kind of muslims must think that non-muslims in the west are REALLY STUPID.
Well Ekmeleddin, we aren't.
Matter of fact, I have my own koran to research...even though it is written in English.

KGS said...

What Ishanoglu can't comprehend, is that the JP editor has the choice of printing whatever he deems appropriate, short of slander and defamation of someone's character...who is alive that is.

Most intersesting is the claim by Ishanoglu that "any Muslim, good or bad is exempt from the charge of antisemitism", and as the Baron recently said to me, "racsim and xenophobia as well".

Zenster said...

I still wish one of our Danish readers could post the link to an interview of Ishanoglu by a Dane journalist where this Islamic scumbag goes ballistic at the mere suggestion that violent reactions to the JP cartoons were, in fact, encouraged and not at all curtailed.

Ishanoglu's outright treachery and intentional misrepresentation (kitman) of Islam in combination with his position of influence is why he's on The List:

1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatollah Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr,
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri,
8. Fateh Najmeddin Faraj — Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb)
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. Tariq Ramadan
15. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Muhammed Fustuq
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz
25. Muhammad Taqi Usmani
26. Yasin al Qadi (Saudi terrorist financier)
27. Sheikh Abdullah bin Jibreen — top Wahabbi cleric
28. Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan — top Wahabbi cleric
29. Sheikh Nasser Al-Omar — top Wahabbi cleric
30. Sheikh Essa
31. Abu Waleed Ansari
32. Abu Yahya al-Libbi
33. Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri
34. Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi (al Qaeda CEO)
35. Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Al al-Sheikh — Saudi Grand Mufti
36. Ramadan Shalah — Islamic Jihad leader
37. Ali Abdullah Saleh – Yemini President
38. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith — head SA’s Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
39. Imad Mugniyah — Iranian master terrorist – Killed 2/13/2008
Substitute: Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu — OIC Secretary General
40. Ahmed Abu Laban — DEAD unfortunately of natural causes— January 19, 2007
Substitute: Nour al Maliki or Hamid Karzai


Addendum to list?

41 Chabid Benmakhlouf, Marocko/Sweden - new chief of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe; chairman of FIOE (Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe).
42 Doudou Diene, Senegal - former UN Special Rapporteur on racism

Zenster said...

ANTI_ISLAMIST: Addendum to list?

Congratulations upon nominating two exceptionally deserving candidates. I keep the list at a DJ's "Top Forty Hits" level solely to demonstrate how vulnerable Islamic jihad is.

Were Western governments to sanction, with extreme prejudice, just the players I have named, jihad would suffer a near-mortal blow. One from which it might take so long to recover that the West might have a chance of using quasi-peaceful means to address the overall issue.

What I suggest is the exact opposite of that which is going on right now. Largely, the Global War on Terrorism is being fought from the "Bottom Up". Al Qaeda being one of the few notable exceptions. The very nature of the Islamic beast literally demands that it be given a "Top Down" treatment.

Western leaders are so titty-fingered about this sort of targeting that, through their relative inaction, they are guaranteeing that a "Bottom Up" methodology will be employed against Islam. This will come in the form of a nuclear holocaust, be it Israel's Samson Option or the reflexive response of a militarily illiterate Liberal American President after a few US cities have been immolated.

Either way, I see very little that militates against the coming Muslim holocaust. Finally, always remember:


Hesperado said...

"The OIC functions as a sort of Islamic United Nations..."

Even more ominously than that, I have argued that the OIC functions as a sort of Proto-Caliphate.

Defiant Lion said...


"Largely, the Global War on Terrorism is being fought from the "Bottom Up"."

I think this phrase -the Global War on Terror - is a nonsense to be honest. It's about as sensible as waging war on blitzkrieg.

I'd like to see as many people as possible calling this war for what it is: a war against Islam. I'd even accept a war against Islamic jihad, of which the OIC are a clear part of.

But a war on terror? Gets the guilty off the hook and acts as the anaesthetic it is designed to be.

Zenster said...

Defiant Lion: I think this phrase -the Global War on Terror - is a nonsense to be honest. It's about as sensible as waging war on blitzkrieg.

I think it is utter nonsense as well, which is why I go to great pains to NEVER USE IT.

I use the term "Global War on Terrorism", solely because it represents the current terminology being used to identify the West's response to Islam's declaration of war upon the entire non-Muslim world.

For whatever reason, you seem to opt for arguing about niggling little details than recognizing how we are in much larger agreement. So be it.

Why not contribute something of worth with respect to your own perceptions about "Bottom Up" and "Top Down" methodologies that are currently in use? That is the overarching point of my comment(s) and one you seem to blithely ignore.

Of even greater importance is an examination of just how probable (and avoidable), a Muslim holocaust is if only our ridiculously fastidious leaders would get over themselves and start killing those who are responsible for driving Islamic jihad.

Another valuable topic would be a discussion of just how fragile the entire jihadist movement actually is. The High Context nature of Muslim culture encourages information hoarding and preferentially based relationships in ways that make jihad's key players nearly irreplaceable. The entire reason that I posted the above list is to demonstrate how pulling just a few of Islam's teeth would make its bite almost ineffectual. Do you bother to address any of these vital points?

But noooooooooooooooooo!

All of this is painfully similar to those who have disputed with the Baron about jihadist terminology. The contour of Islamic ideology is intentionally hyper-convoluted so that Muslims can deploy taqiyya and kitman in meaningful ways. Meaningful, at least, with respect to propelling the Islamist agenda. Expecting the average reader to be more than marginally versed regarding accurate and culturally authentic labels is simply absurd.

Feel free to dispute such insignificant little points as you stumble through the forest in search of a tree. I'm doing my best to focus on the big picture.

Defiant Lion said...


You need to take some prozac or take a cold shower.

You are ranting. Read my comment again.I didn't direct it AT you, I was merely making an observation not about YOUR use of the term but the widespread use of it.

I didn't diagree or say you were wrong for using it did I? And I didn't need to address anything you stated because I largely agreed.

Wind your neck in and lose the "Big I am attitude" and refrain from making observations about what people who you know nothing of are doing to fight the jihad.

If and when I do seek to engage in debate with you, you will be in no doubt as to what the issue is.

Looking forward to crossing swords with you soon, so you'd better get plenty of prozac in ;-))

Zenster said...

Defiant Lion: I didn't diagree or say you were wrong for using it did I? And I didn't need to address anything you stated because I largely agreed.

When your only contribution is to dispute syntax over an incorrect reading of what I have written, it becomes rather difficult to see where you are being positive. I'll put it down to typical British understatement and leave it at that.

Defiant Lion said...


Hint: Get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words "general" and "observation". FWIW, I wasn't disputing anything but I guess you just want to see injury where non was intended. There is actually a positive point to my post but you're so focused on "having a dig" you don't want to bother.

Whatever but I'll put it down to misguided and stereo-typical American hubris and a lack of comprehension for the Queen's English and retire with grace.

Zenster said...

Defiant Lion, for someone who ostensibly isn't delivering a "dig" you sure are having a difficult time avoiding doing so. Something about how the man doth protest too much, springs to mind. I'm not the one mentioning "prozac" or other such ill-concealed and discourteous snipes. As to the Queen's English, I've had a multilingual Oxford Doctor compliment my command of it and that ruddy bastard could solve the bleeding Cryptic.