Fourth Reich and Fifth Column - the two jaws of the nutcracker crushing Western civilisation
Western civilisation is like a nut being crushed between the jaws of a gigantic Islamic nutcracker.
The lower jaw is infiltration and subversion from below, and the upper jaw is imposition of Islamisation from above.
The lower jaw is operated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the sinister mafia behind hundreds of Islamic front organisations operating as a fifth column within Western democracies. The brotherhood's mission statement is to wage a "kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." see http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-subversion-sedition-and-social.html
But as well as the Brotherhood, there is an even more sinister organisation which is far less well known by the general public - the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference), which squeezes the upper jaw of the nutcracker.
OIC - The Fourth Reich of Islamonazi World Domination
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is an Islamic supremacist organisation bankrolled by the oil-rich governments of the Islamic world. Whereas the MB squeezes upwards through low-level organisations, the OIC imposes its pressure downwards by influencing international organisations such as the UN and EU, and individual governments.
Buying up politicians with petrodollars
The subversive activities of the Muslim Brotherhood are there for all to see, once you know what you're looking for, but the OIC's influence is far more devious and difficult to detect because it occurs behind closed doors and involves 'influencing' politicians from both the west and third world countries. The OIC is rolling in petrodollars, and can afford to be lavish with its influence.
Wherever you see a politician behaving in a way that is contrary to the interests of his country, but favorable to Muslims, then it's likely that he is an OIC-influenced quisling. This problem is especially dangerous for Britain, where, as the expenses scandal showed, we have the cheapest politicians that money can buy.
Gagging all criticism of Islam worldwide
The OIC's primary objective is to shut down all criticism of Islam in the West. Islam can only survive in a strictly censored environment, and cannot stand the light of truth. With the recent globalisation of information, the West's freedom of expression is a threat to the unquestioning belief in Islam worldwide. The OIC has therefore launched a number of inititiatives aimed at enforcing Shariah-style blasphemy laws against criticism of Islam globally. The organisation is especially keen to portray any criticism of Islam as 'Islamophobia' - a heinous thought-crime that must be punished severely. Some of the OIC's activities are listed below:
- Islamophobia Observatory
The OIC has set up an Islamophobia Observatory to lead the witchhunt against any individuals and media showing signs of a critical attitude to Islam [see http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/islamic-nations-launch-islamophobia-observatory.html and http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/254560 ]. In fact, is it quite likely that this EDL Forum is under observation by the Observatory.
- OIC put pressure on European politicians to persecute Geert Wilders
'Britain has just witnessed the spectacle of a duly elected parliamentarian from another EU country, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, being denied entry to the country because he constituted “a threat to public policy.” Wilders, after being detained briefly at Heathrow, was sent back to Holland — where he has further legal troubles. Three weeks earlier, a Dutch appeals court had ordered prosecutors to begin criminal proceedings against Wilders for “inciting hatred and discrimination” and “insulting Muslim worshippers” through his public statements and his 2008 film, Fitna.
The order to proceed with the criminal prosecution resulted from pressure put on European states and on the UN Human Rights Council by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC’s aim is to punish and suppress any alleged Islamophobia, around the world but particularly in Europe, and it has been a leader in creating the conditions that made the U.K.’s Wilders ban possible...'
More at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226889/geert-wilders-and-fight-europe-bat-yeor
- OIC funds CAIR's attempts to silence politicians and candidates whom they deem “Islamophobic.”
'As with most CAIR initiatives, the directions seem to be coming from abroad; specifically the Saudi Arabia-based NGO behemoth the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Senior CAIR and OIC officials have met and coordinated on several documented occasions since 2006. In 2007 CAIR received $325,000 in cash from the OIC to stage a joint conference on “Islamophobia” at Georgetown University. CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad crossed paths with senior OIC officials as recently as June 2010 when he spoke at an OIC conference on dawa (Islamic missionizing) in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
The OIC position is that any statements about Islam as a political ideology – i.e., Shariah – are “Islamophobic.” In May 2010 the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” released its third annual report on “Islamophobia” (PDF). The introduction (p.11) stated, “It needs to be appreciated that Islamophobia connotes a social anxiety about Islam… that views Islam as a political ideology rather than as a religion.” Therefore any public (or private) figure who speaks about Islam or Shariah as a political ideology is, according to the OIC, an “Islamophobe.”
- Outlawing any criticism of Islam anywhere
'The so-called mainstream Muslims, grouped in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who are now demanding through the agency of the United Nations that Islam not only be allowed to make absolutist claims but that it also be officially shielded from any criticism of itself.
Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the nonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended." The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly:
Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.
Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."
You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In Paragraph 6, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with confessional allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of 9/11 as merely "tragic") is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too. This is clumsy, but it works: The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.'
- OIC is planning to take control of the Internet
'It was hardly noticed at the time, but its consequences could be catastrophic. Late last September, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which assigns internet domain names, approved a huge change in the way it operates. Europe and North America will now have five seats on its Board of Directors, instead of ten, and a new "Arab States" region will have five seats as well.
How big a deal is this? ICANN at the same time took a reference to "terrorism" out of its Draft Applicant Guidebook. Why? Because Arab groups complained. And so now jihad terror websites can grow and prosper, as ICANN has removed its own ability to police them. This has been a long time coming.
Back in October 2009, I warned of a seismic transformation in internet regulation and free speech. Under the transnational-happy Obama administration, the U.S. relinquished control of the net at that time. ICANN ended its agreement with the U.S. government. If not America, who? Now we know the answer to that. The new agreement gave other countries (including dictatorships and rogue nations) and the U.N. the ability to set internet use policies. At the time, I wrote, "[W]atch for Sharia law to find its way into this."
Well, that didn't take long. The ICANN action in September gave the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and other unfriendly nations a prominent internet role -- something they never could get during the administration of George W. Bush.
News analyst Daniel Greenfield explains:
The OIC has already effectively used the UN to push its censorship agenda. But the UN is virtually toothless when it comes to the United States. However if the Muslim world can dominate ICANN the way it dominates the UN General Assembly, then free speech on the internet is dead.
In practice, the new arrangement makes it much easier for Muslim countries to dictate what stays on the internet and what doesn't. The removal of the material about "terrorism" was just muscle-flexing; there is much more of that kind of censorship coming. If this stands, anti-jihad sites like my own site AtlasShrugs.com and the JihadWatch.org site run by my colleague Robert Spencer will likely lose their domain names. It will become harder and harder to find the truth about jihad activity, or any resistance to it, on the internet or anywhere else...
...An internet censored by Muslim ideologues and controlled by the feds. Do you see your freedom of speech slipping away?
John Bolton said at an appearance at Duke University in 2009, "It's not American strength that's provocative, it's American weakness." Now we are reaping the poisonous fruit of Obama's skulduggery: Islamic takeover. From http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/islamic_supremacists_target_a.html
- OIC concocts bogus 'human rights declaration' - based on Sharia
'Two NGOs appealed today to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louis Arbour on the possible conflict between the 1948 Universal Declaration for Human Rights and the 1990 Cairo Declaration for Human Rights in Islam -- with shari’a law as “the only source of reference” (articles 24 and 25). Their Appeal for a legal ruling was prompted by the message of the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, posted on the OIC website on Human Rights Day (December 10). It stated that the OIC was “considering the establishment of [an] independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in the  Member States in accordance with the provisions of the OIC Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Islamic Charter on Human Rights.” Will an Islamic Charter soon prevail over Universal Human Rights?' More at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/universal-declaration-of-human-rights-or-islamic-charter.html and http://www.realcourage.org/2009/09/september-30-rally-protesting-oic/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference
- OIC-subverted UN Calls Censorship a “Human Right”
The United Nations believes that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has a “human right” to impose censorship on the media to “promote (Muslim) religious tolerance.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will even hand over funds for the OIC to ensure that strict censorship on the media will be enforced when reporters shed a negative light on radical Islamic militants that include, Osama bin-Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabaab (Somalia) and Abu Shayaff (the Philippines).
According to Fox News, “concerns about censorship were raised after the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has tremendous sway in the United Nations, successfully pushed through a resolution that creates a watchdog to monitor how religion is portrayed in the media.”
The OIC claims it will enforce religious tolerance by ensuring that the (Muslim) religion is not mocked. An incident occurred when Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed instigated Islamic riots. Yet, the United States and the European Union members on the council voted against the resolution, worrying that it will censor the press and assault freedom of expression.
As reported by Fox, “the resolution now opens the way for the Human Rights Council to select a special investigation on religious freedom to “work closely with mass media organizations to ensure that they create and promote an atmosphere of respect and tolerance for religious and cultural diversity.”
The UN loves to use irony when implementing new policies. Mr. Ban appointed a so-called “Human Rights Council,” to be the media watchdog to impose censorship. Meanwhile, the UN hires and appoints investigators to seek and punish whistle-blowers and aid in cover-ups of corruption by initiating “sham” investigation inquiries. The UN also hosts “Transparency Summits,” even though Mr. Ban is notorious for hiding internal UN documents from public scrutiny.
- OIC censors video game depicting Muhammad
“Faith Fighter” is an online video game featuring various religious figures in combat, including Muhammad. It attracted considerable attention and controversy, but was removed after the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] threatened the game’s producers.
The American television channel G4 describes itself as “the one destination on television that feeds your addiction for the latest must-have tech gadgets, web culture and video games.” It was not surprising, therefore, when it ran a 45-second “Indie Games” spot about “Faith Fighter” during a commercial break of the premier episode of the show “Web Soup” on June 7, 2009.
The brief spot summarized the game and its controversial nature, and the announcer, Kevin Pereira, mentioned the playable characters by name, noting that one could play as God, Jesus, Buddha, Ganesha and Budai. However, not only did the segment completely omit the fact that OIC pressure led to the game being taken down, but it glaringly ignored the fact that there are six playable characters, even as Muhammad’s unidentified image appeared directly behind the presenter.
Full story at http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/oic-censors-video-game-depicting-muhammad/
- OIC wants international blasphemy laws
This week, member states of the United Nations will vote on what has become an annual resolution, “On Combating Defamation of Religions,” put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 states with large Islamic populations. The resolution condemns what it calls “defamation of religions” — a vague notion that can perhaps best be described as a form of expression that offends another’s religious sensibilities — and urges countries to enact laws that prohibit such forms of expression. The resolutions are part of a larger and dangerous campaign to create a global blasphemy law to combat what Muslim leaders refer to as “Islamophobia.”
Such a campaign is deeply flawed from a human rights perspective, both in its equation of religious discrimination (a legitimate human rights violation) with the vague concept of defamation, as well as in the proposed remedy of imposing legal limits on freedom of expression. A recent Freedom House report looking at blasphemy laws in sevencountries documents the negative impact of such laws on a range of fundamental human rights, while noting how such laws actually contribute to greater interfaith strife and conflict.
Because no one can agree on what constitutes blasphemy, laws that attempt to ban it are themselves vague, highly prone to arbitrary enforcement and are used to stifle everything from political opposition to religious inquiry. Particularly when applied in countries with weak democratic safeguards — e.g., strong executives, subservient judiciaries, corrupt law enforcement — blasphemy laws do
nothing to achieve their supposed goals of promoting religious tolerance and harmony and instead are disproportionally used to suppress the freedom of religious minorities or members of the majority religion that hold views considered unorthodox.
In Pakistan, for example, Christians and Ahmadiyya (Muslims who do not believe Muhammad was the final prophet) make up only 2 percent of the population, but have been the target of nearly half of the more than 900 prosecutions for blasphemy in the past two decades. The remaining prosecutions have been made against Muslims themselves, often simply as an easy way to settle personal scores that have nothing to do with religion. Mere accusations of blasphemy have led to mob violence in which people have been maimed or killed and whole communities devastated.
The governments of countries that already have such problematic laws on the books are precisely those countries leading the charge to create an international blasphemy law through the United Nations. The motivations of states like Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — countries with appalling records on religious freedom and broader human rights — are unquestionably hypocritical and have more to do with their desire to score points with unhappy domestic populations and religious extremists than the desire to foster religious tolerance.
More at http://www.skypeassholes.com/node/8368
- OIC Jew-bashing jamboree
'In his attack at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Mahathir said Jews ruled the world and got others to fight and die for them, but added that they would not be able to defeat the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.
"We are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," he said.
Jewish leaders said Mahathir's comments could spark fresh attacks on Jews.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled told CNN, "We deeply regret and reject the statement made by Prime Minister Mahathir," but added that Israel is still studying the statement.
"We find it especially discomfiting that, at a time like this, instead of calling for peace and reconciliation among peoples and nations, there are statement fueling further hatred and misunderstanding.
"It comes as no surprise that in a summit like this there is a search for the lowest common denominator among the members, which is Israeli bashing."
The comment came on the eve of U.S. President George W. Bush's trip to Asia.
"Prime Minister Mahathir's bluster and polarizing rhetoric are not new," a senior administration official said Thursday. "But his most recent hate-filled remarks further cement his legacy of outrageous and misguided public statements. We urge leaders of all faiths to publicly condemn these vile statements."
Bush has no plans to meet with the prime minister, although the two may "bump into each other" at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be held in Bangkok, Thailand, the official said. The Associated Press quoted Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California, as saying, "Mahathir's speech today is an absolute invitation for more hate crimes and terrorism against Jews. That's serious.'' Mahathir has often lashed out at Israel and the United States, which he blames for fueling violence and angst in the Arab and Muslim world. Malaysia, a moderate, mostly Muslim nation, has long been a critic of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
Under Mahathir's leadership, it has also opposed U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the backing of the Jewish state and the recent war in Iraq. During the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis, he railed against what he said was a Western capitalist conspiracy to keep developing nations like Malaysia under control.
In his speech to the OIC -- the biggest gathering of Muslim leaders since the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States -- Mahathir described the current situation as one of Islam's lowest points in history and highlighted the growing gap between the West and the Muslim world. He called on Muslims to emulate the Jewish response to oppression, arguing the Jewish people had "survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking."Mahathir said, "They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.
"With these they have gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.
"We cannot fight them through brawn alone, we must use our brains, also."
Mahathir said for too long Muslims had mistakenly believed Islam rejected new technology and progress. Such interpretations, combined with the accusation that Islam promoted terrorism, were the major reasons all Muslim people were suffering "oppression and humiliation," he added.
"Islam is not just for the seventh century AD. Times have changed. Whether we like it or not, we have to change," Mahathir said. "Not our teaching. ... Islam is not wrong, but the interpretations by our scholars can be wrong." Mahathir suggested new tactics for Muslims to vent their anger and frustration.
"Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?" he asked.
"It cannot be that there is no other way. ... We must not antagonize everyone. We must win their hearts and minds."
Australian Prime Minister John Howard condemned the comments.
"It is offensive," Mr Howard said on Melbourne radio 3AW Friday.
"Let me make it clear -- any invocation of rivalry between Jews and Muslims is very unhelpful. The religions of both groups exhort each other to live together in peace, (and) are opposed to terrorism." Howard said the world had a common interest in uniting the good forces of Islam, Judaism and Christianity to wage a war against terrorism, bigotry and extremism...
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who pulled out of the summit due to Security Council negotiations over a U.S. resolution on Iraq, said he understood "feelings of humiliation, anger and fear" among Muslims but condemned suicide bombings as detrimental to the Islamic cause.
The OIC is far more dangerous than Al-Qaida
As the original Quisling showed, it is far easier to bring down a country by subversion and treason from within, than by bombing. One single raid on Coventry in the second world war killed more Britons than the Muslim terrorists have done in the current jihad. Bombers may kill individuals and and damage cities, but quislings can destroy the culture and identity of a nation and lead it into subjugation far more effectively than external enemies. That is why the OIC is more dangerous to us than al-Qaida
OIC uses global Ummah Mafia to subvert the West
The OIC leadership makes no secret of their plans to use the Ummah's mob-loyalty and swarm-solidarity as a means of conquest of the West from within, as shown by the following extract from a speech by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the OIC:
'The Muslim Ummah, means the “community of the faithful”. It is a unique bond that has no similar example under any other political or religious system in the world. It is a belonging to ideals which bring Muslims together in an eternal brotherhood lock which transcends all other consideration of allegiance or loyalties or barriers of nationhood, ethnicity, geography or language.' http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/oic-fights-islamophobia-at-columbia.html
You’ll never see it stated more plainly than that: Islam transcends any loyalties of nationhood. Muslims carry no obligation save to the Ummah; anything else is a temporary strategy, to be discarded as soon as it is expedient to do so.
OIC - detailed analysis
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood's strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari'a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.
The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.
Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion's share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC's docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.
Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and -- in contrast to to the European states -- to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari'a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system -- in other words, compliance with shari'a.
They also undertake to stimulate noble Muslim values, to preserve their symbols and their shared heritage, and to defend the universality of the Islamic religion -- simply put, the universal propagation of Islam (da'wa). They state that they are promoting women's rights and encourage their active participation in all walks of life, in accordance with the laws of the Member States. They agree to inculcate Muslim children with Islamic values and to support Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States in order to preserve their dignity and their cultural and religious identity.
The Charter's strategic targets seek "[t]o ensure active participation of the Member States [of the OIC] in the global political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure their common interests" (I-5) and "[t]o promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in international forums" (1-17).
Among its targets, the OIC Charter specifies the propagation, promotion, and preservation of Islamic teachings and values, the spread of Islamic culture, and the preservation of the Islamic heritage (I-11). Article I-12 promotes the protection and defense of the true image of Islam, the fight against its defamation, and the encouragement of dialogue between civilizations and religions. The other objectives deal with protecting inherent Islamic family values (I-14) and the preservation of rights, dignity, and religious and cultural identity of the Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States (I-16). This issue points to the OIC authority over immigrants abroad and its pressure on the governments of the non-Muslim host countries through the channel of dialogue, including the Alliance of Civilizations, whose Report backs OIC programs, and interfaith and immigration networks.
The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting "foreign occupation," including those in "occupied" Indian Kashmir, and condemns the "humiliation and oppression" of Muslims in India.
The Charter stipulates that the International Islamic Court of Justice shall become the Organization's main legal body (Chap. X, Art. 14) and that "[t]he Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization's [OIC] covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values" (Art. 15). It implies that the covenants which do not conform with Islamic values will not be followed.
One can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused (according to Western criteria of justice) of genocide committed in southern Sudan and Darfur, has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan.
The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari'a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.
Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU's very antithesis. Even if it employs the language of international organizations, the meaning of the words is different by their being rooted in the conceptual world of the Koran, which contradicts the basis of secular Western thought. Thus, Article 32-2 states, "The Council of Foreign Ministers [of OIC countries] shall recommend the rules of procedures of the Islamic Summit." This implies an Islamic view and understanding on policy.
Such a combined political and religious institution is at the very outer rim of Western thinking, anchored as it is in the separation between politics and religion. Even if interference between the two fields has persisted, the principle of such separation has facilitated emancipation in the intellectual and political arenas from religious authority and the development of critical thought.
Present-day aspiration of the Ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being's greatest privilege and finest adventure.
Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his human intermediary, Mohammed. According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. Faced today with this political archaism, a divided and broken West seeks refuge in denial and grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt. Taking in water from every side, this West that abandons its own identity for multilateralism and multiculturalism and ruins its citizenry by buying security has little chance of survival.
Another liberal journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, gets beheaded by ISIS while a third one waits his turn - Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” Anot...