To Burn or Not to Burn the Koran

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley this week equated an obscure Florida pastor and his congregants who plan to burn copies of the Koran on Saturday with the Muslim terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001.

“[T]here are a balance of interests here. But this, in our view, has the potential to inflame public opinion around the world in a way that will jeopardize American lives and American interests. It does not represent our core values as Americans. We hope it does not happen. We hope that between now and Saturday, there’ll be a range of voices across America that make clear to this community that this is not the way for us to commemorate 9/11. In fact, it is consistent with the radicals and bigot — with those bigots who attacked us on 9/11,” Crowley said in his briefing on Tuesday.  (h/t Kristinn)


Whether you believe people have the right to burn the Koran or not, the issue of the threat to American lives reflected in Crowley’s remarks requires greater scrutiny.

Since 2005, every Muslim country — including our coalition partners — through the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has signed off on a “10-Year Programme of Action” (10-Year Plan) that, among other things, seeks to define slander according to Islamic Sharia law — making Islamic “slander” a serious crime in every jurisdiction in the world, including the United States. 

Through “hate speech” legislation, the notion of Islamic “slander” has already taken hold in Europe.  Once such instance is the case of Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders who is currently on trial for hate speech. He was denied expert witness testimony to assert the truth of claims he made about Islam. 

The Dutch court instead stipulated to the truth-of-all-the-facts-of-the-matter when the court stated, in language that aligns with Islamic notions of “slander,” that:  “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’ witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations [about Islam] to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.” 

It doesn’t matter what’s true; the court says speaking truth in regard to Islam is illegal in the Netherlands because it may incite violence. 

In 2009 the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution (without a vote), submitted by the Obama administration, which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to U.N. oversight standards.  These standards mirror the OIC’s 10-Year Plan objectives. 

Imposing the Islamic notion of “slander” in the Western world through hate speech legislation is very real.  And very dangerous. 

Four months after the publication of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad, imams began a worldwide disinformation campaign (some creating three of the most objectionable cartoons themselves) for the purpose of inciting violence.   

The threat that Muslims will self-radicalize and kill is at the very heart of the OIC campaign to squelch free speech regarding Islam when issues such as the proposed Koran burning are manipulated for that purpose.  Western cultural “elites” are targeted to deem the free speech inappropriate thereby facilitating a cultural dilution of our commitment to free speech principles over time.   

In the Koran burning iteration of the information campaign, there appears to be a coordinated media message including tie-ins to the Ground Zero mosque, Christian clergy condemning the pastor’s activities as “unchristian” to satisfy Muslim sensitivities, the State Department comparing the pastor to the 9/11 terrorists (an American citizen exercising his protected free speech rights inside America, mind you), and the U.S. Army Commanding General in Afghanistan injecting himself into Constitutional free speech issues by allocating blame for future acts of Islamic-based terrorism to Americans. 

All we have to do is keep them happy and the jihadis will remain “moderate”?  Sounds like an organized crime protection racket. 

Coordinated OIC information attacks are designed to elicit submission to the OIC standard in just this way. 

The subordination of First Amendment rights to Islamic law under threat of lethal jihadi attacks should be understood to be a declaration of hostility by those making the demands.

This is not just about a small town church preacher.

The preacher’s plan to burn Korans hit the radar screen of most Americans because they heard about the Muslim threat of concerted retaliatory violence. How is it that these groups around the Muslim world were protesting this small-town rural American preacher at the same time on the same issue? Seem a bit too coordinated?  Contrived?

A staged protest of Afghanis pressured General Petraeus to comment on the planned actions of a private citizen inside the United States.  Is the General saying it becomes more difficult to defeat the enemy if the enemy gets mad at us? 

Was this a coordinated informational attack like the manufactured cartoon crisis, making clear to the world the objecting Muslims retain the right to kill the Florida preacher if he does not stand down? 

I think so.

OIC “slander” campaigns are calibrated against issues like the preacher’s Koran burning protest or the cartoons of Muhammad.  And they will always be about getting elites in the West to support Islamic standards of “free speech” against their own interests.