Bear with me on this one, only its special pleading makes me want to weep for our lost tolerance and common sense.

The head of a leading Islamic organisation last Saturday called for “a global ban on offending the character of the Prophet Muhammed”, saying that it should be equated with hate speech.

Such a ban, suggested Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu – Secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in an AP interview – would demonstrate how an interconnected world respected different cultural sensitivities.

Hold off on the laughter, it gets funnier still.

“If the Western world fails to understand the sensitivity of the Muslim world, then we are in trouble,” Ihsanoglu threatened, for such provocations posed “a threat to international peace and security and the sanctity of life.”

“We are not saying stop free speech. We are staying stop hate speech,” Ihsanoglu added. He said he was not calling for a ban on criticizing Islam, but specifically, on denigrating its founding prophet.

Er, right. So he was calling for a global ban on criticising Muhammed. That sounds reasonable I suppose. If you’re Mohammedan.

All this was reported in the Washington Post – not a newspaper readily associated with illiberal views. The Post added that ‘Ihsanoglu’s call also echoed the views of other moderate Muslim scholars and leaders, who have urged the U.N. and international bodies to define global standards on religious expression and to help prevent incitement — particularly Islamaphobia’.

Now of course, seven out of eight of the atrocities committed in the name of religion having been perpetrated by Islamics over the last three years, all Islamaphobia must of course be mercilessly wiped out – being as it is an irrational fear with no basis in reality. And given that these are the views of ‘other moderate Muslim scholars and leaders’, do we not have here the ultimate in reassurance for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists alike?

Even the Washington Post had to slip back into apologetic practialities re this one, observing that ‘it appeared difficult to see how such a provision proposed by Ihsanoglu could ever work — even if it was agreed to — because of the easy access to social media websites on the Internet that can be used to spread offensive material’. Never mind the Nazi insistence on obedience contained therein.

The blindness of the liberal West to the demands of these lunatics remains a mystery to me. Perhaps somebody in the comment threads can explain to me how we have arrived at this blindfolded state.