You are here

Free-Speech

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    08/03/2019
    Summary: 

    ‘Cultural racism’

    Tellingly, there is no attempt to define ‘Islam’ in the APPG report. What they have done instead is racialise Islam so as to make Islamophobia a form of racism. It does not matter that Islam is not a race, or that many Muslims do not see themselves as anything like a separate race. The authors want Islamophobia to be seen as racist. The report explains:

  • Summary: 

    The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

    In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

    ...

    There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

  • Summary: 
    • Not all people who worry about a replacement of civilizations are necessarily violent or even incorrect. They appear to be frightened folk, sent over the edge by matters they may feel beyond control. In Europe and the United States, they have witnessed wave upon wave of attacks by individuals and groups openly espousing violence in the name of religion. They seem to fear that their own governments are doing too little to protect them and their families from future attacks.

    • "What unites these groups ideologically is a belief that Europe is facing a 'great replacement' by Muslim and African immigrants. And they want something done about it." — Marion MacGregor, "The push from Europe's young new right", Infomigrants.net; May 5, 2018.

    • Political correctness, often an extreme form of denial of reality, has made it increasingly hard for even the most reasonable and careful of thinkers to say anything critical about Islam...efforts to block fair criticism of aspects of Islam can become unjust forms of censorship.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    21/07/2005
    Summary: 

    And yet when I look back now, the remarkable thing is not how much fuss they made, but how little, especially if you think what we have come to expect from some Muslims. I have in mind not just the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, but the trembling refusal of a noted Koranic scholar to write an article for The Spectator. "You don't understand," he said. "These people will kill me if I say what I really think. I mean kill me."

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    22/07/2019
    Summary: 

    A man has been arrested and imprisoned in Scotland for painting the words “Islam is questionable” on his house, in what Police Officers claimed was a “breach of the peace”.

  • Summary: 

    In April 2008, during his keynote address to the first conference of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa,  of the ominous limits on scholarly analysis of Islam imposed by political correctness and multiculturalism:

     

    The degree of thought control, of limitations on freedom of speech and expression is without parallel in the Western world since the eighteenth century and in some cases longer than that. ... It seems to me it’s a very dangerous situation, because it makes any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam, to say the least, dangerous. Islam and Islamic values now have a level of immunity from comment and criticism in the Western world that Christianity has lost and Judaism has never had.
  • Country: 
    Saudi Arabia
    News Date: 
    07/06/2019
    Summary: 

    Saudi Arabia has sentenced to death a teenager for participating in the pro-democracy Arab Spring protests when he was just 10 years old.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    26/03/2019
    Summary: 

    he All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims has produced a well-intentioned but worrisome definition of Islamophobia. It states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    26/03/2019
    Summary: 

    The author of a report into alleged extremist speakers on British campuses has been banned from an event at a university her study strongly criticises. The university called off the talk after a threat of protests organised by its Islamic Society and the Student Union among other groups.

  • Summary: 

    Only a fool would cheer the banning of Tommy Robinson by Facebook and Instagram. It doesn’t matter if you like or loathe him. It doesn’t matter if you think he’s a searing critic of the divisive logic in the politics of diversity or Luton’s very own Oswald Mosley in Jack Wills clobber. The point is that his expulsion from social media confirms that corporate censorship is out of control. It speaks to a new kind of tyranny: the tyranny of unaccountable capitalist oligarchs in Silicon Valley getting to decide who is allowed to speak in the new public square that is the internet.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    16/02/2019
    Summary: 

    Thirty years ago this week, Ayatollah Khomeini put a fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie.. At least 22 people were killed; Rushdie went into hiding. Britain suddenly had to confront some unsettling truths.

  • Summary: 
    • Courts and government bodies still find it hard to make useful distinctions between gratuitous, racist, or violent speech about Islam and Muslims on the one hand, and reasoned argument that questions aspects of Islam, or even the religion overall, from the point of view of human rights, on the other.

    • The situation in Europe is even more ambiguous. Most European states have laws that purportedly support free speech, yet accusations of hate speech and Islamophobia often lead to trials and sentencing can lead to imprisonment. This skewing of facts is one crucial reason why free speech needs to be defended.

    • It is more than ever necessary to educate the public and many of its leaders about both the benign and troubling facts of Islamic history, doctrine, and culture. Those leaders who must require a more solid grounding include the ones who deny that terrorism has genuine links to issues such as jihad warfare -- and who are constantly told that "real" Islam is above rebuke.
      We must indeed paint a positive picture of what so many Muslims contribute to their host societies. We should, for example, celebrate the way in which Muslim-Americans in Philadelphia launched an appeal that raised over $100,000 to help repair two Jewish cemeteries that had been vandalized. Or the Muslim veteran in Arkansas who volunteered to stand guard with others at any Jewish site that was threatened with attack.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    29/01/2019
    Summary: 

     has agreed on a list of examples that should be deemed 'Islamophobic'. The council passed a motion last night to adopt the APPG (All-Party Parliamentary Group) definition of Islamophobia.

  • Summary: 

    Why the UK government should not adopt a proposed new definition of Islamophobia.

     

  • Summary: 
    • Censored from today's campuses is discussion of another, in various respects competing, intersectionality: That of the shared, intersecting, predicaments of today's victims of Islamist aggression, including terrorism.

    • Hamas's operatives have trained in Sudan and worked with Sudanese forces, including those that have been engaged in the Darfur genocide. This is the organization whose supporters are leading movers behind the campus intersectionality/boycott campaign and have become the moral arbiters of campus political correctness.

    • Of those killed at the Twin Towers on 9/11, 215 were black (136 men, 79 women). Other African Americans were murdered in subsequent Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks in California and Florida and elsewhere, and are as likely to be victims of future such terror attacks as anyone else. But work to prevent, and minimize the impact, of such assaults apparently counts for no more to Black Lives Matter, when weighed against promoting an anti-Israel agenda, than it does to SJP and other Hamas-linked groups.

    • The "intersectionality" promoted on campuses and beyond by Hamas/SJP and their fellow travelers seeks, in pursuit of its anti-Israel agenda, to distract attention from the Islamist onslaught, its ongoing savaging of populations in Africa, Asia and America.
  • Summary: 
    • "We demand the legal right to Free Speech, in an Act which will bring an end to the ludicrous notion that 'hate speech' and 'offensive speech' deserves people be imprisoned or charged. In short, an Act to codify the citizens' right to freedom of speech without government intervention." — Petition (ultimately rejected) to the British government calling for codifying free speech.

    • "A hate crime is any criminal offense, for example assault or malicious communications, which is perceived [emphasis added] to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity." — From the British government's response to the petition.

    • A Home Office review proposed legislative changes that would require Muslim couples to undergo a civil marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony. Such a requirement would provide women with legal protection under British law. The review said that nearly all those using Sharia councils were females seeking an Islamic divorce. As a "significant number" of Muslim couples do not register their marriages under civil law, "some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce."

  • Country: 
    Pakistan
    News Date: 
    28/12/2018
    Summary: 

     The accusation against a Christian mother-of-five called Asia Bibi and the death sentence that followed divided Pakistan and prompted religious extremists to assassinate two senior politicians who spoke out for her.  The 54-year-old was in October acquitted on appeal, but remains in protective custody until the ruling has been reviewed.

  • Summary: 

    Two parts to this - firstly, Hitchens warning about 'Islamophobia' used by those in power as an excuse to erode and curtail free speech - includes updated references. Looking at what has recently happened in Canada & announced in the UK, it appears Hitchens was a better prophet than any offered by religious cults. Secondly, Snippets from Hitchens & friends defending free speech & the right to offend.

  • Summary: 

    In 1984, George Orwell wrote: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought. When people ‘disappear’ no one is allowed to mention it, no one is mourned, no one person is important, only the Party and Big Brother are important.”

    Today, Orwell’s Thought Police are, rather ominously, everywhere. There is a definite intellectual chill in the air. Reason and civility are all but gone in the public square. In its place, we have insults, shaming, censorship and self-censorship that is meant to “pass” for thought. Hotly internalized propaganda rules the day online. We have met Big Brother, and he is us.

    In my view, people seem to develop some kind of psychoanalytic transference to their Listserv groups. In a way, the connection is an umbilical one. The darker side of this connection isn’t hard to find. Internet Listserv groups bully and purge dissident members—this has  and to many others. Sometimes, a small group of people (teenage “mean girls” and their mothers, academics, journalists,) attack the same person over and over again, day after day, for months, even for years. Meanwhile, hundreds of onlookers remain silent. No one stops the attacks or calls for a more civilized fight.

    My esteemed ally and sister Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been disinvited from lecture dates and awards ceremonies many times; her  have sometimes been spearheaded by feminists. I have also been , more than . The point of these de-platforming rituals, of course, is to demonstrate the difference between a Thought Crime and the Party Line. Over and over again, universities and institutions that are supposedly devoted to the free exchange of ideas fail this basic test, strengthening the extremists and the censors by handing them the victories they seek.

  • Summary: 
    • The first problem of the European Court of Human Rights decision against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is that it means that, at least in cases of blasphemy, truth is not a defence.

    • Such a judgement hands over the decision on what is or is not allowed to be said not to a European or national court, but to whoever can claim, plausibly or otherwise, that another individual has risked "the peace."

    • There have been similar mobster tricks tried for some years now. They all run on the old claim, "I'm not mad with you myself; I'm just holding my friend back here."

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    But this is not a story about the triumph of tolerance over antiquated law. Ms. Bibi was freed not because the court found that the blasphemy law violated her rights or was in any other way inherently wrong, but because the trial was flawed. Blasphemy, broadly defined as speaking insultingly about God or religion, remains a capital crimein Pakistan and illegal in many other lands, in the East and the West.

    According to the  about a quarter of all countries had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014, and more than a tenth have laws or policies against apostasy, or renouncing a religious belief. That does not mean people in the West risk being imprisoned for taking the Lord’s name in vain. In many countries, like Canada, old laws remain on the books simply because nobody has bothered to get them off — as the Irish did last month when they voted in  to scrap their blasphemy laws. In the United States, six states still have old blasphemy laws, but no case would conceivably survive against the First Amendment.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    13/11/2018
    Summary: 

    The National Secular Society has urged the BBC to treat free expression "as a positive value" as it raised concerns that new guidelines defer excessively to religious sensitivities. In response to a consultation on the 

  • Country: 
    Bangladesh
    News Date: 
    09/11/2018
    Summary: 

    Concern is growing among Christians in Bangladesh after the country's PM said she would not tolerate people offending Islam. There's been widespread protests in Pakistan following the release of Christian mother Asia Bibi. She was accused of blasphemy but released on appeal after almost a decade in prison. Speaking about the situation in her own country, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, said: "Anyone who pronounces offensive comments against it [Islam], or against the Prophet Muhammad, will be prosecuted according to the law."

  • Summary: 

    Why police should stay out of ‘hate incidents’. A  calling Anna Soubry a ‘fascist’, an Asian man saying his friend , and a newspaper column by 
    : these were among the 94,098 ‘non-crime hate incidents’ recorded by the UK police in the past year. The recording of such non-crimes has exploded in recent years. In the year 2017-2018, the number of hate incidents reached record levels, rising by 17 per cent on the previous year.

  • Country: 
    Pakistan
    News Date: 
    05/11/2018
    Summary: 
    • "I am requesting the president of the United States, Donald Trump, to help us exit from Pakistan." — Ashiq Masih, Asia Bibi's husband.

    • "Placing Asia Bibi on the ECL [no-fly list] is like signing her death warrant." — Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association.

  • Summary: 

    Why Western progressives are not fighting for this persecuted Pakistani woman. Where are the West’s solidarity marches for ? Where are the t-shirts? Why aren’t ‘Free Asia Bibi’ flags flying on campuses? Why haven’t student progressives elected Asia as the symbolic head of their unions, as they did with persecuted Eastern European writers in the 1970s or African liberation leaders in the 1980s?

  • Summary: 

    Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil has led to global handwringing about the emergence of ‘actual fascism’ in the fourth largest democracy in the world. In response, we republish Brendan O’Neill’s 2017 essay on what fascism really is.

    The stability, or stasis, of the technocratic era, with its hostility both to ideology and to change, has led some to see all political upset, and even politics itself, as terrifying. One consequence of technocracy is that it denuded people, especially influential people, of the means of politics, of the very language of politics, of any ability to read the world politically and to understand that politics is the clash or interplay of competing interests, not, as they had imagined it, a managerial process of ensuring the relatively healthy maintenance of social and bureaucratic life. They are utterly unprepared for politics, and so the return of politics, the very political statements of Brexit and Trump, has convinced them not simply that they face a political challenge, but that their entire class and worldview and even their existence is under threat.

  • Summary: 

    Why liberals are more disturbed by the pipe-bomb postings than they ever were by Islamist outrages. So now we’re allowed to get angry about terrorism? Now we are encouraged to talk about it openly? Now we are invited to dig down and discover the warped political prejudices that might be fuelling terrorism?

  • Country: 
    Australia
    News Date: 
    21/10/2018
    Summary: 

    Shari'a laws are a set of laws that are based on the life of prophet Muhammad. Shari'a is not just a law but a way of life, ideology and political movement, according to the Sharia laws: 
    – There is no freedom of religion or freedom of speech. 
    – There is no equality between people (the non-Muslim is not equal to the Muslim). 
    – There are no equal rights for men and women. 
    – There is no democracy or a separation between religion and state politics. 
    FGM, Acid attacks, honor killings, beheading and stoning. 

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    11/08/2017
    Summary: 

    The former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it was time to “call a spade a spade”, otherwise the torturous crimes would not be prevented. He accused the BBC of trying to “avoid being accused of stigmatising a community” by failing to address the perpetrators in high profile cases in Newcastle and Rotherham were Muslims who would have “claimed to be practising”. Instead, the BBC this week branded 18 people convicted of grooming and raping girls as young as 13-years-old in Newcastle an “Asian” gang. This was an “evasion” of the truth, Mr Phillips said, add

  • Summary: 

    The pressure to think a certain way about Islam comes not from Trump, but from the Left, which relentlessly labels anyone and everyone who dares to note the connection between Islam and jihad terrorism as “racist,” “bigoted,” and “Islamophobic.” The Left and its Islamic supremacist allies have successfully intimidated untold numbers of people in the West into thinking that the slightest opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others is somehow morally wrong, and evidence of some kind of character defect.

    I wrote a whole book about this last year, . The fact that Americans fear speaking what they think about Islam more than about any other subject doesn’t surprise me at all — it’s the world I’ve lived in for the last twenty years, and why many people today think of me as some kind of degenerate, solely for reporting on the , the , and the . I heard recently about a good still-on-the-reservation Leftist recently noted with horror that opposing jihad terror was “worse than the n-word.”

  • Summary: 

    Who was really marching against fascism in London on Saturday afternoon? The Democratic Football Lads’ Alliance (DFLA), which took to the streets to register its fury with ? Or the self-styled anti-fascist movement that gathered to block the DFLA, and which even chanted ‘No pasaran!’ as if it was the 1930s again and this was a replay of the  that pitted working-class radicals and Jews against Moseley’s fascist brownshirts?

    In truth, neither side was. Fascism is a vastly overused word these days. It now means, as Orwell predicted it would, little more than movements or people ‘I disapprove of’. Most people who call themselves ‘anti-fascist’ are really just being vainglorious, fantasising that their uptight agitation against whatever political movement is currently getting their goat puts them on a par with the men and women who fought on Cable St or who trekked to Spain with the International Brigades.

  • Summary: 

    Ayatollahism is everywhere. Witness the rage, sometimes physical, against feminists who criticise the transgender ideology. Or the arrest of people for making offensive jokes. Or the fashion for No Platforming anyone who holds non-mainstream views. Or the branding as ‘phobic’ anyone who criticises mass immigration, or same-sex marriage, or, of course, Islam. No one is sentenced to death. But all of these attempts to ostracise the holders of certain views share in common with the Ayatollah’s fatwa a pathetic intolerance of different thought.

    Thirty years after Rushdie’s novel was published, the battle isn’t over. It has hardly begun. The struggle for the right of people to think what they like and say what they please, and to mock all gods, prophets, ideas and fads, remains as pressing today as it has ever been.

  • Summary: 
    • The OIC's media strategy encourages "accurate and factual portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric... such as labeling criminal terrorists as 'Islamic' fascists, 'Islamic' extremists."

    • That part of the strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as "mentally ill."

    • The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.

  • Summary: 
    • On the surface, for those who wanted to reform Islam, the only place to do so appeared to be the West. We all assumed that here in the West, it would be safe to question and criticize. Instead, so many institutions utilize a far more subtle method of silencing criticism.

    • The more you conceal or disregard constructive criticism of Islam, the harder you are making it for reforms to occur in the religion and the easier you are making it for Muslim radicals to prevail.

    • The reason I criticize the radical elements of my religion is not because I have hatred in my heart, but because I desire to protect those who have been abused and abandoned by their leaders.

    What is it that I say that rankles the left so much? I refuse to be apologetic for radical Islam in the West. I refuse to gloss over the darkest consequences to which rampant extremism has led. I do not waffle beneath the idea of multiculturalism or tolerance; some things are not meant to be tolerated. The message of the apologists is clear: Get in line. Send out the same messages that others are: about all aspects of Islam being a loving and benevolent religion. Focus on this and sweep the crimes against humanity under the carpet.

  • Summary: 

    With painful predictability, the release on bail of the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson led to much media handwringing about the dangerousness of his ideas. He must not be afforded media platforms, worried leftists said. When Robinson supporter Raheem Kassam was given a few minutes on Today to big-up his mate, the chattering classes spluttered in their cornflakes. Reading their commentary you could be forgiven for thinking Goebbels himself had risen from the dust to elbow aside Sarah Sands and take command of Radio 4’s morning show.

    The idea driving this demand of ‘No Platform for Robinson!’ is that the Tommy Robinson phenomenon is a product of too much freedom of speech. According to these people, Robinson looms large in the public imagination because the media have been too open to his ideas. He and his kind have enjoyed too much liberty in the realm of public discussion, and, in the neo-Victorian view of the Ban Tommy lobby, this has allowed him to poison the minds of large numbers of people and reduce them to a Muslim-hating mob. Monkey see, monkey do: the misanthropic motor of every demand for restrictions on speech.

  • Summary: 

    For an illustration of just how kneejerk accusations of Islamophobia have become, look no further than the row over Boris Johnson’s latest column. Writing in the , the former foreign secretary criticised Denmark’s ban on the burqa. A ban runs against Denmark’s ‘spirit of liberty’, he said. He makes clear that he opposes the introduction of a similar ban in the UK.

    Yet while Johnson is against banning the burqa, he is nonetheless critical of this garment. It is ‘oppressive… to expect women to cover their faces’, he says. He adds that it looks ridiculous and its wearers sometimes ‘look like letterboxes’ and ‘bank robbers’. For making these remarks, despite his call not to ban the burqa, Johnson stands accused of right-wing, racist demagoguery.

  • Summary: 

    A truly bizarre thing happened yesterday: Boris Johnson was branded an Islamophobe and a bigot for writing in defence of Muslim women who wear the niqab....He’s been slammed everywhere as a racist, a borderline fascist, a poundshop Mussolini who if he ever gets to No10 will declare war on Muslims and other minorities. What is the basis to these shrill and wilful misinterpretations of what he said? Because alongside defending women’s freedom to wear the niqab and burqa, he expressed distaste for these garments. And, as we now know, you’re not allowed to say anything even remotely critical about Islam or its practices these days.

    ...

    The rash reaction to Boris’s comments, the depiction of him as a hard-right tyrant, confirms that it is now tantamount to thoughtcrime to say anything critical about Islam. To make any kind of moral judgement about Islamic practices, to question its beliefs or its prophets or its garments, is to run the risk of being branded an ‘Islamophobe’, a racist, a fascist.

  • Summary: 

    Where’s the concern for Labour MP Sarah Champion? Where are the leftists demanding that this female MP stop being harassed merely for expressing her views? Where are the tweets drawing attention to Ms Champion’s plight — the fact that she now  an actual security team because people who hate her political views want to physically harm her? In this post-Jo Cox era, I thought we were all meant to have the backs of elected politicians who are under threat from extremists. And yet when it comes to Champion — just such an elected politician — people seem to be looking the other way.

  • News Date: 
    30/07/2018
    Summary: 

    SHARES Twitter has launched a new scheme to clamp down on ‘abuse, harassment and other types of behaviours that can detract or distort from the public conversation’. It has selected two teams of academics to begin a project aimed at silencing the wrong type of speech on the social network. The researchers have expertise in a wide range of subject areas including Islam, diversity and the spread of right-wing populism. They will work to measure the effect of echo chambers and hate speech on Twitter, with the data used to guide the tech giant’s future strategy.

  • Summary: 

    In his book , Rizvi speaks directly to the many closeted atheists, agnostics, and secularists in the Muslim world. These people are obliged by the societies in which they live to present themselves outwardly as Muslims, but in private, they harbor different ideas. Rizvi’s book is often polemical in tone, but also humane and sympathetic to the plight of Muslims around the world. He is keenly aware of the consolations which faith provide to some, and he never stoops to condescension.

    If Rizvi is right, freethinkers in the Muslim world are more numerous than most of us suspect. Not only are their numbers growing, but they are becoming more and more emboldened. With eloquent and outspoken ex-Muslims such as Rizvi, who offer a message of hope and liberation from dogma, religious conservatives around the world should start to worry.

    ...

    But the title is not necessarily self-descriptive, even though it has become that by now. You know, people say: “Oh, here’s Ali Rizvi, the Atheist Muslim.” In the first place, the title is addressing atheists who are closeted, who have to present themselves outwardly as Muslims. In the Muslim world, there are countless such freethinkers, atheists, and agnostics, who are going around presenting themselves as Muslims, because there are very serious consequences for openly saying what they are. You know all the reasons. It ranges from being rejected by their families, disowned and ostracized by their communities, to being persecuted, jailed, or even hacked to death, as with the Bangladeshi secular bloggers. These people are atheist in thought, but Muslim in appearance. They are all living a contradictory existence.

  • Summary: 

    Anyone who doubted that the accusation of Islamophobia is used to silence perfectly legitimate political debate will surely change their minds as a result of the Trump / Sadiq spat. In the rush to brand Trump an Islamophobe and a racist merely because he criticised Sadiq Khan’s response to terror attacks, Labour and its media cheerleaders have exposed how much of a conceit the phobia accusation is, how cynical it is, and that it really serves no other purpose than to shush unpopular opinions by slurring them as bigoted.

  • Summary: 

    The Met may make appeal to the definition of the , but there is a world of difference between a think-tank developing guidelines for community and fraternity, and an agency of law enforcement incorporating these definitions into a definition of criminal activity. How many police officers are aware of the history of Islam? How many grasp the theology of the long-prophesied Caliphate? How many understand the theo-political differences and divergences between ? (May one say ‘theo-political’ or does that fall foul of equating the religion with a political ideology?) Is  an expression of Islam? If so, how can it be Islamophobic to articulate the bald truth of its violent, aggressive “clash of civilisations” theological genesis and political nature? Doesn’t the Met understand the fundamental difference between abusing Muslims and criticising a religion; between being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam? Why have they adopted a sharia-compliant definition of ‘Islamophobia’, and not one which is informed by the superior enlightened approach to religion which is a hallmark of Western civilisation and founded upon the fundamental freedom of religion?

     

  • Country: 
    Bangladesh
    News Date: 
    02/05/2016
    Summary: 

    In 2015, five secular bloggers were killed in separate attacks. Each incident sparked headlines and outrage, but the grim toll has continued into this year. Ever since a hit list of secularists was published in 2013, fringe Islamist groups have made it known that bloggers and secular activists who speak out against religion or in favor of atheism will be under threat. This has been compounded by the inability of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's government to rein in extremist violence in a country with a long history of extrajudicial murder and impunity.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    29/06/2018
    Summary: 

    A chronicle of a society in its death throes: Lord Pearson asks if “Her Majesty’s Government whether, in pursuit of their anti-terrorism strategy,” will “require preaching in mosques and teaching in madrassas in England and Wales to be monitored for hate speech against non-Muslims.”

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    03/06/2018
    Summary: 

    Liberals and leftists in the West use the made up term "Islamophobia" to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a "racist". Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks "in the name of Allah". They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran. Islamophobia is a made up word created by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically to silence debate. 

  • Summary: 

    The exchange between Steve and Anni is crucial for us to highlight and examine, because the accusations and slanders that Steve hurled at Anni are the key falsehoods and smears that hate groups like CAIR and SPLC hurl at her and at other truth-tellers and freedom fighters. These malicious libels and slanders are at the core of the Jihad Denial that is now controlling our culture and its boundaries of discourse. And it is precisely this denial that clouds the threat we face in the terror war -- and pushes what propels it into invisibility.

    Because Jihad Denial achieves this destructive feat, it disables our civilization from making a proper threat assessment. It prevents us, therefore, from gauging clearly what is actually killing us and, therefore, from properly defending ourselves against it. The Jihad Denial practiced , after all, enabled and  on our territory, such as the San Bernardino, Orlando and Boston Marathon Jihadist massacres -- which could have  if the Obama administration had allowed our intelligence agencies to make a proper threat assessment, .

    Thus, what we see in this  between Anni and Steve very much reflects the core of our battle against the Unholy Alliance, for we witness the lies and deceptions that the enemy uses to smear the heroes trying to protect our civilization and to blur the truth -- so that our vision is blinded and our ability to act decapitated.

Pages

Subscribe to Free-Speech