Our effort to defend against Islamic terrorism has been cut off at the knees by a thought crime known as Islamophobia: a dislike of, criticism of, or prejudice against Islam or Muslims. Where did Islamophobia come from? “Islamic law,” observes author and activist Pamela Geller, “considers any critical examination of Islam to be blasphemous and subject to the death penalty.” The term Islamophobia was invented in the 1990s by a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to export Islamic blasphemy laws to the West. Muslim writer Abdur-Rahman Muhammad reveals the original intent behind the concept: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”
Islamophobia is classic political correctness. You don’t have to deal with the substance of arguments against Islamic extremism. All you have to do is label critics a cluster of “Islamophobes.” If this lie prevails, we become infinitely more vulnerable to terrorism and the negative impact of Islam because we are afraid to talk about them. As a manipulation, it has been highly effective.
Here is an example of what is described as Islamophobia: British author and journalist Douglas Murray said, “Less Islam in general is a good thing. It is not worth continuing to risk our own security simply in order to try to be politically correct.” Murray echoes the sentiment succinctly expressed by Mark Steyn, author of the prophetic America Alone: “The choice is liberty or mass Muslim immigration.” Steyn has warned about the correlation between large numbers of Muslim immigrants and the proliferation of terrorist attacks against Western values. Germany, England and France have opened their borders to hordes of Muslim immigrants and the reward has been disruption of their societies. Poland and the Czech Republic “have very few Muslims so they don’t have terrorism,” notes Steyn.
Murray has been vilified as an Islamophobe by Miqdaad Versi of the Muslim Council of Britain on the grounds that Murray and those like him are spreading hate. Anyone who criticizes Islam, says Versi, is “spreading hate” and is a “hate preacher.” Islamophobia is used in this way to defame and silence anyone who tries to combat the problem of Islamic terrorism. The UK and other European countries have bought into this nonsense by criminalizing “hate speech.” Islam has won its first significant battle against Western values with the suicidal collaboration of Western governments.
Versi and his Muslim apologists have it all backwards. Murray is not spreading hate—he is criticizing the hateful ideology and acts of terror that are the calling cards of Islam. When you denounce Islam for its intolerance, misogyny, and glorification of violence, that does not make you a spreader of hate. It makes you a critic of the most hateful ideology on the planet. The question is, do we support Murray’s critique as an expression of free speech? In a free society, the answer must be a resounding YES.
