No Free Speech in Islam

· Islam, Writing:Publishing:Posting


“Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair-Islam) or remain silent.”[Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.] Evidence of Muhammad’s “Political Correctness.”


The Islamic perception of Freedom of Speech is quite different from that in the Western Judeo-Christian world. Islam believes that:

Allah, the creator of the world and of man, gave man the right to speak and thus “Allah has the ‘absolute authority’ to set the limits of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable” in Allah’s view.”Allah had the absolute authority to set the limits of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable” in Allah’s views.

In accordance to Islamic Law (Sharia), it is a criminal offence to speak ill of Islam, Islam’s Prophet, and Islam’s Holy Scriptures (Quran and Hadiths.) Blasphemy suffers the penalty of death. i.e.,

A Sharia Law:

14a*- Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims/Islam. However, Muslim can curse, criticise or say anything derogatory they like to the religions of all others.

London Demonstration
London Demonstration after Danish Cartoons
The Messenger of Allah, the Prophet Muhammad said, “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.” [Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.]  Hadith by Abu Huraira No.15
Khair in this hadith means Islam or what Islam approves of.[Hizb ut-Tahrir, ‘American Campaign to Suppress Islam,’ p. 23]

This has been the guiding principle for all Muslims, “Speak good of Islam or remain silent.” So sacred is this respect for Islam that it manifests itself in so many ways in everyday life. Thus, Muslims go ballistics when a kafir dares to slur Islam.

Muhammad had said to his followers “Whoever curses a prophet kill him,” (Tabarani, Daraqutni)[3] and there are many examples of people during his time who were guilty of blaspheming Islam and its Prophet. Most of these people were assassinated with Muhammad’s blessing, and no punishment or compensation was imposed on the murderer.

SAHIH MUSLIM BK 18 Chapter 3:


Book 018, Number 4255:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily Allah likes three things for you and He disapproves three things for you. He is pleased with you that you worship Him and associate nor anything with Him, that you hold fast the rope of Allah, and be not scattered; and He (Allah) disapproves of you irrelevant talk, persistent questioning and the wasting of wealth.


Book 018, Number 4257:

Mughira b. Shu’ba reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verity Allah, the Glorious and Majestic, has forbidden for you: disobedience to mothers, and burying alive daughters, withholding the right of others in spite of having the power to return that to them and demanding that (which is not one’s legitimate right). And He disapproved three things for you; irrelevant talk, persistent questioning and wasting of wealth.

Book 018, Number 4259:

Sha’bi reported that the scribe of al-Mughira b. Shu’ba said: Mu’awiya wrote to Mughira: Write for me something which you heard from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ; and he wrote: I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying. Verily Allah disapproves three thingq for you: irrelevant talk, wasting of wealth and persistent questioning.

Book 018, Number 4260:

Warrad reported that al-Mughira wrote to Mu’awiya: Peace be upon you, and then coming to the poirt (I should say) that I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily Allah has Prohibited three things and has forbidden three things. He has declared absolutely haram the disobedience of father, burying of daughters alive, and withholding that which you have power to return, and has forbidden three things: irrelevant talk, persistent questioning, and wasting of wealth.

Further Examples of Intolerance of Criticism of Islam

  • Abu `Afak – Muhammad asked his followers to kill this man for making negative remarks about Muhammad and Islam.
  • Ka’b bin Ashraf – Muhammad asked his followers to kill this man for writing inflammatory poetry about Muhammad and Muslim women.
  • Asma Bint Marwan – Muhammad asked his followers to kill this woman for composing inflammatory poetry about Islam and Muslims.
  • Blind Man’s Slave-Mother – When Muhammad learned that one of his followers had stabbed and killed his slave (other sources refer to her as a freed concubine: Umm walad) for making derogatory remarks about Muhammad, he declared that “no retaliation is payable for her blood.
  • Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith – Al Nadir, a storyteller and poet who had mocked him. He was a prisoner of war who was not allowed to be ransomed by their clans and was executed on Muhammad’s orders.


[In Islamic Fiqh] there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions…Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law

The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah
Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, February 6, 2006
“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion. 

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama’ and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.[4]

Qadi ‘Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi
According to Ayatullah al-Khu’i, it is incumbent (wajib) to kill one who insults or calumniates the Prophet when one hears the insults provided there is no danger to his self, reputation or wealth. Agha also extends this ruling to cover insults against the Imams and Bibi Fatima (A.S.). It is not essential to get the permission of a Hakim al-Shar’ to carry out the act.

Islamic law on Blasphemy
Dr. Takim, ‘Aalim Network QR, December 8, 1995
In Islam, a person who has committed blasphemy can either be killed or crucified, or his opposite hands and feet can be cut off, or he can be exiled from that land. On the other hand, in other religions there is no other option except capital punishment. Islam at least has four options of punishment for an act of blasphemy.

Question Hour: Ruling for Blasphemy in Islam
Dr. Zakir Naik, Islamic Voice, April, 2006
The Islamic state does have the right to punish the person who commits blasphemy against the Prophet.[5]

Asif Iftikhar, PhD student of Islamic Law at McGill and a visiting faculty member at LUMS and Pakistan College of Law
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) discussed this matter at length and mentioned the ruling on one who tells lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally, the ruling on one who tells lies about him in a report and the ruling on one who narrates a hadeeth knowing it to be false. He was of the view that the one who tells lies about him verbally is a kaafir. He said in al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘Ala Shaatim il-Rasool (2/328-399), after quoting the hadeeth of Buraydah:

A clan of Banu Layth in Madeenah was of two minds. A man had proposed marriage to one of their womenfolk during the Jaahiliyyah but they did not accept his proposal. He came to them wearing a hullah (a suit of clothing) and said: “The Messenger of Allaah gave me this hullah to wear and told me to rule over your wealth and your blood.” Then he went and stayed with that woman whom he loved. The people sent word to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “The enemy of Allaah is lying.” Then he sent a man and said: “If you find him alive – although I do not think that you will find him alive – then strike his neck (kill him). And if you find him dead then burn him with fire.” He said: This is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning “one who tells lies about me deliberately.” Shaykh al-Islam said: “This is a saheeh isnaad according to the conditions of al-Saheeh and we do not find any fault in it.” Then he said: There are two opinions concerning this hadeeth:
1 – That the apparent meaning should be followed and the one who deliberately tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be killed. Among those who were of this view were some who said that the one who does that becomes a kaafir thereby. This was the view of several including Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni. Ibn ‘Aqeel quoted his Shaykh, Abu’l-Fadl al-Hamdaani, as saying: “The innovators, liars and fabricators of hadeeth are worse than the heretics because the heretics want to attack Islam from without but these people want to attack it from within. They are like people who try to destroy a city from within whilst the heretics are like those who are laying siege to it from without, and those who are inside open up the fortress. So they are more dangerous to Islam than those who do not appear outwardly to be Muslims.” The main point of this opinion is that telling lies about him (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) is tantamount to telling lies about Allaah. Hence he said: “Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about one of you.” What the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded is what Allaah commanded, and it must be followed just as the commands of Allaah must be followed. Whatever he told us must be believed, just as whatever Allaah told us must be believed. Whoever rejects what he told us or refuses to follow his command is like one who rejects what Allaah told us or refuses to follow the command of Allaah. It is well known that the one who tells lies about Allaah by claiming to be a messenger or prophet of Allaah, or tells false things about Allaah, such as Musaylimah and other fabricators of his ilk, is a kaafir whose blood may be shed, and the same applies to one who tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Thus it is clear that telling lies about him is tantamount to disbelieving in him. Hence Allaah mentions the two things together in the verse where He says (interpretation of the meaning): “And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allaah or denies the truth, when it comes to him?” [al-‘Ankaboot 29:68]

2 – The liar is to be punished severely, but he is not regarded as a kaafir and it is not permissible to kill him, because the factors that determine who is a kaafir and is to be killed are well known and this is not one of them. It is not permissible to affirm something for which there is no basis. Whoever says that he is not to be executed has to stipulate that telling lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not imply any criticism or defamation of him. But if he says that he heard him say something that implies belittling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or criticizing him, such as the hadeeth about “the sweat of horses” and other such silly fabrications, this is obviously mocking him, and the one who says this is undoubtedly a kaafir whose blood may be shed. Those who were of the view that such a person is not to be executed responded to this hadeeth by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) knew that he was a hypocrite so he killed him for that and not for lying, but this answer does not count for anything.

Defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a kind of kufr. If that is done by a Muslim then it is apostasy on his part, and the authorities have to defend the cause of Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by executing the one who defamed him. If the one who defamed him repents openly and is sincere, that will benefit him before Allaah, although his repentance does not waive the punishment for defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is execution. If the person who defames him is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed, but that should be left to the authorities. If a Muslim hears a Christian or anyone else defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he has to denounce him in strong terms. It is permissible to insult that person because he is the one who started it. How can we not stand up the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadd punishment of Allaah and stand up for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then the Muslim has to do whatever he can, so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people. But if a Muslim hears a kaafir defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he keeps quiet and does not respond for fear that this person may then defame him even more, this is mistaken thinking.

It is essential to respond to those who defame the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak, Majallat al-Da’wah, Muharram, issue no. 1933. Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 14305
If a Muslim commits blasphemy against the Prophet , this is an act of disbelief which takes him out of the fold of Islam. Allaah Says (what means): {Make no excuse; you have disbelieved [i.e. rejected faith] after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you—We will punish another faction because they were criminals.}[Quran 9:66] If joking is considered as an act of apostasy, then it is more confirmed for one who is saying it intentionally. If the blasphemer does not repent, he should be killed for his apostasy. However, if he sincerely repents to Allaah, Allaah will accept his repentance. Repentance expiates all sins, even Shirk (associating partners to Allaah). Allaah Knows best.

Blasphemy against the Prophet is an act of apostasy
Islam Web Fatwa Center, Fatwa No. 17316, December 11, 2007
Whoever Curses the Prophet Peace and Blessings be Upon him, Muslim or Kafir, Must be Killed.

“The general scholars agreed that whoever curses him, Peace and Blessings be upon him, must be killed. This was stated by Malik, Al-Layth, Ahmad, Ishaaq, and Ash-Shafi’ee, and Nu’man (Abu Hanifa) said that the Dhimmi (Jizya-paying non-Muslim) is not to be killed.”

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir.

Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735

Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 14231[1]

All the above highlights the significance of the importance of the sacred views Muslims have adopted for the respect of Islam and kafir should bear this in mind when referring to all aspects of Islam. It also illustrates why Muslims will not tolerate any slurs or insults to Islam. It also illustrates why Muslims are confined within the rules and commands of Islam and will not exceed its bounds for fear of violating some of these tenets. This inhibits Muslim’s intellectual curiosity about the whole ideology of Islam and this in turn inhibits his scientific intellectual curiosity because of this conditioning.

Whosoever believes in Allah then let him speak good (khair-Islam) or remain silent.

This command is a part of Islamic tenet. No Muslim will dare speak bad or evil about Islam for to do so is committing blasphemy. It is a part of the Islamic culture and they expect all to abide by it, even kafir.

Before the end of WWII there were hardly any Muslims living in the West. The usage of “political correctness” was unheard of. But since the end of WWII the massive of influx of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe, with unregulated immigration rules mostly due to European Union pressures, Muslim immigrants brought with them their inflexible religion and culture, that altered the vocabulary, the language and the behaviour of the native residents in order to accommodate Muslim demands for equal rights. What tipped the scales to force Western politicians to take the demands of the Muslims seriously and to start to appease them was (1) The massacre of almost 3000 innocent people on 11th September, 2001 in New York with the destruction of the Twin Towers, and (2) The series of Bombs set off in the London Underground on July 7th, 2005 when 56 people were killed and 700 injured, and subsequent violent demonstrations in all the major cities of Europe.

These two acts alone emphasised this:
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'”

“We Muslims do not fear death, because Allah will reward us for our martyrdom.”

Muslims the world over were emboldened by the fact that what their Prophet Muhammad said is true, “Terror instilled fear and respect among the infidels for all Muslims. So much so that they now speak of Islam with the greatest of respect.” 9/11 and 7/7 was a “victory for Islam.”

Western European Governments went into a defensive role: appeasement, political correctness in press and media and any utterances of politicians, and the public. It was essential for Western governments to buy time till they could find a way to stem the tide of violence and possible anarchy. The West was forced to concede to the demands of Islam to the extent that we had to alter our diction, how and what we said in public, and in fact curtailed our Freedom of Speech in order not to challenge the Muslim population of Europe. Britain’s Muslim amounted to about 2% of the population. 98% had to soft pedal to the 2%. But with time, some of the native population have begun to demand their rights of Freedom of Speech to be restored once more and are now more outspoken, unwilling to bow down to threats of  intimidation and violence.

With the European Union policy of assimilation of immigrants, regardless of culture, and the misconceived wave of Christian goodwill of liberalism, secularisation, and multiculturalism, and a borderless Europe, The European Union have in effect allowed the uncontrolled invasion of alien cultures that will not and cannot be assimilated into the European culture but intends to dominate it. Islam is a totalitarian supremacist doctrine that intends to take over and rule wherever they are able to dominate to create the Dar al Islam, the ultimate Islamic Caliphate. This fact is not understood now dawned upon European Parliamentarians yet.

It has become very clear that despite the small percentage of Muslims in European countries, they wield an disproportionally  large voice in European psyche and politics. In fact, they are dictating how Europeans may speak of  Islam, that is, with the same respect as described above (for Muslims) and imposing it on the European way of life, through insistence and intimidation.

For example, when a member of the House of Lords invited the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is currently facing prosecution in the Netherlands for his outspoken analysis of the Islamist war on civilisation, to screen his controversial film ‘Fitna’ in the Lords on January 29, 2009, and discuss his views, Lord Ahmed, a Muslim member of the House of Lords issued a threat that he would personally mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the Upper House and would take the peer organising the event to court. In the face of such threats, the Home Secretary refused Geert Wilders permission to enter Britain and he was turned back at Heathrow Airport. The meeting was cancelled. A shameful and humiliating episode. Later Lord Ahmed boasted of his victory in the Pakistani media. The Associated Press of Pakistan  reported him exulting in:

“a victory for the Muslim community.”

(Update: Lord Ahmed has been in touch to deny that he ever issued such a threat)

It was of course a major defeat for Parliament’s sovereign right and duty to protect free speech, the right to issue an invitation to a democratically elected member of a European parliament, and the right of British citizens to live without intimidation. It was an appalling development. It clearly illustrates the aggressive, domineering and demanding nature of the Muslim community in Britain, that even with  only about 2.7% of the population of Great Britain the Muslims are able to hold the country to ransom. It also illustrates the lack of self respect and integrity of the British government at the time.[2]
Here are some statistics based on PEW survey in 2009.

 Muslim Population, numbers
Percent of Muslim of Total
 Belgium                                      281,000                      3
 Denmark                                         28,000                      2
 Finland                                         24,000                      0.2
 France                                    3,554,000                      6
 Germany                                    4,026,000                      4
 Luxemburg                                         13,000                      3
 Netherlands                                       946,000                      5.7
 Norway                                         65,000                      1
 Spain                                       650,000                      1
 United Kingdom
                                                                                                 1,647,000                      2.7
 United States of America
                                   2,454,000                      0.8
 Europe                                   38,000,000                      5.2
 Americas                                     4,500,000                      0.5
 Asia Pacific
                                973,000,000                     24.1
 World    [3]                              1,571,000,000                     22.9

Islam and freedom of speech

By Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and head of the Freedom Party. In 2008 he released “Fitna,” a controversial film about the Koran and jihadist violence. Wilders was condemned as an anti-Muslim agitator but also hailed as a defender of Western values and free speech. In January, a Dutch court ordered Wilders prosecuted for allegedly inciting hatred against Islam. Last month he was invited to screen “Fitna” at Westminster, but the British government barred him from entering the country. He was recently interviewed by Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, who prepared the following edited excerpts:

Q: You’ve said that England today is more Chamberlain than Churchill. Explain what you mean.

A: Well, Chamberlain was the biggest appeaser to a totalitarian ideology called fascism. Now we face the threat of another totalitarian ideology called Islam, at least according to me. And instead of defending our freedom, defending our values, when I was invited a few weeks ago to show “Fitna” in the House of Lords, they denied me entry to the United Kingdom.

Q: The letter from the British home secretary said: “Your statements about Muslims and their beliefs . . . would threaten community harmony, and therefore public security, in the UK.”

A: What really happened is that she was pressured. In the English press, there was a lot of news that Lord Ahmed [Nazir Ahmed, a British peer] threatened to have 10,000 Muslims demonstrating in front of Westminster.

Q: If you were allowed into the country.

A: Yes. And this is what I meant by Chamberlain. The UK government is giving in, appeasing the enemy. They should stand up and say: We might not like the political view of this guy, but he should be allowed to come here and say it.

Q: In the film, you show quotations from the Koran, together with video of statements and actions by Muslim extremists.

A: Exactly. I used reality. It was really made by radical Muslims themselves. I just combined the pictures with the source. If they don’t like the movie, they don’t like what they do themselves. At the end of “Fitna,” it talks about Islamic ideology – that we should defeat the threat of Islamic ideology. For that to not be allowed in the United Kingdom, to be prosecuted in my own country, is an absolute outrage.

Q: A few weeks ago at a demonstration in Amsterdam, people were yelling, “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas.” Was there any prosecution of that type of speech?

A: This is the double standard: If you are a radical Muslim imam, and during your Friday prayer – this happened in the Netherlands – they said that Shariah should be installed, gays should be thrown from high buildings, women should be beaten up – terrible things. Sometimes the prosecutors brought them to trial, but they were always acquitted, because [of] freedom of religion. Now somebody like me stands up and says, “Hey, this is wrong,” and I’m being brought to court.

Q: This month is the 20th anniversary of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Back then, the West pretty much defended Rushdie. Yet now, 20 years later, you’re banned from Britain, prosecuted in your country. What accounts for such a different response?

A: What’s happened is that the cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal, that Islam is just another leaf on the tree – and that everybody who says different is a xenophobe or racist. Within Europe, Muslims today have enormous political force. They all vote, and they’re represented by mostly leftist parties.

Q: You say: “I don’t hate Muslims; I hate Islam.” Is there really any difference?

A: I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life – economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book – but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values.

Q: What do you say to scholars of Islam like Daniel Pipes, who argues that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution? Why should one accept what Geert Wilders says about Islam, rather than someone like Pipes?

A: I respect Daniel Pipes, but I fully disagree. There is no moderate Islam. It’s like the [prime minister] of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, said himself recently: There is only one taste of Islam, and that is the taste of the Koran.

Q: But he’s an Islamist. You would expect him to say that. What about anti-Islamist Muslims, Muslims who reject the radicals?

A: Listen, the Koran is seen by Muslims, unlike all the other religions, as the word of God that can never be criticized. If you criticize the Koran, you are a renegade, an apostate. There are people who are moderate and call themselves Muslim. But moderate Islam is totally nonexistent. It will never have an Enlightenment as happened with Christianity.

Q: Why not?

A: Because unlike the interpretations of other holy books, Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God and can never be changed.

Q: Hold on – the New Testament today is the same New Testament as a thousand years ago. What’s different is the way that book is read and understood. A thousand years ago, one could have said Christianity was a violent, militant religion; today one wouldn’t.

A: Yes, there was a change in Christianity. It was possible because Christians don’t believe that the Bible is literally the word of God – not like the Koran. If you really believe [the Koran] is the word of God, it will never have room to change.

Q: But why couldn’t there be a movement within Islam that would say, “Yes, the Koran says X, Y, and Z, and it has been interpreted violently by violent people, but we give it a different interpretation”?

A: Then they are not Muslims anymore.

Q: How do you decide whether they are Muslims anymore?

A: I am not deciding. It’s the Koran that’s saying it.

Q: What Christians did at the time of the Inquisition was what Christianity was then; Christianity today has become something different.

A: Your premises are totally wrong. Islam is not a religion. Islam is an ideology. You keep comparing it to Christianity, Judaism. It’s not. It’s an ideology that wants to dominate every aspect of society. I know billions of people believe it’s a religion. I don’t.

Q: Is there any difference in your view between Islam and Islamism?

A: Islam and Islamism, it’s exactly the same.

Q: With an outlook like this, don’t you effectively exclude any Muslim from being an ally?

A: I am not excluding anybody. I don’t even want Muslims from the Netherlands to leave my country. I’m not a [Jean-Marie] Le Pen. I want to help people be educated, be part of our society, get a job, respect our values. But it can never be possible on the basis of their violent ideology called Islam.

Q: Doesn’t that contradict your defense of free speech?

A: Holland is not an Islamic country. I wouldn’t want to have a system like in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Their ideology [says] to beat women, to kill Jews, to kill homosexuals. You can say, “Well, isn’t that freedom of speech?” I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line – incitement of violence.

Q: You’ve said that under Dutch law, the Koran should be banned. Were you being rhetorical, or did you mean it literally?

A: I meant it. But you have to know the Dutch context for that. In the ’70s, “Mein Kampf” was banned, and the left was so pleased. I am now proposing a ban on a book that is even worse than “Mein Kampf.” And I’m not the first one – Winston Churchill compared “Mein Kampf” to the Koran in the 1950s.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say “Mein Kampf” shouldn’t be banned, the Koran shouldn’t be banned; books shouldn’t be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they’re hateful ideas – the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?

A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q: Do you think that multiculturalism and freedom of speech are ultimately incompatible?

A: No, Islam and freedom of speech are incompatible. Cultural relativism makes it difficult to fight, because cultural relativism says that Islam is the same as Christianity. Europe is being Islamized very, very quickly. In our prisons, we have a mark in every cell indicating the direction of Mecca. In Holland! I can give you 500 examples. People are getting beaten up on the streets of Amsterdam and Brussels for drinking water during Ramadan. We should have a sense of urgency.

Q: What do you say to Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser? He is an American, a former Navy officer, a doctor. After 9/11, he was so horrified by what was done in the name of Islam that he founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy: pro-American, pro-democracy, anti-violence, anti-Islamist. How do you answer Muslims like him, who say: “I love my religion. I also love freedom, democracy, Western values. I believe in separation of mosque and state. But how can I be an ally with someone who says my religion itself is evil?”

A: Well, I would tell him I wish there were more people like you. It didn’t happen. I would not agree with [Dr. Jasser] about Islam, but I wish there were more like him. [4]



Today we have been made so conscious of “political correctness” (PC) that everyone fears violating the codes of “political correctness” for fear of being branded a racist, a sexist, or homophobe, or anti-semitic, or Islamophone. Pick up any newspaper today in Europe and you will notice that no politician, clergy, or media dares to utter words that did not conform to “political correctness.” Because to do so would be professional suicide. But what is “political correctness?”

Main Entry: politically correct
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: socially acceptable
Synonyms: PC, PC, considerate, diplomatic, gender-free, inclusive, inoffensive, liberal, multicultural, multiculturally sensitive, nondiscriminatory, nonracist, nonsexist, politic, political correctness, political views bias-free, respectful, sensitive, sensitive to other
Main Entry: goody-goody
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: straight-laced
Synonyms: God-fearing, PC, Puritan, Victorian, goody two-shoes, holier-than-thou, moral, nice, pious, politically correct , priggish, prissy, prudish, self-righteous, unctuous, virtuous

Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

There are many views about political correctness and many applications, so let us consider some of them.

Political Correctness, The Official Truth, and Anti-intellectualism: A Dangerous Mix

Published by Sondra Deuber on July 20, 2010 in World Politics
A brief look at the origins and objectives of Political Correctness: “…developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfort, Germany” in the 1920s; “…a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing, and destroying our society.” The potential threat is formidable when considered with the new “official truth” and anti-intellectualism.

When I set out to write an article on Political Correctness a couple of years ago, I intended it to be a rant on all that I found offensive about PC. As my awareness of its spread increased, I got angry. And when I recently did some additional research, my anger began to turn into fear.

Political Correctness has a much longer history and wider reach than I could have imagined. Most writers agree that the modern version started in Germany in the early 1920s as a mind-control tool for selling particular agendas to an unquestioning public.

From Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times, by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton. Monday, April 8, 2002.

…It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn’t communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

And from the same source:

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

An article on Wikipedia evidently disagrees on the date and origin. Based on several other articles, it might be more accurate to say that in the 1980s, the American right seized on the concept and adapted it to their own use, rather than having developed it. Most agree that it dates back at least to Marxist times:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism… What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism — by levelling [sic] the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents — they could discredit the whole political project.

I’m an independent who, between elections at least, remains a centrist while studying the candidates and listening to their arguments. I believe that some of us who remain independent may be more likely to recognize and fight back against mind control. The right has had some success discrediting liberalism with those who are susceptible. The “liberal media” constantly reminds us how the actual truth differs from the PC version, and keeps us laughing and shaking our heads at the ridiculous departures from rational thinking that seem to be the platform of those on the most extreme conservative right.

Marching in lockstep… or not
Many on the right, or at least their public personae, appear to follow orders better than we centrists and lefties do. Somebody (yet to be identified with any certainty) decides what the party line will be, distributes the talking points, and expects their candidates to recite them whenever questioned on a particular subject. They are in lockstep most of the time. Not only that, but the same presidential candidates run over and over again, until it’s their turn to be supported by the party. On the left, they try hard to influence us, but usually in more subtle (or rational) ways. And while the lefties certainly have their own talking points, I hear them recited verbatim somewhat less frequently.

Adaptability vs. rigidity
The news is my worst and least enjoyable ‘addiction.’ But enjoyable or not, it’s rarely boring, especially when my antennae pick up a tidbit I hear only once before it vanishes forever. One of those happened a couple of election cycles ago when a media pundit attributed the whole “swift-boating” thing to Karl Rove. Rove’s strategy for G. W. Bush, when he was the governor of Texas and when he was president, was to identify Bush’s opponents’ strongest assets, and lie outrageously about them to turn them into liabilities.

Remember John Kerry? They seized on his perfectly honorable military record and convinced enough people that it was all lies and exaggerations to defeat him in 2004. He was accused of flip-flopping. To my thinking, that’s a plus: people who express an opinion, then change their minds as they receive new, relevant information… those people are actively using their brains and adapting their thinking to include the latest ‘evidence.’ Those who take a position and stick to it forever, despite new facts… Well, those people scare the living daylights out of me.

They may simply fear change: if it worked a hundred years ago for grandpa, it will work just as well now for them. Their minds are often closed to new and better ideas. They appear to abhor any kind of progress (other than iPhones, OnStar, and laptop computers). If they can’t open their minds, if they refuse to think, then they will believe almost anything a clever “leader” (I use the word advisedly) cares to stuff into their heads, assuming that it supports their own archaic beliefs.

Not long after the 2008 election, the Republicans stated clearly that their main objective would be to discredit President Obama and destroy his administration. No research necessary: they have demonstrated their commitment by blocking every bill that might make the President look good. Granted, not all of the end-results have been entirely to our liking, but each has had enough positive changes to get the support necessary to pass it, with a tiny bit of help from a couple of people on the right.

Another goal, according to some political analysts, was to regain control of the government and keep it permanently. Assuming that’s true, their method seems to be to block Obama’s recovery plans to ensure that we do not recover from a serious recession—individually or as a nation—or possibly to even push us into a deep, 1930s-style depression. Then they’ll take over as the party permanently in power, reverse the catastrophe in a month or two, and create their version of Utopia—controlled forever by a single party of wise leaders (themselves). Sounds more like tyranny than democracy to me. Happily, there are a few senators and representatives on the right who are brave souls with consciences, willing to risk their political futures, to actually do what they were elected to do—represent the interests of their constituents. They have voted for and helped pass important, if flawed, legislation with enough benefits to make the risks worthwhile.

The threat
Now let’s assume that Political Correctness is a real threat as a mind/thought control tool. And let us consider that at least a sizable portion of the population doesn’t read the news; couldn’t explain the difference between a Socialist and a Nazi if you gave them printed definitions (available in a dictionary near you); will believe as gospel 90% of what their preachers tell them and 98% of the most off-the-charts cable TV rants and raves… And you’ve potentially got a heap of trouble, the kind that can seriously threaten our freedom and the future of our country.

Just for fun, let’s add another trend to the mix—public education. Today’s system has its origins early in the Industrial Revolution and was intended to provide basic skills for formerly rural populations to prepare them to work in urban settings in the new industrial economy. They had to be able to read, write, and do simple math. They didn’t need to be leaders or managers; just read; follow instructions; make change or count inventories; and write basic reports.

Our educational system has been moving back toward that basic level for years. We have reached a level occupied in the past by third-world countries, in literacy, math, and science. Our dropout rate surpasses countries labeled as “third world” not long ago. The education system has failed us miserably, and anti-intellectualism is on the rise. However, the failing system is very possibly creating a whole new audience who could be more likely to buy into the PC official truths of the extreme right.

Intellect is defined in my dictionary as, among other things, “the ability to reason or understand or to perceive relationships, differences, etc.: power of thought; mind” and “minds of intelligent persons, collectively.”

In the simplest terms, anti-intellectualism and its too-visible signs means that many people may be proud of not having the ability to reason, understand, or perceive relationships and differences. This over-simplification assumes, of course, that they could define or understand the meaning of “intellect.”

We are no longer taught that there are consequences for our actions. Add to that the growing anti-intellectualism and a susceptibility to various levels of thought control and you have created something approaching a perfect storm for our country.

Today, an increasing number of people deal with their anger and frustration with physical violence, to punish anyone who may have offended them or questioned their intelligence, competence, religion, etc. I have been alarmed in the recent past by the rising numbers of militant groups ready to take up arms against not just the government, but the American people—at least any who disagree with them. Some Republican, Tea Party, and Libertarian candidates appear to support the idea of a second Civil War. I doubt the militias could win: no matter how well equipped or well trained they are, the federal government still has more power, bigger guns, and more money.

And that’s another bit of irony. We have been in two prolonged wars in the Middle East; one motive for invading and occupying those countries is presumably to keep the fighting from happening in the U.S. I guess that privilege is reserved for those of our citizens who can’t wait to start their own war right here. Civil War I had many complex issues: slavery, economics, and the threat of secession by primarily southern states. If there is a Civil War II, I think it would be primarily a religious, racial, and political war.

Let’s imagine that the extreme right wins (and permanently retains) total power and carries out even the most insane of the policies they’ve proposed. There would no longer be any question about the form of our new government. I could speculate on a hundred things they might do if they had absolute and permanent power. All they would need to do is control the distribution of the basics required to sustain life, and a few basic services necessary to protect the country.

The American people are more intelligent than some give us credit for. Some may be gullible, but that’s very different from being stupid. It won’t take us long to understand the real agenda of the new rulers. Unless the new regime quickly obliterates the Second Amendment and forcibly relieves us of our firearms, they could find themselves on the wrong end of the gun barrels in short order.

This is merely creative speculation about one worst-case-scenario, based almost entirely on the ranting and raving of a few of those the liberal media loves to refer to as wing nuts, psychos, or worse. And despite the racial and ethnic bigotry some deny exists, it is a factor. Race is, and always will be a source of fear: we instinctively fear and dislike anyone whose appearance or language or culture is different from ours. It takes a long time to understand that we need not fear people with certain physical characteristics. We would do better to fear what some of those who most resemble us physically could inflict on us.

Damned foreigners
My fantasy “what if” trip led me to think about how much of our lives—traditions, food, music, and even our language—are the result of foreign influences. Thinking only about the influence music has had on our culture… back in the bad old days (musically speaking), we swooned over Eddie Fisher singing “Oh My Papa.” Eventually, some white American musicians heard their first Rhythm & Blues, and their first jazz.

They imitated the black musicians who brought us these gifts; expanded and changed the Rhythm & Blues to Rock ‘n Roll, which evolved into all of today’s variations of music started by slaves working in the fields of our founding fathers. Think how different the ‘real America’ would be if just that one ‘foreign’ influence was eradicated from our culture, never mind the Mexican or Chinese food we love so much, the end of our Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day excuses for parties, a large percentage of our language, and a thousand other things we’ve incorporated into our culture.

My advice? Make sure you fully understand what your candidates of choice are actually saying. Decide for yourself whether they are saying it just to win your vote or if (Heaven forbid!) they not only believe what they’re saying, but really want to do it. Look at their voting records. If they’re trying to stuff nonsense into your brain, reject them. If they’re sincere and you understand and like the potential results, vote for them.

My hope: the Republican party will finally recognize (or possibly even learn, depending on the outcome of the 2010 election) that there are more intelligent, thinking people in the country than there are automatons whose thinking they can control. Perhaps they’ll learn that working to solve serious problems will ultimately win them more votes than making their main goal the total destruction of the present administration. If they succeed and carry out the policies they tell you they espouse, we might find our country much worse off than it was in the Great Depression. If they really believe that plunging the country into total chaos is what it takes, so be it. They will have regained power and that, after all, is what really counts. Isn’t it? [5]

Although some Europeans attribute “political correctness” to the German art of brain-washing her citizens in the 1920’s, “political correctness” is a much more ancient art than that. This is the proof that “political correctness” was practised in the 7th century and has continued to be used to the 21st century:

The Messenger of Allah, the Prophet Muhammad said, “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, then let him speak good (khair) or remain silent.” [Agreed upon. Narrated by Abu Hurayra.]

October 18, 2010

Geert Wilders and the Rise of Islamic Correctness

By Andrew G. Bostom

Islamic correctness, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam, is a rising force in the world, and not merely in Muslim-majority countries. Even in traditionally tolerant Holland, a combination of misguided liberal multiculturalism and a fear of violence from immigrants has led to a sometimes farcical prosecution.

This past Friday (10/15/10), Dutch prosecutors asked the presiding judges to acquit Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders on all charges of inciting hate and discrimination arising from his comments on Islam.
Wilders was unsurprisingly “very happy” with the prosecutors’ recommendations, adding with his usual plainspoken lucidity, “I do not insult, I do not incite to hatred, I do not discriminate. The only thing I do and will continue to do is to speak the truth.”
However, former U.S. federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy underscores an important caveat regarding the presiding judges: they could ignore the recommendations of the Dutch prosecutors and convict Wilders when they deliver their verdict next month. McCarthy reminds us that the Dutch prosecutors never desired to charge Wilders, but they were in effect “overruled” by the Dutch judiciary:
In 2008, the office of the public prosecutor declined to charge him. The lunatic judges are the ones who’ve been behind this all along, representative as they are of the transnational progressive thinking responsible for having such “crimes” on the books in the first place. In 2009, the Dutch Court of Appeals issued an order essentially overruling the prosecutors and ordering that Wilders be charged.
With refreshing sobriety, Dutch prosecutor Birgit van Roessel argued in her summation that Wilders’ statements were made as an integral part of the public debate
… about the immigration and integration of nonwestern foreigners, especially Muslims. Standpoints can vary considerably and emotions can run high, but … it is a debate that it must be possible to have.
And most importantly, Ms. van Roessel further acknowledged that “[m]any of Wilders’ statements seemed to denounce Islam as an ideology or its growing influence in the Netherlands, rather than being intended as an abuse of Muslims as a people or group.”
During a March 2009 interview with the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby, Wilders had earlier rejected the notion he “hates Muslims” while providing a frank characterization of the totalitarian nature of Islam.
I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life – economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book – but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state. Islam is totally contrary to our values.
By making this latter claim, Wilders shattered a corrosive modern taboo, enforced rigidly and without forgiveness by cultural relativist politicians and government bureaucrats, as well as influential “savants” in media, academia, and religion.
But Wilders’ assessment not only comports with scholarly observations made (primarily) before the advent of the postmodern Western scourge of cultural relativism, it is supported by contemporary hard polling data from 2006/2007 and their more recent follow-up reported February 25, 2009.
At present, overwhelming Muslim majorities — i.e., better than two-thirds (see the weighted average calculated here) of a well-conducted survey of the world’s most significant and populous Arab and non-Arab Muslim countries — want these immoderate outcomes: “strict application” of Shari’a, Islamic Law, and a global Caliphate. Specifically, the World Public University of Maryland poll (released February 25, 2009) indicated the following about our putative Muslim ally nations of Egypt and Pakistan: 81% of the Muslims of “moderate” Egypt, the largest Arab Muslim nation, desire a “strict” application of Shari’a, Islamic Law; 76% of the Pakistan’s Muslims — one of the most important and sizable non-Arab Muslim populations — also want this outcome. Furthermore, 70% of Egyptian Muslims and 69% of Pakistani Muslims desire the recreation of a “single Islamic state or Caliphate.” Elsewhere, I have detailed the totalitarian impact of these fulfilled Islamic desires based upon their doctrinal and historical application, across space and time.
And these concrete data validate eminent Western scholarly appraisals of Islamic despotism, or in modern parlance, totalitarianism.
Most importantly, our uninformed chattering classes across the political spectrum need to know that their eminence grise on Islamic civilization, Professor Bernard Lewis, and outspoken Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders have a shared understanding of totalitarian Islam. Ironically, Wilders has been demonized — and is currently being prosecuted — for expressing views identical to those the Western sage of Islam Lewis put forth in a 1954 essay.
Over a half century later, during his keynote address to the first Conference of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa in April 2008, Professor Lewis warned 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.
The politicized prosecution of Geert Wilders for his free-speech criticism of Islam is a case study illustrating Professor Lewis’ gravest concerns. Most notably, Professor Lewis in a 1954 essay, “Communism and Islam,” expounded upon the quintessence of totalitarian Islam and how it was antithetical in nature to Western democracy while sharing important features of Communist totalitarianism — in particular, global domination via jihad.
I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition… There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law…For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy,” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
[Islamic Religious and Communist Party leaders] profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth…[in]contrast [to]the eternal questioning of Western man. …[T]he aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet'” was laying his finger on a real affinity..[t]he call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy.
Geert Wilders’ keen if blunt conceptions articulate contemporary realities while restating seminal insights on Islam by the universally respected scholar Bernard Lewis, whose written observations from 1954 antedated the present-day morbid affliction of cultural relativism. At present, the tragic rejection of freedom of conscience by mainstream Islamic religious and political institutions representing all Muslim nations, and the global Islamic umma — a living sine qua non of Islamic totalitarianism — provide irrefragable confirmation that Wilders’ characterization of Islam as a totalitarian ideology is accurate.

Let us hope that the outrageous proceedings against Geert Wilders have pushed the Western freedom-stifling agenda of Islamic correctness too far and that his ultimate acquittal marks the beginning of an unrestrained political debate on the dangers of totalitarian Islam. [6]


Islam is changing us – in two distinct and profound ways.

First, as is appallingly obvious, we’re afraid to criticize Islam openly, for fear of having our head cut off or having a fatwa put out on us like the director of the new “2012″ film, or we’re afraid of being sued by some of the very litigious Islamic organizations like CAIR, or we’re afraid of being called a racist, extremist, hater or “Islamophobe” thanks to the tyranny of political correctness, or we’re afraid of offending those in power and thereby risking our position, stature or other advantage. This reaction, while perhaps selfish and cowardly, is more-or-less conscious and strategic.

However, for some it goes much deeper: Being intimidated by Islam (or by anything, for that matter) actually causes some of us to mysteriously grow sympathetic toward it, to defend it, to side with it, even to convert to it. This unconscious shift in attitude, in response to fear of being hurt, is called the Stockholm syndrome, named after the 1973 Swedish bank robbery during which the four terrorized hostages sided with their criminal captors while disparaging the police risking their lives trying to save them.

We need to understand that a certain percentage of us, when we’re intimidated and upset, start to emotionally gravitate toward and agree with whatever is intimidating us. Not just superficially, as a temporary tactic of placating a bully so he won’t hurt us, but more profoundly, deep down in the inner sanctum of our being where our thoughts and feelings germinate and our loyalties bloom.

Intimidation – that is, causing others to react with upset and fear – is a fundamental principle of mind control, fully capable of causing the victim’s loyalties to shift toward the intimidator, whether a schoolyard bully, gang leader, child molester, hostage-taking bank robber or Islamic radical.

“Political correctness” – which is basically a low-grade Stockholm syndrome playing out on a broad societal stage – is actually a subtle form of brainwashing. Even establishment mouthpiece Newsweek, in its famous Dec. 24, 1990, cover story on the then-new phenomenon of political correctness on college campuses (titled “Thought Police”) conceded this truth when it reported: “PC is, strictly speaking, a totalitarian philosophy.”

Bottom line: We’re intimidated, bullied, threatened, terrorized – and so we capitulate, not just in word and deed, but in thought. Get it?

Most of the time, of course, this occurs below the radar of our own consciousness. We don’t understand what’s really happening. So we interpret our growing sympathy and affinity for whatever intimidated us as evidence of our loving, open-minded, enlightened nature. In reality, it’s the result of craven weakness on our part. …….

The evil of “political correctness” – the totalitarian manipulation of thought, foisted on us by twisted elitist sociopaths who hate America and everything our soldiers have fought and died for over the last two centuries, and continue to fight and die for – has to end. Now. It’s over. This nation must rise up and defy the insane thought control that is destroying our country right before our eyes.

In America, a land of precious and unique freedoms, there exists a natural and healthy tension between our cherished First Amendment religious freedom for all Americans – including Muslims – and our paramount need to protect our country from infiltration, subversion and terror attacks by “true-believing” Islamic jihadists. This tension must be resolved by our striking exactly the right balance, but that balance can be achieved only when we first rise above fear and cowardice, and defy the treacherous PC mind-control culture that is poisoning our minds and crippling our national security.  [7]


Article 19.

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Why have we forfeited these rights because our politicians want to appease the bullies and the terrorists? We should never give up our Human Rights on this score.


 It is necessary to draw you attention that Islam has drawn up their own declaration of  The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, but there is a difference in the two declarations. The essential difference is this, That all interpretations of Human Rights (in Islam) is based on the Quran, the Sunnah and on the Laws of Allah, the Sharia Law:

“In the above formulation of Human Rights, unless the context provides otherwise:

a) the term ‘person’ refers to both the male and female sexes.

b) the term ‘Law’ denotes the Shari’ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence.” [8]



[1] Islamic Law on Speech:
[2] Lord Ahmed’s thread to call out 10,000 Muslims to march on Parliament:
[3] Muslim population:
[4] Interview with Geert Wilders:
[5] Political correctness:
[6] Islamic Political Correctness:
[7] Evils of Political correctness:
[8] Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: