Feb 04

The Islamisation of Britain (Part 3): Censorship and Islamophobia

By Robin Phillips


This is the third installment in our ongoing series about the Islamisation of Britain. To read the earlier installments, click on the following links: ‘The Islamisation of Britain (Part 1): a crisis in demographics and ‘The Islamisation of Britain (Part 2): retention and conversion.’

After bringing much of Eastern Europe under their sway, Muslims have been trying for centuries to gain control of Western Europe, including Great Britain. Having been unable to achieve this goal through direct warfare, Western Muslims have recently discovered that a far more effective tool is to harness the powerful ideologies of multiculturalism and political correctness. By strategically appropriating the language and processes of Western pluralism, Islamic communities have been able to forge a strange alliance with political liberalism and to shut down free speech in the process.

In Great Britain, this alliance between Islam and political liberalism has resulted in:

  • British law enforcement officers being hindered in their duty as the rights of Muslim criminals are elevated above the rights of their victims;
  • Stringent restrictions on the freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing the beliefs and practices of Islam;
  • The mainstreaming of halal meat (which is produced by slaughtering animals according to Islamic religious rituals) into British supermarkets and restaurants, sometimes without disclosure;
  • The emergence of parallel Islamic legal structures, based on Sharia law, within the nation of Britain itself;
  • The attempt to control thought by eliminating certain words, phrases and ideas from the public discourse;
  • An historical revisionism whereby Islamic terrorism becomes a species of the more generic category of “religious violence”, which is then assumed to also include Christian fundamentalism.

Space prohibits us from exploring all the above developments, so this post will focus specifically on how the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” is being used to shutdown criticism of Islam throughout the world in general, and in Britain in particular.

‘Islamophobia’ Turns All Criticism of Islam into Racist Offense

“Islamophobia” is the name given to a certain type of thought-crime. It was invented by the International Institute for Islamic Thought in the early 90’s and first began to appear in British newspapers in the mid to late 90s. Blogger Cheradenine Zakalwe researched the term and found that prior to 1997 it hardly ever appeared in public discourse.

Afraid to speak out. Self-censorship is sweeping the corridors of power.

Once Islamophobia began to be adopted more widely by the mainstream liberal media, it began functioning as an ideological weapon that enabled Muslims and their sympathizers to short-circuit crucial debate through the assumption that criticism of Islam is at best a symptom of irrational fear, and at worst a species of racism.

On the surface it seems preposterous that criticism of Islam (“Islamophobia”) could have anything to do with racisim. After all, Islam is a religion and not a race. However, the press frequently obscures this fact by using the terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Arab’ interchangeably, even though the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. This semantic gymnastics allows the media to give the impression that Islam is a race and, consequently, to dismiss criticism of Islam as a racist offense or a hate crime against a certain people group.

The notion that Islamophobia is a form of racism is now taken as axiomatic by the liberal press. Huffington Post writer Nathan Lean declares that “Islamophobia is undeniably a form of racism” while Stephen Goeman writes that “race is what moves Islamophobes to hate.” Similarly, Sarah Ismail announced that “Islamophobia is one of the many varieties of this racism.” The testimony of dozens of other writers and public figures could be added to this chorus, all testifying to the idea that Islamophobia is a form of racism.

“beating down critics”

Is the historical Muhammad an embarrasment to contemporary Muslims? Judging from their fear of rational discussion about the historical Muhammad, the answer would seem to be yes.

Is the history of Islam an embarrassment to contemporary Muslims? Judging from their fear of rational discussion on the subject, the answer would seem to be yes. (The cartoon, we hasten to add, does not of course depict Mohammed, merely some follower of his.)

The only problem with the association of “Islamophobia” with racism is that it is false. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, former member of International Institute for Islamic Thought, later revealed the true intention of those who invented the term: “This loathsome term” he later confessed, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”

This use of “Islamophobia” represents the ultimate inconsistency among Muslims who want to see their religion defended on rational grounds while simultaneously wishing to banish objective discussion of Islam’s more controversial tenets and historical origins (i.e., such as whether the Koran mandates violence, and whether the historical Muhammad was a paedophile, madman, murderer or imperialist).

Discussion of Human Rights Violations Censored by UN Council

The concept of ‘Islamophobia’ has even been employed at the highest levels of international diplomacy to give lawmakers political leverage to shut down important debate. We saw this in June 2008 at the United Nations Human Rights Council when David Littman attempted to present a joint statement from the AWE and THEU under agenda item 8: Integrating the Human Rights of Women throughout the United Nations system. The statement attempted to raise concern about Islamic atrocities throughout the world such as female genital mutilation, execution by stoning, child marriage and the hideous practice of burying women alive. Littman’s statement also suggested practical steps the Human Rights Council could take to combat these outrages. Instead of allowing Littman to raise these issues for dialogue, discussion in the chamber was continually stonewalled by representatives from Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member countries, who urged the council’s president to ban Mr Littman from speaking.

Littman’s offence: he was presenting information about Islamic practices like burying women up to their waists in pits and using blunt stones to increase their agony in death. The Islamic delegate from Egypt and other OIC nations eventually bullied the council into dropping discussion of these and other crimes since it involved references to Islamic law.

violence against women in Islam

Many Muslims believe that the Koran sanctions violence against women. However, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned discussion of this subject as Islamophobia.’

It is important to appreciate that representatives from OIC member countries went a lot further than merely urging the UN Human Rights Council to ban inaccurate criticisms. Rather, they urged that all criticisms of Islam be shut down, regardless of whether the criticisms were justified. One Senegalese diplomat made a report to the UN Human Rights Council urging that even to quote the Koran in the context of criticizing Islam is itself an act of bigotry and “Islamophobia.”

Unfortunately the Council capitulated, so that even quote the Koran in the context of criticizing Islam is itself an act of bigotry and “Islamophobia” by the United Nations.

The irony was pointed out by Robert Spencer in his book Stealth Jihad: an international body dedicated to promoting human rights is now prohibited from discussing the fact that Islamic theology provides the basis for people to mutilate female genital organs or to stone people to death.

Jihad Against Free Speech

Britain is facing a jihad against free speech

The tactics of contemporary Muslims should not surprise us since throughout history Muslims have believed that free speech represents a significant hurdle in their quest for global domination. What should come as a shock, however, is the way non-Islamic governments have begun co-operating with this jihad on free speech.

One of the most shocking capitulations has been the naive acceptance of the OIC’s attempts to mainstream sharia blasphemy laws under the category of ‘defamation of Islam’ and other innocent-sounding legal categories. We witnessed this in December 2011 when the Obama administration joined forces with 57 Islamic states to support a UN resolution that takes the first steps towards creating a legal instrument to criminalize the criticism of Islam.

Media Cover-up

The general public of Western nations still maintains a deep suspicion of Islam, especially after terrorist attacks. However, even this could change as the police and the media continually reinterpret acts of Islamic violence as having been done for motives other than jihad. This has even occurred in situations where the assailant explicitly specified religious motives.

Robert Spencer tells of a time when the American media even went so far as to change the name of a Muslim terrorist in order to conceal the fact that he was a Muslim (his name was Muhammad).

The Window of Free Speech is Closing

In sum, Muslims are quickly turning into a class that is immune to criticism, precisely at the moment when the West most needs to examine the implications of Islamic teaching. Faced with a powerful pro-Muslim lobby (often funded by Saudi oil) on one side, and the politically correct thought police on the other, the window of free speech is quickly closing in the West.

Great Britain has not been immune to these disturbing developments. In fact, as the numbers of Muslim converts increase due to breeding and conversions , one of the results is that they begin insisting on more and more privileges, including the privilege of being beyond criticism.

This became clear in 2009 when American talk show host Michael Savage was banned from entering the UK because of remarks he had made of Islamic teaching. In these remarks Mr. Savage talked about killing terrorists in the Middle East and he referred to the terrorists as Muslims. Even as the British Government was preoccupied with their campaign against Michael Savage’s “Islamophobic” remarks, the real threats to national security were allowed to slip through the cracks. Specifically, at this time the British government was organizing the release of the Libyan terrorist who was convicted of blowing up Pan American Flight #103 killing 270 people.
Similar examples could be multiplied endlessly, but I will limit myself to only a few:

  • In a 6 September, 2011 an article in Patheos criticized all the following public figures of “Islamophobia”: Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Frank Gaffney, Brigitte Gabriel, Steve Emerson, David Horowitz,  Glenn Beck, Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sean Hannity, David Yerushalmi.
  • On 2 April, 2013, militant atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris was taken to task for alleged racism after writing an article criticizing Islam.
  • On 23 March, 2013, Eric Brazau and Ron Banerjee were arrested outside the Liberal Party of Ontario for satirizing Islam’s treatment of women.
  • Imran Farasat, a Pakistani Christian who converted from Islam in 2004, faces deportation from Spain for producing a film about Muhammad, entitled ‘The Innocent Prophet.’
  • In 2008, 2009 and 2010, a group called “Acts 17 Apologetics” ran into harassment, bullying and police problems because of their outreach programs to Muslims. This led to arrests, a lawsuit and subsequent apology by Dearborn, Michigan officials in this article on May 6, 2013.
  • On 26 May, 2013, it was reported that Benjamin Flatters was arrested for racist and anti-religious statements on Facebook when he made comments criticizing Islam. Three other men were visited by authorities as well.
  • The Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard has received many death threats and attempts on his life since publishing the “12 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons” on September 30, 2005.
  • Muslim poet, Yahya Hassan, is under the protection of Danish police for a book he published “condemning Islam and its influence over his parents’ generation of immigrants.”

The point to realize about the above events is not that the victims were always justified in what they said or how they said it. Rather, we should be concerned when the mere criticism of Islam is looked upon as a criminal offense.

Robert Spencer, author of Stealth Jihad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, was banned from entering the UK because of his criticism of Islam

Robert Spencer, author of Stealth Jihad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, was banned from entering the UK because of his criticism of Islam

Robert Spencer Banned from Britain for Criticizing Islam 

More recently, anti-terrorist writers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were banned from entering the UK for up to 5 years because of their pro-Israeli and anti-Islamic views. The pair had been invited to speak at an English Defence League rally in Woolwich for Armed Forces Day on 29 June 2013, but had to cancer their trip after being told they would be denied admittance.

The ban occurred on June 26, 2013 after Home Secretary Theresa May was bombarded with letters from Muslims asking her to ban the scholars from entering the country and complaining the Robert Spencer was a ‘hater’ because of his ‘Islamophobic’ views. The centre of the controversy is Mr Spencer’s belief that there is a connection between Islam and violence.

In explaining the decision, Home Secretary Theresa May quoted the following words which Robert Spencer was alleged to have said:

“…it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.  Because of media and general government’s unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”

For ideas such as these, Spencer was banned from entering the UK.

“Orwellian Denial of free-speech”

Robert Spencer is famous as a critic of Islam, but what is truly astounding is how the liberal establishment will even turn on one of their own as soon he lift a pen against the sacred cow of Islam. This is what Stephen Fry discovered when he tweeted a few words in defense of atheist Richard Dawkins’ criticisms of Islam. He was roundly accused of ‘Islampohobia’. ‘Thought better of you’, one tweet said, strangely.  Reflecting on it later, Fry noted that

Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry complained of the “Orwellian denial of free-speech” when it comes to criticizing Islam

The squeezed liberal finds himself in the position that he cannot criticize Islamofascism because it’s somehow “racist” (although Islam encompasses many many races) or because it encourages acts of violence against innocent law-abiding honourable Muslims, which I would never for a second endorse. It is a topsy-turvy smothering of debate and an Orwellian denial of free-speech to declare that speaking out against violence will cause violence. I’m all for insult, as it happens, as long as it’s funny. But I have no time for assault. Only a few letters’ difference, but the two are a world away.

Even British lawmakers are bullied into keeping quiet. As Paul Austin Murphy pointed out in his revealing article ‘Islam and David Cameron’, “it would be impossible for the Tory Party to be critical of Islam itself because of the inevitable massive backlash from Britain’s three to five million Muslims; as well as from the Islamophile battalions of the Left.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.




6 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. Rox

    It’s a good thing that you have clarified that the cartoon definitely does not represent Mohammed, or there might be some who would object. The Koran does not say that Mohammed split the moon, only that the moon was or will be split (54 1-2). The tense depends on the translation :

    “The hour drew near and the moon was split in two. And if they see a sign , they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.” Translation by Pickthall, revised by Bleher.
    “The last hour draws near and the moon is split asunder. Yet when they see a sign, they [who deny the truth] turn their backs and say: The same old sorcery”. Translation by M.W. Khan.
    (For details of these two translations, see The Islamisation of Britain, Part 2).

    Some liberal Muslims follow Khan and see this as a future event, out of the same stable as the Christian Book of Revelation. It would be interesting to know what the Arabic words really mean , but Khan seems to have gone out of his way to make more sense of the last bit.

    Some fundamentalist Muslims take it more literally as something which actually happened during the lifetime of Mohammed, but note that it does not say that Mohammed did it, and no sword appears to be included (but we have argued about the presence of a sword before, in the case of hamstringing, see Part 2 again).
    Pickthall (or Bleher , one can’t tell) actually comes somewhere between the two, adding a note that it refers to an actual optical illusion when the moon as seen from Mecca appeared to be split in two. If that is so, the text doesn’t seem to get the devout reader very far . Presumably people were right to ignore it, if it was an illusion and not really a sign at all. Or maybe some Muslims go along with some Christians in asserting that all miracles (while having spiritual meaning) were physically possible if you can only find the explanation for them . So this was both a natural illusion and a divine sign, perhaps.

    Anyway, we are all glad to know that this cartoon definitely does not depict Mohammed cutting the moon in two with his sword, which he didn’t do. There could also be some confusion with the horse, as Mohammed’s horse is sometimes depicted with a face in Muslim art, but of course horses with faces are commonplace in fairy tales and cartoons everywhere.

  2. Ahmad Zafar

    Worst article ever.

  3. Ahmad Zafar

    You write so much bad about Islam because you know you are afraid of it. The way its spreading in the whole world. Its your thinking that is pathetic. And Islam is the only religion in the eyes of Allah. I thank my Allah(the God of Mahummad (peace be upon him),Jesus(Peace be upon him),Ibrahim( Peace be upon him),Noah(peace be upon him),moses(peace be upon him),yosuf(peace be upon him),adam(peace be upon him)and including them 1lakh 24 thousands prophets(peace be upon them)),that he has made me Muslim. May Allah bless you with some wisdom. (And granting of wisdom is in the hands of Allah only. He grants wisdom who he wanted to guide to the right path. Quran) So pray to Allah so he may guide you to right path.

  4. Ahmad Zafar

    And true follower of Mohammad(peace be upon him) does not kill or abuse any one for his personal gain because its illegal in my religolion. It is only done as a punishment to those who abuses or kill innocent people. Conveying wrong thing about any religion is very easy. First study Islam and than talk about it.

  1. Gay marriage in Scotland unleashes torrents of grief. ‘Persecution’ of The Faithful is predicted.

    […] to Phillips, who has just penned the third instalment of The Islamification of Britain, […]

  2. The Islamisation of Britain (Part 4): 2013 in Review - Christian Voice UK

    […] was followed by an article in which I showed that the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” is being used to close down […]

  3. Multiculturalism Caused Government to Hide Truth of Muslim Grooming Gangs

    […] religion of Islam is by its very nature opposed to the principles of multiculturalism through its intolerance of all dissenting voices. Moreover, the symbiotic relationship between Islam and the political left cannot last since once […]

  4. Muslim Takeover Investigation Expands to 25 Schools - Christian Voice UK

    […] The Islamisation of Britain (Part 3): Censorship and ‘Islamophobia’ […]

  5. Nativity Eve | Tipsy Teetotaler

    […] (Robin Phillips) Phillips’ focus is on shutting down free speech on Islam in Britain, but seems to me more broadly applicable. […]

  6. Truth About Islam, Enemy of Mankind | Fiery Rebel

    […] this excessively politically correct age, islamophobia has effectively become a worldwide ‘thought crime‘, as bad as anything George Orwell envisaged in his nightmarish novel Nineteen Eighty-Four […]

Leave a Reply