Increasingly Muslim preachers are being demonized for saying things which were not considered harmful, inciting or hateful in the least, during the past several hundred years of ‘free speech & freedom of expression’. Comments which would have been brushed aside and made nothing of it are now being used to hunt down and vilify muslim preachers. Recently, as it has been reported in the Independent newspaper here Mufti Ismail Menk, the Zimbabwean, highly influential, English-speaking scholar has been banned from entering in the UK and speaking in a number of university campuses. A man who has tirelessly spoken out against terrorism and extremists yet he has now fallen foul of this witch hunt. Why has he been banned you may ask? well, for his anti – gay comments which seems to have made the UK government bristling over his ‘extremist’ views. In short what he said is not aggressive, inciting hatred towards gays, or a providing a religious zeal in which homosexuals should be killed or victimized. It was a view expressed and something which is held by many people in the world said in a contextual situation. He was not advocating people to take up arms and go out and cause violence against homosexuals or anything for that matter. IF this is the case, where freedom of speech needs to be kept in check when made by ‘extremist elements’, then this principle too needs to be applied to the atheist extremist, Richard Dawkins. The father of modern atheism and the self-styled ‘cultural christian’, should also be banned from publicly addressing people. Since he has on the record been noted to say very Islamaphobic comments:
Examples of statements by Richard Dawkins:
1: “Religion poisons everything. But Islam has its own unmatched level of toxicity.”
2: “Religion poisons everything, but Islam is in a toxic league of its own.”
3: “…..But let’s keep things in proportion. Christianity may be pretty bad, but isn’t Islam in a league of its own when it comes to sheer vicious nastiness?”
4: [Quoting: “He blamed ‘radical stupid people who don’t know what Islam is,’”] “They are certainly stupid, but they know exactly what Islam is. Islam is the religion that wins arguments by killing its opponents and crying ‘Islamophobia’ at anyone who objects.”
5: “This horrible film [The innocence of Muslims] deserves to go viral. What a pathetic religion: how ignominious to need such aggressively crazed defenders.”
6: “Muslims seem to suffer from an active HUNGER to be offended. If there’s nothing obvious to be offended by, or ‘hurt’ by, they’ll go out looking for something. Are there any other similar examples we could think of, I wonder, not necessarily among religious groups?”
7: [Quoting: “But it has nothing to do with Islam.”] “Oh no? Then why do the perpetrators, and the mullahs and imams and ayatollahs and ‘scholars’, continually SAY it has everything to do with Islam? You may not think it has anything to do with Islam, but I prefer to listen to what the people responsible actually say. I would also love it if decent, ‘moderate’ Muslims would stand up and condemn the barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.”
8: “What is there left to say about Sharia Law? Who will defend it? Who can find something, anything, good to say about Islam?”
9: [Quoting: “needed to respect other religions”] “That word ‘other’ worries me and so does ‘respect’. ‘Other’ than what? What is the default religion which makes the word ‘other’ appropriate? What is this ‘other’ religion, which is being invoked in this high-handed, peremptory way. It isn’t hard to guess the answer. Islam. Yet again, Islam, the religion of peace, the religion that imposes the death penalty for apostasy, the religion whose legal arm treats women officially as second class citizens, the religion that sentences women to multiple lashes for the crime of being raped, the religion whose ‘scholars’ have been known to encourage women to suckle male colleagues so that they can be deemed ‘family’ and hence allowed to work in the same room; the religion that the rest of us are called upon to ‘respect’ for fear of being thought racist or ‘Islamophobic’. Respect? RESPECT?”
10: “After the last census, Christianity in Britain benefited, in terms of political influence, from the approximately 70% who ticked the Christian box, whether or not they were really believers. With the menacing rise of Islam, some might even be tempted to tick the Christian box, for fear of doing anything to boost the influence of the religion of “peace””.
11: “Just as ‘communities’ has become code for ‘Muslims’, ‘multiculturalism’ is code for a systematic policy of sucking up to their often loathsome ‘community leaders’: imams, mullahs, ‘clerics’, and the ill-named ‘scholars’.”
12: “Whenever I read an article like this [about British women converting to Islam], I end up shaking my head in bafflement. Why would anyone want to CONVERT to Islam? I can see why, having been born into it, you might be reluctant to leave, perhaps when you reflect on the penalty for doing to. But for a woman (especially a woman) voluntarily to JOIN such a revolting and misogynistic institution when she doesn’t have to always suggests to me massive stupidity. And then I remember our own very intelligent Layla Nasreddin / Lisa Bauer and retreat again to sheer, head-shaking bafflement.”
13: “Apologists for Islam would carry more conviction if so-called ‘community’ leaders would ever go to the police and report the culprits. That would solve, at a stroke, the problem that has been exercising posters here. ‘Community’ leaders are best placed to know what is going on on their ‘communities’. Why don’t they report the perpetrators to the police and have them jailed?”
14: “Presumably we shall hear all the usual accommodationist bleats about “Nothing to do with Islam”, and “It’s cultural, not religious” and “Islam doesn’t approve the practice”. Whether or not Islam approves the practice depends – as with the death penalty for apostasy – on which ‘scholar’ you talk to. Islamic ‘scholar’? What a joke. What a sick, oxymoronic joke. Islamic ‘scholar’!
15: “There are moves afoot to introduce sharia law into Britain, Canada and various other countries. I hope it is not too “islamophobic” of me to hope that the “interpretation” of sharia favoured by our local Muslim “scholars” will be different from the “interpretation” favoured by Iranian “scholars”. Oh but of course: “That’s not my kind of Islam.””
16: “Islam is surely the greatest man-made evil in the world today, and I think I’d feel a bit more secure against the menacing threat of Islam and Islāmic faith schools, under the Tories than under Labour”.
When the question is put to him, ‘why are you inciting violence?’ he simply replies ‘i am only using speech to create awareness and not asking people to cause violence’. Well, this is what Mufti Ismail Menk was also doing by voicing his views about gays. This is a sublime example of the double standards of free speech and freedom of expression. The rowdy, aggressive, obnoxious, fallacy of free speech is only allowed to roam free when it suits the small group of elitist secularists. The only underlying reason Richard Dawkins is not reprimanded, cautioned or banned from publicly addressing people is simply because he a ‘white skinned, intellectual, an Oxford graduate, a nodal prize-winning scientist who also happens to be the author of a best-selling book, ‘The God Delusion’. His anti – Islam and Anti – Muslim sentiments are endless, this is a man out on a crusade to demonize, incite, provocate and ridicule Muslims and Islam. Yet, he is left to go unchecked and roam free to continue to gather momentum and stream for his hatred towards anything remotely Islāmic or of Muslim origin. Welcome to the real world my friends!