Silencing the Critics of Islam

by Paul Austin Murphy


There is a British organization and website called "Tell Mama" which is run by a man named Fiyaz Mughal. This organization is a bit like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in America; though without -- at least up until now -- as much power and political influence. Indeed Fiyaz Mughal has shared a platform with CAIR and provides Internet links to CAIR on his website. He also re-Tweets CAIR's material on his Twitter page.

And just like CAIR, Tell Mama uses accusations of “Islamophobia” and “racism” as tools to both protect and advance Islam.

(Actually, the Muslim Council of Britain, or MCB, is the closest British equivalent of CAIR, to which it is also linked. And just like CAIR and Hamas, the MCB is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama is, in legalistic terms, very proficient. Indeed Islamists and Islamic terrorists of all types quickly realized that many lawyers and activists in the American/British “rights” and “race” industry are not only very keen to defend Muslims no matter who they are and no matter what they've done: they also sympathize and agree with much of their destructive intent.

Tell Mama: We aren't against the criticism of Islam!

As is often the case with Tell Mama and other supposedly moderate Muslim websites: if you read between the lines you can often find rare glimpses of honesty (or tactlessness). Actually, it's not even a case of reading between the lines because such accidental confessions are actually there in the text.

Ironically, and predictably, Fiyaz Mughal tells us that Tell Mama “is not a project based on protecting any religion from scrutiny and debate.” This line is no doubt a response to the many criticisms Fiyaz Mughal has received for doing precisely that: attempting to protect Islam from all “scrutiny and debate”.

However, despite Mughal saying that Tell Mama isn't attempting to bring about sharia blasphemy law in the UK (or “protecting [Islam] from scrutiny and debate”), that statement isn't followed up or even so much as defended.

Despite these half-hearted denials, Tell Mama goes straight ahead and explicitly tells us that “anti-Muslim prejudice” will “sometimes include opinions on Islam.” Or to put that another way: “anti-Muslim prejudice” is often simply prejudice against Islam.

In the Muslim world, anti-Islamic prejudice is called blasphemy. Fiyaz Mughal is therefore simply agitating for sharia blasphemy law in the UK.

Mughal cites some examples of blasphemy against Islam. These include:

“opinions on Islam such as that it has no common values with other cultures, is inferior to the ‘West,’ and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion”.

Firstly, if people believe all or some of the above, then should they be convicted for racism or for “hate crimes”? The problem is that literally millions of people do believe some or all of the above. Therefore, according to Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama, thousands of non-Muslims could -- at least potentially -- be prosecuted for racism or for hate crimes.

Fiyaz Mughal is even more honest (or stupid) when he talks about “indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at... Islam.” Mughal also talks about the “hate and prejudice [which] is targeted at... Islam.”

It's also ironic that Fiyaz Mughal talks about the “conflation of religion with the rights of the individual” when that's precisely what he does. The rights of individuals are already largely protected by British law; as well as there already being laws against discrimination against someone simply because of his or her religion. And that's exactly why Fiyaz Mughal is relying on the “conflation” of the “rights of the individual [Muslim]” with the criticism of Islam. In fact it is Fiyaz Mughal who's the consummate conflater (or taqiyya-artist).

The Runnymede Trust & Islamophobia

Tell Mama relies very heavily on one source for his legalistic pontifications. That source is The Runnymede Trust and its 1997 report: 'Islamophobia, a challenge for us all'. (This is a very early use of the word “Islamophobia” and it's clear that The Runnymede Trust noted its strategic and political value.)

Tell Mama tells us that it “focus[es] on and use[s] the term 'anti-Muslim prejudice'” primarily because of “the work of the Runnymede Trust on Islamophobia” (which it also deems to be “ground-breaking”).

The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was set up in 1996 by the Runnymede Trust; though this actual report is from 2004.

In terms of the Runnymede Trust and its fight against “Islamophobia”; it's worth noting that it is self-described as a “left-wing think tank”. So why “left-wing”?

Take this reason for the Runnymede Trust's Leftism: it doesn't believe that there is such a thing as racism towards whites – full stop! For example, in 2009 it published a collection of essays which argued that whites “are not discriminated against because they are white.” Well, for a start, there is one organization which discriminates against whites: the Runnymede Trust itself! There are of course many others: such as Unite Against Fascism (UAF), The Guardian, Hope Not Hate, various councils, the BBC, various universities, and virtually all Leftist individuals and groups.

So why this Leftist anti-white racism? Basically it's all down to (Marxist) theory. It has become an article of faith (which most Leftists neither question nor even think about) that only whites can be racists, never the victims of racism.

The semantics of “anti-Muslim abuse” & “threat”

Firstly we need to know what “abuse” and “anti-Muslim” mean.

It's clear that most of the time that Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama writes “anti-Muslim” it really means anti-Islam. However, there is no law against blasphemy in the UK and hasn't been seen 2008. So what does Fiyaz Mughal think is the best way to deal with that problem? Simple. When a person criticizes Islam, he thinks it's best to pretend that he is really criticizing a particular Muslim or Muslims as a whole. Or, alternatively, pretend that the criticism of Islam is racial in nature because, of course, laws against racism already exist.

Perversely, if the criticism of Islam has been turned into “anti-Muslim abuse” by Tell Mama, it has also gone one step further by turning that “anti-Muslim abuse” into racial abuse. So we have moved all the way from the criticism of Islam, to “anti-Muslim abuse”, and then to racism towards Muslims.

There's also ambiguity involved in Fiyaz Mughal's frequent use of the word “threat” or “threats”. For example, the Tell Mama website says that Muslims “may have suffered threats and abusive behavior”. Despite that, it's clear that many Muslims will see any criticism of their religion as a “threat”. The logic here is simple. Either the very criticism of Islam will be deemed to be a threat by Muslims; or that criticism of Islam, Muslims and Leftists will argue, will lead to threats against Muslims.

Take another example. If a non-Muslim on Facebook tells a Muslim that he thinks the niqab or burka should be banned, the Muslim may take that as being a direct threat against her because it will be deemed as a threat against her “religious rights”. Thus saying that “the burka and niqab should be banned” will be deemed a threat against Muslims.

Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama itself freely admits that it's not always talking about threats against Muslims: it's also talking about threats against the “Muslim faith”. For example, Tell Mama says that Muslims may “perceive that this [threat] has been because of your Muslim faith (perceived or real)”.

Incidentally, there's an ominous statement at the end of this page on the Tell Mama website. Tell Mama tells its readers:

“If you struggle to classify the incident yourself, our caseworkers will be happy to assist you with this.”

This will often mean that if the Muslim concerned doesn't say what Tell Mama wants him to say, then it will make sure that he does say what it wants him to say. For example, the Muslim may explicitly say that the “threat” was against Islam, not against himself. However, considering what has already been said about creating sharia blasphemy law on the back of “hate crime” and race relations law, Tell Mama will advise this Muslim to do one of the following things:

i) Claim that the criticisms/threats were direct against the Muslim himself.

ii) Claim that the criticisms/threats were racial in nature.

iii) Claim that the threats/criticisms were examples of hate crime.

Paul Austin Murphy

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/silencing_the_critics_of_islam.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.