The defining question of our time is surely whether Islam will adapt to Western values—or whether our cowardly leaders will force Western values to adapt to the 7th century barbarism they seem determined to import. Mohammedanism may have been spread by the sword, but as Liberals never tire of reminding us—the pen is supposedly mightier. That may be so, but as the great Mark Steyn once put it, “the pen is only mightier than the sword, if you’re allowed to use the pen!” Alas, we live in a world where increasingly few are prepared to unsheathe the ultimate weapon.
Instead of fostering dialogue, investigation, and critique, Western civilisation stands illiterate; poised on a knife-edge (or perhaps that should be scimitar?) thanks to the juxtaposition of two evils: the desire of Western leaders to downplay the more violent aspects of Islam, and the insistence of Islamic extremists to ensure their work is kept in the public domain.
The tragic case of Samuel Paty perfectly illustrates this tension. Paty was beheaded by a jihadist, Abdoullakh Anzorov, in France back in 2020 for the ‘blasphemy’ of showing images of the Prophet Muhammad in a lesson on freedom of speech. What makes the case of Paty more egregious still, is the fact that the teacher was rumoured to have excluded a Muslim student from the class (a lie stemming from the student’s suspension and fear of her parents’ reaction). The full story was covered by Hélène de Lauzun with her customary precision on Wednesday. This is set against the backdrop of France, which prides itself on the robust right to blaspheme, as President Macron had argued only months previously: “The law is clear: We have the right to blasphemy, to criticise, to caricature religions.”
The disconnect between the idealised version of Islam and its real-life manifestations is not lost on Western leaders, who maintain that the problem is not Islam itself, but simply its adherents who do not understand it. Particularly chilling in this regard are the words of the matriarch of European destruction, Angela ‘Mutti’ Merkel, who stated back in 2017: “It is not Islam that is the source of terrorism, but a falsely understood Islam.” Despite efforts to promote a sanitised version of Islam, many followers evidently prefer the traditional brand.
The solution it seems is straightforward—simply ban discussion of Islam full stop, through the term ‘Islamophobia’; a concept popularised in Britain back in 1997 by Runnymede Trust chairman, Trevor Phillips. Two decades later, and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) proposed a broad definition:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
A definition this vague can only be intentional. Thankfully, the authors of the report do give us some examples of what Islamophobia might look like:
- The myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
- Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
- Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
What this means, at least in theory, is that it would potentially be illegal to criticise ISIS or Hamas, notice the overrepresentation of Muslims in certain fields, suggest that 9-years-old is a little young for a bride, or indeed even question the notion of Islamophobia itself. Besides which, a phobia is an ‘irrational fear’—and there is nothing remotely irrational about the fear of being gang-raped, acid-attacked, thrown off a building, blown up, or merely decapitated in the name of multiculturalism.
To illustrate the ridiculousness of the term, a 2016 freedom of information request found that over 25% of ‘Islamophobic hate crimes’ recorded by the Met Police are committed against non-Muslims or people of unknown faith. In other words, thanks to the ill-defined terms, it is quite feasible that not only could one be Islamophobic towards non-Muslims, but that Muslims themselves could be ‘guilty’ of the offence!
While never openly stated as a means to stifle debate, the effect of the term Islamophobia has been just that. Most tellingly and ironically, is the case of Phillips himself—who, having popularised the term, was then suspended by the Labour Party for the very same offence, after he came to realise that perhaps the religion was a little less peaceful than he’d first thought.
It is the Labour Party however, who we must now watch very closely. Having adopted the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia in its own code of conduct back in 2019, Keir Starmer repeatedly promised to formalise the definition if elected prime minister. Despite obvious concerns that this would be a blasphemy law in all but name, Starmer has shown no sign of a rethink.
Asked earlier this week at PMQS by Labour MP Tahir Ali whether he would commit to “prohibiting the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions,” Starmer replied:
Desecration is awful and I think it should be condemned. We are committed to tackling all forms of hatred and division including, of course, Islamophobia in all of its forms.
While I have every confidence that Starmer is ideologically-wedded to the criminalisation of Islamophobia, there are much more concrete reasons to believe he will push this through. After just four months in office, Starmer has shown himself to prioritise Muslims at every opportunity: including his petulant, two-tier response to the Southport riots, his promise to the Muslim community that “I am with you,” and the obvious need for Labour to shore up its haemorrhaging Muslim vote.
If such a definition or law ever gets through Parliament, the implications for free speech would be disastrous. It’s also safe to say that teachers would be left navigating classrooms with the caution of a bomb disposal expert.
The proposed definition of Islamophobia does not combat hatred; it invites it. Instead of facilitating debate and reform, it provides extremists with a legal framework to silence critics. It’s not about tackling Islamophobia; it’s about preventing Islam from being critiqued at all.
The great irony of Samuel Paty’s tragic demise is that the claim of his ‘Islamophobia’ was unfounded—but what difference does that make? If the interpretation of Islamophobia is open-ended (which it is), and if there is no paucity of those looking to enforce it (which there is), then all such legislation will mean is the legalisation of full Sharia, blasphemy laws, and in effect a death sentence on the likes of Paty, Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, and any others ‘foolish’ enough to test them.
It might be time to stop worrying about those holding the pen, and start worrying about the guy holding the sword.
