Muslim writer hails Muhammad video riots, says Muslims are winning war against freedom of speech

Iqbal Siddiqui is “a British Muslim of Indo-Pakistani origins, born, brought up and still living in Slough, an industrial town a few miles west of London.” He is not wrong about this: most Western writers and media outlets practice self-censorship regarding Islam, jihad, and Islamic supremacism. And they do so not so much out of fear of being physically attacked, but of being smeared as a “bigot” and a “racist” by Islamic supremacist groups and their Leftist Useful Idiots.

Siddiqui is only unusual among Muslim writers in the West in his open contempt for and opposition to the freedom of speech, and his ready avowal that Muslims are at war against it.

“The success of Muslim defence against cultural attacks on Islam,” by Iqbal Siddiqui for Crescent International, November 2012 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

The fact that Muslims have not abandoned their values in the face of repeated assaults on their revered personalities is itself a great achievement. They should continue to protest and denounce such attempts at denigration….

A number of threads in this resulting discourse are worth highlighting. One is that Muslims are winning the argument about supposed freedom of speech. While a stubborn minority in the West insist that so-called artists have the right to say and do what they want, regardless of the feelings of others and the broader consequences of their actions, many more have come to realise that such freedom is not absolute, that authors and artists must recognise contraints [sic], and exercise their supposed rights responsibly and with sensitivity to the feelings of others. The debates on such issues that now take place after every such controversy are evidence of this; there were few such debates after the publication of Rushdie’s book, when it was taken for granted that those protesting against the portayal of the Prophet (pbuh) were simply ignorant, backward Muslims who did not understand art, literature or modernity. Of course, there are still those who try to dismiss Muslim protests in such terms now, but the fact that they no longer dominate the debate, and are increasingly opposed by those who take a more nuanced view (even if the latter are often at pains to distance themselves from Muslims and Muslim protests) is thanks to the steadfastness of Muslims in the face of such attacks.

A second point is that many Muslims, particularly but not only in the West, fail to recognise the first point. Indeed, many accept the common Western assumption that Muslims lost the argument over Rushdie because the book remains in print, the author himself continues to enjoy the increased royalties from its notoriety, as well as other benefits of his celebrity, and that there have been all these subsequent attacks on Islam and the Prophet (pbuh), many of them deliberately setting out to cause offense and controversy. All of this is true, but misses all the key points. The object of the Muslim protests was never to force the withdrawal of the book; many realised from the outset that this was impossible once it had become the focus of such attention and a symbol of the West’s supposed resistance to Muslim barbarity.

The real aim of the Muslim response, as the late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui said, was to take a stance, to say, –¦you may have gone this far, but you go no farther; and in future, you will never go this far again.” And that is precisely what has been achieved. The Rushdie book may remain in circulation, but it has never been serialised or filmed or adapted for television or the stage. And no author has tried to produce another book treating the Prophet (pbuh) in a similar way, at any level, from that of high literature claimed by Rushdie to the mass market level of popular fiction. There will never be anti-Islamic equivalents of The Last Temptation of Christ or Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. That is the measure of Muslim success.

The fact is that every subsequent controversy of this kind has stemmed from a specific and deliberate desire to offend Muslims, to provoke conflict and to follow the pattern of notoriety and celebrity established by Rushdie. That is inevitable. Islam and its followers are feared and hated in the West precisely because they stand against the moral and cultural decadence represented by Western civilization; and it is inevitable that the haters will repeatedly attack the things they fear. Hence the need for Muslims to stand again and again in defence of Islam and the Prophet (pbuh), who embodies and represents everything that Islam stands for.

The fact that such attacks continue does not reflect any failure of the Muslim defence of Islam; the fact that only such attacks continue is a measure of the Muslims” success. What Muslims have achieved is to prevent the normalization of such treatment of Islam, to prevent Islam being diminished to the level of another historic and cultural artifact that Western artists and commercial entertainment companies can treat as they like, as they treat the histories of every other civilization. The Vikings, the Mongols, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mayas and Incas, even Judaism and Christianity “” all have become entertainment fodder, with bowdlerized versions of their history and culture, as well as their most revered personages, as the basis of comics, movies, computer games and more. But not Islam “” not now and not ever.

And this is not just a matter of people fearing the personal or commercial consequences of Muslim anger, though that is clearly a factor. It is also a broader recognition that Islam still enjoys a standing in the world, reflected in the fervour and commitment of its followers, that no other faith or culture maintains. It is a recognition, however subconscious or grudging, and however much it may be denied, that Islam is not just history; it is not just a remnant of an irrelevant and increasingly forgotten past. It is a vibrant, living, thriving civilizational force with the potential to reinvigorate the societies of those who follow it; which is clearly a challenge to the hegemony of those who have set aside all thought of faith, truth, respect and community in favour of self-centred individualism, hedonistic consumerism and the ruthless exploitation of anything and everything.

Of course, few of those taking to the streets in Muslim cities around the world, or in Western capitals for that matter, may be able to explain their anger and motivation in such terms. But they know that they live in a world that is going in a direction they do not like and they know that the West’s deliberate attacks on the honour and person of the Prophet (pbuh) are part of that process. Those Muslims who are embarrassed by or apologetic about their fervour should think of what it has achieved. And those who say that we should be more mature and more measured in how we express our anger should know that polite letters and rational debate would have done nothing to prevent Islam and its Prophet (pbuh) being reduced to the status and levels of respect in the West as Christianity and “˜Isa (a) now suffer. It would be nice if we lived in a world in which such methods of communication worked to ensure that people behave as they should, but the fact is that we do not.

Until such time that we can succeed in reversing the trend of history, as assuredly we will in the unforeseeable future if not the foreseeable one, we must be prepared to fight such battles again and again.

Serbia: Man detained after posting photos of himself burning the Qur'an
UK's largest Muslim group asks government to remove Muhammad video from YouTube because it encourages "violence by Muslims to non-believers"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Stand by for some free speech…

    The Quran is a dark and evil fairy tale whispered into the ear of a psychotic Arab, by an incoherent angel named Gabriel…It all went down hill from there…it hit bottom centuries ago and is still at the bottom…The real motto of Islam is, ‘I been down so long, it all looks like up to me’…I once asked a Mahoundian, that if Quran verses have been ‘sent down’, which way is up?…He couldn’t tell me…That was an easy question when the world was flat, but a little more complicated with a round one…The idea that every direction was up confused him…
    Anyway that’s the end of this outburst of free speech…But I have a binder with a lot more…

  2. says

    If he is exported to Saudi Arabia, home of the OIC, he can shadow box his “defense” of Islam until he passes out. Demand containment of people who refuse to keep their embarrassing Islam as private as their masturbation. Don’t Islam in public! ewwww

  3. says

    The Islamic way of thinking is that no freedon of speech should be allowed if it Muslims happen that dislike what is said about Islam. In other words, no truth exponding about the many false teachings of Islam should be allowed. This comes down to the fact that the foundations and doctrines of Islam are so very weak that they can’t hold up to or stand up to criticism. There in nothing wrong but only right in the exposing of the truth about the false religion of Islam. As one of the Christian writers in the New Testament explained “Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth ?.”
    Galatians 4;16. [KJV] To find out more there is

  4. says

    …Islam still enjoys a standing in the world, reflected in the fervour and commitment of its followers, that no other faith or culture maintains.

    And that is our problem: there is no insane asylum big enough to hold them all.

    But we can expose them all with my favorite weapon: the truth. Here are four good ones:

    1. There is no spirit world. That is all make-believe, suitable for children and those with shriveled intellects.

    2. Because of #1, there are no genuine prophets. All purported prophets are fake. There are no exceptions.

    3. Their personal hero and model for emulation, Muhammad bin Abdullah, was remarkable in what he accomplished. What other Arabian bandit was able to convince people to murder and steal and give over 20% of the gross loot? He was clearly history’s most successfull professional criminal and innovator. As this writer indicates, the crime wave he started has swept the world.

    4. Believing is a centuries-old mistake which marks humankind’s unworthiness to reign as Earth’s nascent species. The demographic policies insisted upon by religionists doom us. When we, humanity, die out, taking the rest of large mammalian life with us, it will be their fault nominally, but our fault really, for permitting them to do it.

    Making religionists, the believing majority, wake up is probably impossible, and we, the thinking minority, are doomed right along with them. Pity.

  5. says

    Western civilization is not perfect, yet its freedoms give people like Iqbal Siddiqui the opportunity to express the thought of using violence, terror and intimidation against people who don’t see Islam as he does. In Muhammad’s day the Banu Nadir poet, Ka’b b. Ashraf, was assassinated by jihadists for writing poetry criticizing Muhammad and his followers. The murder of Ashraf was meant to silence their opposition. According to Sunni historian Mubarakpuri, after the assassination “they [the Jews] were scared, and even their stone-like hearts were in the grip of inexpressible panic. They realized that the messenger of Allah would thenceforth never hesitate to use force when good words and admonition failed” (The Sealed Nectar 111). The beat goes on.
    My book, Muhammad and the Birth of Islamic Supremacism: The War With the Jews 622-628 A.D., details Allah and Muhammad’s use of terror to achieve their goal: Islamic supremacy in the world. Check this link for information on the book.

  6. says

    The author is “… a British Muslim of Indo-Pakistani origins, born, brought up and still living in Slough, an industrial town a few miles west of London.”

    The author is not acknowledging the manifold benefits that he enjoys while living in a free society (for his whole life) where he can freely express himself on any topic. If he were to be dropped into an Islamic nation that is operating under full Shari’a, that would change.

    The author is blind about the Islamic package as a whole. He accepts only a part of the Islamic package, because in his free society, he is able to reject whatever parts of the package he wishes to reject. That is unrealistic. Thus, this author’s overall position is not credible.

  7. says

    “And that is our problem: there is no insane asylum big enough to hold them all.”

    How about a cordon sanitaire, a containment in a designated area of the middle east where they are never allowed to leave and must prey on each other?

  8. says

    OK, here again it can be seen in crystal clear terms that it’s Islam or freedom. There is zero possibility you can have both. And frankly my ire is not first and foremost directed towards Muslims, deluded people though they be, but rather towards brown-nosing dhimmis who keep making excuses for the spiritual totalitarianism which goes by the name of Islam.

  9. says

    The author is so long winded. In the west, we give clamorous Muslims freedom of speech, let them speak their hearts out, expose their low grade philosophy, and exploit their stupidity and use against in due time. Some corrupt politicians take their oil money and do their bidding. At such time when the oil dries out in their land, they will return to their former conditions, as before oil became their revenue.

    As of now, even after Arab Spring, their elected governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco could feed 30% less than before Arab Spring. They are easily animated by insults, while they eat the bread only suitable for camels. This low quality grain for bread brings them the epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Empty stomach and poor health is widely accepted as Allah’s will. The pride for standing up against insults helps them earn another bite of camel bread.

  10. says

    “…have done nothing to prevent Islam and its Prophet (pbuh) being reduced to the status and levels of respect in the West…”

    I would say that he is accurate in his analysis except for one aspect. Like many bullies, he confuses respect for fear.

  11. says

    Wellington and miriam rove: I have a feeling that this is how Muslims want it: if we are divided amongst ourselves, into dhimmis and freedom fighters, into Left and Right, we will concentrate our ire on each other rather than on them.
    As a Southern Sudanese friend reminded me yesterday, they calculate our weaknesses and watch us destroy each other. How their agenda of emptying out the South was carried out in large part by Southerners is a lesson we must learn from.
    Also yesterday I found that a former apologist for Islam, who always countered my words with “Christianity is worse” and so on, has come around. Only one more…but it can be done, and has to be done. We can’t give up or go quiet, even in the face of abject, craven dhimmis. Keep talking; shame them if need be, but remember this tiny bit of comfort, that the dhimmis might point the way to your house but they won’t cut your throat themselves.

  12. says

    “Those Muslims who are embarrassed by or apologetic about their fervour should think of what it has achieved”

    The utter contempt of everyone witnessing the antics of Mo’s backwards, violent, culturally retarded followers?

  13. says

    From this article, this article stuffed with the sneering arrogance of the malignant narcissist:

    “Islam and its followers are feared and hated in the West precisely because they stand against the moral and cultural decadence represented by Western civilization”.

    Nah: Islam and the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob, have always been and are feared and despised by all sensible people not only in the West but elsewhere, because Islam, or the Ummah, turns everything it touches into sh*t.

    ‘Moral and cultural decadence”? Islam/ the Ummah outdoes pretty much anything that any other human group, civilised or barbaric, has ever managed to achieve, in that department.

    I’ll start with what a reader here had to say about a friend of his from Pakistan, and what that person told him, after a visit to that bleak and miserable hell-pit:

    Alarmed Pig Farmer | September 26, 2006 11:37 PM
    Pakistan is as close to hell as one can get in this life.
    Absent the Islamic Republic of Afghan, about which I’ve heard some unbelievable stories from young neighbor boys who hung out in my family room (video games, TV, boy talk, wrestling matches that I had explicitly probibited) who became Marines and served there, I’d have to go with you on this.
    Paki competes with Afghan for the Ultimate Hell-Hole Prize (no offense to Arabia here).

    I have a college friend, an apostate from Islam who grew up in the high caste in Islamabad. Great tennis player, perfect English. LSE economics degree.

    Anyway, I went to grad school with this dude and he had a real big hangup about Islam. I always sensed his personal fear on the subject. After grad school, he got into into the pot distribution biz and was busted with 1200 pounds of Marijuana in his trunk by the State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike… for driving slower than the mandatory minimum speed. (He was sampling the goods during his transport mission, he showed terrible operational discipline.)

    They pulled his stoned ass over for going 38mph in a 50mph minimum zone.

    Into prison. Into the NJ court system. Into prison. Into a recruitment session with the CIA, who had been after him from the day he matriculated at my university. Into a signed personal services contract with the CIA. Conversant in English, Urdu, Farsi, and Arabic, he became an intelligence asset. The CIA had him out of jail and into pocket as a Paki asset.
    It was tough, but he did his duty for 10 long dangerous years.

    He always refused to tell me anything about his operations.
    Unlike Valeri Plane, he honored his confidentiality agreement cuz he knew it would be enforced against him.

    Years later, we reunited and he told me about his return trip to Paki.

    The CIA had the class to take him back into Paki with a security escort to visit his home town Islamabad in order to visit his dying grandfather at his death bed.

    **After 20 yrs in the States, he was stunned by the filth and the chaos in Paki.** {my emphasis – dda}

    He spoke of being whisked down one-way streets by his CIA-hired escorts in which crazed Jihadists cruised up one-way streets the wrong way.

    **The open use of child labor and slave labor.
    The openNess of sex-slavery (a linch pin of the Sunnah).
    He also noted the near toTal absence of law enforcement. The chaos in Islamabad stunned him.
    Over a 3-mile drive, he looked down 3 alley ways to see grown men sodomizing young boys crouched over doggy-style.** {my emphasis – dda}.

    He has not returned to Dar al-Islam since.
    Couldn’t take it. Paki is chaos. Paki is in Sharia. Funded by American Jizyah.
    Paki is Hindu infused with [no: Paki is India erased and replaced by – dda] the negative commandments of Allah and Mohammed (or of just Mohammed posing as Allah which is the most likely case).

    Paki is our future vision of Global Sharia.

    And I didn’t even mention his reports on family incest on young girls, which is also prevalent there.

    * 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

    Is Paki the worst place on earth? Is Paki Arabia wihtout the petrodollars? Is Paki the Moslem ideal?

    I think so. Except for maybe the Jizyah could be better; they deserve more apology dollars.

    special_guest | September 27, 2006 4:24 AM

    Alarmed Pig Farmer, that sounds like a Francisco de Goya mural, or a scene from Dante’s Inferno; it sounds like the fevered fantasy of a very sick mind, not a scene from the natural world with which we are familiar. Unreal.
    Just when you think your opinion of Dar al-Islam cannot possibly get any lower, you learn a little bit more, and are surprised once again that it can sink lower yet.”

    And to go with that, here is a classic from the archives, a comment by Hugh Fitzgerald that brings to our attention a magnificent paragraph from a brilliant young Indophile, David McCutchion, who knew India in the 1950s-1970s.

    “I recently picked up at a book sale a copy of “The Miscellany,” edited by P. Lal, and published in Calcutta. Issue #51 (June 1972), one of three devoted to the then recently-deceased, at age 41, of David McCutchion. An Englishman, David McCutchion was a lover of India…

    “a true scholar, an Indophile who studied brick temples in Bengal, and Indian writing, was a friend of Satyajit Ray and all sorts of interesting people in Calcutta who never get the attention in the West that all those anti-Western islamisant arundhati-roys manage to get…”.

    “David McCutchion lived through the war made by West Pakistan (now Pakistan) on East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1970-71, a war in which Muslim fanatics in East Pakistan, locally called razakars, joined forces with the raping and murdering army of West Pakistan, accepting the argument that what was good for Pakistan – that is, staying one country – was necessarily good for Islam, and what was good for Islam was all that mattered.

    ‘Here is how, in a letter from England to a friend, McCutchion described the behavior of Pakistan:

    “…We are raising funds {for those in what was then East Pakistan being murdered by the army of West Pakistan and its local, fervently Muslim East Pakistani collaborators], and hope to see the Minister of Overseas Development.

    ‘What do I think of it all? Appalling…Pakistan should never have existed – it has cost more lives than the whole of the British Empire in 200 years.

    “What should I think of a culture that burns down the British Council library in Lahore because an English publisher printed a picture of Mahomet?

    “Fanaticism plus Machiavellianism plus brutality equals Islamic Pakistan.”

    One More Time:

    “What do I think of it all? Appalling…Pakistan should never have existed — it has cost more lives than the whole of the British Empire in 200 years. What should I think of a culture that burns down the British Council library in Lahore because an English publisher printed a picture of Mahomet? Fanaticism plus Machiavellianism plus brutality equals Islamic Pakistan.”
    Print out that last bit, and put it on your refrigerator, under the title: Pakistan.”
    Posted by: Hugh at July 27, 2007 2:18 PM

    To which another poster, one ‘Ynkedoodl2′ responded – and I think he was right –

    Hugh, could we not go further and say:
    “Fanaticism plus Machiavellianism plus brutality equals Islam.”

  14. says

    And here, as shared by another jihadwatch poster in this thread, three years ago

    is an excerpt from a book by someone who experienced the Muslim Moros of the Southern Philippines, during World War II:

    Poster THORS HAMMER wrote: “I am currently reading a book about the Filipino and American guerrilla resistance to the Japanese invasion of the Philippine Islands,specifically Mindanao, during WW2. Native Filipino and American soldiers who refused to surrender mounted a counterinsurgency against the brutal Japanese occupation of their island.

    ‘Read all about their story in the book, “They Fought Alone,” by John Keats and published in 1963.

    ‘He relates the reality of native Moro (Filipino Muslim) relations with all non-Muslims.

    “These hill Moros …live according to the Koran as interpreted by some illiterate, flea-bitten imam who heard from some crooked hadji what was supposed to be in the Holy Book.

    “What they get out of it boils down to polygamy, slavery and brutality.” (pg. 56). END QUOTE, and END POSTING.

    John Keats is too kind; for he seems to be representing Moro Islamic ‘culture’ in the Philippines as resulting from ‘misinterpretation’ of the Quran, etc.

    But in fact, anyone with half an eye and half an ear, examining what can be seen of many Muslim societies in the here and now, or examining the recorded accounts of assorted Islamic societies in the past, throughout the past 1400 years, on three continents and involving a multiplicity of ethnicities, can see that Keats’ summary of the defining features of Moro Muslim society – ‘polygamy, slavery and brutality’ – fits all those other Muslim societies, past and present, just as well.

    Polygamy, slavery and brutality, to the nth degree, = Islam.

    As Serge Trifkovic puts it in his book ‘Sword of the Prophet':

    “The fruits of attempted escape from the shackles of natural morality are as predictable as they are grim, for the Muslims no less than for their victims: both are enslaved, brutalized and dehumanized by Islam.

    “The all-pervasive lack of freedom is the hallmark of the Muslim world.

    “Discrimination against non-coreligionists and women of all creeds,


    ” virulent antisemitism,
    ” and cultural imperialism

    “can be found – individually or in various combinations – in different cultures and eras.

    **Islam alone has them all at once, all the time, and divinely sanctioned at that.”** {my emphasis – dda}

    There is no presumed equality of different people’s claim to life, liberty or any pursuit at all in Islam.”

    And *that*, Mr Iqbal Siddiqi, is why all decent and sane non-Muslims simply *despise* Islam.