Google fell for an organized disinformation campaign. My latest at PJ Media:
The jihad against the freedom of speech is advancing rapidly, and most people don’t even know it’s happening.
Turkey’s state-run news outlet Anadolu Agency reports:
Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results. (emphasis added)
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom?
Google has bowed to pressure from Muslims such as Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who led an initiative to compel Google to skew its results. Apparently Google hasn’t considered whether those who are demanding that search results be manipulated in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google wish to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer non-Muslims not know?
I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate speech” — an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving immense success — in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Google executives should read it, and should study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not they have been misled by the Muslims who are pressuring them. But that’s not going to happen.
Google could have performed a bit more due diligence to determine if sources being tarred as “hate groups” actually deserve the label, if the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a reliable and objective arbiter for defining “hate groups,” and if the information that Google is suppressing is really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and his allies have said.
Despite his success, Suleiman still isn’t satisfied:
One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done.” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.”
This should have made Google executives stop and think.
The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. Yet there is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe.” And the claim that the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the SPLC make in this article — that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims — is supported by not a scintilla of evidence.
When Suleiman equated critical words about Islam with the direct exhortations to murder emanating from actual murderers, Google should have realized that Suleiman had an agenda and wasn’t being honest.
Suleiman tried to pose as an impartial arbiter:
Suleiman said Google should differentiate between “criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia”, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.
That’s not clear at all. He apparently is saying that acceptable criticism of Islam is different from “hate-filled Islamophobia.” But if that is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon” by this legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be “infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of Islam but no other religion?
Suleiman says:
I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.
The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has ever identified anyone they think is a legitimate critic of Islam without being “Islamophobic.”
Through 16 books, thousands of articles, and over 45,000 blog posts, I have attempted to present a reasonable, documented, fair, and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of “hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never given my work a fair hearing. They have read it only to search for “gotcha!” quotes they could wrench away from their obviously benign meaning in order to claim I was stating something hateful.
This doesn’t happen only to me. It happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.
This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half, makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce a critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But he won’t, and can’t….
Read the rest here.
Halal Bacon says
taqiyya.net is available… 🙂
Laura Young says
This story has “disappeared.” I did find a FB share of the story, but all that remains is the headline. Both open up to the same Ooops page: http://planetfreewill.com/2017/02/01/former-president-of-student-association-condoning-wife-beating-now-pushing-anti-islamophobia-law/. Thankfully, I printed the story. Who is protecting Iqra Khalid from constructive criticism?
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… if the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a reliable and objective arbiter for defining “hate groups” …
The SPLC isn’t much good at anything but reverse racism, it’s primary stock in trade. On the other matter, the very idea of “hate speech” is a direct violation of free speech. The Constitution legally requires equality before the law, but hate speech monitors put themselves in the position of adjudicating the speaker’s motives. There’s enormous power in that. For example, I’d hate to see Moslem activist Keith Ellison (D-Minn) sitting on the Supreme Court adjudicating what my motives were when speaking on Islam.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Google Manipulates Search Results to Conceal Criticism of Islam and Jihad
…………………
Appalling. This makes educating ourselves about Islam *much* more difficult.
1 says
Walking down the street now, I look around and say ‘WHAT THE F…K HAPPENED TO MY COUNTRY!
what the f### happened to my country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP5bHPodbmc&t=2s
Andy says
Andy
TR says
Precisely! What the F—- Happened !!!! We see Sharia surfacing now one step at a time!
Andy says
what the f### happened to my country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP5bHPodbmc&t=2s
Khalfan says
This manipulation wont help for long, as there is news of Muslim atrocities everyday!
John Forbes says
Professor Peterson at U of T in Toronto is right to be very worried abut the end of FREE SPEECH !
We seem to live at a time when all of the parties , Governments & Corporations want FREE SPEECH taken away & Face Book & Google are no exceptions.
What the trade off is for them is immunity from Inspection & criticism !
Governments want to be left to their own devices & not be bothered with the opinions of what is the ün washed”
HOPEFULLY the UNWASHED will awake & throw these Arrogant & self serving Cowards out of office BUT it also pays to remember a couple of things :
You never know what you had until it is GONE !
You tend to get the results you voted for ! So it is best to look past the Glamour (TRUDEAU LEAPS to MIND) & see if there is a good brain behind the hair style ! In his case – NO !!!!!!
Buraq says
Stamping on free speech has just reached street level!
I have posted pro-Israel, anti-Jihad (but never anti-Muslim) comments on ‘The Independent’ British newspaper for a few years. But since the beginning of August, *all* my posts get the ‘awaiting moderation’ sign. This simply means ‘you’re blocked’. I have used 3 different browsers to try to post my comments, so it’s not a problem with the browser.
Just before these illiberal clowns put a veto on my comments, Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel took a stake of between 25% and 50% in Independent Digital News and Media, the holding company of the Independent, according to filings at Companies House.
Now, I wonder ………..??
R says
If a reasonably functional democratic republic is to continue free speech must be maintained.
Those who attack our liberties are usually misinformed, selfish, or stupid people — many, in their own minds, are trying to do good for the country and world like a mother seeking order among a class of thirty 9 year olds but such efforts to manage the voice of our country’s population wrong.
So, Face Book, Google and other companies require participants in their services to maintain a certain parameter of verbiage for usage — that’s fair enough as private companies, though the ‘people’ should have some say in what these companies can prohibit, restrict, punish or edit, just as we don’t permit drugs or poisons to be introduced into the water supply. The government certainly has no say in demands to them for restriction of speech, as we’ve already seen in Germany, China, and Pakistan.
The establishment clause is usually involved when the government tries to pass hate speech laws, and hinder speech in some manner.
Dum Spiro says
So what is the best search engine to use in order to get honest results regarding Islam?
Somebody out there must know…
— Spero
Noel says
https://www.mojeek.co.uk
https://www.mojeek.com
Independent, alternative, and unbiased
search results with no user tracking
Noel says
Also, try http://www.dogpile.com/ and search for Taqiyya
Schrödinger says
Pam Geller is urging Section 2 of the Sherman Act, an anti-trust law used to break up monopolies, be utilised to do so to Google and Facebook for their egregious anti-competitive behaviour in increasingly monopolising and inhibiting freedom of information. It’s been used successfully many times by previous administrations to US corporations that’d grown way too big for their britches and engaged in monopolising trade and commerce. Something similar was done to Microsoft in the late 90’s, the earlier days of the internet, compelling it to cease it’s blatant anti-competitive behaviour in bundling it’s own internet search engine with it’s then dominant software.
Those with Amazon Prime may watch a chilling, recent BBC documentary titled “Weapons of Mass Surveillance”. It exposes how Dhimmi Britain has sold (not heedlessly but greedily, perhaps even maliciously) state of the art internet surveillance technology to many of the most repressive Arab Muslim regimes and the extent to which this has not only enabled these Dar al Islam hell holes to become even worse than anything Orwell ever envisioned in his worst nightmares, but how these very technologies, now in the possession of our worst enemies, carry the real risk of also being turned round and used directly against us in the West.
These information leviathans Google (95% of internet searches) and the invidious Facebook simply cannot be allowed to continue their rapidly worsening censoring of all criticism of islam. It will only aid destroying the free world — perhaps for good. As for the Dar al Fitna known as Britain (I can no longer resort to using the prefix Great), already well on the way to being morally and financially bankrupted by muslims, it’s Faustian bargain with islam will only lead it straight to Hell on Earth.