Its a vicious cycle. The freedom of speech afforded to Americans allows for speaking and expressing what we believe to be the truth about Islam. In return, freedom of speech allows for the Muslims to negate and deny those truths by labeling us as haters, bigots and Islamophobes. Evens out right? Not quite. Islamist organizations and their supporters across the country are attempting to redefine freedom of speech by saying anything negative about their religion or their prophet is offensive, and should be labeled as hate speech. But who will define hate speech?
According to their doctrine, speaking ill of the prophet is considered blasphemy. Blasphemy in some Middle Eastern countries constitutes death. Will we Americans have to fear death for our freedom of speech? Not yet anyways.
In order to raise awareness to their plight of how any negative freedom of speech affects them, the tendency to play victim has become the new trend. Creating false incidents and narratives serves as the goal to gain sympathy and support, which in turn has the potential to pressure law makers to create policies to protect them. But it doesn’t end there. Muslims claiming Islamophobia or hate speech has created a dire risk of their own genocide, which then becomes a human rights issue, which in turn becomes a U.N interest. This is how our freedom of speech will cease to exist as we know it.
In their own words in a website called Caliphate Online ( http://www.caliphate.eu/2009/04/islams-view-towards-freedom-of-speech.html) the author (AK) states in an article titled Islam’s View Towards Freedom of Speech “ Freedom of speech is a western concept that completely contradicts Islam. In reality there is no such thing as absolute free speech. What exists is speech within predefined limits that differ between nations.Nowadays freedom of speech is used as a colonial tool in the Muslim world to support the propagation of western ideas and to suppress Islamic ideas”. .
In 2008, the United States was a strong opponent to the UN’s creation of a defamation of religion law citing the First Amendment was not compatible with such wording and further stated:
The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence protect religious liberty while promoting tolerance and free speech. The introduction of “defamation of religions” laws would upset the delicate-and successful-balance that has been achieved between the free exercise of religion and free speech, both of which are protected under the First Amendment. Government intrusion into these areas is unwarranted in the absence of a compelling purpose. Protecting the hurt feelings of aggrieved members of particular religious denominations is not one such purpose (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/why-the-us-should-oppose-defamation-of-religions-resolutions-at-the-united-nations)
However in 2011, an interesting rendition was accepted by the US, as it changed the verbiage previously used “Earlier this year (2011) Western countries and their Latin American allies joined Muslim and African states in backing a new approach that switched the focus from protecting beliefs to protecting believers. Instead of a “Defamation of Religion Law, it is a “Resolution on Combating Intolerance and Violence against Persons Based on Religion or Belief,” Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated ” The United States strongly supports today’s resolution, which rejects the broad prohibitions on speech called for in the former ‘defamation of religions’ resolution, and supports approaches that do not limit freedom of expression or infringe on the freedom of religion.”
But they aren’t giving up. In 2013, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) released a new report on the rise of Islamophobia in the West to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” citing the allowance of offensive and derogatory depictions of Islam and the prophet cause incitement, hence a propensity for violence against “believers”.
Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas supported CAIR ( Council on American Islamic Relations) continue to label every confrontation, incident, or event as anti-Muslim, hateful, or Islamophobic. All in an effort to silence those educating the masses on the truth of Islam.
Will the Islamists win the battle to end free speech? Only if we close our eyes and hope it goes away like the monster underneath the bed.