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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
It seems much more likely that he pressured Google to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam. Probably, knowing that he couldn’t reveal he was trying to bring Google into compliance with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”
Mr. Suleiman, if you and your colleagues hadn’t spent years tarring rational criticism of Islam that was accurate and presented in good faith as “hate-filled Islamophobia,” I might have believed you. But as one of your primary victims, I don’t.