James Thomson in his "Rule Britannica" poem of the mid-1700s wrote:

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:

All their attempts to bend thee down,

Will but arouse thy generous flame;

But work their woe, and thy renown.

Rule, Britannia, rule the waves;

Britons never will be slaves.

And yet, today, the "manly hearts" appear to have simply withered as Great Britain and now most of Europe behave in classic dhimmi fashion, falling prey to the imaginary racism called Islamophobia. In fact, as Salman Rushdie writes in Joseph Anton, "a new word has been created to help the blind remain blind: Islamophobia. To criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation [is] to be a bigot."

After the Iranian Revolution of 1980, the term "Islamophobia" "underwent a mutation that weaponized it." It continues to be more militant as it has "entered the global lexicon." Clearly, America and Canada are not immune, either.

Thus, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) recently released a report titled "Islamophobia Defined: The inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia." A few quotations from the lengthy report should highlight the disingenuousness of a document that is essentially recommending a form of blasphemy law.

[W]e drew attention to the fantastic work done by British Muslims over the Christmas period. Muslim-led charities and the huge contribution they make to civil society and social welfare ... was the subject[.]

So the first item in the report caters to the uninformed, claiming that Islam is a religion that merely wants to reach out in an expression of genuine ecumenical brotherhood. Are we allowed to ask why so many Muslims, in the name of Islam, murder non-Muslims? Muslim persecution of Christians is at an all-time high.

Next we learn that despite the "palpable concern among British Muslims when it comes to inequality and discrimination," Great Britain now boasts "the first Muslim Home Secretary and Mayor of London, the first female Muslim minister ... in the House of Commons, [and] the first Muslim female in Cabinet and minister at the Despatch box in the upper chamber."

But let victimization reign as the report continues in a rather deceptive concern for others while hiding the true intent of Islam by asserting that "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and its victims are not just Muslims but also those who are perceived to be Muslims."

Even Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesperson, has said, "Islam is an ideology." Being a Muslim means belonging to the religion of Islam. Race does not enter into this ideology at all. But as the Religion of Peace site so aptly explains, "[i]t might seem that casting Islam as a race — or Muslims a race of people — successfully protects the religion."

In fact:

If Muslims are a race because of Islam [as the APPG report maintains] then it means that Islam is a racial ideology. Therefore, what this ideology has to say about its own and other 'races' becomes very important. In fact, the Quran posits an enormous qualitative distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims[.] Believers are loved by God, whereas infidels are hated to the extent that they are tortured for eternity (3:32, 4:56) merely for not believing. Muslims are told not to take unbelievers as friends (3:28) and to shun them (3:118). Those outside the circle are called 'helpers of evil' (25:55), 'wicked' (4:160), 'fond of lies' (5:42) and compared to the worst of animals (8:55, 7:176, 7:179). Muslims are told to be merciful to each other, but ruthless to those outside of the faith (48:29). Violence is also sanctioned against those who are obstinate against Islamic rule (8:12-13, 9:5). Muslims are not a race. Islam is an ideology that should be open to critical examination.

Yet according to the APPG report, Islamophobia is "rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

In vagueness, do we lose our ability to think and to ask penetrating questions?

The APPG report claims that the working definition of Islamophobia is not "intended to curtail free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion." But they speak with forked tongue. To be a Muslim is to believe the tenets of Islam. If a discussion about the danger of wearing a veil in certain work environments or the need to remove a veil in order to obtain a driver's license for proper identification is going to be viewed as a racist one, then that completely sidesteps the fact that that what a Muslim does is part of the religion of Islam. They are not separate entities. Race is a genetic component that no one has control over. Being a Muslim is a choice to accept the religion of Islam.

Yet, as explained in the report "Eroding the Free Press," journalists are now being told they must report on Muslim communities "according to rules and conventions not applied to others" such as self-censoring the news in order to "consider tensions between communities." Sensitive information that might cause offense and not the factually correct reporting of newsworthy events should be the guiding light as the freedom of the press is continually eroded.

In essence, what this portends is that "Muslim communities [are] in effect ... a law unto themselves, immune from dialogue with their non-Muslim neighbors. Muslim communities [do] not need to hear from 'outsiders' ... discussing the issue of Muslim integration[.]"

Yet "the job of the journalist is to tell the truth irrespective of the feelings of those involved, if there is a public interest. But increasingly, the words 'public interest' are being read as opinion of a well-organised, well-funded, persistent and ruthless lobby."

So is it racist to highlight, question, or criticize the following?

Nikah mut'ah, where it is legal to sell young girls for a one-hour temporary pleasure marriage under Islamic law. Basically, it is an Islamic legal recognition to behavior that would otherwise be considered adulterous. See here

The rape and prostitution of English and Sikh girls by Muslim men and the years of cover up. See here

Twitter censoring an American reporter because she is "in violation of Pakistan [sharia] law." See here

Bias in Middle Eastern Studies programs. See here

Is it true that "there is a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death?

Why has "anti-Semitism in the Arab world's press and governments taken root in the body politic of Islam to an unprecedented degree"? It is not abating, but rather increasing all across the globe. See here

Disinviting a renowned speaker concerning his well researched book about Islam and the West. See here

The Danger of Political Islam to Canada: with a Warning to America. Listen intently to this show highlighting the violent and non-violent Islamist ideologies bent on destroying freedom. See here

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.