There is no stranger relationship than the one between the Islamists and politically correct westerners, who have since become odd bedfellows. On the one hand, a religion that has not, in the main, accepted liberalism; and on the other, the orthodox among us, who often claim to hold the opposite of values, but hold onto lightly.With such opposing orthodoxies one might expect a clash of ethics and principles to arise. At the very least there should be an open and unconstrained battle in the marketplace of ideas, where critics and defenders can fight openly using the only arms they would ever otherwise use in that arena: art, wit, satire, criticism, argument, and the like. But more often than seldom, any lyrical or artistic depictions of Islam have been wrongly associated with racism, bigotry, and xenophobia, if they haven't already been shut up by other means.We should never dismiss that there are actual racists and bigots who are anti-Muslim, and they reflect that stupidity in how they treat others. Such sentiment has led to the murder of innocents and other acts of hatred unbefitting of pluralistic and liberal societies. But why would we not hold that same contempt for the racists, sexists, bigots and murderers of the Islamic faith, and to criticize the content of the very beliefs that lead them to such actions, and for the exact same reasons?Recall when actor Ben Affleck, who while red in the face, rebuked Bill Maher and Sam Harris over their combined criticism of Islam. His emotions got the best of him."That's gross," Affleck said. "It’s racist—it's like saying you're a shifty Jew”.No, Ben, it’s nothing like that. In fact, your inner conflicts and feelings are absurdly misguided. You are objectively wrong. One cannot convert, abandon, or otherwise change his race and phenotype like he would a religion, for the simple fact that a religion is not a race. A member of Islam can be (and is) of any race, language, class or nation, or combination thereof.So then why the doublespeak? Perhaps, as Christopher Hitchens once noted, "they cannot shake their subliminal identification of the Muslim religion with the wretched of the earth: the black and brown-skinned denizens of what we once called the Third World.” They are over compensating for their own inclination to see Islam as one amorphous race.Then again, the worry may be one of utter self-concern and public relations.That’s why when UK gymnast Louis Smith was excoriated for mocking the salah in a drunken escapade, he was not only reprimanded and banned by British Gymnastics for his insolence, but had to go on a virtue-signalling tour to some local mosques in order to save his reputation. In an interview on ITV’s Loose Women, it was implied by the tempestuous panel that his mockery of the prayer was somehow racist, and as a person of color himself, he should have known better. This kind of conflation and finger-wagging is common.Never mind that it was Smith who was on the receiving end of any and all injustice here—the release of his private shenanigans to a puritan public, the death threats for imitating a silly prayer, and the infantile public shaming by those inclined to moral preening—he was no less coerced into a fit of capitulation, apology and grovelling by his fellow citizens and his government. If one could hear the slow death of a civilization, it would sound exactly like Smith’s grovelling.I suppose it could also be a matter of “health and safety”. The assumption of soft-bigotry that Muslims are like matchsticks, sure to set ablaze once confronted with criticism and mockery of their superstitions, is rife in the West. The self-censorship that disguises itself as “kindness” assumes an infantile weakness in Muslims, that they cannot handle the sights and sounds of a free society, so we better be quiet about it. This political correctness has not only had a chilling effect on would-be reformers or anyone who might wish to speak up, but by multiplying the outrage, has only incentivized violent retaliation against those who will do so.Hence the vilification of ex-Muslim Ayan Hirsi Ali, who is a success story by any unit of measure. If the stereotype that the life of a Muslim woman starts with FGM, and ends with honor killing is true, she was already half way there. But rather than marry her cousin in a forced marriage, she was lucky to escape to greener pastures. As poor immigrant, alone and in a strange land, she got an education, got a job, even got into politics before becoming a writer. Now, as an immigrant living under threat of assassination and religious persecution for no more than criticizing her former religion, the Somalian apostate was deemed an anti-Muslim extremist by the SPLC. She is not only a heretic according to the Islamist extremists, but also by the politically correct westerners.In a an exhibition celebrating freedom of expression in London, the curators, without irony, were required by police to censor a display by local artist Mimsy, citing security concerns over possibly inflammatory content. So much for freedom of expression. The piece featured cute anthropomorphic animal toys known as Sylvanias Families engaging in typical western pastimes (for instance hanging out on the beach or sitting in a school-room) in an idyllic setting, completely unaware that a group of mice clad in black and carrying ISIS flags were looming in wait for an attack just out of sight. I'm not sure what better portrays the fall of western society, Mimsy's "ISIS Threatens Sylvania", or its censorship.