If you criticize a Muslim candidate, you’re Islamophobic
You may want to think twice about expressing concern or criticism of one of the many Muslim candidates running for public office, throughout America, Europe or Canada, because you might be called an Islamophobe.
That’s right, a clever safety net has been set up to protect these individuals from any incoming fault-finding or negative assessment someone might be tempted to make.
On the eve of Democratic Michigan candidate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed’s primary win, far-left socialist influencer and streamer, Hasan Piker made an expletive-laden statement, calling those who didn’t vote for El-Sayed, “unbelievably Islamophobic pieces of s***.”
Claiming that El-Sayed was called a “terrorist for months on end,” Piker angrily attacked members of the Democratic party, reminding them that if they want to win, they will have to support him in the November elections.
Of course, Piker is alluding to what he believes are the reservations by some voters about supporting an individual who has expressed blatantly anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments.
Drawing on those concerns was Brianna Lyman, Elections Correspondent for The Federalist, who appeared on Wednesday evening’s Fox News@Night, commenting:
“Abdul El-Sayed is beyond criticism. You can’t criticize him for his socialist policies, you can’t criticize him for hanging out with Hasan Piker, who said America actually deserved 9/11. All criticism is beyond the pale, and if you do dare to wade into criticism, you are an Islamophobe.
“It reminded me of the same religious loyalty test that Zohran Mamdani imposed on Cuomo a few months ago when he said that Cuomo was basically unfit to be mayor, because he couldn’t name a mosque had been to. If you take both of these things together, it goes to show you the problem of mass migration.
“There was a time in America when if someone was actively campaigning with someone who said America deserved 9/11, that candidate would no longer exist as a candidate. They would have to be removed from the ticket. But now we have imported so many third-world Muslims that they shut down legitimate criticism of El-Sayed campaigning with a person who says America deserved 9/11 by calling people Islamophobic by pointing it out. That’s a real problem!”
Of course, none of this is new. It’s just an effective strategy borrowed from the grievance playbook of victimhood. It accounts for Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton’s apology after saying, "I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that.” After all, He wouldn’t want to be called transphobic.
It’s also why other prominent figures have walked-back sincerely-held opinions and feelings on taboo subjects, such as homosexuality, transgenderism, climate change, vaccines and Islam – all constituting the third-rail of political debate.
Dare to disagree with any of the socially-held positions, and you run the risk of having the “phobe” ending attached to whatever it is you don’t like. Never mind that the word phobia is defined as “an extreme, intense, and irrational fear of a specific object, place, animal, or situation - a type of anxiety disorder where the threat level perceived by the person is much higher than any actual danger.”
Today, it is associated with bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, discrimination and prejudice. By assigning one of those labels to you, the actual fear becomes “not accepting whatever society tells you that you must accept.”
Questioning or suggesting that a particular subject is problematic or not consistent with your own personally-held values, can ruin your good name in a moment.
Consequently, the “phobe” ending is a type of coercive silencing which works well to quell any hesitancy. Meant to intimidate, there must be a full acceptance of whatever is being represented as good, unquestionable, fair and absolute.
This especially works well for Democratic Socialist and Muslim political candidates, who epouse anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments. Ironically, though, it is not a two-way street.
Conservative Americans, Jews and Christians are not afforded the same “no criticism” privilege, a right only reserved for minorities and those pushing very controversial, non-mainstream ideologies.
Americans are no longer permitted to question the lack of patriotism by progressives who have nothing good to say about America. Nor can they criticize the raising of foreign flags to display loyalty towards a terrorist country.
Learning the native language of one’s new country isn’t imperative – not even when it involves obtaining a commercial driver’s license. The move to erase all cultural lines, replacing them with the more dominant voice of Islam, is an undeniable wave, taking hold of the country which once represented a bastion of freedom, ready to embrace those who embraced it.
But those days are over. Americans are quickly being forced to learn that they will no longer be asked. They will be told. Most importantly, if they dare to challenge what is being put forward, by those now taking charge, they will suffer damaging repercussions to their name and their rights.
Just look at how El-Sayed recently threatened fellow Democrat John Fetterman who is a fiercely loyal Israel advocate.
Facing backlash from within his own party, Abdul El-Sayed, while campaigning, said,
“If I win ... well y’all came at me so now I get to come at you, and you know, primarying people like John Fetterman, I have no problem to do that. Ideally you put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, and all of a sudden, starts to sound a lot different.”
When hearing such violent rhetoric, from a candidate who speaks badly of America, why shouldn’t his words be criticized or taken literally as a spoken desire to harm a political opponent who differs with his own opinion?
And if this is the interaction between two Democrats, why should conservatives, people of faith and native-born Westerners be expected to fall in line, accepting an aggressive and troubling pattern of behavior, consistent with radical Islam and its desire to dominate all cultures?
In reality, being accused of Islamophobia is simply the attempt to silence anyone whose eyes are open and has the courage to say that their way of life is being taken over.
Only when the “phobe” label is rejected and exposed for what it really is, will people be free to criticize what should rightly be called out!
You might also like to read this:
