My mate the Hindu once said to me about his brother-in-law, a Seikh; “lovely people, the Seikhs, very war-like”. And yet here we are today with Britain’s Seikhs trying to claim that Islam was spread ‘by the sword’. Trying, because saying such a sentence would now be classed as ‘Islamaphobic’, should the definition of that created in 2018 by MPs and Lords, be accepted. As it has by many councils and unions.

But the Seikhs argue (even though my mate never accused them of being ‘argumentative’ too) that you only have to look at history to see that prevention of such phrases would actually require a revision of Indian history. Along with that of many African countries too. Where Muslims invaded, murdered, subjugated and finally converted populations to Islam. Not completely different to Christians in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Though you can’t say Muslims ‘subjugated minority groups’ either any longer, cos its Islamophobic. Innit.

So-called ‘Muslin groups’ are still eliminating ‘infidels’, like Seikhs and Hindus, in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet saying ‘Islam spread by the sword’, or ‘Muslims subjugated populations’ will be ‘Islamophobic’. Even if they’re true and historically valid. So something will have to give. It better be history. Just re-write it. Revise it. So that history lessons don’t risk accusations of ‘Islamophobia’. Those statements will be banned ‘tropes’. Along with accusations that Muhammad was a paedophile. Which is an odd accusation at a man who married a woman old enough to be his mother. But who knows what he did on a Saturday night out in Billericay town centre.

It’s true, obviously, that most Muslim people are peaceful, family-loving, nice, struggling to survive against hunger, poverty and trying to make a better life for all. Like everybody else. Yet of that majority is another majority who will unfailingly either support or fail to condemn acts of modern day ‘swordism’, when perpetrated by Muslims.

It’s just strange that in defining ‘Islamophibia’, Muslims will be protected from all sorts of terminology, including historical truths, whilst other ‘definitions’ of racism don’t do that. As they shouldn’t. Basically, it’s much easier to be an anti-Semite or anti-Seikh or Hindu. So you might as well go for that.

Also, in giving Muslims a quite ridiculously ‘privileged status’, it makes them more offensive to the Hard Rights, and thus more appealing as something to attack.

Every minority has the right to be protected from abuse. But not protected from the truth. No-one has the right to that.

Happy Saturday

A xxxx