Think about this. A Muslim who's widely deemed to be a moderate - at least by the political establishment - is demanding that sharia blasphemy law be imposed on a non-Muslim country.
Fiyaz Mughal is basically calling for a complete ban on all criticism of Islam. (He calls it "parody" and "race hate".)
He is calling for something that only totalitarian and Islamic regimes have implemented.
Fiyaz Mughal wants to silence you!
Think about that.
Think about that. Because if you don't, it may well happen one day.
The thing is, he more or less admits that he's fully aware that they aren't the same thing. But that's not his point. Mughal's point is to make them the same thing. Or, at the least, to make criticism of Islam and racism legally equivalent.
He complains that "religious hatred isn't covered legally in the same way that racism is", and continues:
"Part of the problem, researchers say, is that right-wing groups can post anti-Islamic comments online without fear of legal prosecution."
He is now saying that it should be illegal to so much as 'parody' Islam. That's aÂ term (along with 'mock') that Islamists and Muslim clerics often use when they really mean criticism of Islam. Of course Mughal - being a smooth operator and a master of the PC vocabulary - says that such parody "can sometimes be used as a cover for race hate".
He almost sounds like a Pakistani cleric or Iranian mullah when he goes on to say: "The bar for prosecution of race hate is much lower, because effectively the comedic lobby has lobbied so that religion effectively could be parodied."
Does that mean that Mughal is willing to cite examples of parody that aren't a cover for race hate? What is his position, for example, on Sam Harris, Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins? After all, these liberals have also been classed as 'racist' and even 'fascist' by Muslims and the leftist whores-of-Islam.
What I don't understand is how someone who's a proven liar is still being interviewed by well-known news outlets such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). It's like asking Jeffrey Archer what he thinks about honesty and probity in public life.
What's also remarkable is that the particular researcher (that word sounds so scientific, academic and objective) cited by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is well aware of what makes so many people become critics of Islam. The CBC piece states:
Researchers believe the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and incidents such as the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby and the recent sexual exploitation scandal in the town of Rotherham have contributed to a spike in online anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK.
It's as if the researcher who noticed the trend is acknowledging the multitudes of reasons why people are critical of Islam, but at the same time thinks that these reasons still aren't acceptable or justifiable. In other words, this utterly unbiased researcher still pretends to believe - like Fiyaz Mughal - that all the critics of Islam are racists and/ or fascists.
This man'sÂ research skills must have hit a wall beyond which he would not pass. Despite the fact that he's educated, he failed to even hint at - let alone discuss or analyse - the possibility that the criticism of Islam is in fact the only saviour against the global Islamic hell we already have getting even worse. That possibility isn't even considered. Not for one single second.
There's another graphic example of this willed ignorance in the CBC piece. CBC tells us that Mughal andÂ the researcher "believe that right-wing groups such as Britain First and the EDL become mobilized each time there is an incident in the Muslim community".
It's as if these incidents (killings, sexual-grooming convictions, Islamisation of schools, etc.) - no matter how frequent and no matter how badÂ - could never justify or explain such reactive mobilisations.
Not surprisingly, the researcher quoted by CBC is a Muslim. (For some strange reason, CBC keeps using the plural "researchers".) He is Imran Awan of the Centre for Applied Criminology at Birmingham City University. And guess what: this man is "working on a paper regarding Islamophobia and Twitter following Lee Rigby's death". Thatâ€™s right: he's not working on a paper as to why the Muslim killer of Lee Rigby did what he did. No Muslim has ever done that (save to say it had "nothing to do with Islam").
What Imran Awan is actually doing is equivalent to researching the Naziphobic reactions of the British people to the devastation and death caused by the the Nazi bombings of British cities during the Second World War rather than on the actual bombings themselves.
CBC also tells us that of the 500 Tweets Awan examined, 75% were "Islamophobic in nature".
Hah! The science of Islamophobia! That statement should really read: of 500 tweets examined by Awan, he deemed 75% to be Islamophobic in nature.
The CBC statement doesnâ€™t really make sense on its own. Did Awan examine random tweets? Surely not. Then he must have examined the tweetsÂ - or at least Twitter accountsÂ - which he already believed to be 'Islamophobic'. Thus it's no surprise that he found 75% of the tweets to be 'Islamophobic'.
Predictably, Awan only cites the extreme tweets in order to get his point across. For example: "Let's go out and blow up a mosque", and "Let's get together and kill the Muslims."
Now I've been on Facebook for over four years and in that time I've hardly come across any statements as extreme and blatant as that. That's because those who post comments like that either get banned by Facebook or their accounts are closed down. However, Awan is talking about Twitter here so that may be a different matter.
Sure, some people do make such violent statements. But were the 75% of Tweets cited by Awan of the kind he quotes or is he simply fusing these examples with the more usual non-violent criticisms of Islam?
Finally, Imran AwanÂ - just like Fiyaz MughalÂ - wants our already tough laws to become even tougher. He wants them to prohibit any and all criticisms of Islam. You know, just as is the case in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and indeed the Islamic State.
According to CBC, Imran Awan argues that "online Islamophobia should be taken seriously and ... police and legislators need to make more successful prosecutions of this kind of hate speech and be more 'techno-savvy when it comes to online abuse'".
* Imran Awan has written articles for the The Huffington Post and The Guardian which say that:
i) drone attacks cause - rather than are a response to - Islamic "radicalism";
ii) the facts about the Islamisation of English schoolsÂ were all media hype;
iii) there's an obsession with Islamic terror;
iv) football is Islamophobic;
v) the Quilliam Foundation is made up of Muslim Uncle Toms;
vi) the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is defensible;
vii) last but not least, "Anti-Islamic Hate Should Be Banned".