Complete published contentImported from the organization’s visible public page and placed into the redesigned reading experience.
Since 9/11, America has struggled not just because of bad or incomplete information about sharia, but because many leaders and institutions refuse to let facts shape strategy. We’ve developed a mental block that keeps us from examining Islamic doctrine honestly, especially where it advances jihad and the spread of sharia.
Post-Modernism at Work
In today’s “post-modern” mindset, feelings outrank facts. Polite society treats judgment as prejudice and treats boundaries as sins. Patriotism gets mocked as jingoism. Western civilization—built on reasoned judgment and love of country—gets smeared as bigoted and war-like. The result is cultural anemia: we trade a confident American identity for a fuzzy, multicultural blur.
People then censor themselves. They avoid precise language about enemies and threats, hoping that silence will keep the peace. We assumed other cultures would outgrow brutality as we did, and that avoiding unpleasant truths would inspire others to do the same. It hasn’t. Instead, we’ve trained ourselves to suspend judgment—especially about sharia and its “civilization jihad.”
Jihadists as “Victims”
Our habit of “neutrality” creates a moral no-man’s-land where terrorism can be excused as understandable. Treating terror with the same even-handedness we give to tax policy is not virtue; it’s moral confusion.
A familiar pattern returns: once, some Western thinkers romanticized the “noble savage.” Today, apologists romanticize the suicide bomber—casting barbarity as the desperate cry of the oppressed. Guilt and fear replace clarity and courage.
The Enemy Within
There’s a key difference now: the “Other” is not far away. Large-scale immigration has brought sharia-adherent communities into the West. Where professors once used theory to oppose “modernity,” we now face organized blocs that actively press for sharia-aligned norms.
“Submission”
Self-criticism has turned into self-erasure. Cultural relativism wedges us away from our own founding beliefs. “Diversity” is praised only when it diminishes the West, and condemned when it names sharia-driven cruelty for what it is. The result is paralysis.
Across parts of Europe, officials insist no civilization can be called “better,” even when Western liberty and human rights are the very standards that allow such debate. Anything that restores confidence in Western principles is shamed as “intolerant.”
In Denial
Media, schools, and officials often declare any link between sharia doctrine and terrorism off-limits. Euphemisms replace analysis. Accusations of “bigotry” or “blasphemy” end conversations before they begin. Step by step, public debate conforms to an informal blasphemy code that shields sharia from criticism. The puzzle is not that sharia demands such immunity—it always has—but why so many non-Muslims rush to enforce it.
Dhimmitude
History offers a clue. Under sharia, conquered non-Muslims (dhimmis) lived with inferior legal status and survived by deference, silence, and self-censorship. Over time, that fear shaped entire communities.
You don’t need legal dhimmi status to develop the same habits. In the modern West, a “soft” version appears as political correctness: people mute themselves to avoid social punishment. The effect is similar—silence in the face of sharia’s claims.
“Political Correctness” as Dhimmitude
These patterns now spread well beyond academia. The shared rule is simple: do not offend. But a society that forbids offense soon forbids inquiry. When criticism of sharia is branded hateful by default, the public square slowly empties of honest speech.
Conforming to Sharia “Blasphemy” Codes
Why do Western institutions help enforce this silence? Partly from a crisis of confidence, partly from fear. Each retreat—whether rhetorical or legal—is read by sharia-driven actors as submission. Step by step, their red lines become ours.
Fear as the New Reason
Where fear rules, reason yields. We fear riots, fatwas, assassinations, boycotts, bomb threats—so we look away. We tell ourselves that “moderation” will rise on its own, that democracy alone will cure the problem, and that asking hard questions is the real danger.
Demographics and activism ensure that sharia claims will keep pressing into Western spaces. That expansion threatens freedom of speech and conscience, and it upends legal equality—especially for women, dissenters, and sexual minorities. Logic demands we face the clash of principles: sharia’s claims to supremacy cannot be reconciled with Western liberty.
Silence makes that reckoning harder. When a free society stays quiet—out of fear or fashion—it invites the very outcome it dreads. Self-censorship is not respect; it is surrender in slow motion.
Standing Up for the West
The West is the source of ideas that lifted billions: individual liberty, representative government, the rule of law, human rights, free inquiry, free speech, and freedom of conscience. Those achievements, and America’s own legacy—from the Founders to scientists, artists, and soldiers—are not “universal values” that appear everywhere by magic. They were built, defended, and handed down.
We are living through a contest of ideas—prosperity and modernization on one side do not cancel a determined, supremacist doctrine on the other. A thin line of brave voices, including former Muslims and a few practicing Muslims who reject sharia supremacy, is pushing back. They need allies.
The first requirement is simple and non-negotiable: free speech. Clear, informed, and unapologetic speech about sharia—what it teaches, how it advances, and why it conflicts with the Constitution. Without that, nothing else we do will matter.
