Author: Lewis Loflin
In 2025, platforms like X and Fox News highlight a surge in anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment, often met with silence from some civil rights activists. Yet, these same activists frequently label any criticism of Islam—or even lighthearted pranks—as “hate speech,” while overlooking physical acts of hostility toward Jews and others on college campuses. This discrepancy raises questions about consistency and the boundaries of free expression.
Criticizing or making fun of any religion, including Islam, does not constitute hate speech. Christianity and Judaism face regular critique from atheists and various groups, often without being labeled as hate. Under the U.S. Constitution, the right to critique or joke about any religion or philosophy is protected, and this standard must apply equally to Islam. Claims of racism in response to such criticism are misplaced—Islam is a religion, not a race.
In 2016, a Muslim individual killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, an act rooted in interpretations of Islamic Sharia law that condemn homosexuality. Both President Obama and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) downplayed the role of Islamic ideology, with CAIR and Obama asserting that the incident was unrelated to Islam. This tragedy was a clear hate crime, yet their reluctance to acknowledge its ideological motivations contrasts sharply with their reactions to lesser incidents.
For example, in Austin, Texas, a prankster left bacon and pork products in a mosque’s parking lot and on a doorknob—an act CAIR called a “shocking sight” and labeled a “hate crime.” No one was harmed, and no property was damaged, yet CAIR and some Muslim leaders expressed outrage, despite their broader silence on Sharia-based teachings that justify violence against certain groups, such as homosexuals. Adam Soltani, Executive Director of CAIR-Oklahoma, stated, “It’s really sad that at a place where we feel safe and find peace, something like this would happen.” While the act may have been offensive, there is no legal right to be free from offense, and equating it to a hate crime stretches the term’s meaning.
CAIR, an organization advocating for Muslim civil rights, has been linked by some critics to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which are associated with extremist ideologies. Efforts to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization have been opposed by CAIR, raising concerns among some observers about its affiliations and influence, including during the Obama administration. CAIR’s push to criminalize criticism of Islam aligns with Sharia principles, which prohibit offending Muslims—a stance at odds with Western free speech norms.
In Europe, countries like Germany and France have uncovered weapons and explosives in mosques during police sweeps, and Sweden reported over 100 bombings in 2019 linked to Muslim gangs. These incidents highlight real security concerns, yet some European policies appear to prioritize avoiding offense to Muslims over addressing these threats, a trend CAIR seems to advocate for in the U.S. by pushing for Sharia-compliant restrictions on speech.
CAIR-Oklahoma has urged community members to report any perceived “hate crimes” or “hate speech” against Muslims, as noted by Austin Prickette on April 13, 2015. However, the bacon incident in Austin does not meet the legal definition of a hate crime or hate speech, unlike the ideological rhetoric often promoted by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or Wahhabis in some American mosques. Soltani’s claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” is also contested by many Muslims who reject Sufism—a mystical branch often highlighted by Western apologists—as non-Islamic, underscoring the diversity of thought within Islam itself.
My perspective is straightforward: individuals should not be expected to conform to another’s ideology when it conflicts with their own rights and freedoms. The bacon prank, while perhaps in poor taste, is not an act of hate; it’s a form of expression, however provocative. In contrast, Sharia-based ideologies that justify harm or discrimination—such as violence against homosexuals or suppression of free speech—pose a greater challenge to pluralistic societies like the U.S., where the separation of religion and state is a foundational principle.
Consistency in applying free speech standards across all religions is essential. If we can critique or jest about one faith without fear of legal repercussions, the same must hold true for Islam. I’ll enjoy my bacon, thank you, and advocate for a society where open dialogue and humor are not misconstrued as hate.
