top of page

I am not a racist. I am a blasphemer

The difference between racist and blasphemer should be obvious. But perhaps you yourself must have been subjected to a religious regime in order to really understand the difference.

Since I am “born muslim” and have liberated myself, there are no other paths to walk except being a blasphemer. That is how islam has positioned itself. Islam – not me or any other ex-muslims.

Yet still there are many who believe, or maybe they just choose to believe, that building a

bridge between islam and secular values is possible.

But how can you realise that, while at the same time refusing to admit that the muslim project in Norway has mainly failed?

Negative social control

What does actually comprise the concept of “negative social control”?

In my experience I interpret it to be a modern concept about the subjective understanding of a culture without secular norms. Negative social control is thereby a description of a negative culture. And as a culture it is not a phenomenon that appeared “yesterday” and it wont be solved “tomorrow”.

In reality negative social control is a culture without sexual liberty, without civil rights and without equality. It is a patriarchal culture ruled by religious laws. Religious laws that demands submission of both intelligence and free thought. It demands ostracising, even murder, of people who do not obey religious decrees.

But we are encouraged to believe that all cultures have equal value and can live in harmony in one and the same place. We are even commanded to believe that negative social control has nothing to do with religion.

We are also told that we can defeat negative social control by building bridges between secular values and religious norms. Does anyone believe that we will ever get imams to speak on behalf of sexual liberation, civil rights and equality?

One-way street to submission

We have to face reality: secular values are prohibited in islam. Islam is a law-religion. It is equal part law and politics as it is a religious faith.

If there is to be any “bridge building” either islam has to submit to secular values or at least step away from fundamental muslim values. The point of a bridge is to connect two places and make the “traffic” two-way. But it is the opposite that is happening, for such bridge building strengthens the patriarchal values.

The one-way street consists of constantly strengthening mosques economy and influence. Thereby arranging that their control over the individual is strengthened and any critical thought is incapacitated.

The result is that liberation from religious laws are hindered. The individual is taught “right from wrong” in a muslim context, in a secular society. Thereby negative social control can seem as inclusion, while it is exactly the opposite.


Racism is to allow discrimination of people by allowing religions that are on the edge, maybe even breaking, national laws to practice religious laws.

To “accept” crimes against the individuals freedom, and right over their own body and mind, by trapping them in religious dogmas. By giving them the green light to dislike, maybe even hate, the secular society. All for strangling critique, first and foremost of islam, because many muslims pose as the victim. A victim for the greater societies critique, while the real victims islam creates by itself.

Paradoxically, tax-payers money is given to both create and fight negative social control.

We all know what can defeat negative social control. Freedom. And what creates freedom?


bottom of page