“Islam Is Not Compatible With Western Civilization”
Charlie Kirk’s recent X post cuts to the core:
Predictably, the outrage machine kicked in.
But Kirk didn’t invent this tension—he’s simply stating what many are too afraid to say.
Western civilization—rooted in Enlightenment values, individual rights, free speech, religious tolerance, and separation of church and state—is fundamentally different from the theocratic, collectivist, and often authoritarian principles embedded in many Islamic societies.
These aren’t just cultural quirks. They’re incompatible systems.
Just look at the record:
- Free Speech? Criticizing Islam is criminalized in multiple European countries under “hate speech” laws, often pushed in response to Islamist pressure.
- Women’s Rights? From honor killings to forced hijabs, Islamists bring theocratic control over women wherever they gain influence.
- Terror & Intimidation? France has suffered over 270 deaths from Islamist terror attacks since 2012. Sweden’s “no-go zones” and gang explosions? Often tied to radicalized migrant enclaves.
- Parallel Societies? Sharia courts already operate in the UK. Integration? No. Segregation, by choice.
Multiculturalism was supposed to be the answer. Instead, it’s created fractured societies afraid to confront hard truths. Western leaders, media, and NGOs lecture citizens on tolerance while importing ideologies that fundamentally reject Western norms.
This isn’t about skin color or ethnicity. It’s about ideology. And no ideology is immune to criticism—especially one that demands submission.
The West is in decline not because of strength from abroad, but cowardice from within. Kirk’s post is a litmus test: those shrieking the loudest aren’t defending tolerance—they’re enforcing silence.
This is a contentious topic—but that’s exactly why it must be discussed openly. Shutting down debate with slurs like “racist” is a lazy tactic meant to silence, not to engage. Criticizing an ideology is not the same as attacking a people.
The most dangerous ideas are the ones we’re told we’re not allowed to question. Censorship protects power, not truth. And in the West, truth should never be off-limits.
In the UK someone has just been found guilty of a racially motivated act likely to cause unrest/violence because he burnt a copy of the Koran. The judge said that this person believes that Islam is a violent religion, thus proving it’s now a crime to say things other people don’t want to hear. The person who burnt the Koran has now gone into hiding in fear for his life, as has a school teacher who showed his pupils cartoons of Muhammed, proving that Islam is indeed a violent religion.
For the truth about Islam people only need to read the Koran, especially the 3rd Sura (chapter) which tells Muslims to kill the unbelievers where ever they find them and that the believer who stays at home is not the equal of believers who fight for the cause of Islam amongst a lot of other nastiness.
It’s also true that there’s a few verses in the Koran that talk about peace and tolerance between Muslims and non believers. However these are from early in Muhammed’s life when he when he was purely a spiritual leader. Once he gained some power and a large enough following his “revelations” became far more violent and intolerant. To try and deal with the contradictions in the Koran Muslim scholars have developed the principle of abrogation whereby later verses trump earlier ones (the chapters in the Koran are arranged in order of length not chronologically). Therefore the claim that Islam is a religion of peace was only true for it’s first 13 years.
As Sam Harris, in his excellent book “The End Of Faith”, said of Osama Bin Laden “he’s on the wrong side of any moral argument but the right side of any theological argument”. Obviously this applies any Muslim terrorist or believer who advocates violence against non believers.