X Bans Politician Rasmus Paludan for Exposing Islam and Honoring Salwan Momika

“Not only did they [Indonesian Muslims] threaten to boil me alive and rape my family to death, but they also promised: ‘You will face the wrath of Indonesian netizens.’ And then, suddenly, X banned me. Coincidence?” — Rasmus Paludan

Relentlessly pursued by Islamic terrorists. Persecuted by Western governments. Silenced by media elites. Yet Rasmus Paludan, leader of Denmark’s Hard Line Party (Stram Kurs), refuses to waver in his fight against Islamization, his defense of free speech, and his stand against Europe’s cultural and demographic suicide.

Now, in yet another assault on his freedom, Paludan has been banned from X (formerly Twitter)—not for breaking any laws, but for daring to expose the truth. His crime? Posting four videos.

Videos that challenge the violent suppression of dissent by Islam and its enablers in the West. Videos that honor the sacrifice of Salwan Momika, the Quran-burning critic of Islam who was assassinated in Sweden on January 29, 2024.

In an exclusive interview with RAIR Foundation, Paludan reveals the full extent of X’s censorship campaign—ordered by the very people who seek his death.

The Censorship Order from X

Paludan explains that his account was suspended until he complies with X’s demand to delete four videos. These include his visits to the embassies of Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where he spoke out against Islamic oppression with Qurans burning in the background. Another video simply criticized Islam—without any Quran burning at all—proving that X’s crackdown isn’t about enforcing terms, but about silencing speech..

“These videos are completely legal under Danish law,” Paludan states. “And they are certainly legal under X’s own guidelines. But because Muslims mass-reported them, I was slapped with a takedown notice under the absurd charge of ‘individual harassment’—even though I was criticizing an ideology, not individuals.”

X’s charge is not just false—it’s ridiculous. Paludan didn’t attack an individual; he criticized an ideology. Under this logic, every atheist mocking Christianity or leftist denouncing capitalism should be banned, too. But of course, only Islam gets this kind of special protection.

Paludan has refused to remove the videos, knowing that doing so would forfeit his right to appeal. Instead, he has called on Elon Musk to intervene, exposing the fact that his censorship is driven by mass reporting from radicals who openly call for his murder.

Below is the message Paludan is being instructed to delete in order to regain access to X. The following is X’s message in English:

We have temporarily restricted some of your account’s functions

What happened? We have determined that this account has violated the X Rules. Specifically:

1. Violation of our rules prohibiting harassment and abuse
   • You may not engage in targeted harassment of an individual or incite others to do so.

Because of this, we have temporarily restricted some of your account’s functions. While you can still see content on X, you are currently unable to send direct messages or engage with content (no posting, reposting, following, etc.).
Your account’s full functionality will be restored in: 12 hours and 0 minutes.

You can start the countdown and regain access to X when you:

• Delete the content that violates our rules
• 4 posts

If you believe we have made a mistake, you can contact our support team. You can also read more about our different enforcement options.

 

 

Below is the appeal Paludan submitted to X

 

 

Why Paludan Burned the Quran

When asked why he made these videos, Paludan’s response is unapologetic:

“Salwan Momika burned Qurans in Sweden and received endless death threats. On January 29th, while live-streaming on TikTok, he stepped outside for a smoke—and was shot five times in the head. Murdered for exercising his right to free speech.”

Paludan continues:

“When Muslims across the world celebrated his execution, I decided to send a message to those who think killing someone for speech is acceptable. I went to three Muslim embassies in Denmark and made it clear: we will not be intimidated.
The response? More death threats.

Indonesian Muslims promised I would be boiled alive, beheaded, drowned, or have my throat slit in front of my family before they were raped to death. They also promised to ‘report me en masse’ to get my social media shut down.

And X complied.

“Not only did they threaten to boil me alive and rape my family to death, but they also promised: ‘You will face the wrath of Indonesian netizens.’ And then, suddenly, X banned me. Coincidence?”

Calling on Elon Musk: X is Enforcing Islamic Blasphemy Laws

This isn’t just about Rasmus Paludan. It’s about whether X will allow free speech—or enforce Islamic blasphemy laws.

Paludan is calling on Elon Musk directly to reverse his unjust ban, which was triggered by a coordinated reporting campaign from the very people who have repeatedly tried to assassinate him.

How can a Muslim working for X fairly enforce its policies when criticism of Islam is, by definition, unacceptable in their belief system?”

The foundation of free speech is that no idea—no matter how sacred—should be immune to criticism. I demeaned Islam, a ridiculous and oppressive ideology. That should be allowed on X.”

Yet, X has chosen to bow to Islamic censorship.

“Does Elon Musk really want X to become a platform that enforces Islamic blasphemy laws?”

Why Burning the Quran Matters

This is bigger than Paludan’s personal censorship. His ban proves what he’s been warning about for years: Western institutions are already enforcing Islamic restrictions on speech.

Paludan has state protection in Denmark. He often has to live in safe houses. Why? Because Muslims have tried to kill him—repeatedly.

“On June 5, 2020, a Lebanese Muslim tried to stab me to death with a large knife. The police shot him in the leg. At the hospital, he told officers: ‘Next time, I will kill him.’”

If his videos had been about burning Bibles, Torahs, or any other religious book, this discussion wouldn’t even be happening. No one would care. No Jews would execute him for burning a Torah. No Christians would hunt him down for burning a Bible.

Paludan explains: “I’m a Christian. I don’t feel less in Jesus Christ, our Lord, if somebody burns the Bible. But I can ask myself, hmm, what would Jesus do? Would he kill the person? I think not. So, if anything, this only confirms my belief that Christianity has done a lot of good for the world. The problem is not with burning books—it’s with Islam’s reaction to criticism.”

But why burn the Quran specifically? Paludan explains: “If you have a problem with freedom of speech, then the way to test how big that problem is—how strong your reaction will be—is to do the thing that pisses you off the most. So, for example, if you wanted to piss me off the most, you could tell me, ‘I heard from three of your friends that you’re a terrible friend.’ That would anger me because it’s a lie. But what would I not do? I wouldn’t send them a death threat. I wouldn’t shoot them five times in the head.

“So if we want to test Islam’s tolerance for free speech, we do the thing that provokes the strongest reaction. And nothing enrages Islam more than burning the Quran. Cartoons of Muhammad are also up there, but nothing is more effective in proving the point than burning the Quran.”

But Islam? The penalty for criticism is death.

“Christians don’t kill people for burning the Bible. But Islam demands blood. That is why it’s important to burn the Quran—it proves exactly what we are dealing with.”

X Must Reinstate Paludan or Admit It Has Bent the Knee to Islam

Elon Musk now has a clear choice:

• Cave to Islam and enforce blasphemy laws on X
• Or restore Paludan’s account and prove that free speech still exists

Paludan will not comply. He will not remove the videos.

“Musk must now decide: Will X be a true free speech platform? Or will it cave to the demands of those who openly celebrate murder?”

And now, it’s up to X to decide: Does free speech still exist? Or is the truth too dangerous to be allowed?

This article has been cross-posted with the author’s permission from the RAIR Foundation.