Daniel Pipes makes some cogent and much-needed observations about the spurious phenomenon of "Islamophobia" in FrontPage (many good links in the original):
An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called “Stop Islamophobia,” the Sunday Times has revealed.Stop what, you ask?
Coined in Great Britain a decade ago, the neologism Islamophobia was launched in 1996 by a self-proclaimed “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.” The word literally means “undue fear of Islam” but it is used to mean “prejudice against Muslims” and joins over 500 other phobias spanning virtually every aspect of life.
The term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the secretary-general of the United Nations presided over a December 2004 conference titled “Confronting Islamophobia,” and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned “Islamophobia.”The term presents several problems, however. First, what exactly constitutes an “undue fear of Islam” when Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression, both verbal and physical, versus non-Muslims and Muslims alike? What, one wonders, is the proper amount of fear?
Second, while prejudice against Muslims certainly exists, “Islamophobia” deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam. I personally experience this problem: despite writing again and again against radical Islam the ideology, not Islam the religion, I have been made the runner-up for a mock “Islamophobia Award” in Great Britain, deemed America’s “leading Islamophobe,” and even called an “Islamophobe Incarnate.” (What I really am is an “Islamism-ophobe.”)
Third, promoters of the “Islamophobia” concept habitually exaggerate the problem:
· Law enforcement: British Muslims are said to suffer from persistent police discrimination but an actual review of the statistics by Kenan Malik makes mincemeat of this “Islamophobia myth.”
· Cultural: Muslims “are faced with an extreme flow of anti-Islamic literature that preaches hatred against Islam,” claims the president of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in Virginia, Taha Jabir Al-‘Alwani: “novels, movies, books and researches. Just among the best selling novels alone there are almost 1000 novels of this type.” One thousand bestsellers vilify Islam? Hardly. In fact, barely a handful do so (for example, The Haj, by Leon Uris).
· Linguistic: A professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, falsely reported (in his keynote speech at a U.N. event, “Confronting Islamophobia,” reports Alexander Joffe) attempts to hide the Arabic origins of English words such as adobe – which derives in fact from ancient Egyptian, not from Arabic.
· Historical: The term anti-Semitism was originally used against Arabs living in Spain, Nasr also stated in his speech, and was not directed at Jews until after World War II. Nonsense: anti-Semitism dates back only to 1879, when it was coined by Wilhelm Marr, and has always referred specifically to hatred of Jews.
Fourth, Hizb ut-Tahrir’s manipulation of “Stop Islamophobia” betrays the fraudulence of this word. As the Sunday Times article explains, “Ostensibly the campaign’s goal is to fight anti-Muslim prejudice in the wake of the London bombings,” but it quotes Anthony Glees of London’s Brunel University to the effect that the real agenda is to spread anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-homosexual, and anti-female attitudes, as well as foment resentment of Western influence.
Finally, calling moderate Muslims (such as Irshad Manji) Islamophobes betrays this term’s aggressiveness. As Charles Moore writes in the Daily Telegraph, moderate Muslims, “frightened of what the Islamists are turning their faith into,” are the ones who most fear Islam. (Think of Algeria, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.) “They cannot find the courage and the words to get to grips with the huge problem that confronts Islam in the modern world.” Accusations of Islamophobia, Malik adds, are intended “to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.” Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: “all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society.”
Muslims should dispense with this discredited term and instead engage in some earnest introspection. Rather than blame the potential victim for fearing his would-be executioner, they would do better to ponder how Islamists have transformed their faith into an ideology celebrating murder (Al-Qaeda: “You love life, we love death”) and develop strategies to redeem their religion by combating this morbid totalitarianism.
"... two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam."
-- Daniel Pipes
I've long wondered whether Pipes is working for petrodollars. Osama bin Laden's heart must jump with joy every time Daniel pipes up publicly.
******************
rad-i-cal
adj
One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.
******************
All Moslems strive for Sharia in Dar al Harb. If that's not seeking fundamental and revolutionary change in current praces, conditions, and institutions, then what the hell is it?!
Any Moslem who does not seek this is an apostate. Does the erudite Mr. Pipes know of an Islam that I cannot see?
How can there be a non-radical Islam, when the "religion" itself seeks governmental purview over the global population, and intends to attain this by the clearly stated means of intense and systematic hate, terror, and mass murder?
In other words, how exactly is "radical Islam" different from "Islam?"
The only difference that I can see -- and this goes all the way back to the Sunnah -- is that some Moslems are activist and some are not. But they're all radical. Every one of them is a time bomb positioned to go off at the opportune moment.
Daniel Pipes exerts a disasterous influence on our already befuddled policymakers.
It seems to me that non-muslims and moderate muslims need a word that counteracts the word "Islamophobe". It should have the same affect...that is to silence the Islamist and others who favor the word.
We will be hard pressed to find or create such a word for it would have to describe their hypocrisy, anti-Semitism, anti-Hindu, anti-homosexual, anti-female, anti-infidel, anti-West, anti-Democracy, or anti-Everything sentiments.
I haven't given it a lot of thought but it should have to have the same zing or ring to it as Islamophobe too. 'Ifidellaphobe' doesn't quite cut it.
While I know some of you will say that we shouldn't be reduced to name calling, I believe that we should fight fire with fire. After all, they stole the technique from us in the first place, which is a bit ironic.
I know there are some highly educated people out there who read this site, much more so than me. Give us a word!
Yes it's pathetic isn't it.
One can have a phobia about spiders, heights, even Frenchmen. Those are all things which are not necessarily dangerous.
But we know that Muslims want to kill/ enslave/ rape/ convert us, so it's hardly unreasonable to be afraid of them.
I actually think that Westerners are the dumbest people on the planet. We buy into all this politically correct bullshit and we believe what our enemies tell us.
We have learned nothing from WW2, that is if someone says they want to kill you, you should believe them.
One can have a phobia about spiders, heights, even Frenchmen. Those are all things which are not necessarily dangerous.
Frenchmen are always dangerous, one way or another. But apart from that, Sneakey, you're quite right.
Islamophobia is a nonsense. If you want to see how silly it is, take a look at Islamophobia Watch, a cyber shrine to the god Umbrage. Every single criticism of Islam or Muslims is deemed Islamophobic, as though only a diseased mind could object to stoning, beheading and terrorism. The site regularly links to here, and will probably take exception to this post.
On a related matter, an excellent piece in The Telegraph on the proposed religious hatred legislation:
Only Islamophobia will counter Infidelophobia
Nah.. Sneaky.. rest assured Indians are dumber than westerners when it comes to Islam.
The site regularly links to here, and will probably take exception to this post.
Quoting myself two posts earlier.
Guess what? They did! Nothing if not predictable.
>...If you want to see how silly it is, take a look at Islamophobia...
Wow. It really just beggars belief, doesnt it? Never in my life have I seen so much stupidity amassed in one place.
Never in my life have I seen so much stupidity amassed in one place.
Never done the Haj, then?
Interested, are you sure that site isnt a spoof? If I were going to set up a site to discredit the concept of "Islamophobia" I could think of almost no better way of going about it than this - it really is just any comment, any criticism, however mild, the merest curtailment of 7th century values and superstitions...
Again, wow.
No, it's for real. Islam doesn't do parody.
If an infidel accepts the concepts of "radical Islam" and "moderate Moslems" then that infidel is not prepared to make a stand.
Islam fits the definition of a relious cult. At its true inner core, Islam is not a true religion of peace. Coercion and intimidation are techniques used to control Muslims into practicing sharia. If a Muslim gives up the practice of Islam and becomes an apostate, he or she could be subject to death according to sharia, Islamic law. Clearly, sharia sets a draconian code for Muslims.
But Muslims believe they have a divine mandate to institute sharia in all places of the world. Should this be of concern? Absolutely. Sharia is incompatible with western democracy, which culminated in Judeo-Christian societies.
Westerners today should be concerned that Christianity is diminishing in Europe and Islam is gaining influence. If the trend continues in the west, sharia may replace western practices of law and governance.
Interested
"No, it's for real. Islam doesn't do parody."
Who funds that site?
Not for profit, eh?. So the Lottery is funding it.
I shall ask someone who knows & report back.
But it is funny how so many Muslims benefit from Lottery Grants in the UK when they are forbidden to buy a ticket.
Surely, accepting the ill gotten gains from Infidel gambling is against Sharia?
Interested
"No, it's for real. Islam doesn't do parody."
Who funds that site?
Not for profit, eh?. So the Lottery is funding it.
I shall ask someone who knows & report back.
But it is funny how so many Muslims benefit from Lottery Grants in the UK when they are forbidden to buy a ticket.
Surely, accepting the ill gotten gains from Infidel gambling is against Sharia?
I think it's unlikely to be funded by Lottery money. It looks pretty low budget as well as low IQ.
'Non-profitmaking' makes me wince. It should be 'non-profit-making'. I prefer 'not-for-Prophet'.
From Interested's link.
I am sorry that muslim women are being hassled...maybe it is time to go back to your lands of origin. We kuffars are not going to go down without a fight.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16987936^2862,00.html
And we are p***ed.
From Islamophobia Watch
Islamophobia Watch has been founded with a determination not to allow the racist ideology of Western Imperialism to gain common currency in its demonisation of Islam
OMG, how can we demonize the works of islam? It does a fine job itself, what with the bombings and beheadings, and the rapes and the honor killings. Just look at Shiva's links about the jihad in Indonesia...little kids with no heads on their shoulders....and we demonize islam?
Perhaps the silliest one on a very silly site is Dolly Parton defends Yusuf Islam
"Yusuf has more than his fair share of knockers. I really understand how he feels", she said.
(Actually I made that quote up, but the original is just as batty.)
I do not ascribe malevolence to persons such as Daniel Pipes and Irshad Manji -- BUT -- I feel strongly that these persons have gravely helped the Islamist cause by championing the false prospect of redemption for the iredeemable. In fact, their entire notion that so called "moderates" could EVER pursuade the vast majority of Muslims to shed the basic tenets of Islam is based on a fantasist lie. Historically, nothing resembling their impossible conflation of "reform" and "Islam" has ever happened. Nothing like this IS happening now... And I strongly believe that nothing like this EVER will happen! Holding out the false hope that something like reform will ever occur is like whistling while kicking the can down the street past the graveyard, to mix a couple metaphors... Postponing the day of reckoning AND pretending the reckoning will never come...
I suppose that for appearance's sake, and with an eye towards how Western actions will be viewed historically, it is important that we pass through extremely painful phases such as encouraging Muslim "moderates" to reform their hate filled religion, or with good college tries to jump start "democracy" in the heart of darkness's domain... Time will tell whether "democracy" will take hold in the abscessed center of the Arab world... But perhaps this is a little late for scholars to be promoting these vain and empty gestures?
Mr. Pipes' scholarship on Islam is far superior to my own in a purely academic way -- but in a 'how things REALLY work' kind of way -- in a 'here's how the chips are gonna fall' kind of way--
I believe his misguided analysis causes harm to the anti-Jihad, and permits the Jihad to gain in momentum -- making its defeat even harder as the days pass...
Is this your website, KT?
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
"ISLAMOPHOBIA: Anti Muslim Racism"
-- banner atop islamophobia-watch.com home page
There are few flaws in this banner:
1) Islamophobia isn't necessarily irrational, especially to an infidel who has read the Koran. There's plenty to fear, so don't pose the term in such a deragatory manner.
2) There should be a hyphen between Anti and Moslem (e.g., Anti-Moslem Racism). This is dang poor grammar for such an important web site.
3) Arabs, Abyssinians, Persians, blacks, caucasians, Turks, East Indians, and orientals now belong to the same race group? And, if this is just a stupid writing error, then just exactly what is anti-Moslemism? Criticism of a putative religion?
Daniel Pipes is a disappointment.
He and other anti-Dhimmitude intellectuals who accept the concepts of "radical Islam" and "moderate Moslems" are proving very harmful to the cause.
One wonders what motivates his fallaciousness, could it be the siren call of careerism?
"Islamophobia" is ostensibly a manufactured term coined by those who stand to gain through its use as a political device.
However, most people find Islamic dogma genuinely and deeply offensive (when they finally understand what it really is).. This reaction can NOT be manufactured and may in fact represent "common sense."
Being 'phobic' of Islam may yet save the world! So.... "let's hear it for "Islamophobes!"
Deliver us from Islam!
As I wrote in my blog, the real problem is not Islamophobia but jihadophilia.
I've come to the conclusion that most of you here are over-simplifying the problem of Islam. If Islam -- defined as all or the vast majority of Muslims -- were as monolithically nefarious and malevolently violent as you all think, we would see masses of millions of Muslims storming and over-running Western cities. Five million Muslims most armed with nothing more than torches and sticks (a few thousand with guns and bombs) could take Paris, or London or Rome or Berlin (indeed, all four simultaneously) in a human blitzkrieg, if the vast majority or all Muslims were really as of one mind as you all make them out to be. With their numbers, they could easily do that. In fact, if Muslims were of one pathologically and malevolently and irrationally violent mind as you all imply, Islam could easily muster, say, 500 million Muslims to sweep over and engulf all of Europe and the USA and take it over in a matter of days through the mass suicidal/homicidal carnage of sheer numbers.
I just think Islam is far more sociologically complex than you guys are making it out to be: while I agree that there are genuinely nefarious and deadly threats coming from untold numbers of Muslims all over the world, in varying degrees ranging throughout the many types of non-military Jihad (economic, demographic, propagandistic) as well as military and commando Jihads -- I do not agree that the majority of Muslims are in overt, conscious lock-step with an overall Grand Plan to conquer the world.
The problem, and the danger, is more inchoate, murky, amorphous and complex, and there are far more millions of passive Muslims and ideological incoherence and political confusion and sociological variety and practical incompetence & corruption -- not to mention some ambivalence and degrees of human decency thrown in to the mix -- rife throughout the Muslim world than the monolithic and simplex sociology you guys seem to think is the case would lead one to conclude.
Dr Pepper, I don't agree. Islam is what it is. It isn't complex at all, and it is an imperialist, reactionary, violent, totalitarian ideology. Muslims simply vary in the extent to which they know about it, believe in it or act it out. Many Muslims are peaceful. Islam is not.
I think Pipes knows this really. How can he not?
It seems to me that Dr. Pipes can't bring himself to say the truth: Islam is the reason for Jihad and Islamic triumphalism. Muslims exult in criticism of non-Muslims. With glee they celebrate the suffering of non-Muslims and lust after the destruction of non-Muslims and their "reversion" to Islam whether voluntary or forced.
How has Islam been transformed? The original holy text, the Koran is nothing but an exhortation to seek out and destroy non-Muslims...
I have software program, for the Oxford English Dictionary, and I typed in "phobia" and this is the definition
phobia n.
an abnormal or morbid fear or aversion.
In a world where Islam is misconceived and misperceived (thanks to President Bush) as a relgion of peace, then a fear of Islam is indeed abnormal, since the normal attitude, thanks to the administration, is that it is just another religion, with radical extremists corrupting it.
So yes a Jihad Watcher would be abnormal, and who would want to be normal. A fear of Islam, for the informed is not Undue, as per the definition the Muslims proffer, in fact a lack of fear of Islam is irrational if the person who lacks fear is informed.
I think NAZIphobia is rational and due, that KKKphobia is rational and due, and I will cop to it I do have a morbid fear of Islam, and that morbid fear (Islamophobia) is totally rational.
And I'm not as even handed as Pipes, I don't think there is any such thing as a moderate Muslim, or a "good Muslim" vs a radical extremist. One either stands with the ummah or one stands against the ummah, there is no middle ground. And the ummah stands unrelented in it's claim to purity, filiality and superiority.
In the world of Islam, there are only believers and others, and there is no room, opportunity or door open for moderation. The door to ijtihad was closed in the 12th Century, and the ijtihad of the Shi'a is regressive, actually salafiyyah (back to basics).
"We say outright: these are madmen, yet these madmen have their own logic, their teaching, their code, their God even, and it's as deepset as it could be." —Dostoevsky
The attempt at revisionism by Muslims that Pipes cites is nothing compared to this tripe.
Like the Soviets they are trying to claim ownership and authorship of the whole world and all of science.
This really gets ridiculous especially when they claim that Roger Bacon got his science from a Muslim (like the man could read Arabic, I doubt that he even met an Arab), and that Arabs invented flight.
Sidenote: They also claim that America the continent is theirs because there were Arab sailors on Columbus ship, and that his navigator was Arab (all of which has been debunked and refuted).
Peruse this stuff, so you can arm yourself against further intellectual insults and assaults
Islamic Science, what should be taught
And don't fall off your chair in laughter, this is dead serious stuff which is bound to surface in the public venue.
Was it parody? Was it Satire?
Dr. Pepper -- I can't believe your post above....
"...we would see masses of millions of Muslims storming and over-running Western cities."
WTF do you think is going on, dude? Haven't you been paying attention.
Just because the 'storming' isn't happening in some cartoonish manner, like say, a Ridley Scott film, doen't mean it's not happening... AND your lack of imagination to understand that such things can happen in what appears to be slow motion is disturbing...
Do this for a thought experiment:
You are French. You are put into suspended animation right at the end of WW2 -- 1945.... The future looks bright indeed for Paris, non?
Now you are awakened 60 years later, and observe that Paris is nearly 1/3 Arabs and north-Africans -- most of whom don't speak French -- the local boulangerie is now a mosque, the cafe, a madrassa... and, horror of HORRORS you watch while the leftists students studying at the Sorbonne are hounded by throngs of Muslim hoodlums, attacked mercilessly (with sticks and stones by the way) when the pinkos try to have a good old fashioned anti-Imperialist rally -- What gives ??? -- Could this possibly be the Paris you left behind a short time ago? Could Paris possibly change so drastically in a little more that a half century??? Mon Dieu!!! Mais il a!!! It has!
Get a clue!
From the scientific sublime to the ridiculous:
The let's consider Freedom of Expression and Islam.
The author seems to be on the right track:
But since through observation we see that Islam does repress free thought, the author, through no intent on his part, explains why hypocrosy is rampant in Islamic society and those societies have stagnated:
Now if there are differences of opinion, personal feelings are to be set aside, Islam demands it:
That's it, you got it now, put aside your personal difference and just accept the truth:
See how it works? Your personal freedom of expression means that you will accept the truth without reservation when it is presented to you for there is nothing else to express:
Wasn't that a great non-sequitur? We worship the truth that we had to accept without reservation because of the opportunity, not exercised, of freedom of expression. So in conclusion, freedom of expression means you get to express and accept the truth, not debate or criticize it:
Another great post, Lisa:
AS ALWAYS-- the Muslim's projection onto 'the other' serves as the best window into his soul. Just so, it is possible to understand these exaggerations and false contructs. Muslims have put these silly stories forward to constue that the greatest discoveries in human history have Muslim fingerprints all over them. But the very act of this distortion says most about their consciousness of their own abject failures and their desperate need to conceal them. We are aware of the truth about their ephemeral "discoveries" and elusive accomplishments...
There is a peculiar shizophrenia in the Muslim mind -- such fairtales as these are embraced by Muslim because they know they aren't true, and the truth is too humiliating. No doubt many of the bedraggled Islamic ignoramouses and pious Muslim youths run around spewing and embracing this vagrant wreckage masquerading as fact... It is probably an important cornerstone for the stupefying displays of arrogance we hear tripping off the Muslim tongue -- Ibrahim Hooper, forehead furrowed in righteous anger -- lecturing the media and America at large on how we must reform our foreign policy -- how WE must begin to learn to show tolerance, and, we are lectured, the place to start is with the Muslim victim of American intolerance and "Islamophobia..."
I sit, watch, and ask -- 'How can someone who hails from such an obvious sh*t hole come to American and be so arrogant -- where does he get the brass...?"
And then I remember in the immediate days after the war began in Afghanistan, and before I had waded into the sludge and sewage of Islam's filth, I watched a captured Taliban terrorist speaking at a military cameraman. He was captured, filthy, wearing pajamas, no shoes, face begrimed with God knows what filth, after having spent days in that fortress dungeon, neck deep in corpses, sewage, and nothingness -- And this guy said, in perfect Queen's English "We will destroy you -- you are kaffir -- you are like dust to us..."
I couldn't believe my eyes -- I couldn't believe my ears -- I didn't know what the term meant - but I understood I was being confronted with an enemy that we hadn't faced before -- an undeterrable enemy -- one who's complacency with himself is so utter, complete, and self satisfied, that no reconciliation would be possible, no surrender, no compromise. It was also clear, more in the tone of his words and his arrogant posture, than the denotation, that his contempt for us was so utter and complete that NOTHING we could do to them would make them turn from their agenda... I just wasn't clear as to what it was yet... I hadn't believed him, though he had stated it quite clearly :
"We will destroy you -- you are kaffir -- you are like dust to us..."
Interested:
"Dr Pepper, I don't agree. Islam is what it is. It isn't complex at all, and it is an imperialist, reactionary, violent, totalitarian ideology."
My post wasn't about Islam as an ideology. My post was about Islam as the sum total of all Muslims, specifically their behaviors and thoughts. I agree that the bulk of Islam, and the founding tenets of Islam, are unsuited for a free and tolerant modernity. I don't agree that all Muslims are in sufficient lock-step with Islam as ideology to warrant treating them analytically or procedurally en bloc.
epg:
"It seems to me that Dr. Pipes can't bring himself to say the truth: Islam is the reason for Jihad and Islamic triumphalism."
Again, I agree that Islam is the reason for Jihad and Islamic triumphalism, as well as the reason for all sorts of attendant nastiness, like intolerance, inhumane policies and behaviors, and irrational hatreds. I just don't agree that Islam defined sociologically is as simplex as that.
"Muslims exult in criticism of non-Muslims. With glee they celebrate the suffering of non-Muslims and lust after the destruction of non-Muslims..."
I agree that too many of them do this, and we have to put a stop to it. I don't agree that all Muslims do this, nor that all want to do this, nor that all are capable of being activated to start doing this. However, I am fully aware of (and have repeatedly stated this on jihadwatch) the extremely thorny problem that for the most part, we cannot discern the bad apples from the, if not necessarily always good apples, at least the relatively harmless apples.
Nariz:
"I think NAZIphobia is rational and due, that KKKphobia is rational and due, and I will cop to it I do have a morbid fear of Islam, and that morbid fear (Islamophobia) is totally rational."
That would be bad English and stubbornly counterproductive, since "phobias" by conventional definition are irrational and pathological.
jsla:
I wrote -- "...we would see masses of millions of Muslims storming and over-running Western cities."
You responded -- "WTF do you think is going on, dude? Haven't you been paying attention."
I meant my statement literally, not hyperbolically or metaphorically or poetically. We have not yet seen millions, much less hundreds of millions, storming and conquering Europe and America. If hundreds of millions of Muslims of the nature you all have characterized them amassed into hundreds of millions of suicide stormers, they could take over Europe and America in a matter of weeks. They obviously haven't done that, and I don't think the reason they haven't is because they are being clever. It's because, sociologically, Islam is a mess brimming with confusion, hatreds at cross-purposes, incompetent irrationality, etc. A dangerous portion of them are cleverly planning and executing horrible things; but they are patently incapable of actually conquering the Infidel world -- which, I maintain, they could do if they were really as pathologically galvanizable as you all apparently think they are.
"Just because the 'storming' isn't happening in some cartoonish manner"
There's nothing cartoonish about mass storming. It can be done if hundreds of millions really want to.
"your lack of imagination to understand that such things can happen in what appears to be slow motion is disturbing..."
The slow-motion campaigns that an uncomfortably large and broadly present portion of Muslims are in fact waging all over the globe are being done in lieu of the assured victory they could have if they simply whipped up and implemented a globally mass attack. The slow-motion encroachment of Muslims upon the Infidel world are not the same thing I am talking about simply taking place... in slow-motion. That's a contradiction in terms. The globally mass attack would, ipso facto, be a blitzkrieg, not a jihad of attrition, and it would be far more effective than the ragged (albeit still deadly and intolerable) jihad of attrition that is patently what is actually taking place.
Dr Pepper: " If millions of Muslims of the nature you all characterized them ammassed into hunderds of millions od suicide stormers, they could take over Europe and America in weeks."
Marching into Europe with explosives on Millions of Muslims will definitely create madness and inexhaustable hatred towards Muslims in Europe and elsewhere. But here is a far more realistic sceanario: Turkey (population 70 million) becomes a member of the European Union. As a member of the European Union with a large population and a poorer economy, milllions of Muslim Turks will legally migrate north bound into Europe to take up residence in whatever country is desired.
Why do words have to be so bloody complicated? Phobia = fear. Most of us know what Islam equals. Islamophobia = fear of Islam. One should be proud to have a rational, healthy, considered, intelligent, life-loving, family-friendly, peace & tolerance loving, freedom-loving fear of bloody Islam!
The globally mass attack would, ipso facto, be a blitzkrieg, not a jihad of attrition, and it would be far more effective than the ragged (albeit still deadly and intolerable) jihad of attrition that is patently what is actually taking place.
I think the reverse is true. A global mass attack could be seen for what it is and stopped. However, the 'slow motion encroachment of Muslims upon the Infidel world', as you neatly express it, is more dangerous because it goes unnoticed until it is too late. High birth rates are an important aspect of this encroachment. Muslims are more demanding than any other group, and our liberties are being eroded.
I don't agree that all Muslims are in sufficient lock-step with Islam as ideology to warrant treating them analytically or procedurally en bloc.
Though most Muslims at any one time do not act upon their ideology, this ideology is there, incubating, waiting for each new generation to discover it. There would be no Islam without Muslims to transmit it. We are therefore justified in treating Muslims 'analytically en bloc'. Specifically, we need to separate the sheep from the goats. In my view the best way to do this would be to make it clear that Islam is a political ideology, rather than a religion, and a subversive one at that. Charitable status could be withdrawn from mosques, Muslim schools banned - we don't have communist schools - and a strictly regulated version of Islam (5 pillar Islam) allowed. I understand that this is what happens in Singapore. This would isolate and expose those Muslims who want to implement their political ideology and appropriate action could be taken against them, up to and including expulsion.
Dr Pepper, come to Birmingham, England, which has had serious rioting last weekend between the Afro-Caribbean community and the Asian community. There's a big cover up in the media but Afro-Caribbeans are complaining about the taunting and hate filled comments they get on a daily basis from the Pakistani Muslims about how culturally inferior and lazy they are. Could this be a new kind of "phobia" that the press aren't telling us about?
Dr. Pepper:
As Ibn Warraq puts it, while Islam itself isn't moderate, there are moderate Muslims. My sense of things is that the situation may be somewhat akin to the people of Eastern Europe under Communism, and that many Muslims are extremely unhappy with the re-entrenchment of the religious reactionaries over the last two or three decades but are not empowered to do much about it (Iran would be a key example).
I don't buy that there were great long periods of a peaceful and benevolent Islam. Rather, it's more like that for a few decades following WW II there was a desire for modernization, but many of the progressively minded ventured west in the 50s, 60s and 70s. This is why it's so shocking that some of the descendants of those immigrants are prepared to take up jihad to aid the Taliban regime and other religious reactionary regimes.
In the meantime, the Islamists have been the beneficiaries of a number of circumstances: The Saudis have probably sat uneasily on their thrones since the King of Egypt was deposed in the 1950s and watched the growing influence of the USSR in the region so they started spending billions to bolster Wahhabism; the Palestinians have had the upper hand in the propaganda war by painting themselves as innocent victims, thus Muslim despots of all flavours and sects have had Israel to hold up as the chief bogeyman of the middle east; the rise and fall and rise again of Soviet influence; France's desire to be the kingpin of Europe after WW II. I'm sure there are more.
Interested,
"A global mass attack could be seen for what it is and stopped."
You're not fully wrapping your mind around a mass suicidal-homicidal attack by most Muslims: That would be approximately 800 MILLION Muslims (not counting infirm elderly, those who are physically incapacitated, and children below the age of 10 (Iran against Iraq deployed thousands of children aged as young as 12 for suicidal military attacks)).
I repeat: 800 MILLION Muslims.
800 million Muslims could easily and quickly overrun and mass-murder and pillage the four chief areas of resistance -- Europe, Russia, China and North America -- deploying 200 million amok-runners or each area.
If you think that 200 million amok-runners pillaging in fanatical lock-step could not overrun any one of those four areas, you are not really grasping the concept.
"However, the 'slow motion encroachment of Muslims upon the Infidel world', as you neatly express it, is more dangerous because it goes unnoticed until it is too late."
It's only "more dangerous" because you have not fully grasped the literal meaning of the global blitzkrieg of 800 MILLION Muslims.
"There would be no Islam without Muslims to transmit it. We are therefore justified in treating Muslims 'analytically en bloc'."
Just because Muslims transmit Islam doesn't mean we are justified in treating Muslims analytically en bloc. This is why: There is a difference between
1) Islam as totalitarian supremacist ideology enshrined in texts & tradition
and
2) Islam as the sum total of Muslims qua their behaviors and thoughts & feelings.
The data of Islam #2 ostensibly shows [I favor treating "data" as a singular, collective noun] that Islam #1 is not in fact implemented in full force, indeed far from it -- and the reasons for that failure of implementation cannot be chalked up to some kind of diabolical cleverness on the part of all Muslims without proof of such a grandiose allegation.
"Specifically, we need to separate the sheep from the goats."
How can you do that when you are analytically dealing with an undifferentiated mass en bloc?
At any rate, I roughly agree with your proposal to clarify and punitively enforce a redefinition of Islam as a non-political & non-legal religion, where Muslims in the non-physical spaces of their minds, while in their mosques or in the marketplace or at home, can meditate all they want upon the intolerant and illiberal texts and traditions of their faith, but will be punished if they try to realize them in the physical world. Such a redefinition, however, is far away in the future, given the enormous dominance of PC thinking still. And the chances of the Infidel world community agreeing on such a redefinition will be hurt, not helped, by the kind of monolithic-mongering evident by most posters here at jihadwatch.
200 million amok-runners pillaging in fanatical lock-step
That is quite difficult to imagine and keep a straight face. Perhaps one day someone will do a musical about it, along the lines of 'The Producers'.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I am not treating all Muslims as if they are the same, but all Muslims are transmitters of an ideology that can, if nurtured, and given the right conditions, break out in unpleasant ways. In my view, the insidious encroachment of Islam by demographics is a far more real threat than the en masse amok-stepping of fanatical lock-pillagers.
Carolyn 2 posted earlier:
"I am sorry that muslim women are being hassled...maybe it is time to go back to your lands of origin. We kuffars are not going to go down without a fight."
Lets check these incidents out.
___________________________________________________
"In one, a milkshake was hurled at a Muslim woman as she waited at a Sydney Rd tram stop with her three children."
"In the other a man swerved at a Muslim woman and shouted: "F--- off terrorist" while she was crossing the road carrying her baby."
__________________________________________________
As you stated before, Islam is not a race. How do you know this woman was 'brown'?
Islam is open to mankind, those who practise Islam peacefully have every right to stay in their HOMELANDS. You got that, you Americans don't give orders to ANYONE.
As a British born Muslim, I will die and be buried here. Many, many Muslims have passed away in the UK, is their a problem with that. There is? Well, your opinion means nothing.
100% American arrogance.
__________________________________________________
We kuffars are not going to go down without a fight.
This is a very interesting statement.
We - suggests 'Kafirs' are united in their fight against ALL people that follow a religion called Islam. A more realistic fight against Islamic extremism, no, you don't want that, you want war against ALL Muslims.
United, who is fighting with the US in Iraq. Who will join the US in Iran, Syria etc. Enough said.
Good luck.
Now lets see,
"We kuffars are not going to go down without a fight."
If you could actually think straight, you would realise its the Americans that are doing all the fighting. Its the Iraqis that are not going down without a fight.
America has isolated herself, do you remember the protests against the war by those in the US and Europe, funny, huh?
People like you make me laugh.
ia:
The US is not quite as isolated as you make the case and the motivation of other security council members who sat on the sidelines are clearly more than suspect. And what of those various member states of the Arab League who have been silent about Saddam's tyranny because they aren't a whole lot better themselves. As for the protests, they haven't exactly built momentum as you would have thought.
But I do agree with you that comments to the effect that all Muslims should be expelled are very offensive.
How do you know this woman was 'brown'?
Who said anything about being 'brown'?
I imagine the women were wearing their garb, and a lot of us view that the same as a swastika armband. After a terrorist attack, a lot of feelings are raw. You know and I know why muslims are in the West, and since islam and democracy are incompatible, we believe the most humane thing to do is to separate the cultures.
I should add, I am not going to apologize for self preservation. I will never accept islam, no matter the price.
Hey ia786, you're an insider. Any idea when and where the next big mass murder is planned?
I mean, here in America. I know you guys maintain a busy international schedule, so talk to me about the mass murders planned here in America.
"As a British born Muslim, I will die and be buried here. Many, many Muslims have passed away in the UK, is their a problem with that. There is? Well, your opinion means nothing."
-- posted by ia786
Ok, how many infidels are let into Saudi Arabia to live and then be buried there?
None? Then the opinions of all Saudies, and of all Moslems who approve of al Saud, means nothing.
IA786: ""In one, a milkshake was hurled at a Muslim woman as she waited at a Sydney Rd tram stop with her three children."
"In the other a man swerved at a Muslim woman and shouted: "F--- off terrorist" while she was crossing the road carrying her baby.""
Lawds, HARSH LANGUAGE!! And DAIRY products??!!
Will the degradations ever cease?
IA786, 19 of your co-religionists killed about 3,000 folks in one day here in the states. They demand special treatment even here in the states. The brook no questioning from outsiders, running riot when folks have the temerity to even discuss the posability that Muslims (or, as they would say in the UK, "Asians") had done them wrong. Their intolerance of other religions is legendary -- look to the situation of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. Your co-religionisting in the UK declared their relationship with the UK to be that of a hotel guest, not a loyal citizen. Polls have revealed a lack of respect for law and order and a willingness to lie to cover for jihadists -- what are we to think, given the messages coming from your community?
I am phobic of this kind if crap,
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=4029330&nav=0w0v
by guess who?
New kind of jihad?
The fact that so much of Islam's encroachments happen incrementally is larglely why their tactics are so successful... I put it this way on another thread:
The phases of Jihad:
1. Muslims arrive in Dar al Harb, and adhere to the Muslim stricture against mixing with "the infidel."
2. Muslims exploit their own self imposed isolation, foster notions of victimhood and outrage and concoct corresponding pretexts to justify attacks against infidels ...
3. Muslims deny involvement, concoct conspiracy theories, and claim victimhood if they are counter-attacked in retailiation for their actions -- This also provides new pretexts for further acts of terrorism... Whether the Muslims are attacked or not doesn't matter -- the important thing is to foster among other Muslims a sense of alienation (which is conveniently self imposed) and anger...
4.Muslims begin to drive infidels from their immediate environment through their atrocious behavior...
5. Muslims begin to blackmail concessions from the surrounding "infidels" -- implying that more violence will ensue if this or that demand isn't indulged -- remove the piggy banks -- no forbidden foods -- no criticism of Islam is tolerated -- if such is forthcoming, a new, excellent pretext for violence is added to the growing list of concocted pretexts...
6. Once 'infidel' ranks are thin enough, due to 1-5, Muslims begin to demand laws and local ordinance which help to institutionalize their presence, and immunize them from interference and criticism. If criticism and interference is nevertheless forthcoming, the Muslims now have the best pretext yet for further violence and terrorism... The pretext of self rule in self described "Muslim" territory -- In essence, a magical thing has happened after 1-5 -- Dar al Harb has been transformed into Dar al Islam.
7.Once Dar al Islam has been effectively established, Muslims are sent in cells to new regions of Dar al Harb -- either through escaping from the newly minted Muslim hell hole which has been established, or through the financing of emmigration through the receipt of Jizya payments, or accidents such as oil resources. If any resistance is experienced in Dar al Islam -- it is quashed mercilessly until resistance is annihilated or the troublemakers leave the area --
8. Repeat steps 1-7 until the world is subjugated...
ia 786: It is obvious to me that you don't know your politics very well. The country that you reside in , England, is obviously European and supports the U.S in Iraq. Italy and Poland support the U.S in Iraq. Spain was involved in Iraq, even though they have since pulled their troops from the country. I suggest that you do a little bit more homework next time before you post a statement on this site.
786 - if you're living in England, perhaps you can give your interpretation of what is happening in Birmingham? Nasty white muslim haters weren't to blame on that occasion.
Just to add, it seems Muslims are not very popular with other ethnic minorities either in the UK. I wonder why?
KingTolerance:
I've never, ever suggested that anyone should be expelled or barred from anywhere without reason whatever their religion or ethnic origins. You make the assumption that because I don't buy into your ludicrous moral equivalencies that I am a bigot, where as you are, what Ali Sina would describe as a PC Bigot.
To fellow Canadians who may find their way back to this thread, I hear the CBC is now taking up the cause of the Syrian truck driver who is complaining that he was tortured by Syrian and Egyptian security forces for two years because of information provided by the Canadian government that consisted of a tourist map of government buildings. I believe this same fellow admitted that, in addition to being a combatant in Afghanistan, he also associated with the notorious Ahmed Khadr, did "fundraising" and dealt in reselling telecommunications equipment, but I guess none of that would have been germane enough to make it into the obnoxious promos the CBC does on air.