Dennis Prager speaks truth to power.
What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?In fact, nothing.
But according to Islamist groups, Western media and the United Nations, they have everything in common. Anti-Semites hate all Jews, racists hate all members of another race, and Islamophobes hate all Muslims.
Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not "Muslim-phobia" or "anti-Muslimist," it is Islam-ophobia – fear of Islam – yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.
The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.
To cite three of innumerable examples: The Guardian published an opinion piece titled, "Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism"; the European Union has established the European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia; and the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia notes that "Muslims have also been the target of racism in Australia, often referred to as Islamophobia."
Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist.
Of course, some may argue that whereas conservatism and liberalism are ideas, Islam is a religion, and while one can attack ideas, one must not attack religions. It is, however, quite insulting to religions to deny that they are ideas. Religions are certainly more than ideas – they are theological belief systems – but they are also ideas about how society should be run just as much as liberalism and conservatism are. Therefore, Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism should be just as subject to criticism as conservatism or liberalism.
Read it all.
Another problem with the word is that a phobia is an "exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" (M-W). The word Islamophobia effectively dismisses the arguments against Islam as inexplicable and illogical nonsense.
I doubt it's even possible to have a real phobia towards a religion, the same way you'd have arachnophobia or claustrophobia.
Oh, I get it. Anger=hate=crime, fear=hate=crime. Have a question on whether or not the emotions you are harboring are a crime? Well if the emotion has anything to do with self preservation, if it is considered a negative emotion in any way it’s a crime! So remember, if someone you love is raped, murdered, set on fire etc watch your emotions! Otherwise you may end up in the klink. Its here, the human emotion Gestapo so if you feel an emotion coming on just say lalalalalala until it goes away, repeat as needed. Thumbs up for Mr. Prager, he is a man who isn’t afraid to face the truth whatever the truth may be.
Islam is a hate crime. It should be prosecuted. I would love to be on the jury.
Prager's right on (his complete work is worth reading, so check it out)...
Yes, it is quite a brilliantly coined term...after all, their politically correct brownshirted collaborating allies in the media, academia, and even elected office here, were their best teachers.
I know a couple other brilliantly coined terms, too:
"lebensraum" and "untermensch"
Remember the effects of those, too?
Frighteningly, "islamophobia" will also carry with it the same effect, and results, as the latter two if we don't take harsh action now. The longer it's put off, the higher the price we'll pay.
Purge the scourge!
Islamophobia, don't make me laugh. Just another example of using our liberal attitudes to impose Islam on the world. As long as you make it appear "racist" you can pretty much get away with anything. We need to take a lesson from history, the crusades were lanunched after 400 years of muslim aggression and invasion. Wherever islam becomes a majority (including British towns) we see a rise in violence and triumphalism. As soon as a bomb goes off we immediately hear about the muslims fear of a backlash that never occurs. When failed homicide bombers are locked up we hear calls for muslim only prisons. Or for these potential serial killers to be afforded the status of prisoner of war (which shows that islam is at war with us). Racism wins every time. And they laugh as they do it.
And if you post comments on a great site such as this one? RACIST, RACIST, RACIST. And there was me thinking that islam was a religion rather than a race. I wonder what would happen if we told muslims that islam is no longer considered a religion but a race? I bet you can guess, that's right, you would be considered racist. Strange but true.
Why can't I scream Christainophobia? Why can't my religion be defined as a race?
Because once again it is the ability of Islam to define itself with masterful deception at every turn,and the naieve Westerners swallow it hook,line,and sinker; never once taking the time to analyze the dinstinctive terms but always drinking the cool-aid offered up by poor Muslim victims who incredibly are able to claim religious rascism .
Fear of Islam equals racism;simply amazing!!
After 9/11, who would have thought that Western civilization would have gone insane concerning Islam and Muslims?
The Jooozzz from the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia notes that "Muslims have also been the target of racism in Australia, often referred to as Islamophobia."- just goes to show that they havn't learned a thing and that they're as dumb as a brick in the wall.
Pamela from Atlas Shrugs had a take on this a few days ago, and how the Jooozzz swallow this Islamophobia crap hook line and sinker. Boohoo, poor Islamo-fascist victims, just like the Jooozzz in Nazi Germany, right? Right?
Those wankers never even responded when Gavin King Rat from the Cairns fishwrap made me a target for assassination, just goes to show....
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/07/21/cairns-how-to-force-a-mosque-on-unsuspecting-citizens/
"Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups..."
Honest Ibe is surely seething at that one.
Good analysis.
The fools, the "liberals", the politically correct idiots who try to squelch and silence us should be exposed for the cowards, quietists and (yes) bullies they are.
The best jihadi is a dead one, and if this reflects on the religion that spews them out, so be it.
Even the French regulate the imams entering their country. Why dont we ?
To let these hateful 7th century scum into the West to preach is self defeating.
(and then there is the homoerotic relationship between Foggy Bottom and the "moderates"(loaded with petrodollars) of the mid East)
islam and the Dems are the disease, and their defeat is the cure.
The Prager article posted above above prompts re-posting of other articles that complement, or possibly anticipate, it.
Here's one:
"Analysts both in the Muslim and the Western world by and large agree that “fear” and lack of objective dialogue are the root cause of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism." – a statement by Abukar Arman in this article
Not so fast, buster. The word "Islamophobia" is not an acceptable term for intelligent apprehensions over Islam. For Islam is for its adherents a total belief-system whose central and moving idea is that of a complete division between Believer and Infidel. It asks of Believers that they offer their sole loyalty to Islam as a Total System, and to the Jihad, furthered through many conceivable instruments, to spread the dominance of Islam to lands that for now may still be under Infidel rule. Believers are also to ensure that dominance of Islam by removing "all obstacles" to its spread. They are to ensure that Muslims rule, and not just here or there, not just in the lands now part of Dar al-Islam or once part of Dar al-Islam, but everywhere.
The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has brought about a situation, for those indigenous Infidels (and also for other non-indigenous arrivals, non-Muslim immigrants), that is unpleasant, expensive (the costs of monitoring, the costs of security, spiralling ever upward), and physically dangerous. Ask a Frenchman who dares to enter the "quartiers chauds" which are all over France. Or ask English residents of Birmingham and Bradford and Leeds and Manchester and parts of London, or ask Swedes in Malmo, or Dutch in Rotterdam and parts of Amsterdam.
"Islamophobia" is a word concocted to intimidate those who are rightly troubled, and more than troubled, by what they have learned of Islam largely through the observable behavior of Muslims not only in the West, but around the world -- and also through more and deeper study of the canonical texts and of the history of Jihad-conquest over the past 1350 years, from Spain to the East Indies, and of the subsequent subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples: Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others. The similarities in their treatment, and the similarities in the impulses and attitudes exhibited by Muslims over a wide area, are simply too great to ignore.
Likewise impossible to ignore are the problems of Muslims in Australia and England, in France and Germany, in Spain and Italy, in Belgium and the Netherlands, in Sweden and Denmark and Norway, or even, in far fewer numbers, in the United States and Canada. Everywhere they manifest the same kinds of hostility, the same kinds of wearing-away demands, the same false or real outrage, the same refusal to truly collaborate with the security services. They engage in constant attempts to undermine the most commonsensical of measures. They conduct sustained and cynical campaigns of Da'wa, often based on hiding the reality of Islam and offering the most superficial aspects of it (the rituals) to a vulnerable targeted audience of the economically and psychically marginal. And they do so many other things -- including the astonishing campaigns to shut down free speech everywhere, not only in Denmark (at Jyllands-Posten, which resulted in death threats directed at Danes from all over the Dar al-Islam) but also in The Netherlands (the murders of Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh). Death threats have driven some out their jobs (Robert Redeker in France) and forced others to cease the expression of their views (Will Cummins in Great Britain). This is Islam On the March, completely determined to keep and hold and expand what it sees as its beachhead, and more than a beachhead, all over the Dar al-Harb.
The inability or willful refusal by many in the West to understand this is a product of many things. Among those things is sentimentalism about How All People Are the Same the Whole World Over and Everyone Wants the Same Thing, with its obvious variant, All Religions Are Equally Dangerous. Just look at a few of those blood-curdling lines about the Canaanites or some such in old Hebrew texts -- why, that makes Judaism just as dangerous, maybe more so, than Islam with whatever it is said to inculcate. Doesn't it?
What this transparent attempt at symmetry offers is not one falsehood but many. "Islamophobia" is a word used by apologists for Islam to avoid answering specific, detailed, and knowledgeable questions about Islam. These questions that cannot be answered, in truth, because if the truth were offered as an answer it would force Muslims themselves to indict Islam, to admit that what is in the texts is in the texts, and is taken seriously by a billion people -- and that those who do not take the texts seriously are not "moderate" Muslims but essentially bad Muslims, unobservant Muslims, Muslims who do not really believe. And there are far fewer of these than most non-Muslims assume. They are always open to the possibility of relapse, and certainly their progeny are, so that Infidels cannot base their own security and that of their institutions on the "hope" that those "moderate" -- i.e., bad -- Muslims will never change their minds, and that their children will continue in the same vein.
That is a wager that Infidels should not be asked to make: to bet their physical safety and that of their children and grandchildren, and that of their societies on those moderates. For those Infidel societies are already in various states of confusion and disarray, and are facing all kinds of problems. Such a bet could allow them to be done in by this Total Belief-System that originated 1350 years ago as an ideology, compounded of bits and pieces, distorted or misremembered, of both Judaism and Christianity, and with an admixture of pre-Islamic Arab paganism.
No. That should not be expected of us, the Infidels. We are not ready to concede or commit suicide."
[Posted by Hugh at January 26, 2007]
Another, from 2004 (and there are many articles and long postings never made into articles, on the matter of "Islamophobia"):
“When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry -- that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’ The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”
The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term” -- it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world -- its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies -- have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira -- and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya -- is now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up -- for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own three-part guide, posted at Jihad Watch, to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).
Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent -- grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien -- than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001). Or perhaps it is Annan -- the man who is responsible for more black African deaths than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium, who really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition -- that is, unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite -- that is, the continued inability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.
If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists -- you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.
Kofi Annan is not the worst secretary-general of the U.N. That prize, so far, goes to Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim. But Annan still has some months, or even years, to go. It may soon be neck-and-neck. It may be a photo finish. And that’s not all that will be finished.
The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.
So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobia”:
1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.
2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).
3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya -- would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?
4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.
5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels -- all Infidels.
6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying garb on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law -- and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”
7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.
8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of the dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.
9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.
10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.
11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty -- and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.
12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here -- would you like me to read it now for the audience?
13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.
14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known -- and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.
15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.
16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.
17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want -- whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.
18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses -- and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.
19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete -- with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.
20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.
21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform -- except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.
22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages -- for example, from Leviticus -- that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”
23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.
24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.
25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).
26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated. “ I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.
27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.
I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.
If this is “Islamophobia” -- show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim."
[Posted by Hugh at December 14, 2004 1:24 PM]
One thing wrong with the above, Hugh:
Waldheim was not worse than Coffi.
Greetings:
My understanding is that the now various "fill-in-the-root-word-phobias" are a gift of the homosexual rights movement. And a beautiful gift it is because it not only moved the discussion away from their sexual behaviors but also allowed them to slur those who disagree with them. Obviously, as there was no pushback to this concoction, which appears to be but is not a term with any psychological science behind it, it was quickly accepted and promugated by victiim rights advocates. Out in my part of the country, the San Francisco Chronicle (Comical) avoids the word "homosexual" almost as much as it avoids the now classic "n-word."Homophobe, however, appears on a fairly routine basis.
My favorite corollary to "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you," is just because you're "fill-in-the-root-word-phobic doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
Thanks Hugh...right on again...I especially liked the 'I deplore'1-27. Those should be copied and posted everywhere...
If a phobia is defined generally as having and unreasonable or irrational fear of something, the rich doublespeak irony of this term becomes evident.
There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about having a fear of Islam. In fact, based on the behavior that is done and excused in the name of Islam, it would be unreasonable and irrational to NOT have a fear of Islam.
And, the irony is that while claiming that this is a phobia, so many Muslims work to create this fear actively, knowing that it gives them power. As pointed out by others, each time a so-called moderate Muslim talks about how bad it is to offend 1.2 billion (now the number 1.5 billion is being bandied about and maybe tomorrow it will be 2 billion) Muslims in the world, there is of course an implicit threat. Every time CAIR or the MSA or any other Islamic organization claims that there are 6 million Muslims in the US (the real figure is by all accounts about 2 million), they are making a threat: silence or we will come after you somehow, with our votes, lawsuits, rageful actions, etc.
So they play the victim game and the "fear us because we are not gonna take any offenses from you and we are growing in number."
So any reasonable and rational person will fear Islam. So fearing Islam is not a phobia.
When Islamo-fascists want you to shut up about their cult you know that censorship and violent reprisals are just around the corner:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1120849,00.html
Whenever I swim in the ocean and there are seals around I am a little afraid that a leftist/islamist shark will mistake me for a seal and take a hunk out of me. So does that make me a racist (sharks are a race not a species), a sharkophobe? Why do I say leftist/islamist shark? Only a leftist/islamist shark could be that stupid tons of seals in the area and it goes after the only thing in the water that if given a chance will systematically hunt it down and kill it. Sadly, the shark must be cut open to find out if they have human meat in their belly. Predictably some innocent civilian sharks will get swept up in the process. The ocean is a lot like the world. We have sharks, the leftist/islamists. We have seals, the average people who are semi oblivious to the threat. And then we have people like us.
I propose replacing the word "islamophobic" with either "koranoscient" or "islamoscient".
Much better if you ask me.
I doubt it's even possible to have a real phobia towards a religion, the same way you'd have arachnophobia or claustrophobia.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop
Really, Supercop?
Re: Islam, I feel: fear, horror, aversion
and, phobia = fear, horror, aversion
I have "a real phobia" towards Islam.
Does that mean that Islam's not a religion?
I have long objected to the expansive use of race to mean any grouping of individuals. I have written letters to editors and journalists but to no avail. This expansive use is common, especially in the UK. You will find it in dictionaries with examples such as "the race of dramatists." I wonder if it was at first meant as humor such as a phrase like "of the famale persuasion."
As frustrating as it is, it also means the word has been drained of much its meaning. I guess I can claim to be a tripple victim of racism as a short person, an old person and a hair challenged person. I am also an admitted racist in that I dislike the New York Yankees, LA Lakers and Toronto Maple Leafs.
I am also aware of being hated by billions of people who don't even know me because I am Jewish. Hoewever, I know that Judiasm is not a race and don't claim to be a victim of racism for that. Jew hatred is quite enough without the need of quaifying as racism.
To the practitioners of victimology, the word racism was just too tempting and they have appropriated it so loosely as to weaken its meaning.
Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd.
I wonder how quickly this word choice was made?
Reason I ask is, in the day after 9/11, the word choice made to mount a "War on Terror" was made overnight, literally. Significantly, this move precluded an honest term such as the "Defensive War Against Global Jihad"
Granted, by 2001 Moslems had become synonymous with terrorism, but the massive inaccuracy of Bush's word choice has proved disastrous. However awful his adminstration's word choice was and is, it was made quickly, and thus pre-empted a sensical word to our direct detriment.
Helped the Moslems, though.
A non-word symbol on 9/12 was the sickening sight of Bush on his knees in a mosque plumping his ass up high in prostration to Allah and Mohammed, the man who made 9/11 possible.
But word symbols are far more pervasive, repeated endless, bounding public discourse and even individual thought.
2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
Let us sample some other dishonesties:
"Palestinian" = quick word choice
"Dept of Defense" = fairly quick word choice
"Pro-Choice" = fairly quick word choice
"Pro-Life = Reactive farily quick word choice
It is in the first few days a new historical term of tremendous importance must be challenged.
But when the War on Terror was announced, a very quick word choice, nobody challenged it. The Marxist MSM like it, ditto for academe and the permanent government. The term was embraced everywhere, except a few in blogs like this great blog.
* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *
Prager is right: the word choice Islamophobe is sheer genius. Its implication of fear and ignorance saddles those wearing this badge robs them of any chance of self-defense, or of even openly talking about self-defense.
I have long objected to the expansive use of race to mean any grouping of individuals. I have written letters to editors and journalists but to no avail. This expansive use is common, especially in the UK. You will find it in dictionaries with examples such as "the race of dramatists." I wonder if it was at first meant as humor such as a phrase like "of the famale persuasion."
As frustrating as it is, it also means the word has been drained of much its meaning. I guess I can claim to be a tripple victim of racism as a short person, an old person and a hair challenged person. I am also an admitted racist in that I dislike the New York Yankees, LA Lakers and Toronto Maple Leafs.
I am also aware of being hated by billions of people who don't even know me because I am Jewish. Hoewever, I know that Judiasm is not a race and don't claim to be a victim of racism for that. Jew hatred is quite enough without the need of quaifying as racism.
To the practitioners of victimology, the word racism was just too tempting and they have appropriated it so loosely as to weaken its meaning.
If random killing of people is an indicator of a phobia then we get to claim the Mohammedan have Catholicphobia, Protestantphobia, Judeophobia , Hinduphobia, Buddhistphobia, and Paganphobia.
After all if critism is phobic then killing must definitely be so and since Muhammad (Piss All Over Him) declared Jihad against all these groups he was the most Phobic leader in history.
I have long objected to the expansive use of race to mean any grouping of individuals. I have written letters to editors and journalists but to no avail. This expansive use is common, especially in the UK. You will find it in dictionaries with examples such as "the race of dramatists." I wonder if it was at first meant as humor such as a phrase "of the famale persuasion."
As frustrating as it is, it also means the word has been drained of much its meaning. I guess I can claim to be a tripple victim of racism as a short person, an old person and a hair challenged person. I am also an admitted racist in that I dislike the New York Yankees, LA Lakers and Toronto Maple Leafs.
I am also aware of being hated by billions of people who don't even know me because I am Jewish. Hoewever, I know that Judiasm is not a race and don't claim to be a victim of racism for that. Jew hatred is quite enough without the need of quaifying as racism.
To the practitioners of victimology, the word racism was just too tempting and they have appropriated it so loosely as to weaken its meaning.
I have long objected to the expansive use of race to mean any grouping of individuals. I have written letters to editors and journalists but to no avail. This expansive use is common, especially in the UK. You will find it in dictionaries with examples such as "the race of dramatists." I wonder if it was at first meant as humor such as a phrase "of the famale persuasion."
As frustrating as it is, it also means the word has been drained of much its meaning. I guess I can claim to be a tripple victim of racism as a short person, an old person and a hair challenged person. I am also an admitted racist in that I dislike the New York Yankees, LA Lakers and Toronto Maple Leafs.
I am also aware of being hated by billions of people who don't even know me because I am Jewish. Hoewever, I know that Judiasm is not a race and don't claim to be a victim of racism for that. Jew hatred is quite enough without the need of quaifying as racism.
To the practitioners of victimology, the word racism was just too tempting and they have appropriated it so loosely as to weaken its meaning.
Go to this link and read a good article on this exact topic.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/harry_reid_the_end_of_liberal.html
If random killing of people is an indicator of a phobia then we get to claim the Mohammedan have Catholicphobia, Protestantphobia, Judeophobia , Hinduphobia, Buddhistphobia, and Paganphobia.
After all if critism is phobic then killing must definitely be so and since Muhammad (Piss All Over Him) declared Jihad against all these groups he was the most Phobic leader in history.
If a phobia is defined generally as having and unreasonable or irrational fear of something, the rich doublespeak irony of this term becomes evident.
There is nothing unreasonable or irrational about having a fear of Islam. In fact, based on the behavior that is done and excused in the name of Islam, it would be unreasonable and irrational to NOT have a fear of Islam.
And, the irony is that while claiming that this is a phobia, so many Muslims work to create this fear actively, knowing that it gives them power. As pointed out by others, each time a so-called moderate Muslim talks about how bad it is to offend 1.2 billion (now the number 1.5 billion is being bandied about and maybe tomorrow it will be 2 billion) Muslims in the world, there is of course an implicit threat. Every time CAIR or the MSA or any other Islamic organization claims that there are 6 million Muslims in the US (the real figure is by all accounts about 2 million), they are making a threat: silence or we will come after you somehow, with our votes, lawsuits, rageful actions, etc.
So they play the victim game and the "fear us because we are not gonna take any offenses from you and we are growing in number."
So any reasonable and rational person will fear Islam. So fearing Islam is not a phobia.
Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd.
I wonder how quickly this word choice was made?
Reason I ask is, in the day after 9/11, the word choice made to mount a "War on Terror" was made overnight, literally. Significantly, this move precluded an honest term such as the "Defensive War Against Global Jihad"
Granted, by 2001 Moslems had become synonymous with terrorism, but the massive inaccuracy of Bush's word choice has proved disastrous. However awful his adminstration's word choice was and is, it was made quickly, and thus pre-empted a sensical word to our direct detriment.
Helped the Moslems, though.
A non-word symbol on 9/12 was the sickening sight of Bush on his knees in a mosque plumping his ass up high in prostration to Allah and Mohammed, the man who made 9/11 possible.
But word symbols are far more pervasive, repeated endless, bounding public discourse and even individual thought.
2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
Let us sample some other dishonesties:
"Palestinian" = quick word choice
"Dept of Defense" = fairly quick word choice
"Pro-Choice" = fairly quick word choice
"Pro-Life = reactive farily quick word choice
It is in the first few days a new historical term of tremendous importance must be challenged.
But when the War on Terror was announced, a very quick word choice, nobody challenged it. The Marxist MSM like it, ditto for academe and the permanent government. The term was embraced everywhere, except a few in blogs like this great blog.
* 2:61 * 2:64 * 2:96 * 4:41 * 4:47 * 4:55 * 4:160 * 5:13 * 5:41 * 17:7 * 5:59 * 59:2 * 88:1 *
Prager is right: the word choice Islamophobe is sheer genius. Its implication of ignorance and fear saddles those wearing this badge robs them of any chance of self-defense, or even openly talking about self-defense.
Sorry I should have mentioned it was also written by Dennis Prager, he sure seems to have a good grasp on both leftist and Islamic politics. I really enjoy reading his articles.
Prager is correct...
Thanks Hugh...right on again...I especially liked the 'I deplore'1-27. Those should be copied and posted everywhere...
"I doubt it's even possible to have a real phobia towards a religion, the same way you'd have arachnophobia or claustrophobia."
I disagree. Muslims clearly suffer from Christianphobia, for no apparent reason. Christian scriptures in no way teach hatred or Jihad against other faiths. There is absolutely no rational explanation for Muslims to believe that Christians are a threat to them that can be based upon Christian scriptures. The case can clearly be made that there might be historical reasons for Muslims to mistrust or hate Christians, but certainly no scriptural reasons.
Since Christianity is not defined by race, color or ethnic origin -- yet Muslims despise Christians -- their hatred is focused entirely on a group that share a common belief in Jesus Christ. Since, as already said, there is no evidence in Christian scripture to suggest that Christians are in anyway a threat to Muslims, Muslim hatred if Christians is irrational. It is Christianphobia.
On the other hand, there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. Both historically and scriptuarally, Islam gives ample evidence of being a threat to all non-Muslims. It is not a phobia to recognize this fact.
I think that "Christianphobia" is a perfectly legitimate discription of Muslim attitudes towards Christians. There is no "Islamophobia" in Christian fears of Muslims. It is perfectly rational.
What is thought of as "Islamaphiobia" is really common sense when it comes to protect oneself.
The part that gets me in this discussion is that so far no one has pointed out that it's a case of rigged, or fixed semantics. If Islamophobia is an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam, then it fails to cover how I feel about it.
I have no fear of Islam. I do have a strong, intense hate of Islam. I despise what it stands for. I loathe what it turns people into for them to be "true adherents". I revile its treatment of women, children and barnyard animals. I detest its open embracing of deceit. I hold in contempt its distortions and falsehoods of other faiths. I scorn its concepts of predestination. But fear it? No.
I could go on, the list is quite lengthy, but Hugh before me covered it pretty well. I am Dar Al-Harb. I am not this by choice, it is forced upon me. But it is the only thing I will allow Islam and its idiot followers to subject me to. If this is the only house that allows me freedom, I will call it home.
Shalom,
Theosebes
Nevertheless, Islam is teeming with grave threats against the "infidels" who are to be enslaved, decapitated, crucified, stoned and otherwise mutilated. It would be insane not to fear an organization with such an ideology, - it is far worse than nazism and communism put together.
Islamophobia is therefore a sane reaction to a powerful organization poised to subdue, kill and mutilate us. Its main tactical weapon is jihadic terrorism, the sole purpose of which is to "instill terror in their hearts", or in other words: to create islamophobia. If islamophobia is a crime, then the proponents of Islam should be punished for it.
Excellent, spot-on piece by Prager.
Hugh & Co,
I have a recollection that during Iran's islamic revolution, the mullahs coined the term themselves. I understand the mullahs claimed the women just have "islamophobia".
I asked Tina Magaard of Arhus University about this. She so to speak forwarded me to Caroline Fourest, a French journalist's website. I can't any French but I vaguely understood of the text on her netsite that Kate Millett's book "Going to Iran" has something about that. The book is on my table but I haven't had time to read it yet.
The term was first coin by Runnymede Trust 1996 - in the UK, I suppose - but it would make big time sense that the crapola was coined by mullahs themselves.
It appears this Islamofobia-Khomeini is becoming a small-scale hobby for me. This morning I e-mailed a few exil Iranians in Stockholm if they can remember anything.
Accem Ezimota,
Agreed!!!!!
Remember these are the same wackos that managed to successfully brand zionism as "racism" (Useless Numbnuts "Ramble-outions" #242 & 338 if I recall), and though they're pretty much ignored by most these days (since everyone knows they've been taken for fools long ago by them), it's still run into the ground by these same fraudulent fascists of islamism, who call any scrutiny of their death cult "racism", "(whatever)-phobia", and who the hell knows what else they'll scam up.
They're already shocked to find that their scam death cult is as UNpopular here as it is, less than it should be (by REAL pollsters, like Opinion Dynamics)...according to their twisted reality, the 81% unfavorable rating by Americans means one thing:
That's a LOT of "-phobes"! And those "-phobes" have guns.
I agree with the author, but I'm not so much Islamophobic as I am Jihadophobic.
By the way, all the comments that are long (more than 4 or 5 sentences never get read. Keep that in mind.
JBT
Julie from Stowe wrote:
"By the way, all the comments that are long (more than 4 or 5 sentences never get read. Keep that in mind."
Speak for yourself, for reading is such a chore for you I assume. Stop petting the cat in Vermont for a second and read an offering or two by Hugh, which as indicated by your above statement, you have never done. You might learn a thing or two. Might.
Short enough for you?
If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis -- Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists -- you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.
posted by Hugh
Amen to that, Dr. Hugh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
^5s to awake...beat me to it.
LOL...if someone's too damned lazy to bother past 4-5 sentences, it's their loss if they have the attention span of a dog (2 seconds as reported by the AKC)...and their problem. Narcissism tends to do that to people.
Anyway, back to topic...
If I may paraphrase a biblical entry (it fits, even if you're secular)...
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and (most importantly), the wisdom to know the difference."
Some things cannot be changed, so we hope for serenity to deal with it,
Some thing we CAN, and we hope to have the courage to change it when possible, too...
but above all, we must have the wisdom to know which one is which.
One thing the islamists don't seem to get, or ever will.
Despite their lame rhetoric and cacophonous claims,
we here do NOT "fear" them...nor do we even "hate" them...
We DO, however, hate what we have been forced to become, BECAUSE of them.
Islamists don't know the difference, nor ever will...thus they lack wisdom to prevail in the end...and that is their achilles heel.
Allahphobia, should be written Allahsphobia. Meaning Allahs fear of becomming irrevelant. Allah needs believers to justify its existence. The more the better. Allahs best protection from irrevelance
is a world wide Ummah and 100% muslim population.
Thats the basic reason muslims must fight dis/un-believers untill only Allah is worshipped.
Allah is just not himself without 100% participation. Allahsphobia leads to Allahphrenia in submitters. Dont you think that is just a little too coincidental?
I HATE islam! I will not even dignify it with capitalization. There, I said it, now prosecute me for a hate crime. But notice I said islam not muslims.
The scourage has found refuge in the racist African American victories.Just today in Chicago in the news there is a major complaint and campaign for a greater need for Black lawyers ,prosecuters and defenders.
Why? Because too many Black people are going to prison.
Turn the page:
Blacks once again protesting and complaining about not enough being done to prevent crime.Black teens or children in general are being killed by drive bys or outright gangland ativities.(the adults that are killed are usually gang members.The song and dance is "he was a good boy,a normal guy".If they were not in gangs themselves then they at least glorified the gang mentality,emulated it in some fashion.)
Turn the page:
The city has sent extra police patrols into the troubled areas of the cities to try and stamp out crime.Much of the crimes that have been commited such as murder go unsolved (nobody ever knows anything.They never see or hear a damn thing)
Turn the page:
The African American community protest over the extra police patrols to calls of racial profiling and racism,although all those arrested were found to have committed earlier and unsolved crimes the African American community fears too many African Americans are going to prison over such actions of the racist and profiling police prescence.( If the suspect is a tall black male with brown eyes and dark hair whats a policeman to do?)
(by the way most are caught after a short evade attempt when thier pants fall down around thier ankles preventing them from running any further.)
Turn the page: Repeat as neccessary
Islam is just geting in on a good thing.
If there is one person out there that thinks this country is not devided.THINK AGAIN!!
This is a Black Africa America,a Muslim America,a Mexican America.....you name it.They all want thier own laws.
They are all appeased to the dilution of what makes us or made us once a great Nation.
What has been the gain? Ask the politicians in power or vieing for power as they keep thier knives sharp and shiny for the next carving of the greatest thing that has ever graced this planet,man made.
Accem Ezimota wrote:
"As for your seconding the snippy comment by awake, perhaps Julie from Stowe has not noticed that this forum is not like the typical forum where sound-bite comments are standard but perhaps awake could have used a bit more Catholic charity in expressing that to Julie."
Now now, Accem, let's not got back there. My desire to repond to arrogant and/or ignorant statements far outweighs my nominal membership in the Catholic community.
touche', for that dig anyway. :)
Regards,
awake
Reading is hard. If four or five sentences are the limit perhaps this forum is not for you. Yawn, writing that was exhausting its time for a nap.
"...I reject the notion that anything they can do or say would ever change me much less change me into something that I hate. If anything they change me into something better, someone more appreciative than ever of freedom, of the love of Christ, of Christianity, of all non-Muslim religions for that matter."
--posted by Accem Ezimota
Amen!
Amen!
Amen!
Prager makes an excellent point: we can put a crucifix in a jar of urine for an art gallery, and no one is charged with any crime (and no one should be). But flush a Qur'an and a guy is charged with a felony. Thus we already see, starting to intimidate its way into existence, the two-tier legal system of Islamic law: one law for Muslims, another law to put us us lowly atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus and other non-Muslims in our proper subordinate place (until we "revert" to Islam).
I am an ISLAMOCRITIC.
I am Islamoskeptic.
I think it's interesting that Muslims would come up with a term containing "fear" in it. It seems to say two things: First, that when non-Muslims react negatively to Islam, it is allegedly with fear, and Second, that Muslims perceive themselves as causing fear in non-Muslims.
While Muslims seemingly condemn Islamophobia, I suspect that there may be some subconscious satisfaction in their ability to intimidate people, which is largely what terrorism is designed to do; even the act of accusing people of Islamophobia, as in the Koran flushing incident, is done in an intimidating manner.
It all fits with Islam as a power ideology, most fervently adhered to by nebbishes.
But is not Islamophobia something which is considered by dhimmi rules to be something desirable; all non muslims should be subdued and scared of Muslims. Is not it something which is a matter of pride for true Muslims according to those laws as opposed to something undesirable. Is not the chants like Islam will rule white house or UK or Israel will be annihilated designed to make people scared? So it is like catch 22 situation. First you should be afraid of me, and the moment you are afraid of me, I will call you 'islamophobe'
But is not Islamophobia something which is considered by dhimmi rules to be something desirable; all non muslims should be subdued and scared of Muslims. Is not it something which is a matter of pride for true Muslims according to those laws as opposed to something undesirable. Is not the chants like Islam will rule white house or UK or Israel will be annihilated designed to make people scared? So it is like catch 22 situation. First you should be afraid of me, and the moment you are afraid of me, I will call you 'islamophobe'
There is a way to short-circuit the legitimacy conferred by certain elements in our society upon the (bogus) term "Islamphobia."
Islam teaches first degree murder of the non-believers per al-lah's orders in the Kuran. These teachings of the Kuran are believed and instituted across the board throughout the entire Muslim world from Mauritania to Malaysia to Uzbekistan to Albania.
First degree murder of a selected target. In most places the committing of a homicide for any reason other than self-defense constitutes a criminal offense--a MAJOR CRIMINAL OFFENSE that demands (and usually receives) severe punishment!!
Islam's teaching of first-degree murder is a huge black mark upon Islam and one which cannot be erased. Islam's 13 centuries of endless homicides in the name of allah is all the reason anyone ever need to feel anti-Islamic or "Islamophobic."
Islam's teaching (and institutionalization) of first degree murder provides LEGITIMACY to anti-Islamic sentiments. After all, you or someone you care about could be next.
Anything which teaches first degree murder against a selected target has EARNED its stripes in the phobias department, thank you very much!
Why would (or should) anyone EVER feel bad about shunning a doctrine that teaches first degree murder???
I am 'ISLAMOSAVVY'!
***--That is, I know what Islam is up to, and, trust me, it's no good.
"The fact remains that the term "Islamophobia" has one purpose – to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam".-Dennis Prager
That is exactly the truth. The issue is not unlike the attempt by the "Slaveocracy" of the Old South (as John Quincy Adams called it) to institute "gag rules" in congress and elsewhere that would ban any criticism of slavery (Calhoun even wanted Abolitionist literature banned from the US Mail).
James Russell Lowell nailed the "Slaveocracy" goal when he said, "What they demand of us is nothing less than that we should abolish the spirit of the age. Our very thoughts are a menace".
In like manner, the term "Islamophobia" is part of an attempt to impose "gag rules" that will silence any critical analysis of Islam. The very thoughts of the critics of Islam are a menace.
Rusell's quoted here..
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:MqsPyG-GMZQJ:www.members.aol.com/jfepperson/lowell.html+%22what+they+demand+of+us+is+nothing+less+than+that+we+should+abolish+the+spirit+of+the+age.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us
That death-worshipping cult islamerthanshit.
LOL...oh the naive ones amuse me.
I PARKED a coment, which was itself "snippy" with a reality check that fits like a shoe...wear it.
As for the lecture on Catholic charity I was amused even more...I AM Roman Catholic...but I know turning the other cheek does NOT mean take it on the chin again...but that's another forum.
I stated my position from being retired military with a more extensive experience dealing with such animals like mOslems, more than EVERYONE in this entire forum COMBINED-that includes the moderators and the host himself (which is also why I know where he's coming from, and admire his diligence pursuing those who threaten our lives and liberties)...so I have no mercy for double-standards trying to self-righteously snipping at us for calling a spade a spade.
This is NOT the "daily kook" http://www.dailykos.com
This is reality...it helps to have a clue first before snipping at US, but don't lecture any of us for deservedly firing BACK.
DOUBLE kudos to awake in that case.
LOL...man, some loons are beyond chutzpah.
NEXT!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efrontpagemag%2Ecom%2F
Reading these sites has made me Islamo-wary -- alert for the ever-emergent threats, outrages, and idiocies of The Religion of Peace.
Hey...now THAT's a good term worth noting.
John you keep on doing just that!
You'll find out, even past the rhetoric...
it doesn't matter your politics, religion, or any other set(s) of beliefs...one thing remains.
To this *ahem* "religion of peace",
There are two kinds of people on Earth-
Islamists...and TARGETS (known as infidels).
I think "Islamophobia" is totally the wrong word to use. I agree, it's a totally bogus term. As has been mentioned above, a phobia is some sort of irrational fear of something. Muslims coined the word themselves, and it is an insult to assume those who have problems with Islam/Muslims are irrational about it.
I don't fear Islam or Muslims, I dislike the religion intensely but I don't think I'm being irrational about wanting to be safe and live my life my way.
Keep in mind the sources of who's saying what.
"islamophobia" is a misnomer coined by those who are nothing less than IslamoJUGEND.
That says it all.