I was speaking in Sweden yesterday, and during the Q&A a Muslim presented with the little box of "Islamophobia" pills I'm holding in the photo above. It's a clever little piece, if you like that sort of thing, listing the ingredients of this "cure" for "Islamophobia" as "multiculturalism," "open-mindedness," and the like.
But of course none of that will cure this disease, which is non-existent in any case. If Muslims really wants to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. They can:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of "Islamophobia"!
But of course they won't do any of these things, and this five-point list, which I have posted here many times, is just an exercise in bluff-calling. If Muslims in the West are as "moderate" as they claim, they would have been long since doing all of these things. But they aren't, and they're not going to. One would think that fact would start to wake up government and law enforcement authorities. Of course, it hasn't, and probably won't.
You're not an Islamophobe are you?
Take this simple test and don't worry, there is a cure: Islamofobil!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-islamophobe.html
"A cure for what ails you..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbw6TP7JxuQ
Robert, my dearest, you aren't suffering from Islamophobia! You are well inoculated against the virus of dhimmiosis. Just being around your fearless self will spread the cure for dhimmiosis...and that's what the islamos are phobic about.
One among many pieces on Islamophobia in the Archives:
Hugh Fitzgerald on the conference on "Islamophobia" at the UN
“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 on December 14, 2004]
The Muslim who gave you that little box, thinks that they are cleverly making a point.
But if I were you, I don't think that I'd open it !
As a Swede I’m extremely embarrassed on behalf of my fellow countrymen, however, I do not consider the ones who gave you this garbage as real Swedes!
To successfully administer the antidotes suggested above would take a great deal of "spiritual authority" and a great deal of courage?
I'll quit being an Islamophobe when the sound from the last Allah Akbar uttered on Earth has reached the next galaxy. Until then I'll just be smart and informed :)
Go to school online free anytime with the Historyscoper and master all 1400 years of Islam's history to arm your mind to better understand the nuances of current events: http://go.to/islamhistory
Keep up with the daily events:
http://historyscoper-islamwatch.blogspot.com/
*blush*
I fear I am quite the islamophobe.
Islam sucks.
Any questions?
One could say that muslims have:
Islamitis
Islampox
Islameasles
Islamerpes
Isalmosis
Muslims ahve Islamancer and there is nothing worse then Islametastasis!
Looks like a great opening to a infomercial there Robert.
Who said there is no fun in islam? I bet the follower of islam that offered the pills is not aware it is heram, or her-ham, or somthing like that.
Great picture!
Islamophobia ?..... You got a fevah !......and the only prescription is more cowbell !
Hey, somebody had to say it.
I elected me.
;-)
Cheers !
Kenny Solomon
Senior Expediter
The 72 Virgins Club Travel Agency
Offices throughout all 57 states.
A phobia is "an illogical fear of something harmless". Something harmless, like people who like peanut butter or play the trombone.
Strange that so many of us on this site got up one morning, stretched, picked up out dart and all hit "Muslims" on our neurosis dart boards, and not "Trombone Players".
Muslims must really wonder why there are so many more Islamophobes than Tromboneophobes in the infidel ranks.
...at first glance I thought it read "Islamofbull", lol ...
Distrust and Distaste of Islam is quite rational. It's really as simple as that.
Somewhat off-topic, but I was just watching the end of the Netherlands-Uruguay match and noticed something a little disconcerting. When ESPN panned to the large crowd of Holland supporters watching the game from the Museumplein in Amsterdam most of the Dutch fans were wearing orange with a few waving Dutch flags. However, smack-dab in the middle of the scene was a blood red flag with a star and crescent-the Turkish flag- being waved about wildly. Perhaps all it was was Turkish fan celebrating in his own peculiar way-why bring a national flag that has nothing to do with the two teams playing- but it stood out nonetheless.
Geert Wilders has his work cut out for him.
Don't you just love that endearing smile? I certainly do.
The term 'phobia' denotes a reasonless fear which there is because of some paranoid 'reading' of the world around. It does not denote the natural fear against some real danger. The real illness is not to be in guard against something really threatening. And unfortunately Islam constitues a worldview that every sane person should be in vigilance regarding its movements and advances.
Is it in chance that there has appeared such a term only for Islam and not for any other religion? It is something that every Muslim should ask to him/herself.
It is not a matter of enmity towards anyone, it is just a matter of protecting ourselves against a tide that could deprave us from things essential to our living as human beings.
It will take more than a mutual defense pact between the US and Israel from preventing Islamic law from replacing secular constitutions. Over one and a half billion Muslims are more loyal to their Imam than others are to their governments. The mosque being built on the grounds of the world trade center is a symbol of their might. A laboratory examination of the black stone at Mecca by geologists and scientists might provide the answer to its amazing magnetism, it should be done before more lives are lost in religious wars.
Devout Muslims will never do those five things, otherwise they would cease being devout Muslims and, at best, could only retain a shell of Islam, doing which prompts me to ask what's the damn point? Give up the ghost. No, you're a Muslim or you believe in freedom, real tolerance, a true Golden Rule and equality under the law. It's an either/or.
Interesting background at Gates of Vienna:
The Islamofobil package is part of a PR stunt perpetrated by Sveriges Antidiskrimineringsbyråer (Sweden’s Anti-Discrimination Bureaus), a network of anti-discrimination NGO’s. They are mainly sponsored by Ungdomsstyrelsen, a government agency which mainly deals with the financing of political youth organizations. The Islamofobil package itself was designed by a Muslim artist who has made several anti-Semitic statements on her own blog and other leftist, pro-Palestinian blogs.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/07/islamophobe-in-sweden-part-2.html#readfurther
You observed, of Mr Spencer,
"Don't you just love that endearing smile? I certainly do."
Me too.
Mr Spencer's wife is a lucky woman, I think; though doubtless, at times, she must be a *worried* woman. And she must be smart: indeed, for having had the discernment to pick Mr Spencer out of the pack some twenty years ago, she ought to be a contender for the title of 'smartest woman in the USA'; just as the nice Hungarian lady, originally employed at the Hungarian embassy, who picked Geert Wilders out of whatever array of eligible males was on offer in the Netherlands at the time, at least ten years ago I think, deserves the title of 'smartest woman in Europe'.
God bless them and keep them safe.
Hugh's 'Islamophobia' essay from December 2004, which he re-posted above, is a classic.
It later appeared at jihadwatch as a stand-alone, entitled "Hugh Fitzgerald: Islamophobia, Really?"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-islamophobia-really.html
I've supplied the link for that, so that those who like, may make their own copies, then circulate it at will, either digitally or on paper in pamphlet form. Printed out, as a pamphlet, it would be an excellent thing to leave behind, accidentally on purpose, on the bus or train or plane (tucked inside the Inflight Magazine), or slipped inside the glossy or not-so-glossy magazine in the waiting room or the coffee shop. Or for that matter, if you have access to a university campus, tacked up surreptitiously on the public noticeboard where the ads for bands and amateur theatricals and flats to rent and meetings of student clubs and political rallies are placed. Leave it about and see what happens.
Another item that deserves to go viral, and which I have flagged here a couple of times before, is Lorna Saltzman's hilarious yet also revealing 'Islamophobia Test', which is modelled on the sort of pop quiz that one finds in women's magazines. It complements Hugh's piece nicely.
Phyllis Chesler reproduced it at her blog:
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/08/26/are-you-an-islamophobe/
PHYLLIS CHESLER: CHESLER CHRONICLES
August 26th, 2009 10:17 am
'Are You An Islamophobe?
'Take This Test To Be Sure
'The greatest danger is a closed mind and a finger-on-the-trigger. The minds are closing all over Europe; rather late in the day, the small resistance emerges.
'American minds have also been shutting down for many years. For example, one is really not allowed to talk about race or religion (gender is fair game–look at all the photos of naked women that still surround us).
'One cannot say “black” or “African-American” without raising a storm. One dare not say “Islam” or “Muslim” without raising an even bigger storm.
'Americans (students, professors, journalists, film stars, media talking heads, left-liberal bloggers) are especially sensitive to the wrongs done to the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims–and, no doubt, wrongs have been done.
'But these same Americans are a lot less sensitive to the sorrows, nay, the atrocities, that these very groups (Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims) inflict upon their very own and upon infidels.
'Try to talk about this, try to raise the issue of Islam’s long history of colonialism, genocide, and gender and religious apartheid and you will quickly be demonized as a “racist” or as an “Islamophobe.”
'Lorna Saltzman, a really good writer, an environmentalist, and once a Green Party Presidential candidate, has written a Test Guide for all those who are genuinely worried about their own racism or Islamophobia.
'She writes:
"Are you an Islamophobe? Here is a simple test. Lorna Saltzman’s Test:
"Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?
"Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery?
"Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere?
"Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?
"Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?
"Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?
"Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks?
"Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?
"Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?
"Do you oppose the death penalty for non-Muslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?
"Do you oppose “honor” killings?
"Do you oppose female genital mutilation?
"Do you oppose forced sexual relations?
"Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals?
"Do you support the right to criticize religion?
"Do you oppose polygamy?
"Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise?
"Do you oppose the quranic mandate to kill non-Muslims and apostates?
"Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country’s legal system?
"Do you disagree with the quran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?
"If you answered most or all of these affirmatively, you are a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the quran instructs.
"If you answered one third or more of them affirmatively, you are a borderline Islamophobe and need to receive brainwashing to become a full-fledged dhimmi.
"If you answered a quarter or fewer affirmatively, you need a few private lessons in dhimmitude to scrub yourself clean of those remnants of Islamophobia.
"If you answered affirmatively to NONE of these, Congratulations! You are a worthy observant (radical – PC addition) Muslim and have a bright future vilifying Jews, torturing women or, inshallah, becoming a suicide bomber.” END.
'Thank you Lorna for laying it all out.'
Well, I answered Yes to all the questions in Lorna's test, so I am indeed a vile Islamophobe.
Spencer wrote:
...this five-point list, which I have posted here many times, is just an exercise in bluff-calling. If Muslims in the West are as "moderate" as they claim, they would have been long since doing all of these things.
But doing any of these things still doesn't make a Muslim a moderate, necessarily. Indeed, perhaps even stealthier jihadists than now exist could easily be doing all five, while more effectively cloaking their stealthier jihad. A "bluff", it seems, should hold in its cards something that, were it acceded to, would actually change things sufficiently.
What this problem of formulation points toward is the only really coherent way to frame what Spencer is aiming at here -- and that would be not a 5-point bluff, but a 1-point declaration:
When Muslims cease putting Islam into practice, then -- voila! -- Islamophobia will vanish.
Hmmm. How can I gently break this to you? You're a man that allows for no wiggle room. In short, as I've written before, you're a William Lloyd Garrison type, not an Abraham Lincoln type. Robert Spencer is in the mold of Lincoln rather than Garrison. I've always preferred Lincoln to Garrison, even though both were correct on the issue of slavery. Enough said.
If "Islamophobia" is defined as an unreasonable or irrational fear of islam/muslims, then aren't our politicians and dhimmi-bureaucrats who persistently cave to muslim demands out of fear of violence or riots the real Islamophobes?
Had Lincoln acted earlier and more aggressively, the catastrophically horrendous American Civil War might well have been averted.
I thought kool-aid was the cure for islamophobia.
In my search for the word that indicates RATIONAL fear, I found the following...
“Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyses us. Normal fear motivates us to improve our individual and collective welfare; abnormal fear constantly poisons and distorts our inner lives. Our problem is not to be rid of fear but, rather to harness and master it.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think it is a matter of self defense, a long-standing right.
http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/JFPP%20WEBSITE%20FILES/16/The%20Roman%20Legal%20Treatment%20of%20Self%20Defense%20and%20the%20Private%20Possession%20of%20Weapons%20in%20the%20Codex%20Justinianus.pdf
Which is more rational: "Life Without Fear: Handguns and Self Defense"
http://www.isishootists.com/training_lifewithoutfear.htm
or a LACK of fear of real danger?
Does someone know the scientific or medical name of the irrational lack of fear of real dangers, other than sociopathic or psychopathic?
Surely this "lack of fear" is different than courage...
Legitimate fear is self-protective. Self-protection is NOT paranoia when your life is threatened.
What is someone called who ignores a real danger?
.
.
.
dead.
In this case, Hugh is dead right.
Did somebody say,
MORE COWBELL!!!?
I thought that was just me. Rock on Kenny.
Beer Me
-Rick
No way, Hesperado. You cannot lay the blame for the Civil War in ANY WAY at Lincoln's feet (unless you want to argue that the Union was dissolvable). Quite the contrary, he did all he could to avert the great conflict (as did Henry Clay a decade and more before him). His disinclination to break with the Whig Party (still a national party {though barely} unlike the newly formed Republican Party), his refusal to condemn the slave owner though he condemned slavery, his magnificently wise debates with Douglas in 1858 and his extraordinary First Inaugural Address are all testimonies to how loath he was to eradicate slavery, an institution he personally detested, at the expense of the Union.
Hotheads and ideologues, so unlike Lincoln, took America into an exercise in national suicide. Nothing in the 1850s Lincoln could have done or said other than what he did would have averted America's great catastrophe. And you cannot provide any concrete examples of what he could or should have done to prevent civil war (I dare you here). In fact, like Clay and Daniel Webster, he actually did his best to postpone civil war, an action which made it more likely that the Union would prevail because during the 1850s it far outpaced the South in many material ways that would redound to the Union's benefit in the 1860s, all this proving to be a great boon to all mankind and not just America, for as dark as the twentieth century proved to be, it would have been far darker had there been no united United States to oppose the many tyrannies that the twentieth century produced. And no one was more responsible for this future fortuitous history than Lincoln. Lincoln's relevance continued long after his death. It continues even to this day. I wonder if you grasp this.
Moreover, it was Lincoln who warned against the impending crisis and who preserved the Union after others tore it asunder. I cannot end here without noting that you do not seem to understand either Lincoln's sapience or his greatness. He is as great a statesman who ever lived. No one, not Caesar, not Augustus, not Henry IV of France, Robert Walpole, the Pitts, George Washington or Churchill were greater than Lincoln. Not one. And yet still you blame him. Telling. No wonder you find fault with Robert Spencer.
Warning: This guy is a Muslim troll.
He posted on another thread that bringing the Kaaba stone (you know, the Muslims' meteorite) to Washington DC would make our nation's capital a "holy city."
See - Troll.
You take one of these islamphobil pills and suddenly you are no longer afraid of islam. yes sir you suddenly will begin to look at islam in a new way. you will begin to appreciate the many wonderful sides of islam. you will....
-see the bright side of killing infidals and raping their wives and daughters.
-not enough money or material possessions? allah will provide as long as infidalss are around that you can steal from.
- beating wives as a good thing and expected of you as a good husband.
-marrying and porking little girls isn't pedophilia but a holy act in islam as approved by the prophet himself.
-lying to and deceiving infidals is holy act also.
see? just take these wonderful islamophofil pills, it's allah approved.
It is always better to treat the cause, and not the symptoms.
That is how recovery will be reached.
"A laboratory examination of the black stone at Mecca by geologists and scientists might provide the answer to its amazing magnetism, it should be done before more lives are lost in religious wars."
Amazing magnetism? ...ahaha!! That was VERY entertaining ..
And how this relates to saving lives could only be concocted by a mohammedan "mastermind".
Hi champ. So, you noticed the Muslim troll! How 'bout that "amazing magnetism" of the Muslim meteorite?!
Hope you had a fun 4th.
Hey Wellington..You too Hesp..Thanks for all the historical stuff, it was your (Wellington) debate with Ipso-F++to that re-inforced my belief that arguing with idiots is a waste.He (ipso) missed "Whiggishly" Wellington's point. Hesp..Like Wellington said..You're solid..(not verbatim,sorry). In my mind you're both solid. Dats it dat's all.(Quebecois)..or franglais..
Alot of people forget about the fourteen women killed here in Montreal,Quebec..All engineering students at Universite de Montreal and Dawson College killings..All muslim related bullshit..
Wow..Those lies almost worked..Not quite "loonwatch" here..
"I was speaking in Sweden yesterday, and during the Q&A a Muslim presented with the little box of "Islamophobia" pills I'm holding in the photo above."--Robert
Yes, they bring theatrics, gimmicks, and no substance.
"It's a clever little piece, if you like that sort of thing, listing the ingredients of this "cure" for "Islamophobia" as "multiculturalism," "open-mindedness," and the like."
If there is nothing to fear from Islam (i.e., insofar as it is revived, taken seriously by its adherents, and practiced today), then wouldn't exposure to Islam itself be the cure? Yet it cannot be claimed that Robert has not yet been exposed to Islam. He has expert knowledge of the core texts, history, law, and present-day practice of Islam.
I'd also be interested to know whether the person who gave him the mock pill box would object as much to critics of Islam as he/she does to the practice of female genital mutilation in Sweden among Muslim immigrants. And would this person give such a box, perhaps labeled "infidelophobil," to that mob of maniacal jihadists who tried to attack and possibly kill Lars Vilks? It's all about priorities. If I had nothing else to judge except this event--and those who engage in these publicity stunts open themselves to precisely such criticism because they want us to judge them by these actions--the person who gave Robert the pill box cares more about Islam's image than he/she does about human rights, equality, and freedom. Robert cares about human rights, the equality of all people, male or female, and freedom. In contrast, the infidelophobic pill-box-pusher is evidently superficial and is more concerned about Islam's image and public relations.
Hey Kim ...yeah our 4th was loads of fun, thank you; and I hope that you and yours had a memorable one, too! :)
Seems that MrMorris has a fetish for the black stone of kaaba. Bet he goes to bed each night Dreaming about touching and kissing that damn rock.
And if you, Mr. Spencer, really want folks to consider you 'scholarly' here is an easy way:
1. Read LoonWatch's latest story at the link below:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/robert-spencer-i-am-never-wrong-even-when-i-am-wrong/
2. Acknowledge that it was LoonWatch's article that propelled you to quietly 'update' your comment. A smooth attempt, was it not? The word 'stealth' springs to mind!
Regards,
Patriot.
Patriot,
If the folks at "Loonwatch" want to be taken seriously, they need to do at least three things (though even these are no guarantee):
1) change the name
2) publish less tendendtious articles
3) do not censor comments
Wellington,
You may well be right about Lincoln; though if I were approximately right, he wouldn't have been the first great figure in history whose greatness was tragic.
Were we to say that what could have been done to avert the catastrophe of the Civil War would have been to pre-emptively attack and occupy the South, the objection surely could not be that such an attack and occupation would have been as horrific as it turned out to be -- much less more horrific. The objection, rather, would be that it imposes 20/20 hindsight on a devolving crisis even someone as great as Lincoln could not have foreseen. One cannot, however, laud Lincoln as you do as a great force for moderation, when his greatness consisted in navigating the country through the most horrific excesses it had ever suffered before, and has ever suffered since -- a cataclysm he did not avert, but only masterfully steered once it was tragically underway.
At any rate, this diversion is only relevant to the extent that one agrees with your comparison of Spencer with Lincoln, and with our present situation with the devolution of America in the 1850s and the threat of the South. In a vaguely abstract sense, one may agree that Spencer's gingerly diplomacy is comparable to a statesman who takes it slow rather than precipitously -- though such terms as "slow" and "precipitous" are tendentious: one man's "slow" may be another's "too slow", more toward the Chamberlainian appeasement end of the spectrum; while one man's "precipitous" may be another's Churchillianly "prescient".
Loonwatch is a joke, and so are you "Patriot".
Anonymous posters, with hidden funding, and not allowing unmmoderated comments, and never publishing anything critical of the posts there.
Typical lies and deceit which we have come to asscoiate far too often with Muslims and Islam in general.
You cowards are like a drownuing man, desperately grasping at weak reeds.
Hmm ...
Is "Patriot" recycled "Raqnu", or Quran? Methinks so!
"Quran" challenged Robert regarding loonwatch on this thread as well:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/assembly-of-muslim-jurists-of-america-forbids-muslims-to-aid-american-troops-in-afghanistan-and-iraq.html
Hey "Patriot", you aren't fooling anyone here with your New 'n Improved moniker.
The only problem with the list of things that Robert provided for overcoming Islamophobia is that no Muslim could do all or any of them and still be considered a true Muslim.
Patriot,
See my rebuttals to Danios' claims about the word dhimma in the JihadWatch "The dhimmis: guilty people" thread. Start at my comments on June 8. I see Danios still hasn't addressed my rebuttals to his false claims, false accusations, etc., in regards to the meanings of the word dhimma. And in his June 17 article, he adds additional false accusations, which he hasn't bothered to correct and retract.
Ask Danios if he can cite a source that says non-Muslim dhimmis would not be considered blameworthy/guilty for violating the dhimma. You will note that he was unable to provide a source that supports his own bizarre confabulated interpretation. In contrast, I've provided lots of evidence that non-Muslim dhimmis would be considered blameworthy/guilty for violating the covenant (dhimma). Danios must provide a correction and retraction of his false claim that dhimmis would not be guilty/blameworthy for violating the covenant (dhimma). Otherwise, he is misleading his readers.
Also, Danios must provide additional corrections and retractions for the other errors and misleading statements he's made in his articles on the dhimma. See the Jihadwatch "The dhimmis: guilty people" thread where I point out these problems.
And Patriot,
in "The dhimmis: guilty people" thread, I present evidence that Danios in at least one earlier article (see his 'Perpetual Servitude' article) indicated that he assumed the non-Muslim dhimmis could violate the dhimma. This implies that he accepted the premise that they would be guilty/blameworthy for doing so. It appears that he had no problem with this idea prior to the part 2 Huckster article. So my question (in my July 2 post, and follow-ups, in the "dhimmis" thread in question) for Danios was whether, in the part 2 "Huckster" article (in which he claimed the non-Muslim dhimmis would not be considered guilty/blameworthy for violating the dhimma), he had changed his mind, or whether was in fact lying.
typo: "...or whether he was in fact lying."
Anyone who knows what's going on at Idiotic "loonwatch" is a Loon and a Traitor.
You're not a "patriot," - you're a Muslim/Muslim Apologist Traitor.
""cure" for "Islamophobia" as "multiculturalism," "open-mindedness," and the like."
Yes, all the factors contributing to the liberal paradise, resulting in White Flight and other wonderful, previously-unknown phenomena...
If I were you Spencer I'd stay off these pills. They could have some nasty side-effects.