Spencer: The “Islamophobia” Weapon

Islamophobia weapon.jpg

In Human Events this morning I discuss the OIC’s ongoing but newly energized campaign against the freedom of speech:

“The Muslim world is going through an unprecedented difficult and trying time,” said the Secretary General of the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on Friday.

One might reasonably have thought that he was referring to the recent increase in violent jihad incidents in the West, perpetrated by Muslims who explained and justified their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. But no, Ihsanoglu was exercised about “Islamophobia,” the invented term Islamic supremacists use to try to stifle realistic analysis of the global jihad in all its manifestations.

“We are facing daunting challenges and severe hardships,” Ihsanoglu complained. “Islam and Muslims are under serious attack, and Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day.”

It is not at all established that “Islamophobia” really is growing. In fact, the FBI has recently released data establishing that hate crimes against Muslims are comparatively rare. But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is solely and wholly the responsibility of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

Yet Ihsanoglu, with an evasion of responsibility that is characteristic of Islamic supremacists, pretends that non-Muslims are growing more suspicious of Muslims and Islam not because of this, but because of some gratuitous bigotry. This is a tried and tested tactic, designed precisely to divert attention from Islamic jihad attacks and to shame and discredit those who would dare stand up to jihad (both violent and stealth) and Islamic supremacism in the West.

Without any reference to the pandemic of jihad violence either in the U.S. or worldwide, Ihsanoglu referred instead to a “pandemic of Islam vilification” in the U.S. and Europe, and declared: “We need an all inclusive effort of OIC member states to stem this menace. That is why I firmly believe that this question of Islamophobia should figure prominently on the agenda of all OIC member states whenever they deal with their Western counterparts.”…

There is more.

Malaysia's PM praises Obama for condemning "Islamophobia," says he must aid moderate Muslims
OIC's Ihsanoglu: "Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    An additional and related problem in all this, which the MSM does not recognise, is, as Ibn Warraq aptly puts it, in a recent article:

    “The Dogmatic Islamophilia of Western Islamologists”


    “But the first duty of the intellectual is to tell the truth. Truth is not much in fashion in this postmodern age when continental charlatans have infected Anglo-American intellectuals with the thought that objective knowledge is not only undesirable but unobtainable. I believe that to abandon the idea of truth not only leads to political fascism, but stops dead all intellectual inquiry. To give up the notion of truth means forsaking the goal of acquiring knowledge. But man, as Aristotle put it, by nature strives to know. Truth, science, intellectual inquiry and rationality are inextricably bound together. Relativism, and its illegitimate offspring, multiculturalism, are not conducive to the critical examination of Islam.”


  2. says

    Great article from Robert…and great quote from Warraq. Thanks, Thomas.

    As I wrote at FPM this morning, the modern Left has abandoned women, Western Civilization, empirical science, the color-blind society, and so many other central pillars of what used to be called “liberal thought.” Let’s hope that Warraq is right, that human nature will repudiate multicultural relativism the same way it has communism.

  3. says

    After the Muhammad cartoon controversy had settled somewhat, that is after the killings and burnings had settled to their normal levels, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was interviewed by Danish TV.
    The question was put to him whether he or the OIC took any blame for what had happened across the Muslim world. As could be expected he became very offended and refused to continue the interview unless the question was retracted.

    “Islamophobia”, ah. The word “phobia” is an odd choice by adherents of a religion obsessed with the clean and the unclean, the unpolluted and the polluted, the True Believer and the Infidel, Halal and Haram, man vs woman, superstitious obsessions dictating daily life in every little detail, the denunciations and threats against unbelief based on supremacist self-pity and hypocritical victimization. It boggles the mind to imagine the OIC would have the educated West accept this.

  4. says

    Phobia – per Merriam Webster: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.

    Were Jews “Naziphobic” when 6 million plus were killed?

    When the Koran says to kill us to guarantee entrance to heaven (Koran 9:111), slay us wherever and whenever you find us (Koran 9:5), etc. – it’s best to take them at their word.

    When the Islamic deity All*h, per the Koran and Hadith, allows/requires Muslims to rape, kidnap, extort, subjugate, terrorize, kill, torture us etc. – it’s not phobic.

  5. says

    RE: “There is no justification for burning the Koran.”

    OH YES THERE IS! Those who have advocated burning Korans aren’t trying to rid the world of all Korans. They are trying to send a message, a message that free speech is sacred and free people are not going to allow Islamic intimidation to stop it.

    Pamela, Robert, David, Geert, and others, are great spokesmen for the effort to wake up Americans to the dangers of Islam, and they have pointed out that we, the people, having the right to free speech, also have the right to draw cartoons of anything we want to, including the warrior Muhammad, as well as the right to burn anything we want to, including the right to burn Mein Kampf or my Koran.

    But, if they want to have an even bigger impact, in addition to talking/writing about how Islam affects free speech, THEY ALSO NEED TO PROMOTE THE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH, ie: they need to promote DOING things that reinforce the whole concept of free speech. For example, they need to promote draw Muhammad days and they need to promote Koran burnings. A “National Free Speech Day” may be an option. Whatever/however/whenever it’s done, it’s sure to garner Muslim outrage. But that’s a good thing because it’s Muslim outrage that gets MSM coverage.

    A message needs to be sent, a strong message, a message that Americans aren’t going to sit by while free speech is trampled by Muslims, a message that will get the MSM’s attention BECAUSE it will upset Muslims, something the MSM tries its best not to do and quickly condemns anyone who does.

    A message needs to be sent. A message MUST be sent.

    Here’s a petition for a National Free Speech Day. Anyone who wants to send a message about the sanctity of free speech needs to sign it and forward its website address so others can sign it:


  6. says

    “But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is solely and wholly the responsibility of …”

    All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of those Muslims, right? Because we all believe the “same exact thing.”

    “The soldiers are accused of possessing dismembered body parts, including fingers and a skull, and collecting photographs of dead Afghans. Some images show soldiers posing with the dead.”


    All Americans everywhere are responsible for the actions of these soldiers, right? Because they are commanded and supplied by your freely-elected commander-in-chief.

    My point is not that either one of these groups are right – they are both wrong. But I choose not to judge you Americans for the actions of some renegade soldiers. We all know your choice however.

  7. says

    @ Yusef YK

    You wrote:- “All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of those Muslims, right? Because we all believe the “same exact thing.””

    Wrong! Islam is directly responsible, not Muslims. Without the ideology, there wouldn’t be any Muslims and there wouldn’t be any jihad. And no jihad would mean a more peaceful world. It’s the violent ideology that’s the problem – always has been for 1,350 years. There were wars of jihad being fought 850 years before America was discovered!!

    And as for the coalition soldiers who collected body parts, they are rightly criticized and can face punishment. However, the Hamas terrorists who murder pregnant women and unarmed civilians are *praised* by their own side, not criticized! Why? Because they are fulfilling the demands made by a savage ideology, Islam.

  8. says

    Beware Yankophobia,Britophobia,Franceophobia, Swedeophobia,Daneophobia,Norgeophobia, Cartoonophobia,Porcineophobia etc.,all emanating from islam.Man, are they cursed with phobias!

  9. says

    I just read something that seems highly suspicious in Wikipedia which has as its citation from “On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law”

    Of course, what these academics forget that a lot of the koran is derived from Christianity and Judaism. Just as Christianity adopted the more pagan aspects of the religions they were supplanting in order to be less exotic, so too did Islam, which retains its holy rock and its astrological holy symbols that are clear signs of some kind of lunar worship.

    Anyway, this is the quote:

    In Islamic ethics, freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century AD.[12] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma’mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[13] According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, “the idea of academic freedom” in universities was “modelled on Islamic custom” as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was “certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university” in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[14]

    Now I highly doubt that the freedom of speech enjoyed by people under the caliphs was like our modern freedom of speech (ie the freedom to criticise anything [like religion] and anyone). Anyone care to prove me wrong? I’ve tried looking for unbiased sources but they’re few and far between.

  10. says

    I hate to say this, but the Islamphobia weapon is an especially effective strategy in the propaganda war in which we’re engaged.

    People buy into the Islamophobia strategy, particularly if they are too lazy to go digging on their own.

    And once they do, they ignore the sources telling the truth about Islam. Those sources include this web site and Robert Spencer’s books, of course.

  11. says

    By using the word islamphobia there is nothing wrong with this use, as people should fear the actions of the islamists, you know rapes, killing by head chopping etc. these OIC elites and their islamists thugs can silence some of the people some of the time, but cannot silence all of the people all of the time! Further with creeping sharia, yes we in the West should fear losing our freedoms. To fear is not bad, but then we need actions to alleviate our fears, and that is stop sharia and require all who come to the West to leave their hateful cult home.

  12. says

    Perhaps Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu would like to explain islamophobia to the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs who had to flee their homes and cities in Kashmir following death if they don’t leave, from the mosques, radio, and the Muslims of Kashmir?
    Or explain to the Buddhists of south Thailand who are attacked daily by Muslims for being Buddhists?
    Or the Christians of Phillipnes, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, and almost all Muslim dominated countries, who are face discrimination, harassment, attacks, rapes, murders, and so on from their Muslim neighbors for being non Muslims?
    Yes, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu should visit all these people and tell them that their islamophobia is irrational.

  13. says

    For a half-dozen years the Muslim states, who comprise the only suriviving bloc at the U.N., have been pushing this “Islamophobia” business. But the evidence, the daily Jihad News, of Muslim atrocities conducted against non-Muslims in the lands where Muslims rule, and of Muslim aggression and outrageous demands, in the lands where non-Muslims have not yielded to their new, and largely by now most disturbing guests (while the hosts whisper nervously to themselves: “What do we do now?” and “How do we get them to leave?” as those “guests” attempt to take over the first floor, and are even now eyeing the staircase to the second), for changes in the social arrangements and understandings, and legal and political institutions (including an end to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as these are understood, and have been protected, in the advanced West), keeps piling up.

    A piece on “Islamophobia at the U.N.” at the time of the first UN conference on “Islamophobia” does not date:

    Fitzgerald: “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]

  14. says

    Early next month Wim and Sam van Rooy publich “De Islam. Critical essays about a political religion”.
    According to – Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum –
    “This book brings together essays from an outstanding group of authors to provide a wide-ranging analysis of Islam in public life. I know of no book comparable to it.” (on the cover).
    I am one of these authors.
    My essay is about islamophobia as a concept for (intellectual fight).
    One crucial point in my essay is the difference of ‘definitions’ of this concept between the EU and the OIC. It is not really a definition but a summing up of some features.

    It is absolutely crucial for our effort to make muhammedanism innocuous.

    Both the European Union and the OIC base their ‘definition’ on what the British Runnymede report wrote about it. The resemblance is huge: almost literally the same.

    The Runnymede Trust summed up 8 features. So does the EU. The OIC tells in its report that the Runnymede Trust defined only 7.


    Describing islam as political!
    The OIC does not consider this a feature of Islamophobia but the EU does. The EU politicians nor the media (worldwide) noticed this.
    It is of the utmost political importance.

  15. says

    Yusef YK poses what I hope is a rhetorical question:

    “All Americans everywhere are responsible for the actions of these soldiers, right?”

    Then proceeds to answer it:

    “But I choose not to judge you Americans for the actions of some renegade soldiers. We all know your choice however,” he concludes with a petulance worthy of a six year-old.

    See the intent to divide and conquer? “We” versus “you Americans”.

    Yusef, here are my choices:
    I choose not to allow burqas on driver’s licences.

    I choose to avoid being blown up by a fifteen year-old in a thirty year-old’s body.

    I choose not to take Muslims as my friends. (I’d hate to make a Muslim disobey Allah, and take me as a friend.)

    I choose to express my opinions, while it’s still legal.

    I choose to reject the incredibly silly misnomer “Islamophobe”.

    I choose not to be fooled by any whining from Muslims about being treated unfairly. Life isn’t fair. Suck it up, like everyone else.

    I choose to resist the tool of Sharia, which is Islam.

    I choose to be an American. If that offends you, I’m gratified.

  16. says

    It is actually muslims who suffer from islamophobia because they can’t handle the Truth that islam is an arab supremacist,
    antichrist,antihuman satanic ideology and a product of ignorance because mohammad was illiterate and had no first hand knowledge of the bible and teachings of moses and jesus.
    If he had that knowledge, he would have known that his allah is satan and not the God of moses and jesus because the very concept of some angel bringing messages is not in the bible; nowhere moses or jesus said that what they are saying (e.g.today)is brought by some angel but what they said (e.g.yesterday) they made that up all by themselves therefore call one quran and the other hadith.
    The Truth that no one from moses to jesus have anything to do with allah the great arab satan,islam and mohammad is much too much for muslims to handle causing them to suffer from islamophobia because they see the sand castle called islam built on the backs of jews and christians from moses to jesus getting washed away with the whole concept of mohammad being the last messenger/prophet came to improve upon the messages of moses,jesus and others; they see mohammd falling off the ladder he climbed claiming that all before him were mere steps of the ladder.
    They use the deceptive term “abrahamic religions” to associate themselves with moses and jesus and others and claim they were all muslims,followers of islam and advertise
    islam as the way of life of abraham,moses,jesus and find no shame and insult in doing so because they believe that non muslims have no right to believe that what they believe is false.

  17. says

    The term “islamophobia” itself self-desribes the problem, which I describe as “the politics of the excluded middle”. Its proponents pretend there is no distance between isolated acts of vandalism against Muslims, and even rarer unprovoked individual attacks on them, and dissent from islamic political tenets now openly proclaimed by Muslim leaders,loundly by the likes of Ahmadinejad, Ghadaffi, Erdogan or in a more civilized by Najob Tun Razak, the Malaysian PM.
    The agenda of assimilation of the West to Islam is simply unacceptable, and should have been addressed by the Western governments long ago. That the recent US Administrations do not want to recognize the situation for what it is, and provide an intelligent political (!) response to it – is the single most grievous continuing security failure in modern history. President Bush’ response to 9/11 was hugely inadequate, in not spelling out precisely the unacceptability of assimilation and supplanting of democracy – whether by means of terrorist attacks or by political subversion of the legal foundation of the US and the West. The proclamation of sharia in the US should be as unacceptable as the proclamation of the dictatorship of the proletariat once was. Unless and until that is done, nonsense syllables like “islamophobia” are going to terrorize the American and European chicken shit.

  18. says

    Should we even recognise Islamophobia as a real thing? I mean given the Koran hates non-Muslims, isn’t it Islam which is Non-Muslimophobe? Don’t we have a right to dislike something that calls for our slaughter, describes us as hypocrites, wrong-doers and claims we’re destined for hell-fire?

    If Islamophobia exists then why not racismophobia, sexismophobia, mysogynyophobia, prejudiceophobia, nazismophobia, paedophiliaophobia, white-supremacstophobia, anti-semitismophobia?


    And as for the OIC, aren’t they just the biggest hypocrites in the world? They ask for religious tolerance and respect and yet their member countries are those who deny that to all non-Muslims. Practice what you preach guys before you go making demands on the UN.

  19. says

    Certainly there is a problem with the word Islamophobia which was introduced by a member of CAIR several years ago.

    Part of the coined terms definition reflects the words;exaggerated,irrational and illogical, but heck you might as well throw in delusional as well with those kind of defining terms.

    There is no question that the word Islamophobia was coined to marginalize and discredit those of us who have sought to understand and define the threat that is Islam to the western world.

    So those of us who see the threat that is Islam are being irrational and illogical.

    The same attitude clearly existed when the Nazis’ where growing in power prior to WWII. So many where convinced that WWI had completely defeated any chance of something like the Third Reich rising from the ashes of a devastated Germany after WWI.

    Indeed the threat that Nazism posed to America and even the UK was not only ignored by millions in America but they either joined the American Nazi party or commiserated with Nazism. Those who realized the threat where have thought to be irrational, and illogical.

    There was one such statesman who clearly recognized the threat of the Third Reich and was vilified by his own countrymen for it—his name was Winston Churchill.

  20. says

    From “Solo” above:

    “The agenda of assimilation of the West to Islam is simply unacceptable, and should have been addressed by the Western governments long ago. That the recent US Administrations do not want to recognize the situation for what it is, and provide an intelligent political (!) response to it – is the single most grievous continuing security failure in modern history.”

    Not an understatement.

  21. says

    “MUSLIM WORLD AND ITS JIHAD ACTIVITIES FOR THE GLOBAL CONQUEST IS FACING OBSTACLES”should be the most relevant words to be said by the Secretary General of the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.
    THE ONLY ONES FACING UNPRECEDENTED DIFFICULTIES ARE WE NON-MUSLIMS. Non-Muslim world has been and ever will be under the attack of Islam and its dutiful soldiers waged relentlessly against non-Muslims on every front,in every country where Islam is not yet a majority religion.Disney Land has just awarded victory to two Muslim employees helped by CAIR.The so-called naturalized Muslim citizens in New Zealand has just demanded an apology from their prime minister for a small humorous talk.
    Are we going to ignore all this ugly truth and very hateful ideology known as Islam and the threat it poses and be kept quiet? We do have every right and reason to study and inform our ignorant non-Muslim folks about the grave danger we all face from Islam.This is not Islamophobia.This is a necessary act if we are to survive this Islamic onslaught against us.Now,let us wake up more and be more informed! They are moving fast on every front.EVEN UNITED NATION HAS BECOME THEIR LOBBY !

  22. says


    Excellent 27 point collection of deplorable actions and behavior of Muslims historical and current.

    The dated material is of course irrelevant, every point is just as relevant as ever today.

    I will keep it among my files.

  23. says

    I agree with Sean, and point out that the racism card is already in play. At a talk at the University of Washington by Prof. Mordechai Kedar from Israel, Muslim students asked him why he hated Muslims because their skin was brown. I answered for him, telling them that they were the only ethnic group to come to America to destroy our democratic institutions, and cited Major Nidal. Later the speaker thanked me for my answer and for getting him out of a delicate situation.

    We need to counter this BS every time it crops up. Thank you all for your work.

  24. says

    “But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United Statesit is solely and wholly the responsibility of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist”

    Not always. Not always. If one is a wise man/woman, one would extend the vision, to see what happened in India when the islamics invaded. I read all of it in the Indian web sites.

    And as one looks elsewhere, it’s been one layer of harrors after another.

    But the real ephihany for me was the car-b-ques in France., every year for the last few years…when the barbarian horde went amok,….weeks at a time.

    Thank goodeness we still have our weapons and the Rebs still have backbone.

    I’d like to see islamics try that in the South of the U.S.

  25. says

    Eleanor “Is it better to read a Koran instead of burning one?

    I would certainly recommend reading it before burning it, ”

    Someone said in a previous thread that we should have a “kkkoran erh, koran reading day”- That would be best, I go go further as to include in the phrase- “But avoid reading ‘Verses The Medinas 9″….” or whatever verses are reprehensible.

    That way, you can be sure, non-moslems will go straight to those verses to reade them.

    So, I would turn around and campaign for this.

  26. says


    “Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya”

    As re. your above piece, I want to email it to others. Would you please give an explanation of it.

    No other site, would give an explanation, concise and to the point, like you would.

  27. says

    Many good comments on this thread, in particular the one with Hugh’s “list”. Interesting how no other major faith has to constantly worry about animosity towards it. You’d think it would dawn on Muslims worldwide that this unique situation of animus towards Islam and its followers might, duh, have something to do with Islamic doctrine and believers in this doctrine. But no, part of the whole experience of being Muslim means never having to say you’re sorry for being Muslim (excuse the variation from the maudlin “Love Story”).

    As for the word “Islamophobia,” it is quickly becoming a useless, ineffective term because it has been way overused and because people around the world can see with their own eyes that Islam, unlike any other major faith, is really, I mean extremely, screwed up. Damn big pain in the ass too.

  28. says

    Hate to harp on this, but: It’s the impassioned Islamophilia that is the greatest of blinding threats. And following the blinding passion, comes the social disease.
    Nobody denies the cellular development of predatory plagues while the living is easy. And they explode during the most vulnerable periods of complacency.

  29. says

    The word ‘islamophobia’ is as overused as ‘nazi’ these days. It has lost its sting and hence its power.

    A more accurate term would be ‘islamomisia’, or a hatred/revulsion to all things islamic.

    I know of no one who fears islam, I know plenty of people who once they’ve read the quran, met and talked to an imam and deciphered the double-talk and then been around moslems who have their guard down that have an utter hatred/revulsion for this cult masquerading as a religion.

    Calling it islamophobia just emboldens moslems and gives them a sense of superiority they don’t deserve.

  30. says

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with islam that repatriation and containment would not cure. Then they could practise their islamophobia on each other, as they usually do, with homicide bombings etc.
    Khomeina was quite wrong about no fun with islam, they enjoy lots of explosive fun.

  31. says

    Great article Robert exposing how supposed moderates are in reality islamists who undermine the situation Muslims themselves have gotten themselves in here in America and many other parts of the free western world.

    I know Muslims read this. This is for you the Muslim, islamist or so called “moderate” as you like to tell everyone you are. Read and pay attention because I am going to tell you how I feel about you and your fellow coreligionists.

    Muslims plain and simple I look at all and I mean ALL of you with deep suspicion. I could care less when you cry “racist” or “bigot”. That both makes me yawn, and reaffirms to me that it is YOU who just does not get it. I am an Atheist, I do not believe that either the God of Christians or your God of allah even exists. I see him as a figment of your imagination and your unquestioning belief in him without evidence to be nothing more than self imposed ignorance. Now that you are not confused that I don’t like you because we have some competing Gods or the sort we can move on. I do not trust you nor do I like you because of the simple fact that it is the religion of Islam that is the cause of most of the entire worlds violent conflict and most of the violent terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims. Terrorism is a cowardly act. Killing civilians in the name of religion is the most pathetic and despicable things I think one can do.
    Yet every single time some Muslim somewhere goes on a homicidal rampage the deafening silence from the Muslim world both avg. person and Muslim leaders is both sickening and sadly now quite predictable. It’s a sad joke that when some Muslim goes berserk that all we hear from the Muslims is them whining about some imagined oppression or some tirade about Israel. In the end it is predictable and tiring.

    So here is the truth. When I hear the word Muslim or Islam the very first thing I think of is “terrorist” “violence” “murder” or “whining”. You have a pretty sad religion when people hear the name of your faith they immediately think of violence. The next problem that you have is that you Muslims have chosen to lie instead of have honest discourse when it comes to Jihad and terrorism. That means when I hear “muslim” I think “liar”. Muslims regardless of where you are from, regardless even if you are an American Muslim born here in America I see you as a potential danger. All this can be changed but the ONLY way it can happen is if Muslims themselves change their religion at the very core. This I doubt you will do.

    So that’s where we stand. 1 billion human beings in the world that I want nothing at all to do with and do not even feel safe with them being anywhere near me. As a matter of fact I am quite close to not just not trusting Muslims and not liking Muslims but I am actually rather close to HATING all Muslims. And trust me on this, the last thing in the world I care about is being called a bigot or racist because of this. Because of the constant killing of innocent people by Muslims and other Muslims making inane excuses for them I have this outlook on all Muslims. So it comes down to this, change your religion at the very core or continue to be looked at with suspicion and continue to be hated. Your Muslim values, culture, and Ummah have nothing to offer me except for the negative. Lastly know this, I would have never held these feelings about Islam if it was not for the behavior of Muslims themselves.

  32. says

    Any sane person who studies the Islamic ‘religion’will automatically become Islamophobic. Islamopbobia is probably the fastest growing phobia in the world.

    World Population 6.5 billion
    Muslims 1.5 Billion
    Actual and potential Islamophobes 5 billion

  33. says

    Nobody of us ever said that all Muslims are guilty of the crimes committed by Muslims.

    But as a matter of fact most devoted Muslims are terrorists or instigators of terrorist acts. There is a very simple explanation for that, as Hugh said they hate the West.

    We’ve got a right to defend our culture, our way of life including free speech.

    Ahmadshithead should never forget that. Fuck Islam!

  34. says

    I personally do not see anything wrong in burning a koran. We can always buy another. My bird ripped apart my first koran and all I did was go out and buy another one. It is only a book and is easily replaced whether it is worth the money or not. Personally, I believe the book is worth 1/2 a cent because it is so full of hate and violence, and worthless information. ‘

  35. says

    This is my 1st time posting on this much needed site. I have been reading the posts and comments for about 6 months now. Like many here, I have been studying Islam, it’s various strains and movements since 9/11 happened. I have studied the life and history of Muhammad, as well as, the religions’/ideology’s effects on humanity since its beginnings. Like many of you, I recognize that Islam and it’s adherants are, without doubt and by far, the most difficult and pressing problem on the earth today. On top of that, they are being assisted by our own leftist ideals to prosper and expand in our western society. We HAVE to wake up or it WILL be too late. There is no doubt in my mind about this. The people on this site are some of the few people who get this, so I am writing in hopes of helping find solutions to deal with this huge problem. I think it would be great to brain storm together to find and begin to enact these solutions. It has to start somewhere. Why not here. Perhaps we could have a seperate section of the website dedicated for this? Anyway here are some of my ideas:
    1. We need to educate ourselves of the truth of Islam.
    2. We need to educate others of the truth of Islam.
    3. We neede to begin to turn the tide of the people in our own western society who are knowingly or unknowingly supporting Islam. We need to do this by exposing the truth of Islam and being unflintching in the resolve to tell the truth.
    4. Eventually, fringe Muslims need to learn what we know and leave in large numbers.
    5. The verses in the Koran that perpetuate violence and global domination and utter intolerance need to be so common that everyone knows them-like huge signs.
    6. under this kind of exposure, the support from our left will diminish and more muslims will leave.
    7. Our left has to see that their own liberal ideals are actually in complete discord with the ideals of Islam
    Obviously, there is much more but I jsut wanted to contribute something and thank Robert for all of his brave work and say I am here and want to help in any way possible. Thanks.

  36. says

    Having become weary of all the words attached to -phobia, meaning fear (especially Islamophobia), I coined a new word. Islamotedia. “Tedia, taedium, or tedium” are Latin words meaning disgust. So now I can rightfully call myself “Islamotedic” (or Islamotaedic, as my best friend corrected me, but it’s harder to say!). I fear nothing, but am disgusted with many things. This suffix naturally applies to any of the words bandied about with -phobia, like Obamaphobia. No, I am Obamatedic. And Homotedic. Hope you like and use my new word!

    James Custer McCarthy, Tampa

  37. says

    The ironic thing about this blog is that the comments always refute the article.

    “Ahmadshithead should never forget that. Fuck Islam!”

    “And trust me on this, the last thing in the world I care about is being called a bigot or racist because of this. Because of the constant killing of innocent people by Muslims and other Muslims making inane excuses for them I have this outlook on ALL MUSLIMS”

    “A more accurate term would be ‘islamomisia’, or a hatred/revulsion to all things islamic.” (Totally true, Jihadwatch members generally hate and revile Muslims)

    “As a matter of fact I am quite close to not just not trusting Muslims and not liking Muslims but I am actually rather close to HATING all Muslims.”

    And that’s not even all of it folks!

  38. says

    Evil: Yeah, isn’t it great? We live in the greatest country in the world, bar none. We can love what we want, hate what we want and say what we want. And we can do what we want, provided we don’t hurt anyone. Compare that to the Muslim countries, or even to the Islamics living here under sharia law. No thanks. When you consider that Mohammad was a camel thief, a child molester and a robbing desert brigand, I question what god would ever impart his word to this fool. Notice I didn’t capitalize, because I do believe in God, THE God. And I question a culture that embraces the concepts in the Koran. But do I hate them? No more or no less than they hate us, which speaks volumes.

    I do like your word, though… and it may indeed be more accurate. Thank you! I just may use it. Just call me “New Knight Templar”! Just awaiting the call for the Second Crusade.

  39. says

    The “Evil Taqiyya Artist” clearly suffers from IBS, (Islamic Brainwashing Syndrome) because he is unable to comprehend that four fifths of the world reject his absurd and destructive belief system.

    He is so brainwashed that he is unable to comprehend that if one rejects a doctrine that teaches hatred and genocide on unbelievers one might rightfully and justly become hateful.

    Fight oppression! Muslim Arabs are the biggest oppressors in history!

  40. says

    In my view, in the West we tend to view book burning as always a bad thing. Why is that, exactly? Does book burning always have to represent suppression of learning? Denial of freedom? Squashing of rights?

    What if a book burning represents a stand against those who would suppress learning, deny freedom, and squash rights?

    I know for me, as for many, the first image that comes to mind when I hear of “burning books” is the infamous Nazi book burnings of 1933.

    But if that is what we think of, do we also subconsciously assign the same meaning to all book burnings, regardless of what they’re really about?

    We, as free people, do not have to carry the guilt of visions of yet another group of fascists who attempted to suppress learning, deny freedoms, and squash rights.

    That is not what we’re doing; we are, in fact, doing the exact opposite.

    I think it may be coming to the point in America, at least, where a stand has to be made. A POINT has to be pressed, and pressed repeatedly.

    The great line written by Abraham Lincoln near the end of the Civil War frequently comes to mind:

    Gen. Sheridan says “If the thing is pressed I think that Lee will surrender.” Let the thing be pressed.
    –April 7, 1865 Telegram to General Grant

    “Let the thing be pressed.” What is the thing, in our case? Our First Amendment rights.

    No president, no general, no Supreme Court Justice, no Mainstream media, no Muslim or Muslim apologist, and certainly no enraged Muslim flag-burning mob in the Middle East has ANY right to determine what our rights are, or will be.

    There is a great effort in the world today to strip us of our freedoms of thought, speech, and conscience.

    What do we do?

    Do we not burn Korans because the idea is just reprehensible to us? After all, what great tome of knowledge and enlightenment are we talking about here?

    And do we picture ourseleves as Nazis when we picture oursevles? If we do, why should we?

    Is it better to read a Koran instead of burning one?

    I would certainly recommend reading it before burning it, if you do intend to burn it, but that decision is up to EACH FREE AMERICAN to make.

    But don’t NOT burn it because you have the image of Nazis from 1933 in your mind. If you do, you’re just inappropriately self-censoring your freedom of expression due to a group of fascists whose images keep flashing in your head, in vainglorious black & white.

    That’s how I see it.

  41. says

    Atrocities committed by American soldiers is not a religion…
    They have no ‘Book’ telling them to behave in this manner…They are not reacting to an order or edict from God…They have nothing to do with Islamophobia at all…You present that as an obfuscation only…

  42. says

    “The soldiers are accused of possessing dismembered body parts, including fingers and a skull, and collecting photographs of dead Afghans. Some images show soldiers posing with the dead.”

    All Americans everywhere are responsible for the actions of these soldiers, right? Because they are commanded and supplied by your freely-elected commander-in-chief.”

    Yusef–yes, we Americans DO take responsibility for that. And our responsibility requires us to categorically, publicly,condemn those actions in unequivocal terms, to take the LEAD in bringing those indviduals to justice, to examine the roots of what caused those soldiers to do that, and to do everything possible to prevent it from happening again. And WE DO THAT—because humans are flawed creatures, we can never prevent these things 100%, but you, and the rest of the world, know very well that there aren’t going to be tens of thousands of Americans, doing the things those soldiers were doing, forming cells around the world and taking over entire countries in the name of an ideology which supports and glorifies those actions. The Muslim world NEVER takes responsiblity in that manner. Do you not see the difference?

  43. says


    You are correct. It looks badly upon all Americans when a few soldiers do something like this. One thing you can count on with Americans is that once something is brought to light such as this, these people will be tried and likely convicted based upon forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony. In other words, in American system of governance, these people will be brought to justice.

    According to the article that you linked

    The testimony, in a hearing to determine whether one of those soldiers, Specialist Jeremy N. Morlock, would face a court-martial and a possible death sentence, came the same day that a videotape in the case was leaked showing Specialist Morlock talking to investigators about the killings in gruesome detail with no apparent emotion.

    This is more than could be said for some perpetrators of evil deeds in the Muslim world. I don’t have the article or remember the exact situation, but a few Islamic Jihadists caught and tried by Pakistan were let free even after 40+ eyewitness testimony and a mountain of evidence suggested the people were guilty, the verdict was overturned by a sympathetic judge. So rather than submit to the idea of “justice” they were freed because they were acting in accordance with the teachings of Mohammad.

    The OIC wonders why we distrust Muslims and Islam so much.

  44. says

    ‘Why is everybody always picking on me’?

    ‘Now see what ‘you’ made me do’…

    ‘All my problems are ‘your’ fault…

    ‘I’m going to get ‘you’ before ‘you’ get me’

    All heard first hand, in mental institutions, from dangerous paranoids…

    “Islam and Muslims are under serious attack, and Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day.”

    Note any similarities?…Islamophobia is ‘your’ fault…And ‘you’ are getting dangerous…So we must defend ourselves from what ‘you’ have created…

  45. says

    “The soldiers are accused of possessing dismembered body parts, including fingers and a skull, and collecting photographs of dead Afghans. Some images show soldiers posing with the dead.”

    Nowhere in our American military manuals, or Allied war policy guidelines, is there anything written to condone such barbaric behavior. There is no ‘Holy Book’ calling for such odious things to be done, unlike your ‘holy’ Koran that justifies in all its (over 100+) violent verses to attack the ‘infidels’ in the Jihad to conquer the world for Allah. So in your:

    “All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of those Muslims, right? Because we all believe the “same exact thing.”

    Yes, you all believe the same thing. You worship your Koran. There is no equivalence.

    Curiously, to try to equate isolated (punishable) incidents of a soldier’s barbaric behavior with violent (unpunished) behavior of Jihadists is itself a condemnation: Jihadists are barbarics who should be punished. But under Islam, they are all given free pass.

  46. says

    Yusef YK:
    “All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of those Muslims, right? Because we all believe the “same exact thing.”

    No, and we don’t want to punish you for the actions of other Muslims either. But at the same time a religion is not a race. A religion should be something a grown human being chooses, while he knows it and accepts all consequences.

    Valid reason for choosing Islam? Seeking for the truth with all ones heart. Not much else.

    Wrong reasons for choosing Islam? “Oh, I know it’s untrue, BUT …… it’s so useful in its effects”. Or “I love and respect my parents and community and country and that’s why I stick to Islam”. Or … “I am afraid for severe sanctions if I give Islam up”.

    But if Muslims persist in their religion even for the wrong reasons, we should present them with another, compulsary, choice. Especially when they reside in Democratic countries; Do you choose for Theocratic Islamic Shariah laws and interests or Secular Democratic laws and interests in every instance when the 2 are in contradiction? Like in the case of death-penalty for apostasy from Islam?

    The Muslims should either wholeheartedly choose Democratic laws over Islamic ones when the 2 contradict, or vice versa. And if choose Islamic ones clearly over Democratic ones, they should broadcast it honestly to the world, especially to those Muslim-defenders who keep talking about “hate-speech” and “racism” or “polarisation through generalisation” when we criticize, expose, protest against Islam and the actions of Muslims worldwide. And we just try to hold Muslims accountable for their choices, like everybody else is.

    Why can’t Muslims be clear about their own revered texts to the outside world? And choose clearly between the Democratic and Theocratic system? If they are so harmless, according to Muslim-defenders why can’t we demand a clear choice from them on this?

  47. says

    If the US Constitution said collect trophies of the vanquished then I would say America should be held accountable.

    Surah 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them.”

    You get were I going don’t you Yo Kufir?

  48. says

    All Muslims everywhere are responsible for the actions of those Muslims, right? Because we all believe the “same exact thing.”


    You all believe, and must have professed to have become a muslim, the Shahadah.

    From Wiki (I know, not always the best source, but good enough for this.)

    Shahadah is a statement professing monotheism and accepting Muhammad as God’s messenger. The shahadah is a set statement normally recited in Arabic: (aÅ¡hadu an) lÄ� ilÄ�ha illá l-LÄ�hi wa (ashhadu ‘anna) Muḥammadan rasÅ«lu l-LÄ�hi “(I profess that) there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

    By professing that you believe Muhammad is “Gods messenger”, you have voluntarily taken on all the baggage that comes with the title of Muslim.

    His entire life, the murderous nature, pedophilia, blasphemy, greed, self aggrandizing, self interest, perversions, manipulations, and all that was evil about him.

    Anyone who is acting in emulation of Muhammad, is therefore your bother. If you truly do not believe that what they do is Gods will, then break away from the God that set up an horrifyingly evil man as an example to be followed.

    Anyone who says they believe that a man like Muhammad could possibly be sent from God, must man up and take their lumps for being included among those that follow that example.

    The fact that the majority of people have a vastly higher standard of morality that the God of the Koran, says all that needs to be said about Muhammad and his God.

    Anyone who believes in Muhammad as a prophet, believes enough to be held in contempt, as well as accountable for what the Muslim community in general does when it follows Muhammad’s example.

    “I was just a Muslim”, has as much traction as “I was just doing my job.”

    Real morality is higher than that.

  49. says

    ‘All Americans everywhere are responsible for the actions of these soldiers, right? Because they are commanded and supplied by your freely-elected commander-in-chief.’

    As in no kuffar is innocent because they do not follow the ‘righteous faith’?

    Or no Israeli is a civilian because they are soldiers of the ‘zionist entity’?

    These are well documented statements and your verbal convolutions reek of taqiyya.

  50. says

    Yusef, I am not anti-Muslim. I am against the teachings of Islam that lead to extremism, violence, hatred, and bigotry against followers of other religions. I am opposed to the oppression of Muslims by their co-religionists in the name of “Allah” or any other nomenclature with which you or anyone else would care to justify their or our oppression.

    My question is this: When will Muslims begin to take stock of the very real suffering that these teachings and those who follow them inflict upon the rest of humanity?

    “Islamophobia” is just a recently-invented Orwellian New-speak term used to silence those of us who are asking this very crucial question.

    We stand at the proverbial eleventh hour, and time for humanity is running out.

  51. says

    “Atrocities committed by American soldiers is not a religion…
    They have no ‘Book’ telling them to behave in this manner…They are not reacting to an order or edict from God…They have nothing to do with Islamophobia at all…You present that as an obfuscation only…”

    swami, concerning your use of the word “edict,” the following quote:

    “Islam wasn’t hijacked by a few radicals on 9/11 … the only thing that was hijacked were commercial airliners by 19 Muslims who followed the edicts of the Koran to the letter.” – Walid Shoebat, former Palestinian Terrorist, Convert to Christianity, and Supporter of Israel.

  52. says

    Well said, Hugh.

    However I have one observation about this term Islamophobia.
    It’s very clever on the part of the Muslims who invented it. Notice that the term means an irrational fear of Islam. Islam is a religion. It doesn’t mean an irrational fear of Muslims. Muslims are followers of Islam. There is no judeophobia or christianityphobia or hinduisimophobia. So there really should not be an islamophobia.
    Therefore the term MUSLIMOPHOBIA would be a fear of Muslims. That is fear of people who follow Islam. But this term is not used. The Muslims knows why they can’t use this term because there are lots of people around the world who do have real rational fear of Muslims. Their fears are justified because of the actions of Muslims. Instead they use Islamophobia to get around this debacle. Very clever indeed.

  53. says

    Because we all believe the “same exact thing.””

    You don’t all believe in the exact same thing, which is one reason Mahoundians kill each other on a regular basis…
    Some of you are just not quite Mahoundian enough…True Mahoundians are the radicals and fanatics who are called pious…they tow the mark with no variations, including killing people for disbelief…The rest of you are apostates waiting to get found out…You have reason to ‘Live in fear of the Religion of Peace’ yourself…

  54. says

    Right you are, Hugh.

    Most of our American politicians can’t, or won’t, recognize the situation for what it is.

    At least not publicly, anyway.

    That would lead to charges of ” Islamophopia “, ” Bigotry “, ” Racism “, etc, etc. The usual charges meant to stifle debate.

    Words and charges like those could be the kiss of death for any politicians, or would be politicians, career.

  55. says

    Googling for “Hudaibiyya” and “Hugh Fitzgerald” will give you articles, but you can also go simply to various Islamic encyclopedias.

    Two discussions of the agreeement that Muhammad made with the Meccas at Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D. can be found in:

    1) Majid Khadurri’s “Law of War and Peace in Classical Islam”


    2) Professor Wilson Bishai wrote, in “Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies In Honrof Aziz Suryal Atiya” (ed. Sami A. Hanna), a Festschrift published in 1972, a short article,
    Negotiations and Peace Agreements Between Muslims and Non-Muslims in Islamic History” which offers, beginning with Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., three examples of Islamic treaty-making with non-Muslims, the circumstances of necessity that compelled the Muslims to make such treaties, and what subsequently happened.

    You can also look at two of my articles that deal specifically with the Treaty of Hudaibiyya (I now prefer this as the clearest way to refer to it).

    There is, for example, “Waiting For Hudaibiyya” which I posted here on June 8, 2008:

    Fitzgerald: Waiting for Hudaibiyya

    I am waiting to see when, where, how, in what column by what columnist, in what report by what reporter, in what editorial by what member of what editorial board, the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya will first be mentioned or discussed.

    For these reporters, these columnists, these writers of scolding editorials who presume to inform and instruct their audiences, appear to believe, with what might be called, wickedly, a Eurocentric view of things, that everyone in the world accepts the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda — the principle that “Treaties Are to Be Obeyed.” It isn’t true. That concept, which originates in the West, and which seems to people in the West as self-evident (for how, or why, would treaties have any value if one side or both could break them?), is not honored, and is not even discussed as worthy of being honored, in the Islamic world.

    In that world, a different principle obtains. Treaties may be made with Infidel enemies. But those treaties do not bind the Muslim side. They can, whenever they wish, whenever they feel the time is right or ripe, break those treaties. There is no such thing as a permanent “peace” treaty with Infidels. All treaties that are called that in the West are merely “truce” treaties or hudnas. They are based on the model of the agreement that Muhammad made with his Meccan enemies (because they would not yield to his demands) in 628 A.D., at Hudaibiyya, just outside Mecca.

    Muhammad is not merely the Messenger of Allah, the Seal of the Prophets. He is the center, he is the focus, of Islam. He is mentioned far more than Allah. He is the model for Muslims, in all things, and for all times. He is uswa hasana, the Model of Right Conduct, he is al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man. What he said, and what he did, as recorded in the Hadith, or retailed in the Sira, constitute the Sunnah, the essential gloss on the Qur’an, and not merely a gloss but something more, for the Sunnah is the guide to daily life, to what is prohibited and what commanded. (Some Muslims now talk about “reforming” Islam — see Mustafa Akyol — by returning to “the Qur’an alone.” They frequently employ the phrase “sola scriptura” — a phrase appropriated from the Protestant Reformation, for the Bright Young Reformers are still Muslims, and are consumed with an ill-concealed envy, and a desire to liken the Islamic world as much as possible to the West whose achievements and liberties confound and attract and scare and repel them.)

    Those reporters, those columnists, those editorial writers so sure of themselves, without having spent the necessary hours in the library, need to be shamed into study — the study of Islam. They could, for example, be asked why they have not, in their failure to understand the meaning, and relevance, of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, read such a standard work as Majid Khadduri’s War and Peace in the Law of Islam. It’s readily obtained. It explains a lot. It explains, for example, the Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya. Shouldn’t they be asked, shouldn’t they be forced, to start showing that they are actually learning something, are trying to find out about Islam? And that they are not finding out about it from the usual apologists but possibly, at first, simply by reading the scholars — not espositos and armstrongs — who have written about Islam, or have written about Islam at a time and place when they did not need to worry, and could be truthful? (Khadduri himself later retreated into a more apologetic, less truthful mode about some aspects of Islam, but that is another story).

    For example, when Muslims — when Hamas as one case — talks about a “truce” that will last ten years, shouldn’t those who report on this kind of thing ask themselves why “ten years” was chosen? Shouldn’t they inquire further, and realize that “ten years” is always the date given for a hudna? And shouldn’t they then ask themselves “why is that?” and then attempt to find out? If they did make the attempt, they would discover that the agreement that Muhammad made with the Meccans at Al-Hudaibiyya was to last for ten years, and so that has, ever since, become the appropriate length of time for a “hudna” with Infidels. It doesn’t mean it can’t be broken within those ten years; Muhammad broke the treaty within 18 months, even though, when they speak with Infidels, Muslims will attempt to deny this. They will say that it was all the fault of the Meccans. But the facts — and also all of the crowing delight taken in Muslim literature over the very cunning that Muhammad showed in making this treaty when he was weak and breaking it when he was strong — show that Muslims know what really caused that treaty to be broken, and by whom.

    Yet none of this ever seems to appear, not in The New Duranty Times, not in The Bandar Beacon, not in the newsweeklies, with time on their hands. One wishes to ask: Why not? Why do these people who report from Muslim countries, or who report breathlessly on peace-processing between Israel and various subsets of their Arab and Muslim implacable enemies, not ever bother to find out about what treaty-making means? They have heard the complaints about non-compliance by the Arabs. Why don’t they not only take those complaints seriously, and discuss what, for example, Egypt has done to comply with its duty, under the Camp David Accords, to encourage friendly relations and an end to hostilities, at the level of peoples, with Israel? Not important? Too complicated to find out? Really?

    And then, why should not journalists — those reporters, those columnists, those editorial writers — not be held to the duty to explain not only Egypt’s failure now, but the failure to honor other agreements, or the failure of other Arab states, or of the “Palestinians,” to honor their agreements? And why not ask them to find out when, and where, and why, for example, Yassir Arafat alluded for Muslim audiences to the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya — such as his speech made in Johannesburg before a Muslim audience soon after signing the Oslo Accords, a speech surreptitiously recorded, in which he clearly makes reference to Muhammad and his Treaty? And his audience knew exactly what he was saying.

    When we read, for example, that Muslims in the southern Philippines, having reached and signed an agreement a year ago with the government, are now attacking non-Muslim Filipino farmers and forcing off their land, in direct violation of that agreement, we should not be surprised. But we deserve, we readers, to be told why what these Muslims are doing is not surprising, but fits into a repeated pattern of Muslim violations of agreements with Infidel nation-states. Of course the Muslims in the southern Philippines have no intention of honoring their agreement. Of course the “Palestinians” of Fatah’s Slow Jihad have no intention of honoring whatever agreement the Israelis might be foolish enough to make. Of course the government of the Muslim Arabs in Khartoum have no intention of honoring the peace agreement they made with the non-Muslims of the southern Sudan, or the commitments they have made with outside Infidels about not further harming the inferior, because non-Arab, Muslims in Darfur. And so on.

    These are not unconnected, isolated examples. They are all the same example, or all examples of the same thing: the Muslim view, or even the Muslim Arab view, of treaties or agreements made with enemies who are Infidels. These are not agreements about “salaam” but about “sulh.” They are not peace treaties but hudnas, truce treaties.

    It isn’t hard to find out all of this. This is not elementary particle physics or advanced mathematics beyond the ken of mere mortals. You don’t have to be P.E.M. Dirac or John von Neumann or Paul Erdos to understand, or make sense, of this stuff. You just have to decide to be a little less lazy, and to apply to yourself the standards that, before you entered journalism, you might have imposed on yourself, or at least learned about, when you were a graduate student, or in college. You have to do the appropriate amount of research. You have to not leave things unexplained. If you are going to report on Muslims on the world of Islam, you had damn well better start learning about Islam. And that includes what Muhammad said, and did, and what he did, in particular, in 628 at Hudaibiyya.

    It’s not much to ask.

    [Posted by Hugh on June 8, 2008]

  56. says

    Anyone who believes in Muhammad as a prophet, believes enough to be held in contempt, as well as accountable for what the Muslim community in general does when it follows Muhammad’s example.
    One must also remember that Muslims share the concept of the Ummah. In prostrating the idea of the Ummah, they become duty bound to follow the commands of the Quran. Those commands supersede even the loyalty of ones own family. They command that if your brother, mother or father is not following the Koran properly, then one should deal with their own family members properly.

    When I read about the Ummah and Muslims, It really reminds me of the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation TV series. The Borg all think with one mind and follow the same rules and laws. Their duty is to assimilate all life into the “collective”. Sometimes I think when Gene Roddenberry was writing about the Borg, he was really talking about Islam and Muslims.

  57. says

    B wrote:

    “The Borg all think with one mind and follow the same rules and laws. Their duty is to assimilate all life into the “collective”.

    Well said, B! As a dabbler in history, and as a person from a family both of whose sides have had experience with the twentieth-century’s two horrific examples of collectivism, Soviet Bolshevism and German National Socialism, I can attest to the horrors that collectivist ideologies have brought to humanity.

    I grew up around people with the blue tatoos of the German death camps on their arms. I heard stories from people who escaped the Soviet paradise, telling of those who disappeared into the endless night of the Gulag, banished in the “name of the people” never to return again. Never again! Not here! Not anywhere!

    Unfortunately, orthodox Islam shares many of fascism’s and bolshevism’s most unsavory elements, the collective group-think mentality not being the least of them.

    It is our duty to educate ourselves about the origins of this stream of “thought” within the Muslim ummah, its ideological underpinnings in Islamic texts (Quran and Sunna, and their modern interpretations), to understand how and where it surfaces in today’s world, and to DENOUNCE it with full force and clarity.

  58. says

    For your bird or cat why buy a koran and support the ummaha when you can get a free copy from your local mosque or islamic center? Just be careful if your bird or cat turns toward meeca 5 times a day to pray it’s time to burn the offending book.