One cause of confusion is that Leftists and Islamic supremacists use the word “Islamophobia” in two different senses, without bothering to distinguish between the two, because to do so wouldn’t serve their agenda. “Islamophobia” as meaning attacks on innocent Muslims is never justified under any circumstances, and that is generally the meaning that those who use this word want their hearers to assume. So Leftists and Islamic supremacists will take Mudar Zahran’s statement that Muslims have only themselves to blame for “Islamophobia” as meaning that those innocent Muslims who were supposedly attacked, harassed and discriminated against because of the actions of jihad terrorists deserved what they got.
But that is an absurd and monstrous idea: no one is responsible for anyone else’s crimes, and that is not what Mudar Zahran meant. For Leftists and Islamic supremacists also use the word “Islamophobia” to refer to any criticism of the Islamic texts and teachings that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism. In that sense, Mudar Zahran is right when he says that Muslims have no one to blame but themselves for “Islamophobia,” for in the face of jihad murders, most have not confronted or worked against the understandings of Islam that led to the murders, and worked for genuine reform. Instead, the most visible and powerful Muslim advocacy groups, such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they have opposed all counter-terror efforts and whined about “profiling.” So of course free people are going to notice and be suspicious: not only is there jihad terror, but then from “moderate Muslims” there is just denial, obfuscation, finger-pointing and obstruction of attempts to oppose jihad terror.
As someone who calls himself a “Palestinian,” a nationality that was invented in the cause of jihad, Mudar Zahran is obviously no counter-jihadist. But he speaks simple common sense here.
“Who Is to Blame for ‘Islamophobia’ in the UK?,” by Mudar Zahran for the Gatestone Institute, February 24 (thanks to Pat Condell):
After the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby by Islamic extremists in London last May, The Guardian reported a surge in the number of anti-Muslim offenses.
Also, last May, a poll by the British research firm, YouGov, showed that nearly two-thirds of Britons believe there will be a “clash of civilizations” between British Muslims and white Britons, and 34% believe that Muslims pose a serious threat to democracy.
As a Muslim living in the UK, I wonder, who is to blame for the increase in anti-Muslim feelings in the U.K.? Or is the problem “Islamophobia”?
If one dispassionately examines facts, it seems possible that if “Islamophobia” exists in the U.K., then perhaps we Muslims are to blame for it.
For a start, let us look at the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, who was butchered in Woolwich, near his army barracks, on May 22, 2013 by two British Muslim converts.
The murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were both 29 and born to Christian families. Both are reported by the Daily Mail to have been inspired by the British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary. Therefore, can we Muslims blame the British public if they fear for their young men and women, and would prefer them not to associate with us and possibly become Islamically radicalized?
Anjem Choudary — the Muslim cleric who “inspired” Rigby’s murderers — has a lavish history of inciting Islamic fundamentalism and hatred against Britain. He refused, for example, to condemn the July 7, 2005 London bombings and even spoke favorably about the “black flag of Sharia flying over Downing Street [the Prime Ministers’ office] by 2020”.
In an interview on April 11, 2013 Choudhry [sic] said, “As Muslims, we reject democracy, we reject secularism, and freedom, and human rights. We reject all of the things that you espouse as being ideals … There is nothing called a republic in Islam. When we talk about the sharia, we are talking about only the sharia. We are talking about rejecting the U.N., the IMF, and the World Bank.”
So, why then, if Choudhry [sic] and other Islamist fundamentalists so oppose the British values of democracy and human rights, do they choose to stay in the UK? No one is keeping them here against their will.
Also, if we Muslims in the UK disagree with what Choudhry [sic] and his like-minded associates are saying, why do we never speak out against it? If we are actually opposed these Islamist hate preachers, why are we failing to take a unanimous public stance to disown and isolate them from our community?
The non-Muslims must be also asking themselves the same questions, and logically assuming from our silence that we agree.
The Islamists’ damage to the British society does not stop with the hatred they spread, but also extends to exporting terrorism to the rest of the world.
For example, Abu Hamzah Al-Masri, who is now facing terrorism charges in the US after being extradited from the UK, turned a local London mosque into a recruiting ground for Islamic radicals. In the 1990s, Abu Hamzah’s followers included the 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and failed “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, both now serving life sentences in the U.S.
As a sidebar, on May 28, 2009, three of Abu Hamza’s sons and his stepson were sentenced to imprisonment by a British court for a two-year fraud involving stolen cars. And in July 2010, another of Abu Hamza’s sons was sentenced to twelve months prison after pleading guilty to one count of violent disorder at anti-Israel protests in January 2009. In 2012, another one of Abu Hamza’s sons was convicted of armed robbery and illegal possession of a firearm with intent to commit an offense.
A phobia, by definition, is an irrational fear: a fear of something that is not real — such as being afraid that there are snakes in the next room. But if you look at the London tube bombings; the death threats against a British schoolteacher whose kindergartners innocently decided to name a teddy bear Mohammed; the recent the murder and attempted decapitation of Lee Rigby, not to mention events abroad, such as two attacks on the World Trade Center, the Madrid train bombings the attempted attacks by the Underwear Bomber, the Shoe Bomber, the Times Square Bomber; the murders of Theo van Gogh, Ilan Halimi, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl; Jews in Toulouse, Mumbai and Buenos Aires; the victims of US Army Major Nidal Hassan; assaults on Kurt Westergaard, and Lars Hedegaard, and the threats to Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among other episodes — these events are all too real, so how can we Muslims in the UK honestly expect people not to be “Islamophobic”? How can we blame the British society for being ill-disposed when some of their Islamic “leaders” are breeding both terrorists and criminals?
There also seems to be a pattern now of Muslim men “grooming” white underage non-Muslim girls into sex rings. For example: in May 2012, nine Muslim men were convicted of being part of a child sexual exploitation ring involving vulnerable white girls. Eight of the men were of British Pakistani origin and one was an Afghan; all Muslims.
The seven members of the Oxford child sexual grooming gang who were found guilty in June 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
One of the victims told the court “of being raped by two men while she was “so drunk she was vomiting over the side of the bed. She later cried herself to sleep.”
Further, in June 2013, seven Muslim men from Oxford were found guilty of grooming underage white girls, aged between 11 and 15, into a sadistic sex ring.
Commenting on the case, Dr. Taj Hargey, the Muslim cleric of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said, “[R]ace and religion were linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.” He added that, “Imams promote grooming rings’ by encouraging followers to think white women deserve to be ‘punished'”.
Dr. Hargey also noted that, “all the men [involved in the Oxford sex ring] — though of different nationalities — were Muslim and they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as easy meat.” Dr. Hargey added that pretending this is not a problem of the Islamic community is “ideological denial.”
So, how can we Muslims blame the British public for fearing for their underage girls when Muslim men keep getting arrested and convicted for grooming white girls into sex rings?
As a Muslim living in the UK, I have come to believe that we Muslims are the main source of “Islamophobia” — by the evil and disturbing acts of some Muslims, and above all by the silence of the majority regarding those acts.
It would appear we have no one to blame but ourselves.
The seven members of the Oxford child sexual grooming gang who were found guilty in June 2013 (clockwise from top left): Kamar Jamil, Akhtar Dogar, Anjum Dogar, Assad Hussain, Mohammed Karrar, Bassam Karrar, and Zeeshan Ahmed.
Vito says
Thanks for posting this, Mr. Spencer. It’s refreshing to see someone from the Muslim community recognizing that perhaps they themselves could work toward a better rapprochment with the societies they live in, as opposed to blaming everyone else.
Other muslims such as Mudar Zahran should also stand up and denounce violence in the name of Muhammed. They might find that the non-muslim community would appreciated and support such activism.
Vito says
Should have read:
They might find that the non-muslim community would appreciate and support such activism.
Islamisdeath says
How long before some demonic imam puts a death fatwa out on this guy? He’s not a true muslim because true muslims know that muslims do no wrong ever.
I am glad to see there is at least one muslim guy out there who can think for himself at least a little.
mortimer says
‘Islamophobia’ is merely a thought-terminating cliché meant to silence critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism.
Mudar Zahran fails to mention WHY democracy-loving Muslims fail to speak out against terrorism: They themselves are afraid of the terrorists and afraid of being executed by the terrorists as ‘munafiqoon’ (Islamic hypocrites). ‘Munafiqoon’ are those Muslims who only pay lip service to Islam, pretend to go along with the mullahs and ultimately couldn’t care less about Islam, except as part of their cultural identity. They don’t want anything to do with jihad.
However, as non-Muslims hear the deafening dead silence of the terrorized Munafiqoon, we are forced to suspect the only difference between the terrorists and ‘ordinary Munafiqoon’ is that one of the two owns an assault weapon or a bomb and the other does not…as yet…but may do in the near future.
This is the sly brilliance of jihadism. The jihadist can morph between ‘moderate’ and ‘terrorist’ in a minute and can hide himself among the ‘moderates’ for years before revealing his true terrorist colors.
Pope Innocent says
A Muslim who says the shahada isn’t innocent because he praises evil.
A Muslim who prays isn’t innocent because he begs for our death.
A Muslim who fasts isn’t innocent because he prepares for mischief.
A Muslim who gives zakat isn’t innocent because he pays for jihad.
A Muslim who performs pilgrimage isn’t innocent because Mecca is Sodom.
Defcon 4 says
And how many “Christians” call the evil of islam good?
JamesonRocks says
I wonder how many fatwas will be issued against him? Probably a good time for him to move, change telephone numbers, adopt a new hair style and get a little plastic surgery.
Joginder Singh says
Wonder if he sent a copy of that to the muppets at “Tellmama” ???
CogitoErgoSum says
“He (Dr. Taj Hargey) added that, ‘Imams promote grooming rings by encouraging followers to think white women deserve to be punished.’”
That is clearly racism. How can anyone fail to realize this? Ideological denial indeed. I do blame Islam. It is a darkness straight from the depths of Hell and should be consigned to the bottomless pit from which it came. May the Way, the Light and the Truth prevail.
mortimer says
The doctrine of the kafir means that Muslim jihadists are Allah’s instruments for punishing disbelief in Mohammed. Jihad is a form of persecution combined with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Jihad’s purpose is to create 100% Islamic societies such as Afghanistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia where no un-Islamic thought may be expressed.
Paul says
I actually disagree, freedom (of religion) is never free. It comes with social responsibilities that all followers of the faith share, so, if Muslims are propagating a belief that is so easily misrepresented/misunderstood as to call for violence and murder towards other demographics then THEY must change it.
This is but one of the many aspects Muslims must change about their religion in order to live peacefully a long side others in the modern world, it is completely unreasonable to ask the rest of us to put up with it. We have given them (Muslims) a stage with which to do so and would have backed the peaceful interpretation they would propagate……….. the stage is used to protest free expression, and, any encouragement to change their religion is seen as an attack that furthers the divide and strengthens the “us them mentality”. They don’t want to or are not capable of changing. ALL MUSLIMS ARE TO BLAME.
CogitoErgoSum says
Paul, they cannot change their religion. To them the Quran contains the infallible word of Allah (their god) and to them it would be blasphemy to change any part of the Quran. Likewise, Muhammad is their perfect example of a human being and they believe his words are also to be respected and his deeds are to be emulated. Islam is to blame and those who propagate such corruption and call themselves Muslims should be held accountable for remaining in ignorance in this day and age of instant communication and access to knowledge. But for them it has never been easier to spread lies while at the same time they struggle to make it harder and harder to find the truth. …………………Please remember Asia Bibi.
mariam rove says
about time. This is a first. M
profitsbeard says
3000 times too little and 1300 years too late.
Wellington says
Well, a Muslim who is a good person and (Allah forbid) would dare to treat non-Muslims as equals is, quite tellingly, not a good Muslim. And so the problem continues.
voegelinian says
I didn’t see any evidence that Mudar Zahran wants to treat non-Muslims as equals.
Wellington says
My point was that even having a Zahran and then some still doesn’t solve THE PROBLEM.
Charli Main says
Are the Muslims living in Britain to blame for the increasing Islamophobia of the native British population???
Well now , lets see why Islam and Muslims have been singled out.
THERE ARE NO Indian, Chinese or Sikh terrorists and suicide bombers blowing up women and children on buses and trains, chopping of the heads of British soldiers on the streets, grooming and raping little white girls, burning poppies, urinating on War Memorials, rampaging down British streets, declaring that British laws don´t apply to them and that they intend to force their laws, their culture and their religion on everyone else and murder those who resist.
Only “British” Muslims are openly attacking the people and Country that has given them a home.
voegelinian says
I haven’t yet read the 15 comments above me. I’m conducting an experiment: I have a hunch that the vast majority of comments so far will be swooning and fluttering their eyelids like schoolgirls over the sweet taqiyya whispered in their ears by this Good Cop Muslim. Let’s see…
voegelinian says
Well, I’ve read them, and the results are more ambiguous than I thought; which is preferable, I suppose, to the bleak picture I suspected. However, at this late stage of the game, as we begin 2014, I would have wished to see a resounding condemnation of Mudar Zahran as, quite simply, a “Good Cop”, doing his Quilliamish best to maintain the Good Cop/Bad Cop Stealth Jihad. And a good sign that such a tactic continues to be effective is when even many of those in the Counter-Jihad show signs of limpwristed confusion starkly contrasted to the clear and unequivocal condemnation they should have communicated.
Jan says
Well, I must admit my **first** reaction was favourable, in that this ‘palestinian’ (ha ha) mohammedan was at least showing a bit of common sense in recognising it ‘s their own fault we hate their vile religion.
But on a careful re read, it’s clear that Mudar Zahran’s article is just another attempt at deflecting criticism of **islam**.
‘islamists’, Islamic ‘extremists’. Yawn, and yawn again. He makes no attempt to engage with the fact that it’s the verses of the **koran**, and the exploits of the vile mohammed, that fuel these murdering scum.
He says:
”If one dispassionately examines facts, it seems possible that if “Islamophobia” exists in the U.K., then perhaps we Muslims are to blame for it”
**Perhaps** ??!! Well, who **else** is to blame for it ?
”The murderers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were both 29 and born to Christian families. Both are reported by the Daily Mail to have been inspired by the British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary”
What about the koranic verses spewed by these murdering scumbags ? He’s trying to put the blame on solely on that dickhead Choudary, rather than on the content of the demonic koran.
”So, why then, if Choudhry [sic] and other Islamist fundamentalists so oppose the British values of democracy and human rights, do they choose to stay in the UK? No one is keeping them here against their will.”
Here he is pretending to not know what the koran says about making the whole world submit to islam. mohammedans who ”oppose … democracy and human rights, do so because the Koran, and mohammed, tell them to.
”Imams promote grooming rings’”. Yep. And where do they get these nasty ideas from ? The koran.
mohammedan apologists like this one, consistently refuse to confront what their own vile texts teach, and are deliberately refusing to discuss the role of the koran in mohammedan violence, and not just violence, but **stealth jihad**.
”As a Muslim living in the UK, I have come to believe that we Muslims are the main source of “Islamophobia” — by the evil and disturbing acts of some Muslims, and above all by the silence of the majority regarding those acts.
It would appear we have no one to blame but ourselves.”
Got that right, chum.
.
Diana says
Jan, you could be right, but it’s not so simple.
The question is: “Why do the British have a bad attitude to Muslims?” The posited answer is: “Because some Muslims behave badly, and no other Muslims condemn their actions.” That seems straightforward to me.
You have raised the issue of “why some Muslims behave badly,” but this was not what Mr Zahran was addressing.
The truth is, the AVERAGE British person has no idea why some Muslims behave badly. The average person hasn’t read the Quran and doesn’t have a clue who or what taught those Muslims to behave badly. The average person blames the badly-behaved Muslims but never thinks to blame the core doctrines of Islam.
That’s what I believed when I was young and prejudiced. I thought the extremists had a “distorted” view of Islam (just as nasty Christians and Buddhists hold distorted views of Christianity and Buddhism). It was only after I read the Quran and judged on real information that I realised that the extremists had an accurate view of Islam, while all my nice Muslim friends held the distorted view.
Most British people are nice and prejudiced. They don’t have the patience to read a book as boring as the Quran. So they will carry on blaming the “sick individuals” or perhaps the “old-fashioned culture” without ever understanding how the individuals sickened or the culture became poisoned.
We should ask Mr Zahran his opinion on WHY some Muslims behave badly and what inspires and motivates them. The answer to that kind of question would be far more telling.
Jan says
”You have raised the issue of “why some Muslims behave badly,” but this was not what Mr Zahran was addressing.”
In my opinion, Zahran is **deliberately refusing** to address it.
”We should ask Mr Zahran his opinion on WHY some Muslims behave badly and what inspires and motivates them. The answer to that kind of question would be far more telling”
And do you really think he would answer that question truthfully ?
Taqiyya, taqiyya, rides again ! He would say, they are ‘misinterpreting’ the koran, taking verses ‘out of context’, and all the rest of the self-serving, lying rubbish all mohammedan apologists spout.
This is just another exercise in defending islam.
”Most British people are nice and prejudiced. They don’t have the patience to read a book as boring as the Quran. So they will carry on blaming the “sick individuals” or perhaps the “old-fashioned culture” without ever understanding how the individuals sickened or the culture became poisoned.”
‘Prejudiced’ ? I don’t understand why you would use that word. In any case, I think you’re wrong. If you read the comments on a lot of articles about mohammedans and what they do in service of their foul cult, including, God save the mark, the **Guardian**, a **lot** of ”ordinary British people” have full knowledge of what the koran teaches and mandates, a lot of them have full knowledge of the evil career of the execrable mohammed, and understanding of the islamic doctrines of taqiyya, kitman, et al.
They are also beginning to be full cognisant, and wary of, mohammedan attempts to whitewash and deflect by using the ‘misinterpretation’, and ‘out of context’ claptrap arguments.
The EDL is made up, for the most part, of ”ordinary British people”, many of them working class. If you go on the EDL forum, you will find the vast majority of commenters quite au fait with the koran, hadith, and the deeds of the foul mohammed.
For mohammedans like Zahran, time is rapidly running out.
B Hall says
There is a distinct difference between phobia and aversion. I propose that those of the Western civilization have an aversion to that which Islam is and represents, both spiritually and culturally.
To use the term “Islamaphobia” is a misrepresentation that leads to miscommunication. It is time to quit writing of “irrational fear” and write of “deep seated distaste and abhorrence.”
****************
pho·bi·a
ˈfōbēə
noun
1.
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
“he had a phobia about being under water”
synonyms: fear, irrational fear, obsessive fear, dread, horror, terror, hatred, loathing, detestation, aversion, antipathy, revulsion; More
a·ver·sion
əˈvərZHən/Submit
noun
1.
a strong dislike or disinclination.
“he had a deep-seated aversion to most forms of exercise”
synonyms: dislike of, antipathy for, distaste for, abhorrence of, hatred of, odium of, loathing of, detestation of, hostility toward;
haterutil says
Well, it’s a step in the right direction, hopefully we’ll see more 🙂
Champ says
Who coined the term “islamophobia”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt:
“Islamophobia” is a term originally coined by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of a campaign to advance its totalitarian cause by stigmatizing and silencing those who oppose them. The celebrated novelist Salman Rushdie (himself subjected to a death sentence for, in effect, being an “Islamophobe”) and his fellow writers have it exactly right in their manifesto “Together Facing the New Totalitarianism,” when they say, “We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’, a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatization of those who believe in it.” Or as the satirist Andrew Klavan has defined it — “Islamophobia: the irrational fear of having your head chopped off.” There is indeed a threat from Muslim fanatics who are not few in number, and it is in the interest of those fanatics to label those who oppose them hostile to all Muslims and thus to deflect attention from their malign intentions. Several of the authors of the Think Progress attack on Spencer and Horowitz and their colleagues are supporters and apologists for Hamas, Hizbollah and other Muslim terrorist organizations.
More here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frontpagemag-com/islamophobia-thought-crime-of-the-totalitarian-future-3/
Semeru says
No No No Champ you should not believe all that Mr Spencer claims
One early use cited as the term’s first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Writing in French, they used the term islamophobie. Robin Richardson writes that in the English version of the book the word was not translated as “islamophobia”, but rather as “feelings inimical to Islam
Defcon 4 says
So what you’re really saying is that the attempt to deflect all criticism of islam0nazism is much older than Spencer asserts. Wow, now I feel all better about islam0nazism. Ever heard of the concept of a trivial objection?
voegelinian says
Semeru got his Ph.D. in Trivial Objections (with a Minor in Quasi-Dhimmitudinous Sophistry) from a prestigious online university (not sure which one — either Wikipedia Institute or Google U.).
Boston Tea Party says
This piece is, unfortunately, from one of the true Tiny Minority of Extremists within Islam. Occasionally, the humanity of a Muslim rises above the precepts of Islam, but only occasionally. It’s not something that can be counted on. He may be sincere, he may not be—but one thing that is certain is that, at this point in time, he’s statistically insignificant in relation to the conflict between Islam and the West.
Still, the number of “moderate” Muslims who actually take the step of publicly acknowledging that Islam has a UNIQUE propensity for oppression and violence is so small that it’s always noteworthy when one speaks out.
Dhimmiwit says
Well, clearly he is a paid Zionists agent…
DLB says
I don’t understand how anyone stays in a “religion” where its holy book and imams encourage this evil – it is completely obvious to everyone else that it is not a religion of peace, but of evil. I never hear of the good and decent people who supposedly make up the majority of this cult. Mudar Zahran’s statement is true, and so I have to wonder, why does he choose to stay in this “religion”?