Opinion: Stop calling criticism of Islam ‘Islamophobia’

66

The English language needs a moratorium on the word Islamophobia, a term often used to describe bigotry against Muslims. Unfortunately, it is also used reflexively to denounce critics of Islam, who contribute to a valuable and ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the West and the worldwide Islamic community. This subject is important because several Western countries, such as Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, are being forced to reconsider their approaches to immigration and culture in light of deep clashes between the Muslim immigrants and the native population. These tensions have captured much attention in recent weeks with the series of violent protests that have spread to over twenty countries, emanating from the controversial Innocence of Muslims film.


In the opinion of some scholars, journalists, and activists, the nature of European and North American reaction to Islam is an example of prejudice, falling suitably under the umbrella of what they call Islamophobia. In our estimation, however, the use of this term, and its cognates Islamophobic and Islamophobe, is not only misapplied, as in the case of the Dutch dissidents Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but altogether inappropriate and deserving of repudiation.

It is worth acknowledging that some degree of hostility toward Muslims does exist in Western countries. This was perhaps clearest in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, where the West seemed content to allow the mass killing of Muslims as ethnoreligious factions carved apart Bosnia and Herzegovina. The eventual intervention in 1995, aimed at protecting Muslim civilians from aggression by Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, earned the West little respect in the Muslim world. The appalling abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility during the Second Gulf War, widely condemned as acts of torture, could also be cited as an example of anti-Muslim hostility. But to accuse all opponents of Islam of harboring a deep-seated hatred, rooted in irrational fear, is a serious mistake, exemplified by the sweeping and liberal usage of Islamophobia. In fact, the only sentiment in this debate that could actually be described as phobic is the unconditional contempt among many Muslims for people who disagree with them. But one doubts that a formulation like “Infidelophobia” will gain traction anytime soon.

Written By: Jackson Doughart and Faisal Saeed al-Mutar
continue to source article at life.nationalpost.com

66 COMMENTS

  1. Its wrong to label every criticism of Islam Islamaphobia, I agree. But its also ridiculous to claim there is no Islamaphobia in the US and I suspect elsewhere. Just look at the hysteria around the “9/11 ground zero Mosque” which wasn’t  at ground zero and wasn’t a Mosque, it was a community center taking the place of a building that housed a strip club. That is just one example, there are many others, including examples of people, some of whom weren’t even Muslims (e.g. Siks) being attacked in the Western and Southern US because they were thought to be Muslim.

  2. Ehm, on a personal note, I think it’s kind of out of place to call Geert Wilders a dissident. All he does is stir up Islamofobia for his own profit. I think it’s dangerous to simply call your enemies enemy your friend.

    Another thing. I can’t remember the “west” ever being content with the mass murder of Muslims in Bosnia Herzegovina. I have been there and all we did was try to protect these peolpe as best we could. Believe me, that wasn’t easy.

    I agree that many Muslims abuse the word Islamophobia for every form of criticism and undermine vital discussions about their religion. But be carefull which friends you choose and which arguments you use to support your case.

  3. On the other hand, smashing the place up, intimidating folk, killing folk, then blubbing hysterically to the UN about some cockemamie draconian addition to the law in  western courts that they demand must honour  some outdated non sensical bronze age notion like blasphemy or heresy is I suggest AGGRESSION…HATE MONGERING…DAMAGING PEACE!

    wanna play semantics?…your go!

  4. The hasty, lazy and indeed malevolent abuse of the word ‘islamophobic’ is in no way cause for its suggested eradication. It is a perfectly decent, applicable term for many an expressed or unuttered emotion. It merely suffers from the same handicap as for instance the word ‘antisemitic’, as much a popular candidate for the fallacious labelling of unwelcome criticism upon anything involving a Jewish entity. It is commonly thought to be impossible to be an anti-zionist but not an anti-semite. Yet, stating the objectional nature of any claim to any region purely on the basis of any delusional state of mind is, of course, perfectly viable.

    To cite Geert Wilders as a dissident falsely labelled islamophobic is throroughly uninformed.
    Islamophobia is his core business, undemocratic politics his daily course of action. He means to degrade our constitutional right to the freedom of religion to the freedom of ‘our’ religion in order to pave the road for religious discrimination against ‘their’ religion. This is a dangerous path a proud democracy such as the Dutch must arm itself against. The German constitution employs a clever system to prohibit undemocratic entities from abusing democratic rights to realise their undemocratic goals. That’s no coincidence!

    The notion that ‘the West’ was seemingly content with the mass murder of Muslims in the Balkan war is a revolting accusation, utterly contemptable. Abu Ghraib abuse islamophobic? Maltreatment of prisoners of war is of all ages, regardless of whoever the victors and their enemies might be. Just because in this case the victims were primarily Muslim (we assume) doesn’t make the whole incident islamophobic. Wasn’t that what this article set out to proclaim? I fear that the writers themselves have subconsciously bought into the idea that the 2nd Gulf War was a ‘Holy War’. For shame.

  5. No, “Islamophobia” is not “a perfectly decent, applicable term” for anything. It’s a terrible word for “hatred of Muslims” and it’s not much better even as a word for “hatred of Islam.” It treats hatred of Islam as automatically unreasonable, which is absurd on its face.

  6. On the contrary, through the introduction of the term ‘phobia’, its outset is in fact to distinguish between what you might call grounded fears and exaggerated, illogical fear which borders onto hatred. Acknowledging an inherent danger in islamic doctrine does not immediately lead to the conclusion that this embodies an imminent threat. This step can however be made without evidence for such a threat and, when terms like ‘Eurabia’ and ‘a tsunami of muslims’ are used to instill anti-islamic sentiments in people’s minds, ‘islamophobia’ is the correct term.

  7. They can call me Islamophobic if they like. They can call me a racist. They can call me a big ol’ meanie. I really don’t care. I despise Islam, I will criticise and mock Islam and nothing they can do or call me is going to stop me. Their opinion is entirely irrelevant to me. They’re just the enemy. 

  8. Geert Wilders has such an irrational fear of islam that he has to live in a bunker. How evil it is of him to sacrifice his own freedom to protect the freedoms of others. Hard to get more anti-democratic than that, I guess.

  9. The word Islamophobia  will never die. It is too sharp a weapon to use against those with knee jerk guilt over every thing that has ever happened to Islam anywhere.  Just like words used now as conversation stoppers and words used to put people on the defensive, this word, Islamophobia,  works too well among too many people to be dropped by persuasion or conviction.

    Overuse will rob this word of it’s power to control people’s emotions.

  10.   In the opinion of some scholars, journalists, and activists, the nature of European and North American reaction to Islam is an example of prejudice, falling suitably under the umbrella of what they call Islamophobia.

    Islamophobe infidels and flouters of Sharia law pursuing their evil Western liberal ways!  Just wait for the Jihad! (Peace be upon them)

  11. Every time the same thing – duhh huhh,  a phobia is an irrational fear, but it is highly rational to be scared of Muslims.

    Without Muslims Islam is nothing, just a huge stack of dusty old books, so it’s also rational to be scared of Muslims. But I’m even more scared of politically correct bleeding heart liberals and other useful… tools. Their infidel-o-phobia is very troublesome, indeed.

  12. Indeed, just as ‘anti-Semitism’ is an absurd term which
    attempts to stifle any criticism of Judaism as racist. But I have read the
    Talmud and I think that it is perfectly reasonable to be worried about Judaism.

  13. To repeat a post I made on another topic, but which seems relevant here too;
    “The conflict, portrayed by both (sides) as a holy war, was more an exploitation of religious fanaticism by those hungry for land and power”.
    Carl Sagan on the Thirty Years’ War: Cosmos, 1980.

    Any criticism of Islam is in danger of being blown up (sic) out of all proportion. I’m sure that many non-Muslim groups (with or without political power) help to fan the flames just a little if it helps take the attention away from their own mis-deeds and failings for a while.

  14. “Denmark, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, are being forced to reconsider their approaches to immigration and culture in light of deep clashes between the Muslim immigrants and the native population.”
    When nations take decisions regarding immigration, I wonder whether they actually ever take the native population, its views, and its sensibilities into account.  Too often, it seems to me, the native population is taken for granted, and feels agrieved because, while their experience of the immigrants is negative, they are ignored by their lords and masters.

  15. I am happy to describe myself as both Islamophobic
    (hopefully in the rational sense) and Islamophilic (again presumably in the
    rational sense).

    Although I do not claim to be an expert in Islam either as a
    religion or a culture I am probably better informed than most Westerners as I
    have been very fortunate in having had intimate personal and professional
    contact with several Muslims over a period of half a century.

    My two closest friends are Muslims – one of whom I have
    known for 50 years lives in a Muslim country , the other whom I have known for
    30 years lives near me here.

    My preferred travel destinations are Islamic countries
    because of my interest in their culture, history and architecture. On my
    travels, over the 50 years that I have known one of these friends, I have stayed
    with him and his family on and off in his own country for short periods.

    I have also taken the trouble to learn sufficient Arabic to
    be able to carry on simple conversations with people.

    Also my Western brother-in-law has built mosques and
    airports in the Middle East – principally in Saudi Arabia – and has taught
    Islamic architecture to the Arabs in Saudi Arabia. He also gives lectures on
    Islam in his home country. We share this common interest in all things Islamic
    and regularly exchange information and experiences.

    In order to more fully understand the Islamic mind I am
    currently half way through reading the Qur’an – a considerably more difficult
    task than reading through the Bible.

    Most Westerners understandably approach Islam and people
    from the Middle East with Western Judeo-Christian cultural filters unaware of
    how these people actually think and behave both towards one another and also to
    outsiders. One difference in some countries that is difficult for Westerners to
    grasp is a common culturally accepted duplicity where custom can dictate
    gushing geniality and hospitality towards even people that are considered
    insufferable. For this reason I have learned never to take anything at face
    value.

    You may be surprised to learn that the hotbed of
    Islamophobia is not in the West but amongst Muslims (and others of course) in
    Islamic countries themselves. This will become obvious after a short reflection
    on the issue. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not alone.

    Make no mistake. There is much to be feared in Islam and we
    ignore it at our peril. But there is also much to love. For these reasons Islam
    in the West needs to be carefully managed and the current ubiquitous uninformed
    political correctness is a recipe for disaster. Most people in the West have no
    idea of what they are dealing with. It behoves us all to more fully inform
    ourselves of the issues and act while we can.

  16. No I’m sorry, but this is exactly the sort of irrational opinion which gives islamophobia traction.

    The vast majority of people who self identify as Muslim are perfectly decent, peace-loving people. They are people I work with and are every bit as idiosyncratic as ordinary people of any other grouping. I would say that by comparison with the average Briton, they are narrow-minded and intolerant, but no more than many British racists who I meet every day. Both groups need work to make them civilised, but that’s life.

    To treat Muslims as a single block of opinion is to ignore their diversity and to create a single bugaboo monster. Yes, there are Muslims who are hateful monsters, but they are right-wing extremists, the equivalent of fascists here.

    Part of the problem is that we only see the Islamic world’s bigots and we generalise from them. They are the only ones who make the news and have proven adept at manipulating the media to make Islam seem worse than it is.

    Make no mistake, I don’t shirk the criticism of Islam and its wing-nut faction, but they are a quite separate problem from the low-grade bigotry present in the average Muslim and non-Muslim.

  17. I don’t think he does….

    The discrepancy between the panic generated by terrorism and the deaths generated by terrorism is no accident. Panic is the whole point of terrorism, as the root of the word makes clear: “Terror” refers to a psychological state, not an enemy or an event. The effects of terrorism depend completely on the psychology of the audience.

    Terrorism is all about fear….it’s the physical effects of terrorism that get greatly exaggerated.

  18. I am struggling to find a phobia where that that is being feared has intent on harming the subject doing the fearing. 

    Islam has stated a purpose in effecting my demise. It has a stated intent on clearing the world of infidels…its in Islamic scriptures. That wouldn’t be as bad as it sounds apart from the fact that there are a large number of irrational headed fuckwits willing to take up the task, even on pain of their own death. So I don’t think it is totally irrational of me to hold at least a certain amount of trepidation when I see mad wide-eyed slavering mullahs and clerics egging on the gullible and ignorant MUSLIMS they command influence over to chop my head off. That is not the definition of a phobia.

    Call me old fashioned, but if someone can’t tell the difference, then who is the moron?

  19. I’ve recently had a close look at what Islam says about nonbelievers and their proposed treatment. I cannot conceive of an advanced society forcing me to tolerate such drivel and refrain from talking shit about it.

  20. No, the word means fear of Islam. Given the  common usage of the term “phobic” it can also mean hatred of Islam, but to say it means hatred of Muslims is just politically-motivated word-twisting. Also, it in no way “…treats hatred of Islam as automatically unreasonable.” It says precisely nothing about the reasonableness or otherwise of itself.

  21. A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear”) is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities

    ……

    A number of terms with the suffix -phobia are used non-clinically but have gained public acceptance, though they are often considered buzzwords. Such terms are primarily understood as negative attitudes towards certain categories of people or other things, used in an analogy with the medical usage of the term. Usually these kinds of “phobias” are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the “phobia”. Often this attitude is based on prejudices and is a particular case of most xenophobia. These non-clinical phobias are typically used as labels cast on someone by another person or some other group.
    Below are some examples:…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamoph… 

    …..

    Some scholars of the social sciences consider it a form of racism, although this is controversial. Others view the introduction of the term as a deliberate attempt to declare Islam inviolate and debase its critics as racists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I

    So, plenty of semantics then?

  22. In view of what has actually happened in western countries, I have every reason to be fearful of being blown up on public transport, in a nightclub, or in a building. Nothing at all irrational about it. Anyone who travelled on the London Tube after  7 / 7 will understand. In the 1970s when the IRA were letting off bombs in London and other places, I also had every reason to be scared then.

    I don’t like people who want to kill other people, whatever the reason, and whatever poisoned thinking they happen to adopt. Life is precious. There is no effing afterlife for “me” and “you”. Yes our atoms will be re-cycled, and our energy converted to heat, but please don’t want to bring it on!

  23. Now up to 16, Amos, and it saddens me to to see your own name among their number. You don’t really regard nearly 2 billion people that you’ve never met as ‘the enemy’ do you? You do know that most Muslims are born into the faith, and the punishment for leaving, as stipulated by the Qur’an, is death?
    Hate the religion, Amos, not the people it holds prisoner.

    I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘moron’, although if in doing so I had broken the terms and conditions of the site, I think the moderators would have removed or edited my comment. That it’s still up there suggests it probably didn’t contravene site rules.

    In the future, I shall endeavour to use terms which are less inflammatory, such as ‘tolerance-challenged’ or ‘humanity-compromised’, when responding to comments I perceive to be hateful and moronic.

  24. “…but to say it [islamophobia] means hatred of Muslims is just politically-motivated word-twisting.”

    Your argument might hold more water if you hadn’t said in your previous post, ” I will criticise and mock Islam and nothing they can do or call me is going to stop me. Their opinion is entirely irrelevant to me. They’re just the enemy.”

    It’s all very well to claim that the Islamophobia you wear with such pride is based entirely on your dislike of Islam itself, and has nothing to do with hating the people who belong to the religion, but it falls apart when you call their opinions irrelevant and define them as ‘the enemy’.

  25. I tend to agree with him. But, this raised an interesting question in my mind. Why do I agree with him? These articles never seem to provide me with any actual evidence that legitimate criticism of Islam is considered islamophobic. They all talk about this issue in very general terms.

    For example:
    “But to accuse all opponents of Islam of harboring a deep-seated hatred, rooted in irrational fear, is a serious mistake, exemplified by the sweeping and liberal usage of Islamophobia.”

    Who says that? What is that statement based on? I’m not saying he is wrong. I’m honestly curious. The author makes many similar statements but does not explain what they are based upon. Why I’m asking this is because I have countless times presented the same argument. People who criticize Islam are labelled islamophobic. But, when asked what I base my opinions on I have not really been able to present any good evidence. I can only direct them to opinion pieces and articles that discuss islamophobia in a very broad sense without referring to any concrete examples. Are we talking about a few scholars and journalists or  a whole movement? Of course we have all heard these ridiculous statements by a range of Muslim fundamentalists. But, that is not what this discussion is about, is it? We are talking about Western scholars, journalists and politicians right? I would very much appreciate if someone could refer me to some articles or studies that discuss this issue in a more concrete and tangible way.

  26. You see, I don’t hold that 2 billion are Muslim. Okay, they might label themselves as such, but in my opinion, and as I’ve argued, one has to follow the rules to be in the club. I thought about addressing the ‘they’ in Jacks comment and re-posting the comment with it changed to an ‘it’, but then reconsidered. The ‘they’ are those that follow the rules, which where Islam is concerned, is the ‘it’. Islam is the scriptures, anyone adhering to the scriptures are Muslims, those that are not, by Islam’s own definition, are not true Muslims.

    I do know that most Muslims are born into it, I also empathise with the predicament of apostasy, but again, it is the retards that are acting the gobshites that I refer to. Remember, the Nuremberg Defence doesn’t cut it. Those that don’t want to play by the rules don’t have to tell anybody they are not playing by the rules, just keep a low profile.To be a real Muslim is to follow the Qur’an….failing that, you are not a real Muslim, not my rules, Islam’s. Ergo, those that want Sharia, death to infidels, apostates of moderate Muslims, the stoning of women for adultery, yadda, yadda, yadda, in accordance with scriptures, are the real Muslims, they are the enemy. Those that cherry pick the rules don’t count, they are just pretending, nothing to worry about in the interim apart from giving the real rockets support in numbers and their refusal to openly stand up and criticise the rules where they need criticising. When I say criticise, I don’t mean apologetics, I mean denounce them as errant, but that won’t be happening any time soon.Now pre-reformation, Christianity was in the same boat. Anyone caught going against the rules was fecked. The hierarchy controlled dissension by a grip of fear. But there was dissension and the grip of fear was lost, eventually. The reformation allowed Christians to interpret the scriptures as individuals, which meant a lot of the really crazy stuff could be binned. The problem we have with Islam is a time issue. We haven’t the time to wait on Islam’s reformation, that’s my big problem. Day and daily now we see leaders in the Islamic world going backwards. They show no intentions of reforming the despicable aspects of their religion, which if I’m to be frank, is most of it. So, enemy, yes an unfortunate word perhaps, but yes.Don’t get me wrong, those fuckwits in the other religions that are trying to take me back to the dark ages are also my enemy.

    BTW, the mods won’t take down a comment usually until it’s flagged and their attention is drawn to it. I don’t want your comment removed because it has a purpose in being left up, so I at least didn’t flag it…I’m not a big fan of censorship on the site unless absolutely necessary, it takes a lot away from the flow of some discussions. But I shouldn’t assume your reference to morons not being withdrawn as a sign of the mods condoning it. 

    Anyway, I was surprised at your use of the Ad Hom fallacy instead of engaging in the issue, not something am used to in your comments, which are usually erudite and add lots to the discourse.

  27. (hoping the old ‘blockquote’ facility still works on this fancy new layout, otherwise this’ll look daft)

    I am struggling to find a phobia where that that is being feared has intent on harming the subject doing the fearing.

    Clowns, Amos, feckin’ clowns. They’ve got an agenda, I’m telling you!

  28. phobias have come full cirle. if we assume someone with a “phobia” is in some way politically incorrect then we have to assume most people do. If you’re not homophobic, chances are you hold views that are islamaphobic.

    we need a scale that shows all the antis and phobias in order so we know which is the naughtiest

  29.  I would very much appreciate if someone could refer me to some articles or studies that discuss this issue in a more concrete and tangible way.

    “Rejecting the Myth of Child Marriage in Islam”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

    From the article…..

    “There are really only three reasons to insist — as so many do — that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.”

    The article goes on to try and disprove the assertion that Aisha was a child when Mo was bedding her. A timeline taken from cherry picked texts and as fine an example of circular arguing from an apologetic as I’ve ever seen.

    Of course, Dr. David Liepert  is a Muslim Author, Leader, Spokesperson, Host of “The Optimistic Muslim” on webtalkradio.net from a western democracy. Still, it helps to look at all angles of the argument to get an idea.

    In Dr. Liepert’s pretzelmania to excuse Mo of paedophilia he seems to have over looked the fact that it wasn’t deemed a crime in 7th century Arabia. It appears that his assertion that Aisha was around 20 seems to be the more unusual position. 

    Like all these ancient religions, nothing was written down until well after the events being discussed. We know the problems this has provided in Judaism and Christianity, Islam should be no different. Everything should be taken with a pillar of salt…sorry pinch. I am more concern about the real effects of the religions in the here and now and what followers are taught and what they believe….and how the crap impacts on the sane among us.

    Anyway, it’s an interesting article in that if what the doc says is true, then a lot of very well respected Islamic scholars are  such crazy Islamophile’s that they are willing to go to thier graves insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted or  such  weirdly religious sex-crazed perverts that in the hope of accusing him makes it OK for all Muslim men to do it too. The rest of us are Islamaphobes for suggesting there is any justified criticism on the subject at all.

  30. A note from the mods

    In response to some of the comments above (some of them since removed by us):

    1. We do not live on this site. Believe it or not, we also have other things to do.  Comments that breach our Terms of Use cannot always be removed promptly, so please do not assume that, just because a comment has not yet been removed, it has our approval.

    2. We do remove comments that have not been flagged if they are in breach of our Terms of Use, but flagging them is the only way to be sure of bringing them to our attention quickly (see point 1). 

    3. Just because a comment survives the modding process does NOT mean we endorse it. This site has Terms of Use, which we enforce. However, it also has aspirations that we merely hope users will help us attain. Aspirations such as this being a site for thoughtful, considered, intelligent responses to topical news stories rather than just knee-jerk outpourings of hatred and/or anger. There is no shortage of other sites on the internet where a string of epithets and abuse about people you disapprove of will not be out of place. We do ask users of this site, however, to remember that our aim here is for something rather more measured.

  31. Your argument might hold more water if you hadn’t said in your previous
    post, ” I will criticise and mock Islam and nothing they can do or call
    me is going to stop me.

    I would say that every rational thinker, almost has a duty to criticise, mock, belittle, vilify, demonise  and generally spit in the face of islam. A violent, hostile, intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic political cult, that preens under a banner of religious respectability.  Do you yourself, have a higher opinion of it?

    Their opinion is entirely irrelevant to me.

    And so it should be.  Since when has the opinions of the religious, been relevant to any criticism of their faith.  We don’t consider the opinions of followers of the various christian cults, who so love to kill each other in various brutal ways, all the while yelling “persecution”, whenever some new social measure infringes on their bigoted religious prejudices.  So why should we give a damn about the opinions of the followers of Al and Mo, when we point out the iniquities of islam?

    They’re just the enemy.”

    They, the fundamentalist followers of islam, seem to define as an enemy, every other human being on the planet, not in love with their  warmongering, paedophile prophet.  Including of course, other muslims, who are by far the most likely potential victims of the fundamentalists. That being the case, it seems only common sense to accord them enemy status, when considering their potential actions.

  32. Katy,

    “It’s all very well to claim that the Islamophobia you wear with such pride is based entirely on your dislike of Islam itself, and has nothing to do with hating the people who belong to the religion, but it falls apart when you call their opinions irrelevant and define them as ‘the enemy’.”

    Sadly, observant muslims must indeed regard any and all non-muslims as the enemy. However much we may prefer to cast ourselves as the ‘philanthropists’ or the tolerant, bountiful providers of aid and enlightenment, to them we are the enemy.
    According to hadiths, there are but two domains in the world: that of Islam and that of war.
    A non-muslim nation is ‘dar al-Harb’ (war) by definition. 

    Islam has been at war with us for about 1400 years so far, and no sign of an end to it yet.

    Dr Bill Warner is a scientist who has some explanatory insights well worth examining. He illuminates some historical matters that are little-known but significant.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

  33. Any criticism of Islam is in danger of being blown up (sic) out of all proportion

    Out of proportion? With ‘Mein Kampf’ as an ideological platform one kills 0,2% of the world’s population. With the Qur’an as an ideological platform one kills 80% of the world’s population. That means Islam is 400 times worse than Naziism. Where is the “out-of-proportion” part, here?

  34. The mods have only just issued a warning against ad hominems. Why then would you call BP a screwball?

    As for your comment to me; what is your point, exactly? 
    That genies are out to conquer us?

  35. I think you misunderstood me, Bipedal Primate. I was inferring that any criticism of Islam tends to be blown out of all proportion by the Islamic fundies and the apologists, and not that we are blowing the threat that Islam poses out of proportion.

  36. James Martin,

     “you are a fear-monger”
    Specifically; what kind of fear am I mongering? Just so I might try to defend that charge. Or am I already convicted?  

    “a shit-stirrer who uses atheism a platform to communicate anti-Muslim and anti-immigration diatribe”

    My position on immigration is that the west does not need much more muslim immigration in the present circumstances. Given the high levels of recent muslim immigration and the rising islamic radicalism. I have never been anti-muslim, except to the extent of pointing out islamic  jihadist ideology which ought to prompt circumspection in immigration policy in the west. 
    Got any evidence to the contrary?

     “Still, I can understand your concern about Muslims considering you live in Salisbury, a hotbet of Islamist activity. Tell me, Steve, did you end up voting BNP in the end?

    “No. I hate the BNP.  My concerns for my country go beyond the city limits of Salisbury. I voted UKIP; how about you?About all those websites; what is your  position on those? Do you have anything to say about them, or is it sufficient to mention them in order to discredit me? If so, why exactly?Do you have any arguments, reason? anything? Are you sure it’s me that’s the shit-stirrer?

  37. @James Martin 

    Oh the times you must have hopping from jihadwatch to Atlas Shrugs to
    New English Review to Ali Sina to Sultan Knish to Front Page Magazine
    and getting all whipped up into a digital frenzy about the Muslims with
    all the other wingnuts.

    You missed out The Religion Of Peace, which is a pity, because if you’d actually read it and some of those other sites you’re so quick to vilify, you’d know that the primary victims of islamic hatred and violence are other muslims. And particularly muslim women.  Or does that fact offend your delicate, right on, multiculturalist sensibilities?

  38. Moderators’ message

    Again, we would ask users to tone their comments down and to avoid engaging in personal spats with other users. We are aiming for interesting, stimulating, intelligent discussion on this site, not the sort of aggressive personal exchanges that are common elsewhere.

    Thank you.

    The mods

  39. Islam has a phobia of anything not Muslim. It’s a pox-mind-virus like Nazism in the sense of an uncritical frenzied worship of one thing or ideal. There is no room for debate or compromise in the Koran and they are trained to lie to the infidel. How come those mealy-mouthed, wishy washy apologists can’t see this? It’s anti-science, anti-gay, anti-woman, pro-paedophilia. Islam is simply not compatible with free society – period. Oh wait, am I being an Islamophobe? Am I tarring them all with the same brush? Well let’s sit down for the next 100 years and discuss it, maybe pass a few blasphemy laws and play more pedantic-semantics while actually doing nothing about it. 

  40. I was thinking exactly the same regarding Abu Graib. There were tortures in Vietnam.. Were they for religious reasons or something unrelated?

    The fact that there are not more revelations about torture in Afghanistan and Iraq would, ironically, suggest that

Leave a Reply