“Islamophobia”: Created By The Muslim Brotherhood To Silence Critics

rga

thoughtcrimeTO: All Leftists, PC-apologists and butt-hurt Muslims.

RE: “Islamophobia” [#1] is fake concept designed to silence legitimate criticism.

“Islamophobia” is a made-up nonsensical word. Here, let me explain it to you.

A phobia, by definition, is an ‘irrational fear’. Since there have been 28,000 acts of Jihad [#2] since 9/11, most carried out while screaming “Allahu Akbar!” – I think the only IRRATIONAL reaction, is not being fearful.

Therefore, shouldn’t it be called ISLAMOREALISM?

View original post 1,494 more words

Advertisements

4 thoughts on ““Islamophobia”: Created By The Muslim Brotherhood To Silence Critics

  1. Hi,
    just my two cents as someone from a culture (Greek Orthodox) that has seen the birth of Islam:

    a)It is an error to see Islam as something concrete. Islam has many different branches and is important every time to clarify about which branch are we talking to. For instance, Shia Islam never had and never will have a tendency towards terrorism. On the contrary, they have suffered from the same radical Islamists West is suffering right now.

    b)Even inside Sunni Islam, there are branches and countries where their culture traditionally opposed radical terrorism. Egypt for instance, used to be a rather tolerant place -until recently- where different cultures used to coexist peacefully. Generally speaking, Islam did not always use to be the mess that is right now.

    c)The branch of Islam that is creating all these problems is called Wahhabism, which is (surprise surprise) the principle dogma in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and the ideological substrate of the reigning regimes). The latter two cultures are the true problem and not Islam in general: They have sprouted through funding hundreds of private schools all over the Arabic world, where they practically educate… future terrorists. Until recently, both had a supreme political coverage not from Commies and Democrats but from…. Reps, namely Reagan and Bush; the latter two gave a significant political coverage to S.A and Qatar as both manipulated oil prices, through the oil deposits of the said Gulf states.

    Therefore the true target is Wahhabism and not Islam by itself; with regard to this branch, I will have absolutely no issue if all of its followers on planet Earth will get eliminated. But this means practically that the states of S. A and Qatar will get both…crushed, a not so easy thing to do.

    Thanks for the hospitality.

    • “a)It is an error to see Islam as something concrete. Islam has many different branches and is important every time to clarify about which branch are we talking to. For instance, Shia Islam never had and never will have a tendency towards terrorism. On the contrary, they have suffered from the same radical Islamists West is suffering right now.”

      There are both Shia and Sunni terrorists. Shia might have lesser propensity for terrorism, but terrorism is proscribed by Qur’an and other holy texts that are common across all branches of Islam.

      “b)Even inside Sunni Islam, there are branches and countries where their culture traditionally opposed radical terrorism. Egypt for instance, used to be a rather tolerant place -until recently- where different cultures used to coexist peacefully. Generally speaking, Islam did not always use to be the mess that is right now.”

      Incorrect. *Islam* always was a mess. From time to time, secular (or what could pass for secular) rulers / dictators would decide that they do not want to have constant conflicts that are inherent to Islam, and cracked down on literal interpretation of Islam (e.g. Saladdin, and even Saddam). But that was in spite of Islam, not because of it (or because of an Islamic branch).

      “The branch of Islam that is creating all these problems is called Wahhabism, which is (surprise surprise) the principle dogma in Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and the ideological substrate of the reigning regimes). The latter two cultures are the true problem and not Islam in general: They have sprouted through funding hundreds of private schools all over the Arabic world, where they practically educate… future terrorists. Until recently, both had a supreme political coverage not from Commies and Democrats but from…. Reps, namely Reagan and Bush; the latter two gave a significant political coverage to S.A and Qatar as both manipulated oil prices, through the oil deposits of the said Gulf states.”

      It is true that Wahhabism is openly insane. But Wahhabism was not the ideology of Muslim rulers of India, whose rule left hundreds of millions dead (India’s populace dropped from 600 million pre-invasion to 200 million in 1500s). Through history, there was only one constant: Islam is peaceful when it is weak, and genocidally violent when it is stronger than its foes. Wahabbism only appeared in 18th century. Worst Islamic behavior – including quite a few genocides – happened long before then.

      • Dear Picard578,

        I am afraid I will have to take advantage of your kind hospitality once more; nonetheless, this would be the last time since it is clear that the writer of this comment and the owner of this blog have different opinions and I believe it would be rude from my side to continuously argue against the political philosophy of the owner of the blog.

        a)I think we follow different definitions of terrorism, therefore this discrepancy in opinions. If by the use terrorism we mean the general use of violence, we both agree that Islam makes indeed a wider use of violence than other cultures. If we mean terrorism as the use of violence from minorities/organised groups against established unarmed citizens/members of (established) political entities, then I will argue again that Shia Islam has traditionally opposed terrorism.

        b)I beg to differ on the historical status of Islam. Islamic countries especially the Arabic ones, had been a much more peaceful place (and much more organised) than what the mess we see the last 65 years, with an emphasis on the last 15 years. Undemocratic regimes (for the western standards) had been the case and probably will be for the vast majority of them, given the lack of pure ”nation-states” or other connecting cultural elements inside these countries. Nevertheless, undemocratic regimes do not necessarily mean anarchy states or states that specialise in exporting terrorism and violence. This is a very modern phenomenon and we have to think carefully why this trend is rising inside Islam. As for the lack of democracy inside these states, personally, I just do not care; nowhere in the Bible says that all cultures ought to be democratic ones and I do not want/care to impose my personal beliefs on these states. On the contrary, the latter is usually a recipe for disaster– sometimes it is just better to let things the way they are. Undemocratic ‘secular’ (for the Islamic standards) regimes were for a long period in history the case for the Middle East and personally, I do not see any serious reason why West should oppose this historical trend.

        c)i)I am afraid that you undervalue both the malice of Wahhabism and its importance in modern Islam. Wahhabism for me is the root of all evil, the Nazism of the 21st century. Unless we deal drastically with this ideology, we will keep having serious issues that will get worse and worse over time. To make matters worse, S.A. and Qatar are the centres of Islam. When the Western World wants to know where things are going, we all turn our eyes on the USA which set the pace and direction. The exact path and goal might not be exactly the same but the general direction is nonetheless set. When Islam wants to know where things are going, they look their richest states which are… .SA and Qatar, with everything that does this thing mean.

        ii)The population of the Indian peninsula after the Islamic invasion should not be a criterion about the malice of any religion. For example. the population of the South America dropped after the invasion of catholic Spanish Empire. I do not want to hold Christianity (and catholicism, too) responsible for this so I will have to disagree with this example, too. In any case, someone should not make the mistake to judge with modern moral values past historical events. Europe has seen some really violent reactions during the past years, even from monarchs/regimes/states/whatever that were considered for that time, extremely civilised. This is also the problem with radical Islam today– that its followers behave as if they were in 600 AD. This is also why I do not agree with the argument that worst Islamic behaviour happened long before. If you see in depth the historical evolution, you will see atrocities of the worse kind even from the Christian regimes of the era. Even after Christianity, Basil the II almost genocided Bulgarians and the Eastern Roman Empire successfully ethnically cleansed the majority of Turkish tribes around the Danube (such as the Pechenegs), the german tribes genocided the pagans in the Baltic sea during the Northern Crusades, Genoese sold the participants of the Children’s Crusade in Tunisia as slaves, the Spanish Empire genocided the Aztecs (with the help of locals who had been genocided priorly by the Aztecs themselves) etc. The world did not use to be such a peaceful place as it is today.

        iii)It is true that Islam is more peaceful when it is weak. Nevertheless, I would argue that this is the unfortunate nature of the human kind. The majority of cultures are much more peaceful and willing to negotiate issues when they are weak than when they are strong. We do not have to go long ago to give an example, the war in Iraq is a perfect example; half of the world (including the western one) argued against the invasion but to no avail.

        In all cases, I want to emphasize the point that someone should carefully study and know an enemy before defeating him. Radical Islam is such a case and I do not agree with the opinion that the existence of the Islam as a whole is the root of the terrorism phenomenon we are passing, IMHO this explanation is just not sufficient. On the other hand, I am emphasizing the role Wahhabism plays and its importance in global politics, for me the regimes in SA and Qatar must be brought down if we want to eradicate Islamic terrorism.

        Thank you again for the hospitality and congrats on the detailed weapon system analysis-your IRST article is really helpful (which is what brought me here).

        • “and I believe it would be rude from my side to continuously argue against the political philosophy of the owner of the blog.”

          Rude? Hardly. Blog is a place to present and discuss one’s own beliefs so that other people may be able to judge them as fairly as possible. As long as it remains polite enough (and I have to say that my standards in that area are comparatively lax, as I can get less-than-polite when I’m stressed and imposing on others standards higher than what I impose on myself would be hypocritical), discussion is always welcome.

          “a)I think we follow different definitions of terrorism, therefore this discrepancy in opinions. If by the use terrorism we mean the general use of violence, we both agree that Islam makes indeed a wider use of violence than other cultures. If we mean terrorism as the use of violence from minorities/organised groups against established unarmed citizens/members of (established) political entities, then I will argue again that Shia Islam has traditionally opposed terrorism.”

          Terrorism, by definition, is use of fear and fear-inducing acts to achieve political or ideological goals (violence is not necessarily used specifically to induce fear, so not all violence is terrorism, and not all terrorism is violent). Your definition would exclude state and majority terrorism (typically one and the same). Iran and Iraq (especially Iraq) have both employed state terrorism, and Iran in particular has supported Shiite groups inside Iraq.

          “b)I beg to differ on the historical status of Islam. Islamic countries especially the Arabic ones, had been a much more peaceful place (and much more organised) than what the mess we see the last 65 years, with an emphasis on the last 15 years. Undemocratic regimes (for the western standards) had been the case and probably will be for the vast majority of them, given the lack of pure ”nation-states” or other connecting cultural elements inside these countries. Nevertheless, undemocratic regimes do not necessarily mean anarchy states or states that specialise in exporting terrorism and violence.”

          Actually, Islamic countries have typically been most peaceful under undemocratic regimes. Partly because Islam emphasises obedience to (Islamic) authorities, and partly because Islamic countries – as you have noted – have no elements necessary for the democracy, such as nationalism. But peaceful does not mean decent, humane or fair. You can have a peaceful country where slavery, discrimination and social stratification run rampant, and that was historically been the case for almost all Islamic countries, what with their views about non-Muslims.

          “As for the lack of democracy inside these states, personally, I just do not care; nowhere in the Bible says that all cultures ought to be democratic ones and I do not want/care to impose my personal beliefs on these states. On the contrary, the latter is usually a recipe for disaster– sometimes it is just better to let things the way they are. Undemocratic ‘secular’ (for the Islamic standards) regimes were for a long period in history the case for the Middle East and personally, I do not see any serious reason why West should oppose this historical trend.”

          I agree, but problem is that Muslims are coming to the West, and democracy is one of more important Western traditions. Situation like that just calls for conflict.

          “c)i)I am afraid that you undervalue both the malice of Wahhabism and its importance in modern Islam. Wahhabism for me is the root of all evil, the Nazism of the 21st century. Unless we deal drastically with this ideology, we will keep having serious issues that will get worse and worse over time. To make matters worse, S.A. and Qatar are the centres of Islam. When the Western World wants to know where things are going, we all turn our eyes on the USA which set the pace and direction. The exact path and goal might not be exactly the same but the general direction is nonetheless set. When Islam wants to know where things are going, they look their richest states which are… .SA and Qatar, with everything that does this thing mean.”

          I do not undervalue malice of Wahhabism, I see it as worse than Nazism (and indeed Nazism took much of inspiration from it), what I disagree with is its importance to Islamic extremism relative to other Islamic teachings / ideologies. And yes, Saudi Arabia is a big supporter of Wahhabism… it even exported terrorists to Bosnia in 1990s.

          “ii)The population of the Indian peninsula after the Islamic invasion should not be a criterion about the malice of any religion. For example. the population of the South America dropped after the invasion of catholic Spanish Empire. I do not want to hold Christianity (and catholicism, too) responsible for this so I will have to disagree with this example, too.”

          You cannot hold Christianity responsible because Christianity does not command its followers to slaughter non-Christians (or at least I’m not aware of any such command), so anyone doing so in the name of Christianity is perverting it. But you can hold responsible Spain of the time, as well as Spanish Church as such. And Islam is not a religion so much as it is a way of life, thinking and behaving. You will probably agree that Nazism – which, as a political ideology, is far more similar to Islam than Christianity is – is responsible for evils done during German occupation of Europe in 1941.-1945. timeframe, and that Neoliberalism is responsible for the last economic crisis. Just the fact that Islam calls itself a “religion of the Book” does not mean that it is identical, or even similar, to Judaism and Christianity. I can call myself a superintelligent cephalopod, that does not mean I really am a cephalophod (or superintelligent, for that matter).

          “In any case, someone should not make the mistake to judge with modern moral values past historical events. Europe has seen some really violent reactions during the past years, even from monarchs/regimes/states/whatever that were considered for that time, extremely civilised.”

          Indeed. But Islam has not grown any less violent with time (just look at Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Also, Europe has never been violent in the same way as Islam and its areas. Europe has seen its own share of wars, genocides etc., due to warfare between various countries, Christian sects, nations etc. But none of that is commanded by the Bible, and Europe also has seen very long times of peace or strictly regional warfare (thank God for nation-states, one could say – warfare is more frequent than between large empires, but far less bloody). Islam, on the other hand, is always at war – wether with an enemy within itself, inside the areas it commands but external to Islam, or enemies both doctrinally and geographically external. It also commands its followers to keep up the warfare until all non-believers are converted or conquered.

          “This is also the problem with radical Islam today– that its followers behave as if they were in 600 AD. This is also why I do not agree with the argument that worst Islamic behaviour happened long before. If you see in depth the historical evolution, you will see atrocities of the worse kind even from the Christian regimes of the era. Even after Christianity, Basil the II almost genocided Bulgarians and the Eastern Roman Empire successfully ethnically cleansed the majority of Turkish tribes around the Danube (such as the Pechenegs), the german tribes genocided the pagans in the Baltic sea during the Northern Crusades, Genoese sold the participants of the Children’s Crusade in Tunisia as slaves, the Spanish Empire genocided the Aztecs (with the help of locals who had been genocided priorly by the Aztecs themselves) etc. The world did not use to be such a peaceful place as it is today.”

          Islam by its nature prevents progress. You see, the Bible is a historical document. Very few parts of it are said to come directly from God (The Ten Commandments, the Two Commandments of Jesus, and that’s it as far as I can remember excepting few one-shot commands that are not relevant any more). Most of it is a recording of an actual history, so it does not contain any more guidelines for behavior than a history textbook. But Qur’an is said to be a literal Word of God. It is unchangeable and eternal, and it commands many things that were cruel and backwards even at the time when it was written. Therefore, there are no “radical Muslims”. There are practicing Muslims, non-practicing Muslims, and ex-Muslims. What you call “radical Muslims” are merely people who practice, literally, what is written in holy texts of Islam.

          Also, Basil II did not genocide Bulgarians from what I know, as for Pechenegs, they were invaders (Pecheneg Khanate itself did not even border the Roman – “Byzantine” – Empire) so removing them was completely justifiable. If something is a threat to the state, it should be removed. Rest of it was just as bad as what Islam did in many cases, but unlike Christianity, Islam has history which is continually violent.

          “iii)It is true that Islam is more peaceful when it is weak. Nevertheless, I would argue that this is the unfortunate nature of the human kind.”

          That is true. But Islam also contains commandments which encourage this kind of behaviour, and in general promote deceit.

          Basically, there are four basic concepts for dealing with non-Muslims: taqiyya, tawriya, kitman and muruna. Each of them is a form of deception Muslims use when dealing with infidels (non-Muslims, which my spellcheck appropriately wants to change to “non-militants”). Taqiyya means that it is allowed to lie in order to achieve aim of advancing Islam, as shown in Qur’an 3:28. Tawriya means that it is allowed to break the intent of the oath as long as the letter of the oath is not broken. This includes “creative lying”, that is, lying through implication or context. Kitman is a half-truth, which is to say lying through telling only part of the truth. Examples include saying that jihad refers to an internal struggle, or using a pacifist passage from Qur’an despite knowing fully well that it is abrogated by a later, more militant verse. Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with surroundings. Consequently, Muslims are allowed to ignore some of commandments of Qur’an as long as they are striving for a greater goal.

          “We do not have to go long ago to give an example, the war in Iraq is a perfect example; half of the world (including the western one) argued against the invasion but to no avail.”

          If you want to make a donkey move, use a carrot. Same for US oil companies and Iraqi oil.

          “In all cases, I want to emphasize the point that someone should carefully study and know an enemy before defeating him.”

          True. And this means study across the history. For example, if you want to study military aviation, you have to start with World War I at least, maybe even with artillery balloons of Napoleonic wars.

          “Thank you again for the hospitality and congrats on the detailed weapon system analysis-your IRST article is really helpful (which is what brought me here).”

          You’re welcome. I’m writing some other articles, but as I will be busy for some time soon, I might skip a posting schedule (that being said, the next article – for the first of the next month – is already finished and scheduled; it’s about integrations such as NATO, EU, WTO and their role in the word).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s