Islamaphobia

[Pat494]

What is so objectionable about Islamists ?
Is it because their religion is different from the majority Christian religion ?
Or is it the drip drip affect of terrorism ?
The Moslem leaders never seem to publicly apologise for terrorist acts, of which there have been many.
Even the slaughter of 300+ people recently in Sri Lanka didn't seem to raise a protest. While the one off NZ shooting had the NZ PM apologising , head covered with a scarf in solidarity etc
Perhaps turning the other cheek is a pathetic. response.

 

[Pat494]

Why is it that Christian leaders publicly and constantly call for peace and conciliation and
there is nothing of the same from Muslim leaders or have I missed it on the news ?

 

[Signalcalc]

What is the definition of Islamophobia?

 

[wackypete2]

Why is it that Christian leaders publicly and constantly call for peace and conciliation and
there is nothing of the same from Muslim leaders or have I missed it on the news ?

Because Muslim leaders don't actually want peace. They hate all non Muslims and religions.
The perception is that most terrorists around the world are Muslim and their leaders say nothing against it.

Just my opinion,
Peter

 

[Pat494]

I think that the victims of terrorism should be compensated for their hurt by the religious group the terrorists belong to.
So they can be sued in court.
This may be the only way to get religious groups to help monitor what nasty outrages their youngsters are plotting and stop it.

 

[cantagril]

It is my considered opinion that the values and norms of mainstream / moderate Islam are incompatible with those of the Judeo-Christian parts of the globe.....and others as well.

Before I went to work and live in a moslem country, I thought of myself as a tolerant citizen of the world having lived in various countries and cultures. After a few years, I realised that their culture was irremediably toxic for me and westerners in general - I was there during both the invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11 and the opinions expressed by people who I regarded as reasonably intelligent and educated moderates were difficult to swallow. Having done close to 15 years amongst them, I was overjoyed to finally leave, regret sincerely that I ever went there and swore that I would never ever set foot there again....which I haven't.

Before I knew them, I was open-minded and tolerant and ready to get along with anybody from anywhere but having got quite familiar with the people, the language and the culture, I have now acquired a fairly extreme prejudice which makes it difficult for me to be civil when I'm in the company of a moslem, no matter how reasonable and complaisant.

So, as the saying goes "familiarity breeds contempt" and in my case, loathing as well.


And on that cheerful note, I wish you all a pleasant day's trading

 

[Pat494]

It is my considered opinion that the values and norms of mainstream / moderate Islam are incompatible with those of the Judeo-Christian parts of the globe.....and others as well.

Before I went to work and live in a moslem country, I thought of myself as a tolerant citizen of the world having lived in various countries and cultures. After a few years, I realised that their culture was irremediably toxic for me and westerners in general - I was there during both the invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11 and the opinions expressed by people who I regarded as reasonably intelligent and educated moderates were difficult to swallow. Having done close to 15 years amongst them, I was overjoyed to finally leave, regret sincerely that I ever went there and swore that I would never ever set foot there again....which I haven't.

Before I knew them, I was open-minded and tolerant and ready to get along with anybody from anywhere but having got quite familiar with the people, the language and the culture, I have now acquired a fairly extreme prejudice which makes it difficult for me to be civil when I'm in the company of a moslem, no matter how reasonable and complaisant.

So, as the saying goes "familiarity breeds contempt" and in my case, loathing as well.


And on that cheerful note, I wish you all a pleasant day's trading

Excuse me asking but were you there in a military or civilian capacity ?
Their jobs and therefore outlooks are different.

 

[cantagril]

Excuse me asking but were you there in a military or civilian capacity ?
Their jobs and therefore outlooks are different.

Simple civvy guvner.

 

[Signalcalc]

What is the definition of Islamophobia?

The answer is that there is no accepted definition of Islamophobia, however to take it at its literal meaning, it is an irrational fear of Islam.

Now who would have an irrational fear of Islam, you may ask? The very fact that the word has been adopted and accepted in common parlance and is used by the Authorities, ironically shows them to fear Islam. A word introduced by the Muslim Brotherhood, which the US is seeking to proscribe as a terrorist organisation.

It's Western governments that are Islamophobic, any government that shows irrational appeasement to the Islamic community, usually following Islamic terrorist attacks, but also by changing laws and customs that allow religious law, Sharia, to trump local laws and customs. To allow no-go zones to develop in one's country, where the police dare to tread, to go out of their way not to appear 'racist' by allowing crime committed by some Muslims to go unpunished for long periods of time, where local authorities and law enforcement collude to cover up crimes committed by Muslims, are Islamophobic. They fear a backlash, not just from the Islamic community themselves, but also by themselves, as there would inevitably be an outrage mob demanding apologies and smearing racist to anyone that dare question the Islamic ideology.

Another indicator is the lack of action taken by authorities against people who criticise any other ideology on the planet, why is that, why can you say anything critical about Christianity, Hinduism, Vegans, Jedi Knights and nothing will happen and yet when it comes to Islam, you will be smeared and locked up.

It is because of the lefty globalist ideology that has been adopted over the last few decades, to create hate crimes that target individuals that speak up about the wrong doings they see, to target those that express an opinion and highlight artefacts of an ideology that are not compatible with the ideology that we have created for ourselves.

Authorities allow division to grow in local communities because followers of Islam will not integrate with indigenous peoples. Authorities that use political correctness to shut down debate only for that political correctness to become law, corrupting the institutions that were once bastions of our own culture, corrupted to the point where our own culture needs to be hidden for fear of falling foul of the law.

That is an irrational fear of Islam, that is Islamophobia. Governments are frightened of Islam for no rational reason.

It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Islam by the authorities, the way it operates, they are so scared they can't even bring themselves to call it out for what it is.

 

[Signalcalc]

I think that the victims of terrorism should be compensated for their hurt by the religious group the terrorists belong to.
So they can be sued in court.
This may be the only way to get religious groups to help monitor what nasty outrages their youngsters are plotting and stop it.

I don't think that would work, what is needed is compensation from authorities that encourage such behaviour or allow it to go unpunished. However you only need to look at the London Bridge attacks to see that victims families are denied legal aid to pursue legal lines, what hope is there for them to claim compo?

 

[Pat494]

I don't think that would work, what is needed is compensation from authorities that encourage such behaviour or allow it to go unpunished. However you only need to look at the London Bridge attacks to see that victims families are denied legal aid to pursue legal lines, what hope is there for them to claim compo?

Why on earth should over burdened tax payers fund the results of terrorism ?
The ones that ARE caught get a comfy stay in prison. Also at the tax payers expense.
There hasn't been an attack recently. Have the nasties in charge of the terrorists had a change of heart ?
Probably not. Usually 1 attack per month in Europe.
Glad to see on U-tube the Somali pirates are now getting a bit of their own medicine. The soft approach didn't work.

 

[Signalcalc]

Why on earth should over burdened tax payers fund the results of terrorism ?
The ones that ARE caught get a comfy stay in prison. Also at the tax payers expense.

Because our leaders have allowed the whole situation to flourish unchecked. All the way from the education system, through immigration controls, to allowing known jihadists to resettle in the U.K. to funding foreign wars and terrorists abroad, to radicalisation in the prison system. There appears to be a whole spectrum of ideas that have been implemented that none of us voted for or want, or has even been debated in parliament.

So because of this incompetence the only recourse would be for the tax payer to foot the bill, just as we foot the bill for any other incompetence that our leaders foist upon us.

 

[cantagril]

The answer is that there is no accepted definition of Islamophobia, however to take it at its literal meaning, it is an irrational fear of Islam.

.................

Authorities allow division to grow in local communities because followers of Islam will not integrate with indigenous peoples. Authorities that use political correctness to shut down debate only for that political correctness to become law, corrupting the institutions that were once bastions of our own culture, corrupted to the point where our own culture needs to be hidden for fear of falling foul of the law.

That is an irrational fear of Islam, that is Islamophobia. Governments are frightened of Islam for no rational reason.

It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Islam by the authorities, the way it operates, they are so scared they can't even bring themselves to call it out for what it is.

It seems to me that your reasoned and logical elucidation as to the nature of Islamophobia, leads to an equally logical conclusion: that whilst a phobia is an unreasoning/irrational fear, in this case, a reasoned and perfectly rational fear is entirely justified. Having lived opposite a mosque in an Islamically "moderate" part of the world for several years, the hate-filled rubbish that came out of the mouths of both the faithful and the Imam quite literally put the fear of God (and his baser creations) into me.

 

[Pat494]

It always seems strange to me that religions always tend to look backwards to the time of their founding.
Thus they never evolve and improve. Obviously conditions have changed over the centuries and so
should philosophy and religion. The faithful tend to hinder evolution by fear mainly. The barbaric practice of stoning is still a part
of some States' official policy. Intimidation at its worst.

 

[Signalcalc]

It seems to me that your reasoned and logical elucidation as to the nature of Islamophobia, leads to an equally logical conclusion: that whilst a phobia is an unreasoning/irrational fear, in this case, a reasoned and perfectly rational fear is entirely justified. Having lived opposite a mosque in an Islamically "moderate" part of the world for several years, the hate-filled rubbish that came out of the mouths of both the faithful and the Imam quite literally put the fear of God (and his baser creations) into me.

Agreed, a justified irrational fear of Islam is my hypothesis for govts to react in the way they do.

Otherwise what other explanations are there? Certainly there are various other theories out there which may carry some weight.

I think govts need to declare why they take such courses of action if not based on fear. Unless they have something to hide of course, which could be an equally plausible reason.

Until then the real cause of governmental Islamophobia remains unchecked, not understood and allowed to flourish.

 

[Pat494]

Correct me if I am wrong but I think it is illegal to criticize Jews and Moslems but it is not illegal to criticise Christians, Hindus , Communists etc.
Why the difference ?

 

[cantagril]

Agreed, a justified irrational fear of Islam is my hypothesis for govts to react in the way they do.
...............
Until then the real cause of governmental Islamophobia remains unchecked, not understood and allowed to flourish.

Um...that"s sort the opposite of what I'm saying

It is my contention that the fear of Islam as a source of terror and discord is both rational and justified. Note that I am not saying all moslems but Islam. I would also suggest that Christianity was also in much the same position over the course of several hundred years and it's only fairly recently (18thC) that it's become the European religion of Peace and Harmony bla bla bla.

As Islam had its IPO 650 odd years after Christianity's its not altogether surprising that we're stuck in their Middle Ages, with all the attendant violence and self-serving distortion that's going on.

If you care to actually read the Koran and compare it with the Bible, you'll find that it's only a moderate amount more deranged and violent whilst arguably containing rather more useful and practical advice.

 

[timsk]

. . . If you care to actually read the Koran and compare it with the Bible, you'll find that it's only a moderate amount more deranged and violent whilst arguably containing rather more useful and practical advice.

Hi cant',
The sentence quoted implies that you've read it? If so, was it the original Arabic text or an English translation? I ask because my (very limited) understanding of the topic is that the book is open to interpretation, i.e. it's easily misinterpreted, and that the only people really able to get a true and complete handle on it are native Muslim Arabic speakers. Either way, I'm surprised that Imams the world over don't agree on an English translation so that everyone can read for themselves to discover whether or not the text gives Muslims the green light to have non-Muslim white girls as sex slaves and kill non believers etc. (I assume not!) That would go a long way towards clearing up the ambiguity and confusion that surrounds the ideology. I don't doubt that most Muslims - by which I mean three quarters or even four fifths of them - are peace loving people that wouldn't hurt a fly. But, that still leaves a bu$$er of a lot of people who believe in Sharia Law and appear to want to impose it - along with the Islamic faith - on others. Needless to say, that's completely incompatible with western society.
Tim.

 

[Signalcalc]

Um...that"s sort the opposite of what I'm saying

It is my contention that the fear of Islam as a source of terror and discord is both rational and justified. Note that I am not saying all moslems but Islam. I would also suggest that Christianity was also in much the same position over the course of several hundred years and it's only fairly recently (18thC) that it's become the European religion of Peace and Harmony bla bla bla.

As Islam had its IPO 650 odd years after Christianity's its not altogether surprising that we're stuck in their Middle Ages, with all the attendant violence and self-serving distortion that's going on.

If you care to actually read the Koran and compare it with the Bible, you'll find that it's only a moderate amount more deranged and violent whilst arguably containing rather more useful and practical advice.

Aha, you have hit one particular nail on the head, the very word Islamophobia is designed to be Taqiyya, the wordsmiths that invented the word, being Muslims themselves, had a pretty good idea about the consequences it would bring to Western societies, how it would be used to confuse, subjugate, smear and lock up those who criticise Islam, after all, Islam has had 1400 years to practice the take over of foreign lands, just as Christians had around 1800 years of doing the same until it reformed itself (presumably from within).

Islamophobia - the irrational fear of Islam, justified by govts.

No-one in their right mind 500 years ago would have thought the cruelty of Christianity would come to and end, you either showed you believed in God or were burnt at the stake. For some reason we expect Islam to reform in the same way in a similar timeframe, it seems inconceivable that it can reform itself, but I'm sure it will given time, the question is, how long do we have to wait for even an english approved translation of the Koran? That is a very valid question, if the Islamic community cannot agree on its interpretation then what hope for the rest of us, Taqiyya at play is my guess. You also have to remember that Islam, like Christianity is not a single entity, Islamic factions frequently kill each other because of differences over the ideology, just as Catholics and Protestants kill each other.

In the meantime, whilst we wait for that reform to arrive, the unsuspecting British public should not be subjected to the imposition of the ideology in our daily lives, with no say, little choice, no agreement, censored when questioned, aided and abetted, encouraged and legislated for by government.

 

[cantagril]

Hi cant',
The sentence quoted implies that you've read it? If so, was it the original Arabic text or an English translation? I ask because my (very limited) understanding of the topic is that the book is open to interpretation, i.e. it's easily misinterpreted, and that the only people really able to get a true and complete handle on it are native Muslim Arabic speakers. Either way, I'm surprised that Imams the world over don't agree on an English translation so that everyone can read for themselves to discover whether or not the text gives Muslims the green light to have non-Muslim white girls as sex slaves and kill non believers etc. (I assume not!) That would go a long way towards clearing up the ambiguity and confusion that surrounds the ideology. I don't doubt that most Muslims - by which I mean three quarters or even four fifths of them - are peace loving people that wouldn't hurt a fly. But, that still leaves a bu$$er of a lot of people who believe in Sharia Law and appear to want to impose it - along with the Islamic faith - on others. Needless to say, that's completely incompatible with western society.
Tim.

I have indeed read it....but not in Arabic!!! - and yes, absolutely true that it is pretty easy to misinterpret but I'd argue no more so than say ancient Greek or Latin. In the same way that we have classicists who can tell you the point of a joke from 2,000 years ago there are helpful folk who do the same for 1400 year old Arabic. Some of the non-technical problems of interpreting the Koran stem from it being (to moslems) essentially a fax from God with Mohammed as it's transcriber, which renders it inviolable and making it difficult to stray too far from "approved" interpretations. There are a number of commentaries, some of them very old, which are meant to clear things up but then you run into the problem of using something written in the equivalent of Shakespearian English to help understand Chaucer...so you need a commentary to understand the commentary. When you add substantive difficulties such as contradictions or at least considerable variances in basic stuff which need to be reconciled without contradiction, you then have a recipe that would tie almost anybody in knots.

All that said, one fundamental advantage (to my mind) is that the Koran was written/transcribed essentially by one hand so that eliminates most of the ridiculous "he said, she said...or maybe he didn't and we don't know when he did" stuff in the Bible....nor was there a large chunk of embarrassing fairy stories (like the Apocrypha) to lose; furthermore, despite the problems of translation from ancient to modern arabic, at least that is a single step whereas the bible was part Greek, part Aramaic then translated into Latin and then (mostly thanks to King James) translated into a series of English versions which still haven't been exhausted.

I won't begin to list out some of the inconsistencies and the instructions to commit (what to modern Western eyes, would be) nothing less than serious or capital crimes... because that would require a tome of their own. There are several free translations of both the Koran and the commentaries available for download on the net and I'd prefer that you make your own judgment rather than rely on my half-remembered rehash of anything....its ten years since I last got sand in my shoes and probably close to 20 since I read it.

....and coming around to what you said about Sharia Law - I'd been in their neck of dunes for quite some while before I got around to reading the Koran (despite being given close to a dozen copies by various well-meaning acquaintances) and it was having read it and the commentaries and got my head round Sharia Law that I then comprehended just why it had never been a very good idea for us twain to meet, as any prolonged cohabitation depended on a very liberal view from both sides and some extremely benevolent and powerful patrons - Sultans/Kings etc.

Enjoy your reading - I guarantee that it will be quite sobering