A proposal to build a US$100 million Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero has sparked controversy in the US. While opponents say they are not against Islam, protests against similar mosques far from Ground Zero has raised fears that intolerance toward American Muslims is growing. One church plans to burn the Koran. 20% of Americans and 46% of Republicans believe Barack Obama is Muslim. A taxi driver in New York City was attacked after telling his passenger that he is Muslim.
One could only hope that more Americans become aware of the great threat Islam poses to our way of life. Symbolic gestures like burning books, or physical assaults on peaceful believers are not useful or proper responses, of course – but given Islam’s explicitly stated goals and actions, the so-far pathetic resistance to them from the West and the ultimate outcome should these not be reversed, how is fear not a rational response?
One could only hope that more Americans become aware of the great threat Islam poses to our way of life. Symbolic gestures like burning books, or physical assaults on peaceful believers are not useful or proper responses, of course – but given Islam’s explicitly stated goals and actions, the so-far pathetic resistance to them from the West and the ultimate outcome should these not be reversed, how is fear not a rational response?
I agree. All religions should be feared, but most modern religions have been tempered by reason. Islam has no such temperment. Its integration of state and religion is complete and total and inseparable. It is like asking someone during the Inquisition, “are you afraid of Christianity?”
“Islamophobia” is here used as an anti-concept. A fear can be rational or irrational, i.e., it can have grounds in reality or not. The purpose of the word islamophobia in this context is to make it seem impossible to be afraid of Islam and the islamization of the West on rational grounds. But the fact is that there are rational grounds to be afraid of Islam and the islamization of the West. Islam, in its essence, is a totalitarian religion. Islam means submission for a reason. It is about submitting yourself to God every day and in every moment of your life. It is incompatible with freedom at its very root. I agree with Kyle Haight. One can only hope that more people in the West in general and in America in particular read about Islam and become familiar with the enemy. One can also only hope that the West in general and America in particular grows some balls and starts to offer a proper response to the threat, instead of the current continuation of decades of pragmatic, guilt-ridden and suicidal appeasement.
Out of general curiosity, how many of you have read the Quran, Hadith, and Sira? and by which authors? (I mean all 3 not just one of them). Robert Spencer’s literary works don’t count, that should be obvious, but the more I discuss this issue and topics related to it, the less I am willing to take certain things for granted.
I have read many, many, many quotes from the Koran and the Hadith. I have read one book by Robert Spencer (I think it was The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam). Everything else I know about Islam comes from reading articles about it on the Internet. I do not see any justification for excluding Robert Spencer’s writing on the subject. I do not think one has to read all of the Koran (or the Hadith) to know what Islam is all about, just like one does not have to read the entire Bible to know what Christianity is all about. All you have to do is to read enough to grasp the essence. And that is not that hard. There is no reason to be concrete-bound when it comes to Islam.
I do not think one has to read all of the Koran (or the Hadith) to know what Islam is all about, just like one does not have to read the entire Bible to know what Christianity is all about.
My point in asking if anyone here has read all 3, and Robert Spencer distorts the religion to quite a degree (I had borrowed his main book “infidels guide” for a time) which is why I said his comments don’t count, is because the Quran is not in context like other religious writings, the Hadith and Sira together provide the context. You simply cannot rely on simple quotes (which could have been from any quranic authors, which in itself is enough to worry about its legitimacy) or on standard reading practices to “get” what the overall religious texts are saying, especially since it is written in the present tense.
And that is not that hard.
It apparently is.
There is no reason to be concrete-bound when it comes to Islam.
Is america heading towards Islamaphobia? I am not entirely sure, I have heard it said, with no evidence provided, that Islamaphobia exists sommewhat in europe. However this is mostly among right-wing groups (in the europeon and american senses). In america we have not gotten to the point where a television show can bash Islam without having their epsiode taken down the next day. After that, right wing American thinkers and pundits tend to make false distinctions between Islam and Militant, Fundementalists, or Radical Islam.
Most religous/multiculturalist liberals have been trying to stop “islamaphobia” (the awareness that Islam is a false set of ideas, and that its followers are dagnerous).
Even though in europe there is tolerance of islam and the backwards ways of islam, the populace seems to be getting rowdier and rowdier about this stuff. Look up a video on youtube about the English Defence League. Sadly these people seem mostly to be morons and will most likely create a totalitarian state, and not solvve any problems.
However, this becomes interesting when you consider Militant Atheists, most of whome are statists. The for horsement seem to all be very much against Islam, although I am not sure if the less popular two have said anything as inlfamatory as Hitchens or Dawkins.
Out of curiosity, are you a Moslem, CapitalistSwine? It seems like all you do here is defend Islam.
No I am not. I do not care for Islam in any degree and I think the philosophy/religion is espouses is disgusting and barbaric. I think you missed the golden eggs in my comments elsewhere on this forum that clarified that my disagreements here are not on the fundamental nature of Islam but rather on inaccuracies regarding specifics. Also, I would like you to know that my comments on this forum are not necessarily representative of my writings elsewhere.
I do believe it is . . . probabily for good reason .. after all Islam has been involved in around the world . . . ISLAM: a religion of peace ( and a big stack of dead bodies )
Isn’t it ironic that the people who complain about Islamophobia are the ones that fear Muslims the most?
“OMG, we can’t burn the Koran because it might incite violence!”
“Don’t depict Muhammad in a cartoon. It will make Muslims angry!”
The whole argument that we should avoid offending moderate Muslims because they might join the radicals is a non sequitur argument. After all, a person who would kill you for burning a book or drawing a cartoon isn’t peaceful to begin with.
I think the proper response to people who accuse you of being Islamophobic is, “If it’s irrational to fear Islam, then why are YOU so afraid of offending its followers?”
Symbolic gestures like burning books, or physical assaults on peaceful believers are not useful or proper responses, of course –
I used to think the same regarding burning the Koran but now, after the reaction to the mere threat of burning a Koran, I’m not so sure. What better way to expose the anti-free speech nature of Islam? Book burning is historically an act of censorship, which brings a level of irony to such demonstrations that “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” could not hope to acheive.
I used to think the same regarding burning the Koran but now, after the reaction to the mere threat of burning a Koran, I’m not so sure. What better way to expose the anti-free speech nature of Islam?
I think the real purpose of such demonstrations should be to illustrate the double-standard that the Islamic totalitarians are working to establish – the idea that Muslims and Islamic symbols must be treated differently. Perhaps a 3-way book burning: Atlas Shrugged, the Bible and the Koran. Do them in that order, and hammer on the point that one should be equally offended (or not) at each case. Only burning the Koran allows people to blur the issue by talking about ‘offensiveness’; it would be harder to carry out that evasion if the burner is also burning a book that he himself finds profoundly valuable.