On Islamophobic individuals.

The rise of modern terrorism has seen many ignorant, fearful and downright angry people flock to the shepherds of emotional release – people who see self-aggrandizement in the pool of bewildered victims of the current and uncertain political environment establishing the war on terror.
Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer give a political and ideological embodiment respectively of this movement, which has been correctly labeled as “Islamophobic.”

In the case of Wilders, his political agenda directs his point of view. As Reza Aslan explains, 'for critics of globalization the European Union is a nightmare of unfettered capitalism, cultural dilution, and , ultimately, the loss of national identity.' The appeal of neo-facists, such as Wilders, the late Jorg Hader of Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France 'derives from their ability to tap into widespread fear among many Europeans of globalization and its consequences' namely a stifling of perceived national values, cultural and ethnic homogeneity coupled with an anxiety of the future through social change.[1] Playing the role of Europe's traditional 'quintessential Other', Muslim migration to Europe of the last 50 years 'has created a situation in which Europe's identity crisis [has been] experienced almost wholly through the lens of Islam.' Islam has generally become the social scapegoat of these anti-globalization political groups; 'it seems that the Muslim has replaced the Jew as Europe's new "negative pole".'[2]
True to the form of deceitful bigotry and prejudice, in Wilders’ recent experience of being sued for his political assertions (a terrible attack on of freedom of speech might I add) Wilders celebrated his confirmed freedom of speech by continuing to call for a ban on the Quran. Another intriguing case was how Thomas von der Dunk a cultural historian and political commentator, under pressure spearheaded by Wilder’s Freedom Party, was barred from giving a lecture in honor of a Nazi-resistance hero ‘after it became known that he proposed to compare the Freedom Party's portrayal of Muslims to “the way in which Jews were smeared in the 1930s”.’[3]
His anti-Islamic platform is part of his political agenda, this much is obvious, but we must be ready to site and point it out to those who are blind to such facts lest we see an infection of discourse regarding the matter.

In the case of Robert Spender, a man who attacks others for religiously motivated manipulation of the barbaric truth of Islam as he sees it (yet has no academic credentials of his own by way of Islamic studies of any kind), his ideological and philosophical thought on modern Islamic terrorism and politics has leant a helping hand to the likes of Wilders, and individuals seeking to gain an understanding of Islam and an explanation of current socio-political tendencies it is associated with. He regularly lies to those who follow his blog,[4] whilst publishing massive lies within his literary work.[5]
As he sees it, only modern terrorists can be acknowledged as ‘true’ Muslims who, in line with Wilders’ position, must be isolated and disconnected. All this is done in an appeal to set oneself upon an imaginary stage in which we surrender our rational senses for fearful reactionism.
The likes of Spencer seem to be the biggest threat in my opinion, as they establish they rhetorical and often mindless thought process that props up the likes of Wilders. Amazingly, in the same way bin Laden refers to Coalition troops as ‘Crusaders’, Spencer has references to such thought in his own work. In place of the dedication section of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, he has ‘Deus Vult!’ written.[6] It’s a Latin phrase used by the first crusaders meaning ‘God wills it’. He makes a bizarre, ahistorical and nonsensical appeal to the idea we must engage in another crusade with modern terrorism, and Islam generally, to save ‘the West’ (incidentally this ‘West’ is where Obama is a socialist).
It is this kind of thought that displaces us from our senses and drives us into a fiery pit of hatred, ignorance and inhumanity through which modern terrorists themselves forge their world view.

Spencer is wrong, this much can be gleaned from any general reading on Islam, but we must be prepared to refute his assertions if we are also to refute bin Laden and his associates before we find ourselves perpetuating those crimes we seek to extinguish through representatives like Wilders.

--MegadethFan


References:
[1] Reza Aslan, How to Win a Cosmic War: Confronting radical religion, Arrow Books, London, 2010, p. 131.
[2] ibid., 132
[3] Timothy Garton Ash, Geert Wilders and how to handle a gold-medal hypocrite, Los Angeles Times, <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/12/opinion/la-oe-gartonash-wilders-20110512> 12 May, 2011.
[4] Greeneye, Spencer Distorts Egyptian Society; Spreads Interfaith Bigotry, Spencer Watch <http://spencerwatch.com/2011/01/11/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/> 11 January, 2011.
[5] Danios, The Church&#8217;s Doctrine of &#8220;Perpetual Servitude&#8221; was Worse than &#8220;Dhimmitude&#8221;, Loon Watch <http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/> 30 November, 2009.
[6] Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C., 2005, p. v.

 

Good post.

These are two of big players - I refer to them as the top clowns of the circus - in Islamophobia.

Wilders is an idiot and it'd be scary to think what'd happen if he ever got into power.

Spencer is simply a liar about Islam who knows nothing about Islam or the Middle East for that matter. He has no credibility to speak about Islam. Neither of them do. They just talk, don't back up their words with facts from the Quran or even Hadiths (I doubt they even know what the Hadiths is).

And can't forget Geller as well.

Islamophobia might become a fundementalist movement soon enough. These folks are breeding it, and when people get inspired by their work to go out and kill say 60-something teenagers at a camp, or publically call for the mass-murder of people they try and distance themselves and deny any link to these types (yes, it's different from a terrorist claiming he's a Jihad fighter because there are rules in Islam forbidding what they do. Spencer, Wilders, Geller and the rest of the circus are building the hatred, resentment, and violence).

And the thing with Islamophobia is it isn't exclusive to Muslims. A Christian, Jew, Hindu, even an Atheist who sticks up for Islam or says anything not bad about Islam is labelled an "enemy" as well.

 

That for me, is one of the scariest things about the followers of this movement. They are so warped by their biased and partisan Islamophobic readings they start accusing everyone who opposes their position of being a closet Muslim and that every Muslim is a closet terrorist! Such tendencies are the most frightening example of how the likes of Spencer, Geller and Wilders corrode people's minds.

 

It's very alarming. The paranoia and irrational thinking is going to be a danger to the world if any of these people get in any leadership position.

They are breeding hatred while claiming Islam breeds hatred. And the people that actually do take them seriously aren't smart enough to think for themselves (this is why they believe them to begin with) and some are ready to do whatever it takes to "stop" Islam from "taking over the world"....

 

Well, who's flying airplanes into skyscrapers???

 

Mohammed Atta and Cory Lidle

 

And islam.

Quantrill

 

The reason I have to take my shoes and belt off at the airport is because of Muslim terrorists, not Islamophobes.

 

So I suggest you blame Muslim terrorists for this inconvenience rather than Islam - the world's second biggest religion - in its entirety.

 

Can I blame Karl Marx for the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933?

 

Adding a bibliography to such a badly written, poorly researched hack job of an article isn't coming across very scholarly, I should add. It's amusing, though, that you cite a known Islamic supremacist like Reza Aslan as a source, as well as an online pseudonym named Danios, a phantom who refuses to debate Spencer in real life.

There is no substance at all in what you have written. The core of your argument is disingenuous buzzwords like "Islamophobe", "bigot", and "fascist", and very little else. You essentially took these labels and wrote around them, trying to disguise it as a thorough refutation. Your knowledge of this subject is far, far exceeded by the naive, multicultural fantasy that drives you. I would wager that you don't even know why you feel compelled to defend Islam and Muslims. What is clear, though, is that you are arguing based on an emotionally based gut feeling, and not on thorough understanding, which is typical of 19 year olds like you.

You assert that Robert Spencer is wrong, yet you do not even begin to explain how you arrived at that conclusion. Nowhere do you present one of Robert's claims and attempt to refute it based on your knowledge of Islam. You merely claim that he is "lying" and "wrong". See the problem? It isn't enough to claim that he is a racist, a bigot, a hatemonger, or whatever other empty accusation you can think of. You need to explain how he is wrong, and you haven't done that.

Many Muslims, including your pal Reza Azlan, have debated Spencer, and they have been unable to prove him wrong on any of his points. They eventually are reduced to personal attacks and strawman arguments, both of which you demonstrated. Robert does not need collegiate "academic credentials" on Islam to have a thorough understanding of it. By this standard, the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not understand Islam, as well. Clearly Robert has a thorough understanding of Islam and the Qur'an. Consult one of his many books for evidence of this.

Your output is what happens when atheism gets filtered through liberal political correctness. You would have absolutely no problems with people being concerned about the radical elements within Christianity, but when the discussion turns to Islam, you just have too guilty of a white liberal conscience to apply the same standard of scrutiny. Not only that, you go to the extreme of actually defending what is, currently, the most threatening religion on the planet today.

 

Seeing that Marx died in 1883 that would be rather stupid. Blame Stalin.

 

Stalin translated the ideas of Marx into action.

 

People with some really sick problems.

Actually, in a way it is. Who makes these new rules? You think if they could get away with it, they'd make it mandatory for everybody and not just Muslims/Arabs? I don't.

While we're at it, lets blame Mickey Mouse and Santa Claus.... Why would you blame Marx for that?

 

Now I see what your saying.

The Quran doesn't give people ideas to fly aiplanes into buildings. And suicide of any kind is a sin in Islam. Not to mention killing innocent people who haven't attacked or oppressed you. So, so much for this point. And it'd still be stupid to blame Marx for what Stalin did, unless yhe ghost of Marx possessed Stalin and did it himself, through Stalins body.

Try again.

 

Karl Marx > Communism > bad idea

Mohammed > Islam > bad idea

Bad ideas have consequences.

 

What is there to compare with Islam and Communism?

Islam isn't a bad idea. It has a small group of bad people. Same as other religions.

Even Satanism has a group of good people.

 

You haven't proved anything he said in his post as wrong. You just called him out for critisizing Spencer.

It's obvious you are on the guests of the circus, and a big fan of the clown RS. But his points aren't even intellegent. Their immature and plain stupid. He says the Quran spreads terror. Then why is terror a non-significant minority in a religion with over 2-billion members? Why aren't millions upon millions of Muslims every day blowing things up in the name of Islam? Because Robert Spencer is an idiot.

LOL what claims can't be argued against and proven wrong? It's even funnier that you this Spencer not only understand the Quran, but CLEARLY understands it. From the garbage that comes out of his mouth and in his books, he CLEARLY knows absolutely nothing about true Islam.

The danger to the world is hatred. Ignorance. Arrogance. Islamophobia is all of the above, and then some. Islam is love, knowledge, and tolerance. Not what you see on TV and movies and even video games. The majority of true Muslims on this planet show just how true this is, and prove Spencer wrong every single day.

 

Naw .. the reason you have to take your shoes and belt off in airports is because the country was sticking its nose where it doesnt belong and supporting terrorism.

As the Bible says .. eye for eye .. tooth for tooth. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

 

LOL Whose flying bombs into skyscrapers? I dont see your point here.

 

Elaborate. What is this "Islam" you refer to?

 

LOL! I didnt intend to publish it, if that's your concern haha. But by all means, explain why it is "badly written" and "poorly researched".

What do you mean by "Islamic supremacist"? From memory, isnt he a professor in California?

That doesnt actually show how his points were wrong. Do you actually have a point to make that would refute their information or just irrelevant and unsubstantiated ad hominem?

If you would like me to explain why I used those words I can. In such a short piece of writing, explaining the use for them is quite limited, although I can do it now. Furthermore, I dont see how the "core" of my writing revolves around these words when I used all three of them ONCE! Also I didnt say he was a fascist - I said je was a neo-fascist - big difference. I can also elaborate on why this description is valid, although the points I made about the rejection of freedom of expression, ultra-nationalism and a position of anti-globalization should have provided a good starting point.

And yet I used them only once. Doesnt seem to be a valid review of what I wrote.

Elaborate.

I defend them like I would anyone else. If you would like to know why I do so, ask - dont presume based on nothing but your own bigotry.

Really? Name one aspect where this is evident. Just ONE example.

'Typical'? Really? haha I see how your blanket description of teenagers is similar to the way you ignorantly generalize about Muslims eh? Or is it just another feature your constant resort to ad hominem rather than counter argumentation?

Yes I did. I gave two links - about his constant lies and his dodgy scholarship. Perhaps you should read the links.

If you would like me to, I can but it seems unnecessary given the link I provided. To refute Spencer on one of his points would require far more space than I intended for this OP, but I cna do this if you want. Perhaps this:
http://www.politicalforum.com/ethni...ing-jihad-its-early-inception-modern-use.html
would be something that would refute many of his claims.

No since I gave an example of both. I can do it again if you want. They are sources 4 and 5 of my OP. Read them before you attack a strawman as you have done.

Correct, and I have done so. If you want further elaboration, I would happily provide it, but you'll need to be specific.

Of all the debates I have seen Spencer in he has not made a substantial let alone winnable case. I saw Reza talk with Spencer on one show and he revealed him for the fool he was.

GIVE ONE EXAMPLE OF AD HOMINEM

Sure, but such a point is necessary especially when he attacks others for a lack of scholarship.

LOL That would be the case according to Spencer. To him they need to be merciless bigots when in reality they are far from it.

I disagree.

I have and I have found his works wanting.

What is PC about my OP?

How so?

What's your evidence of this? Again this is just another ad hominem with which you have no evidence for.

Explain how it is the biggest threat? In my opinion, Christianity in the US is FAR more dangerous and I explained how Spencer is in fact a part of that threat.

What's most interesting about your response is that you failed to address ONE of the many points I made here. Not only this, you accused me of poor substantiation yet didnt talk about any of the information provided - you just gave ad hominems which didnt reveal anything, which were also unsubstantiated. Adding to this double standard of yours you continue with your ad hominem on me by arguing I dont provide sufficient info and am not only ignorant but liberal and pc. Again you provide no evidence or examples. You're a joke mate. Practice what you preach before you assume you valid in anything you say.

 

So, by your logic, Jesus is guilty for all the crimes committed in his name? Sorry mate, you're clueless.

 

Islam is no more of a "bad idea" than ANY other religion.

 

It is islam. You know. islam.

Islam is itself an enemy and threat to any free world.

Quantrill