Islamophobia in the West

[Axalon]

Look at it from a Muslim perspective - US invasion of Iraq killed lot civilians. We did not target the civilians, but they are just as dead anyways. Tne arrogance of the west, coming to Muslim lands and arbritralily drawing national boundaries as they saw fit - if Muslim powers had done the same thing in Europe it would also breed resentment. While if the decaeent West wants to poke fun and insult its own figures, it is the West own business, but the West has no right apply their irreverence to Muslim figures and kmpose their irreverent values on Muslims. Since Muslimms are too weak to meet the West with regular military forces. they use terrorism instead to strike back. That is how.many.Muslims would.see things, I suspect.

There is that... There is also... Allowing idiotic levels of mass-immigration, importing hordes and hordes of people into (especially) Europe that typically profess themselves to Islam. As a result Islam has been imported back into existence again in Europe - after having been rejected and resisted for more then 1300 years in war - this by the nations of Europe! It is just insane... And remember, for each and every Muslim you can find in the US - Europe have 5...

The result? Islamic shadow-societies are growing like crazy all over (western) Europe - there it is Islam and sharia that is the norm. This is a matter of fact in France, the UK, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Sweden and there are plenty of clips of that, all over YouTube. This circumstance might also play a part in the increasing intolerance and dislike generated towards Islam - as it gets ever harder to ignore it (Islam) in public. Its agents are repeatedly claiming an ever increasing part/space of public life with public manifestations, special rules, special clothes, special food, special treatment and tolerance etc etc). We should supposedly adjust to them. While they (or rather way too many) clearly and repeatedly fail (or just ignore) to adjust to us - the people of the host-nations they are mere guests in. Its arrogant and disrespectful in the extreme. That too might be another cause as for why people are getting increasingly negative towards Islam, I think. Obviously, there are other reasons as well - some are good/solid, others are not...

Anyways, I will re-post some other comments I previously made about "Islamophobia" as a concept...

***

Again... It is dishonest. It is misleading. It is unrepresentative. It is inaccurate. It is fake. It is also semantically wrong as well, on top. It deliberately and blatantly fails to make ANY distinctions between critique, prejudice or disapproval (of any kind) against/of Islam. Criticism, prejudice and disapproval are nowhere the same things, nor should it ever be lumped together wrongfully, arbitrarily or undeservedly as is clearly the case with the term "Islamophobia". The implicit claim to cover it all, is clearly there, as no distinctions are made anywhere despite all these things are clearly separate in concept and meaning. It is both unserious and corrupt at the same time.

The term "phobia" is a concept that implies something are irrational, unnatural, unbalanced, unreasonable, uncontrolled or even hysterical - usually due to fear or aversion of something. Its a condition of some kind. None of these traits are a given or even typical factors in any anti-Islamic views as "Islamophobic" certainly would suggest or imply to us. The term falsely suggests to us that Islam is inherently natural and rational - which it is not. It also falsely suggest to us that any criticisms of the same are also inherently unnatural and irrational as a result. Again, it is not. Basically, it is a lie all over - sold to us as a truth by its promoters. It even outlines and claim an utterly fake condition/symptom were mere ideas could supposedly trigger fear and/or uncontrolled reactions out of thin air - something that have no basis anywhere.

"Islamophobia" is devised and deployed as a propaganda-tool thru and thru. By using this corrupt term - you are turning yourselves into a useful idiots serving the agenda and goals of the people who promoted this term in the first place. I take it that you (and most others) would want to avoid such a prospect, and are not keen to play any such a part anywhere in public discourse - regardless the topic or angle.


***

If we want to label sheer anti-Islamic views - then we should call it for what it is "anti-Islamic"-views. It is semantically correct, and it does not imply or suggest anything other then what it actually means - opposed or against Islamic stuff in some sense. No misleading coloring, connotations and/or associations. Honest and accurate - as it should be...

If we want to label anti-Islamic prejudice then we should call it "anti-Islamic"-prejudice - as in call it for what it is. It is semantically correct, and it does not imply or suggest anything other then what it actually means. Prejudice of an anti-Islamic nature. No more, no less... Its honest and accurate - as it should be...

If we want to label anti-Islamic hatred then we should call it "anti-Islamic"-hatred - as in call it for what it is. It is semantically correct, and it does not imply or suggest anything other then what it actually means. Hatred directed at Islam in some sense, due to some cause or reason. No more, no less. Its honest and accurate - as it should be...

Works for me.

- A

- A

[Abdülmecid I]

Islam has never been expulsed from the European continent, though, but, on the contrary, it can boast an uninterrupted presence there since the 7th century AD. That's significantly more than the most recently Christianised regions of the same continent in the extreme north and east, like the Baltics and Scandinavia. I suppose you are referring to the Reconquista achieved by the Iberian kingdoms, but Muslims continued to have presence in several parts of Europe, like Bosnia, Thrace and Crimea. By that logic, someone could argue that the Jews were also removed from Europe, because the degrees of the Catholic monarchs of Portugal and Spain targeted not only Muslims, but Jews as well. However, both these persecuted religious groups successfully found refuge in more tolerant lands, where Jewish and Muslim communities already existed and prospered.

As a result, Muslims existed in Europe well into the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and, at a certain degree, participated in a few of its major historical events. When it comes to Muslims in European wars, for example, we usually think of French colonial regiments, which defended France's territorial integrity in 1871 and to which Bismarck explicitly ordered the Prussian soldiers to give no quarter. However, Muslim soldiers, indigenuous to Europe, fought in both World Wars for the interests of all four different sides, the Central Powers and the Entente, the Axis and the Allies.

Not that, in my opinion, a hypothetical complete ethnic cleansing would legitimise any current harsh treatment of a religious group, solely based on their creed. Western Europe is supposedly proud of its humanitarian principles, according to which, secularism and religious tolerance are endorsed, while sectarianism and collective guilt are rejected. Unfortunately, our debate here is not theoretical, because the hateful fruits of Islamophobia have already matured in post-Soviet Europe. Terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of tens of innocent victims in Norway, Germany and elsewhere, in the name of religious purity, while the most recent massacre, almost unanimously recognized as a genocide, on European soil targeted one of the oldest Muslim communities in Europe, which had been left largely intact, despite the violence, discrimination and population exchanges that had so dramatically altered the demographic composition of the Balkans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Therefore, I can rationalise Islamophobia and, generally speaking, the oppression of Muslims under the guise of European identity, only from a Christian fundamentalist or nationalist western European perspective, according to which, only certain parts of the continent and only certain aspects of the cultures that have influenced Europe, are entitled to define the so-called European civilization. That methodological approach usually focus on the "Latin" and "Germanic" parts of Europe, but, as previously illustrated, that strategy is dangerously inconsistent and can lead to a couple of embarassing self-contradictions, which further weaken the already fragile logical foundations of the Islamophobic narrative.

[Heathen Hammer]

The only "presence" of Islam in Europe manifested itself with failed invasions, first by Arab conquests and then by Ottomans. As a result Islam's "presence" was limited to parts of Iberia, Sicily and Balkans, which were occupied by Muslim Empires that primarily resided outside of Europe and whose occupational presence was eventually expelled by the population of those regions (i.e. Reqonquista in Spain or Balkan wars against Ottoman presence in the region). Islam is certainly not "indigenous"as such regions were invaded, and treatment of locals by the foreign occupants was hardly tolerant - hence why eventual expulsion of these foreign powers may seem intolerant to some.
As for "islamophobia" itself, aside from being a political buzzword aimed at discrediting objective criticism of Islam or specific mulsim communities, it is hardly a product of some chtonic evil nationalism, but rather negative view that stems from both rather intolerant nature of Islam's teachings as well as intolerant behavior of Islamic communities themselves. Very few Muslim countries are tolerant to non-Muslims, especially of non-abrahamic "pagan" variety, as well as atheists and minorities in general. Islam and islamic communities are also very sexist by European standards, as under Islam women have less rights then men. So "islamophobia" is just negative view of Islam due to it being largely incompatible with Western values.

[Common Soldier]

Islam has never been expulsed from the European continent, though, but, on the contrary, it can boast an uninterrupted presence there since the 7th century AD. That's significantly more than the most recently Christianised regions of the same continent in the extreme north and east, like the Baltics and Scandinavia. I suppose you are referring to the Reconquista achieved by the Iberian kingdoms, but Muslims continued to have presence in several parts of Europe, like Bosnia, Thrace and Crimea. By that logic, someone could argue that the Jews were also removed from Europe, because the degrees of the Catholic monarchs of Portugal and Spain targeted not only Muslims, but Jews as well. However, both these persecuted religious groups successfully found refuge in more tolerant lands, where Jewish and Muslim communities already existed and prospered.

i
What you say is simply not true. The pressence od Islam in Scandinavia and the Baltics did not predate Christianity there. Nor has there been an uninterrupted Muslim presence in Western Europe since the 7th century. Muslims did come to Europe as foreign invaders, but they were eventually driven out, just as the Muslims drove out the French settlers in Algeria. The Muslim presence in Bosnia, Thrace and the Crimea were the resulr of military conquest.

As a result, Muslims existed in Europe well into the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries

Only in parts of Eastern Europe is that true, not Western Europe.

and, at a certain degree, participated in a few of its major historical events.When it comes to Muslims in European wars, for example, we usually think of French colonial regiments, which defended France's territorial integrity in 1871 and to which Bismarck explicitly ordered the Prussian soldiers to give no quarter. However, Muslim soldiers, indigenuous to Europe, fought in both World Wars for the interests of all four different sides, the Central Powers and the Entente, the Axis and the Allies.

The same could be said for Hindus ans Sikhs - colonial troops fought for Britain in Europe during WW1. That does not mean they were an integral part of European society in the past. Muslims were not a significant part of Western Europe just a few decades ago. That they might be a part of it now, just as Hindus, Sikhs and others are now part of Britain, does not alter the fact that they weren't in the past.

Not that, in my opinion, a hypothetical complete ethnic cleansing would legitimise any current harsh treatment of a religious group, solely based on their creed. Western Europe is supposedly proud of its humanitarian principles, according to which, secularism and religious tolerance are endorsed, while sectarianism and collective guilt are rejected. Unfortunately, our debate here is not theoretical, because the hateful fruits of Islamophobia have already matured in post-Soviet Europe. Terrorist attacks have claimed the lives of tens of innocent victims in Norway, Germany and elsewhere, in the name of religious purity, while the most recent massacre, almost unanimously recognized as a genocide, on European soil targeted one of the oldest Muslim communities in Europe, which had been left largely intact, despite the violence, discrimination and population exchanges that had so dramatically altered the demographic composition of the Balkans during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

If you refer to Bosnia erhnic cleansing, Europe and the US most certainly did get involved to stop it, attacking the Serbs to put an end to it. The criticism of Muslims is based on their actions, which stem from their creed. Other non Christian groups are not criticized as Muslims because they are not committing terrorist acts as Muslims are. I find it hypocritical to condemn terrorist attacks by lone individuals and ignore.and defend the far greater terrorist attacks by organized groups of Muslims. In the US, 90% of the people killed by terrorist attacks have been killed by Muslims, even though Muslims make up.only 2% of the US population.

Therefore, I can rationalise Islamophobia and, generally speaking, the oppression of Muslims under the guise of European identity, only from a Christian fundamentalist or nationalist western European perspective, according to which, only certain parts of the continent and only certain aspects of the cultures that have influenced Europe, are entitled to define the so-called European civilization. That methodological approach usually focus on the "Latin" and "Germanic" parts of Europe, but, as previously illustrated, that strategy is dangerously inconsistent and can lead to a couple of embarassing self-contradictions, which further weaken the already fragile logical foundations of the Islamophobic narrative.

While some.genuine Islamophobia may exist, a lot of what is called "Islamophobia" is any criticism of Islam, no matter how justified those criticism are. Charlie Hebo cartoons were labeled as Islamophobic, when in fact all Charlie Hebo did treat Islam and Muslims no different than they treated anybody else. Muslims have no right to impose their values and beliefs on the rest of society and that is exactly what Muslims want to do.


I am sorry, bur when you have as the founder of your religion and a role model to be followed man who had sex with 9 years old girls, had men tortured and killed for money, and had people killed.merely for criticizing him, your religion is going to be criticized and that is not being Islamophobic. When the Islamic terrorist killed the people in the Charlie Hebo office, they were merely following the example of Muhammad as told by Islam's trusted sources. When the only countries in the world that have death penslties for the simple crime of wanting to leave your religion are all Muslim, that is a problem. You don't see "hinduphobia" in Britain because Hindu are not going around killing in Britain, Muslims arem

[Abdülmecid I]

Islam is not my religion and I never defended any terrorist attacks, so I don't think that I ever showed double standards or that I'm not entitled to point towards the possible, negative repercussions of Islamophobia. Currently, as we speak, far-right terrorism, which is largely inspired by Islamophobia, is the greatest terrorist threat in several European countries, like Germany, having quite a few victims.

What you say is simply not true. The pressence od Islam in Scandinavia and the Baltics did not predate Christianity there. Nor has there been an uninterrupted Muslim presence in Western Europe since the 7th century. Muslims did come to Europe as foreign invaders, but they were eventually driven out, just as the Muslims drove out the French settlers in Algeria. The Muslim presence in Bosnia, Thrace and the Crimea were the resulr of military conquest.

Islam had a strong presence in Iberia, Sicily, Crete and elsewhere long before it gained any significant followers in the Baltics and Scandinavia. Islam's presence in Europe remains uninterrupted since the 8th century, since, although the Muslims were ethnically cleansed in Portugal and Spain, they still had a vigorous presence in Crimea, the Balkans and elsewhere at least since the 14th century. Muslims also don't always come as foreign invaders, that's like claiming that Christianity in Moscow, Paris, London and etc. is the result of foreign invasion, because neither the Russians nor the Franks nor the Saxons sprang up in Russia, France and England respectively .

Regardling Islam, sometimes, the elites were converted to Islam several decades, after they were firstly installed in Europe, like it happened with the Tatars of the Golden Horde. In other cases, like in the Balkans, Muslim populations partly originated from Turkic newcomers, but were also largely consisted of indigenuous populations that converted to Islam in their free will. Sometimes, like in the case of the Bogomils of Bosnia, who were firstly expelled from Anatolia to Europe by the Christian Byzantine Empire, conversion to Islam happened on a massive scale. Of course, hardly any of the above is relevant to our debate, because, according to the moral principles of the so-called European civilisation, every community enjoys the same human and legal rights, regardless of how long its ancestors are estimated to have arrived, when they descendants now live, be it 100, 400 or 1.000 years.

The same could be said for Hindus ans Sikhs - colonial troops fought for Britain in Europe during WW1. That does not mean they were an integral part of European society in the past. Muslims were not a significant part of Western Europe just a few decades ago. That they might be a part of it now, just as Hindus, Sikhs and others are now part of Britain, does not alter the fact that they weren't in the past.

But the examples are mentioned are not colonial troops. Those regiments were composed of indigenuous Muslims. To name just a few, typical examples: On the Central Powers, we have Ottomans from Istanbul and for the Entente, Bashkirs and Dagestanis fighting for Tsarist and later democratic Russia. For the Axis, there is the Bosniak division of the SS, for the Allies, the soldiers of Azerbaijan's Soviet Republic and for the resistance, the Albanian partisans. Islam is an integral part of Europe, as can be demonstrated through the centuries of warfare, trade and diplomacy, unless you define Europe based only on Nordic countries, but that's false terminology.

If you refer to Bosnia erhnic cleansing, Europe and the US most certainly did get involved to stop it, attacking the Serbs to put an end to it. The criticism of Muslims is based on their actions, which stem from their creed.

The attitude of the United States is irrelevant to our debate. The fact remains that, despite all the hysteria about minarets in Zurich and an innumerable army of tiny toddlers named Muhammad in Stockholm, the victims of the latest genocide in Europe were native Muslims. Religious bigotry played a major role in the massacre, as it can also be corroborated by the participation of foreign volunteers, such as the Greek fascists, whose Orthodox creed united them with the Serbians. Criticising Islam, ridiculing its dogma and parodying its Prophet is fine, dandy and certainly not Islamophobia, but when that indiscriminately targets the believers themselves, then we have a problem. Not only because such hateful ideology usually violates the majority of modern Constitutions, but also due to the fact that it often leads to atrocities, perpetrated either by radicalised individuals or official institutions.

[Common Soldier]

Islam is not my religion and I never defended any terrorist attacks, so I don't think that I ever showed double standards or that I'm not entitled to point towards the possible, negative repercussions of Islamophobia. Currently, as we speak, far-right terrorism, which is largely inspired by Islamophobia, is the greatest terrorist threat in several European countries, like Germany, having quite a few victims..

Even in Germany, Muslims have killed quite a few victims aa well. A right wing attack n ght kill 10 but a Mulsim attack in Berlin killed 12. And there is no comparison between an orgsnized Muslim of team of Muslims killing 130, as in the Paris attacks or 50 in the London subway and a lone gunmen killing 10 in Germany. You have.yoir prioritieds skewed. Plus righr wing terrorisr are not burning down cities as Muslims did in Paris and Malmo. Right wing terrorism does not kill nearly as many nor is it as big a threat as Isam.

Islam had a strong presence in Iberia, Sicily,

Muslims presence has been gone for centuries in those places until 20th century. There has not been a continuous presence of Muslims in western Europe since the 8th century, simply not true.

Crete and elsewhere long before it gained any significant followers in the Baltics and Scandinavia. Islam's presence in Europe remains uninterrupted since the 8th century, since, although the Muslims were ethnically cleansed in Portugal and Spain, they still had a vigorous presence in Crimea, the Balkans and elsewhere at least since the 14th century. Muslims also don't always come as foreign invaders, that's like claiming that Christianity in Moscow, Paris, London and etc. is the result of foreign invasion, because neither the Russians nor the Franks nor the Saxons sprang up in Russia, France and England respectively

This rather mislearing. There has not been a continous presence of Muslims in Europe in any one location since the 8th century. Muslims were able to force their way in in differen parts of Europe at different times, and all the countries you named, Spain, Portugal, Crimea, Balkans came as invaders, and it is untrue to claim otherwise. You analogy with Paris and England and the others is invalid, since in Russia and England and others it was the native people who lived there who converted. The Franks, English, and Russia did not invade their lands as Christians, they became Christians after they invadd, totally different from the Muslims who were Muslims before they invaded.

[quote]
Regardling Islam, sometimes, the elites were converted to Islam several decades, after they were firstly installed in Europe, like it happened with the Tatars of the Golden Horde. In other cases, like in the Balkans, Muslim populations partly originated from Turkic newcomers, but were also largely consisted of indigenuous populations that converted to Islam in their free will. Sometimes, like in the case of the Bogomils of Bosnia, who were firstly expelled from Anatolia to Europe by the Christian Byzantine Empire, conversion to Islam happened on a massive scale. Of course, hardly any of the above is relevant to our debate, because, according to the moral principles of the so-called European civilisation, every community enjoys the same human and legal rights, regardless of how long its ancestors are estimated to have arrived, when they descendants now live, be it 100, 400 or 1.000 years. [/quote

Yes, the native population sometimes converted to escape oppression by Muslims and being treated as second class citizens, as non Muslims are in every sinle Muslim country even today. Not single Muslim countries treats non Muslim as full equals. How voluntary is a conversion to avoid having your children srolen from you and made slaves?

[quote]
But the examples are mentioned are not colonial troops. Those regiments were composed of indigenuous Muslims. To name just a few, typical examples: On the Central Powers, we have Ottomans from Istanbul and for the Entente, Bashkirs and Dagestanis fighting for Tsarist and later democratic Russia. For the Axis, there is the Bosniak division of the SS, for the Allies, the soldiers of Azerbaijan's Soviet Republic and for the resistance, the Albanian partisans. Islam is an integral part of Europe, as can be demonstrated through the centuries of warfare, trade and diplomacy, unless you define Europe based only on Nordic countries, but that's false terminology. [/quote

First of all, those troops you mention were all from Eastern Europe, not Western Europe, and Western Civilization arose in Western Europe, not Eastern Europe. Furthermore, theirs and the. numbers overall were relatively small, and rather insignificant and played only a periphial part, not really an integral part. The Ottomans were never part of Western Civilization and that is like saying the Arabs who fought for Britain were part of Western Civilization and. Germany allied with Japan

The attitude of the United States is irrelevant to our debate. The fact remains that, despite all the hysteria about minarets in Zurich and an innumerable army of tiny toddlers named Muhammad in Stockholm, the victims of the latest genocide in Europe were native Muslims. Religious bigotry played a major role in the massacre, as it can also be corroborated by the participation of foreign volunteers, such as the Greek fascists, whose Orthodox creed united them with the Serbians. Criticising Islam, ridiculing its dogma and parodying its Prophet is fine, dandy and certainly not Islamophobia, but when that indiscriminately targets the believers themselves, then we have a problem. Not only because such hateful ideology usually violates the majority of modern Constitutions, but also due to the fact that it often leads to atrocities, perpetrated either by radicalised individuals or official institutions.

What Muslim genocide? The number of Bosnian Muslims killed don't match the number of Armenians and Assyrians killed by Muslims. In the case of Bosnia, the US and the other European countres of NATO fought to bring an end to the killing in Bosnia, case you forgot.. In any case, Serbia is not Western Europe

[basics]

Getting down to the basics, Mohammed was not a prophet of God for if he was he would have placed himself and his followers under Jesus Christ Who is God. That aside if both were only prophets and from God how is it possible that one disagrees with the other? The commandments of Jesus are much different from that done in the name of Mohammed. How does one love his neighbour if that neighbour has a supposed divine right to kill you? How can anyone make excuses for the actions of Muslims when they don't know where and when the next atrocity is going to happen by Muslims? Islam brought all this on itself by its own actions so if any are wary of Muslims one can see the reason why? Live and let live would be a good start.

[Heathen Hammer]

The elephant in the room is that "Islamophobia" is an oxymoron.
Not just because violence and discrimination of non-Muslims against Muslims is far outweighed by Muslim violence against other Muslims, let alone the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims themselves.
"Phobia" implies being irrational, while being aware of Islam's nature is rational. Criticizing religious tenets of Islam from its abrhamic roots to more specific aspects is rational. Criticizing the way Islamic societies conduct themselves is rational. Criticizing how Muslim immigrants conduct themselves in non-Muslim countries is rational. There is no "phobia" in pointing out that some islamic customs and behavior patterns are barbabric and incompatible with domestic values and ideas of non-Islamic societies, be it Europe or East Asia or Africa.
Therefore, there is no such thing as "islamophobia", as in reality negative view of Islam is mainly due to nature of Islam itself.

[pacifism]

What Muslim genocide? The number of Bosnian Muslims killed don't match the number of Armenians and Assyrians killed by Muslims. In the case of Bosnia, the US and the other European countries of NATO fought to bring an end to the killing in Bosnia, case you forgot.. In any case, Serbia is not Western Europe

Geez, is genocide an arcade game now? It's not a contest.

The commandments of Jesus are much different from that done in the name of Mohammed. How does one love his neighbour if that neighbour has a supposed divine right to kill you? How can anyone make excuses for the actions of Muslims when they don't know where and when the next atrocity is going to happen by Muslims? Islam brought all this on itself by its own actions so if any are wary of Muslims one can see the reason why? Live and let live would be a good start.

To be honest, I think this sentiment is misguided. I don't make criticisms about Islam because I am very ignorant of Islamic theology. I could not explain where or why believers are supposedly allowed to kill disbelievers. I don't know if it's in the Qur'an or some hadith or wherever. I have only read a handful of surahs in my life. But I am aware that there were Christians who wrongly said similar things in the past and occasionally even the present. I don't know if the Islamic case for killing nonbelievers is any stronger than the Christian one. Considering the hundreds of millions of Muslims who seem to go about their lives without killing anyone, it may not be so.

Usually at this time someone will point out some terrible thing that happened in some undeveloped country thousands of miles away as a cautionary tale of the threat that Muslims pose to us. It is true that there are people hurting or killing other people, but the victims themselves are often Muslims. Muslims are the victims of Muslim extremist terrorism more than anyone else, and terrorism is mostly a non-Western problem, and yet Muslims are still expected to endlessly apologise for it anyway. The idea that people fleeing their horrible government and seeking a new life in my country should be met with skepticism and suspicion is a little ridiculous to me. Under those circumstances, who wouldn't want to leave? They should have our sympathy.

[Common Soldier]

Geez, is genocide an arcade game now? It's not a contest.



To be honest, I think this sentiment is misguided. I don't make criticisms about Islam because I am very ignorant of Islamic theology. I could not explain where or why believers are supposedly allowed to kill disbelievers. I don't know if it's in the Qur'an or some hadith or wherever. I have only read a handful of surahs in my life. But I am aware that there were Christians who wrongly said similar things in the past and occasionally even the present. I don't know if the Islamic case for killing nonbelievers is any stronger than the Christian one. Considering the hundreds of millions of Muslims who seem to go about their lives without killing anyone, it may not be so.

The operative word in regard to Christians is "in the past". Christians in the past were no better than Muslims, but the problem that Muslims are doing the killings today, not sometime in the past. If the Muslims were not doing their killings today, nobody would care what Muslism believed.

The fact that Islam's own sources show Muhammad living a life that would have gotten him condemned as a war criminal would bd irrelevant except that many Muslims today are following Muhammad's example as shown in Muslim sources. When Muslims kill cartoonist for cartoons that made fun of Muhammad, they were behaving just like Muhammad. And when Muslims like ISIS members rape their captives, they are only doing what the Quran and the respected Islamic sources gave them permission to.

There are 12 countries where apostacy gets the death penalty, all Muslims. Only Muslims countries have dewth penalties against homosexuals today. This is not a problem of just a handful of Muslims, not when we are talking about entire Muslim countries.

Usually at this time someone will point out some terrible thing that happened in some undeveloped country thousands of miles away as a cautionary tale of the threat that Muslims pose to us. It is true that there are people hurting or killing other people, but the victims themselves are often Muslims. Muslims are the victims of Muslim extremist terrorism more than anyone else, and terrorism is mostly a non-Western problem, and yet Muslims are still expected to endlessly apologise for it anyway. The idea that people fleeing their horrible government and seeking a new life in my country should be met with skepticism and suspicion is a little ridiculous to me. Under those circumstances, who wouldn't want to leave? They should have our sympathy.

Thousands of ISIS members came from Europe, and after they were done raping and killing non-Muslims in the middle east went back to Europe. Are we to feel sympathetic toward those ISIS members? https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...urope-Refugees. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...99392?mode=amp. After having raped and murdered non-Muslims in another country, why should the Muslims.be allowed to come to do the same?

And many of the victims of Islamic.extremist were non Muslims, which you don't seem to have any sympathy.

[pacifism]

The operative word in regard to Christians is "in the past". Christians in the past were no better than Muslims, but the problem that Muslims are doing the killings today, not sometime in the past. If the Muslims were not doing their killings today, nobody would care what Muslism believed.

The fact that Islam's own sources show Muhammad living a life that would have gotten him condemned as a war criminal would bd irrelevant except that many Muslims today are following Muhammad's example as shown in Muslim sources. When Muslims kill cartoonist for cartoons that made fun of Muhammad, they were behaving just like Muhammad. And when Muslims like ISIS members rape their captives, they are only doing what the Quran and the respected Islamic sources gave them permission to.

There are 12 countries where apostacy gets the death penalty, all Muslims. Only Muslims countries have dewth penalties against homosexuals today. This is not a problem of just a handful of Muslims, not when we are talking about entire Muslim countries.

Again, I don’t know that they are following Muhammad’s example or his revelations. I don’t know that the Qur’an teaches that. For all I know, they could be applying the Qur’an as accurately as a Jewish person is “following” the Book of Joshua by calling for Palestinian genocide. Not a single Muslim that I’ve ever met has ever tried to kill me, so maybe there’s a better interpretation out there? It’s a secondary issue to me; I care about ending the violence first.

And it’s clearly not the only form of politically motivated violence out there. Violence committed by right-wing extremist Christians is certainly a problem today, even if an overstated one. In the U.S. at least, a significant number of white – sorry, domestic – extremists, whether it’s conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, or white supremacists, incorporate Christianity into their views in some way or other. One of my home state representatives named Matt Shea wrote a four-page manifesto detailing rules of engagement for a biblical war and creating preparations and training for the event of overthrowing the government, according to an independent investigation. In that report, he was also found to be involved in planning and organizing the two Bundy standoffs that led to a man’s death. I don’t think Christians have been hounded to repudiate terrorism and denounce state Rep. Shea or the Klan or anybody who calls to commit acts of terror in defense of Christianity. Why put a double standard on random Muslims?

I also think that religion is clearly not the sole cause for why Muslim-majority countries are terrible places to live or why there is a terrorism problem there, which the Global Terrorism Index I cited clearly points out. They are all developing nations. Their borders were mostly drawn by the whims of 19th/20th-century European imperialism but were then rapidly decolonized. Only a handful – I’m thinking Tunisia, Indonesia, and maybe Malaysia – are arguably democratic, and even that’s a recent development. There’s also the history to consider: colonialism, the Cold War, and post-Cold War foreign policy. (It’s unsurprising that some non-Western people highlight very different aspects of what Europeans did to the world in the past few centuries.) Those governments don’t exist to answer the voice of the people. They’re run by oppressive dictators and oligarchs who don't have to follow their own laws. Of course there are people who want out of that mess. I would even consider it to be good on them.

Thousands of ISIS members came from Europe, and after they were done raping and killing non-Muslims in the middle east went back to Europe. Are we to feel sympathetic toward those ISIS members? https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...urope-Refugees. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...99392?mode=amp. After having raped and murdered non-Muslims in another country, why should the Muslims.be allowed to come to do the same?

You aren’t confronting at the real problem: how are going to help those victims? They aren’t props to demonstrate how evil Islam is. They are fellow human beings who are against extremism and need help. I want to stop the cruel violence. I want my public officials to not do some short-sighted, ineffective kneejerk reaction and give the terrorists’ victims one fewer country to flee to. What good is restricting immigration going to do? How is that going to stop terrorism? All you’re offering is NIMBY, and even that’s not going to prevents acts of terror because there are still other kinds of terrorists out there too, some homegrown.

I find it hard to believe that tabloid gossip about 4,000 Daesh members smuggled into Europe is enough for you to write off the fates of 5,000,000 Syrian refugees as a hopeless cause. Especially since we’re still waiting for whatever Mr. “trimmed jet-black beard” said is going to happen, seeing how ISIS folded up years ago and those supposed four thousand smuggled fighters haven’t done much of anything since the article was written in 2015.

And many of the victims of Islamic.extremist were non Muslims, which you don't seem to have any sympathy.

Um, excuse me?

[basics]

pacifism,

Why does a Muslim who has been brought up in say the UK his adopted land, strap a bomb to himself and kill the people to whom he owes so much for letting him and his family live and work here? Explain that to me?

[pacifism]

Suicide bombers often offer some kind of justification or rationale for what they do, it's usually publicly available, but I really have no satisfying explanation for why people want to kill and hurt each other. I don't think there is a reason good enough to justify killing another person.

All the suicide bombers in the U.K. were born in the U.K. except for one of the 7/7 bombers who was born in Jamaica. I don't see why they should be any more grateful to the U.K. than anyone else who was also born in Britain. The real question is how do we let events like acts of terror impact us? Is the best response to become, say, terrified of random Muslims, and hate and attack the lot of them? Perhaps it satisfies our sense of revenge, but I don't see how it helps any.

[basics]

pacifism,

Muslim terrorism is a problem all across the world not just in the West, why? The obvious answer lies in what is being preached by certain Muslim holy men which they see as being in accordance with what their holy book tells. That there is serious disagreement in Islam shows this and so whenever we give a home to Muslim immigrants we don't know what side of the fence they are actually in or can be persuaded by until it is usually too late. At very best all we can do is be aware using our intelligence services to monitor as best as they can any threat and deal with it.

[Axalon]

I recognize that both Heathen Hammer and Common Soldier have both provided valid remarks to post:42 - and I largely agree with
what they have said in their respective posts already. All the same, I will offer some additional commentary to Abdül's post as well....

***

Islam has never been expulsed from the European continent, though, but, on the contrary, it can boast an uninterrupted presence there since the 7th century AD.

Not true... Islam has been resisted and rejected ever since it first invaded Europe in the 700's. Ever since, the way it has managed to maintain a presence there is thru wars, oppression and new invasions. That is the only way Islam have managed to stage a presence in Europe for 1300 years. Furthermore, Islam have never survived in one place for longer then 800 years straight in Europe - this was southern Spain. Now a Christian territory, yet again (this for some 500+ years now). Islam was also thrown out in France, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Crimea and the Balkans too, respectively. The only existing exceptions here are Bosnia and Albania (in the Balkans). And those two only exist because NATO intervened and stopped the Serbs from slaughtering all Muslims there. Had that not happened neither of the two would be under Islamic dominance today. Its quite possible that Islam might disappear there anyways given enough time.

That's significantly more than the most recently Christianised regions of the same continent in the extreme north and east, like the Baltics and Scandinavia.

Not really... The fact is that EVERYWERE in Europe - Christianity and Paganism have been around (a lot) longer then Islam ever have. Christianity was present in the Baltics and Scandinavia at least since the Viking age so that means at least 1000+ years (it varies from place to place). The last place in Europe to bend to Christianity - was Lithuania - that happened in 1387. This gives us at least some 600+ years of uninterupted Christian dominance there. Which actually means there are no existing place in Europe today where Islam have actually have had any "presence" of sorts longer then Christianity or Paganism ever have.

Islam survived in southern Spain for 800 years before it was eventually thrown out. Obviously, both Christianity and Paganism have survived in most places (much) longer then that. The ottoman Balkan invasions happened after Constantinople fell in 1453 - which leaves us with some about 650 years. Albania did not really convert to Islam until the 1600's which leaves us with 420 years (and counting). Bosnia was converted in the 1450's but it would take some 100 years before Islam managed to secure supremacy there. This gives us some 550 years (and counting) at most. So Albania have 400+ years of Islamic dominance, and Bosnia some 550 years, for the same. In short, even Lithuania have been Christian for longer then that... Check relevant pages at Wikipedia, folks.

I suppose you are referring to the Reconquista achieved by the Iberian kingdoms, but Muslims continued to have presence in several parts of Europe, like Bosnia, Thrace and Crimea.

Already answered (above)...

By that logic, someone could argue that the Jews were also removed from Europe... ...

The Jews (as a people) have historically never had much chance to really prosper anywhere. Both Christian and Muslim dominance have historically treated them poorly - in different ways, but poorly all the same. Despite all that, the Jews remained all over in (southern) Europe, the same can hardly be said about the Muslims as they all disappeared (save the Balkans).

As a result, Muslims existed in Europe well into the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and, at a certain degree, participated in a few of its major historical events. ... ...

Sounds like you are talking about the Balkans exclusively, and not Europe in general - if so, that statement can be understood as misleading. It is technically true however that various Balkan-Muslims have indeed also fought in all those big wars too. As for colonial troops, they are simply irrelevant in this discussion (as I understand the topic).

Not that, in my opinion, a hypothetical complete ethnic cleansing would legitimise any current harsh treatment of a religious group, solely based on their creed.

If that creed advocate active suppression and oppression of all who do not profess themselves to that very creed - any will to resist, fight and reject that creed is highly understandable and natural - for all people on the receiving end. Its then simply a matter of preserving your own freedom, security, culture and way of life....

Western Europe is supposedly proud of its humanitarian principles, according to which, secularism and religious tolerance are endorsed, while sectarianism and collective guilt are rejected.

In order for such ideas and values to have actual meaning they must first be fully recognized and respected by all - if not, their point (relevancy) are ultimately lost. Karl Popper highlighted such problems with the paradox of tolerance. Islam do not share or value any such views - it has its own set of ideas. Thats a fact. Which essentially makes such reasoning all but irrelevant. After all, the movement we are discussing here (Islam) - openly rejects ALL them concepts that you are calling upon there. Thus, they are irrelevant to such a movement - and yes, that is a problem if we are supposed to uphold and enforce those very principles in Europe (or elsewhere). In short, any "freedom of religion" are simply misplaced and dysfunctional in the case of Islam, I think. After all, apostasy is greeted with death-penalty in Islam - not much religious freedom there, now is it? Even blasphemy is also greeted with death-penalty (the last example I saw on that was from Pakistan). So, there is no freedom there to begin with - why then should it still enjoy and be granted such freedoms and tolerance anyways? Despite it is totally clear that it will not respond in kind? It does not add up, now does it?

The reality is that Islam do not endorse any kind of the freedoms that "the west" offers - by contrast it is highly regulated and restricted. Its utterly totalitarian by nature, not humanitarian or libertarian like the principles western European society was originally founded upon. Islam advocates and expects unconditional obedience and conformity to all its principles and doctrines (there is little doubt about that in the Koran(s)). There are no room for alterations and freedoms here - as that is in open conflict with doctrine (and that will not, and can not, be tolerated in traditional Islam - as outlined by its source materials (koran + hadiths) - which ultimately makes up Islam, universally).

As for collective guilt - Islam never had any problems with that - as it applies this notion to all its enemies all the time (repeatedly). About 90% of ALL terrorist-attacks on the planet are linked to various Islamic perpetrators somehow, and it has been that way for a long time now (here is a list for 2019). One thing is for certain, all those attacks was made on the premise of collective guilt somehow. The great irony is that most victims here are other servants of Islam of sorts, just a different kind - usually viewed as heretic scum - by the responsible terrorists. Yup, it is insane...


***

Anyways, on general terms... Xenophobia is real - islamophobia is not. Criticism and disapproval of Islam is real - any supposed phobia triggered by Islam (or any other ideas or movements) is not. We should not confuse or bunch up any of these things due to that very reason. One thing is real, the other thing is not - it is high time we all started treating these things accordingly. Islamophobia remains a manufactured propaganda device - deployed and promoted by activists. Far too many people have already played the part of useful idiots on this thing - here and elsewhere - and that for far too long, I think. Again, it is high time (more) people realized as much.

- A

[Abdülmecid I]

I'll just point out a couple of historical mistakes made in the post above:

1. Muslims have not been expelled from Cyprus.
2. Albanian Muslims were not being exterminated by Serbs, only Bosniak Muslims partly were, so the existence of Albanian Muslims is irrelevant to the intervention of NATO.
3. Hundreds of thousands of Mulsims also live in Bulgaria and Greece, despite the systematic oppression from which they suffer during the last ccentury.
4. The Ottoman and Turkic interventions in Europe actually happened more than one century before the fall of Constantinople. As a result, Islam has a longer, uninterrupted presence in the Rhodope mountains, for example, than Christianity has in parts of Lithuania or Granada.
5. As already mentioned, Muslims have a long, historical presence in other European parts, besides the Balkans, like the Crimea and the Volga region.

About the rest, both you and Common Soldier are simply moving the goalposts. The discussion concerned Europe in its entirety, not the Nordic countries or the Rhine valley. The same applies for the newly raised requirement of continuous presence, although, as I demonstrated, even with these standards, the claim Islam not being part of the European civilisation fails. Criticising Islam, even fairly, is fine and definitely not Islamophobia. Attacking the adherents of the religion though and condemning them collectively is a typical case of hate-speech, which also falls under the category of phobias. It's an objective matter of terminology and not a question of the Prophet's or the Quran's moral principles. Such an attitude is also in direct contradiction with the values of the Enlightment, like tolerance and secularism, upon which the contemporary European culture is supposed to lie.

[Axalon]

More comments, just because...

Regardling Islam, sometimes, the elites were converted to Islam several decades, after they were firstly installed in Europe, like it happened with the Tatars of the Golden Horde.

This exception can hardly be regarded as representative for anything other then an example of the exception to the overwhelming rule. Suggesting that it were anything else is both misleading and false, if we are to be honest here. Besides, the tartars are hardly an indigenous people of Europe in the first place - one should have been around for at least 1000+ years before one can make any such claims (credibly), I think.

In other cases, like in the Balkans, Muslim populations partly originated from Turkic newcomers, but were also largely consisted of indigenuous populations that converted to Islam in their free will.

Questionable... It was probably just a matter of escaping the permanent 2nd class citizenship (dhimmitude) that was waiting for them if they did not convert to Islam and its warlords. Hardly a compelling case I would say. Rather it is just yet another example of typical Islamic systemic oppression of kafirs - as is so common in world history. Paying the Jizya and the ritualized humiliation that goes with it, then the extra restrictions and lesser rights etc etc. In short, I don't buy it.


*******************

Muslims are the victims of Muslim extremist terrorism more than anyone else, and terrorism is mostly a non-Western problem, and yet Muslims are still expected to endlessly apologise for it anyway.

Well, should not Muslims be held responsible for what they actually profess themselves to? Is it not a personal and deliberate act to profess yourself to a certain movement or ideology? Are we expected to not take responsibility for our own actions? Is that it?

After all, the "extremist terrorism" you talk about here are clearly linked to a bunch of Islamic traditional doctrines, and above all its source materials (the korans and hadiths). The very stuff that ultimately defines and makes up Islam as we know it - universally. It trumps any personal re-interpretation made anywhere, by anyone. Now, if we do declare ourselves supposed "Muslims", we then openly declare our allegiance, support and approval for the Koran(s) and the Hadith's. There is no way around that. Muslims are always expected to show unconditional obedience to the ideas and doctrines conveyed in that source material. Some of which openly advocates brutality, oppression and war against kafirs (unbelievers/non-muslims). Thus, I find plenty of things to apologise for here... Better still would be to just abandon and reject the movement totally...

Again, I don’t know that they are following Muhammad’s example or his revelations. I don’t know that the Qur’an teaches that. For all I know, they could be applying the Qur’an as accurately as a Jewish person is “following” the Book of Joshua by calling for Palestinian genocide.

No offence intended but... In the event that you don't properly understand the fundamentals and mechanics of Islam - it would probably be advisable to stay silent and listen to others that do. Furthermore and just as important... You should always be as reluctant and cautious to defend any movement you don't really know, as you would be to attack it. By the looks of it, you are blindly defending a movement (Islam) you don't really understand (this by your own admission). I wonder, is that ever a good path to follow? And what is supposedly gained by it (in such given circumstances)?

- A

[Alwyn]

When there are attacks on Jewish places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems fair to conclude that the attackers are motivated by irrational hatred of Jewish people. When there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems reasonable to conclude that these are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims. Irrational hatred of Muslims is Islamophobia. These attacks happen in Western countries, so it seems that Islamophobia does exist in the West.

[Heathen Hammer]

When there are attacks on Jewish places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems fair to conclude that the attackers are motivated by irrational hatred of Jewish people. When there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems reasonable to conclude that these are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims. Irrational hatred of Muslims is Islamophobia. These attacks happen in Western countries, so it seems that Islamophobia does exist in the West.

Those attacks were motivated more by revenge and misdirected retaliation for prior Muslim terrorist attacks, so it wasn't "phobia", as much as anger towards the generalized group from where attacks happened as well as frustration from governments typically doing little to nothing to address the problem of islamic fundamentalism in the West. So in either cases, it isn't "irrational fear" but a completely different thing.
A good example would be time of Troubles in Ireland, where both Protestant and Catholic paramilitaries bombed the out of each other and civilians, which stemmed from a sectarian conflict, rather then "phobias" of each other.
Term "islamophobia" is not only an oxymoron, it is often used to justify theocratic Islamist groups and their violence, which is why I would avoid using it, outside of the context of current discussion.
Negative view of Islam in the West stems from several very simple reasons
- Islam is largely foreign to Europe, where it only gained foothold through invasions by foreign non-European powers and forced conversion of the population.
- Tenets of Islam contradict general European mentality, such as Islam's view on women, atheists and other groups
- Islamic societies in general are very intolerant of non-Muslims and above-mentioned groups
- Islamic immigrants rarely assimilate and create "parallel" societies instead where non-European customs like "shariah law" and mistreatment of women are still seen as norm

[conon394]

Islam is largely foreign to Europe, where it only gained foothold through invasions by foreign non-European powers and forced conversion of the population.

Of course the same could be said of Christianity from the great white north the bottom of Argentina.

Tenets of Islam contradict general European mentality, such as Islam's view on women, atheists and other groups

You will at least admit you need to date those times.