Islam

Stop Smearing Critics of Islam as Islamophobes

Branding everything a "phobia" stifles meaningful debate.

|

The UK-based Islamic Human Rights Commission has disgusted everyone who owns a moral compass by giving its international "Islamophobe of the Year Award" to Charlie Hebdo.

Yep, that's right—not content that the editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo have already been summarily executed for the "crime" of Islamophobia, the IHRC now wants to posthumously insult them, metaphorically branding their corpses with the i-word so that everyone remembers what scumbags they were.

The IHRC, a charity founded in 1997 to research, study, and bleat about anyone who is less than fawning about Islam, initiated the Annual Islamophobia Awards in 2003. The winners are, of course, not actually anti-Muslim bigots, but simply people who have had the temerity to criticize some aspect of Islamic faith or culture.

So Ayaan Hirsi Ali has won one for failing to show sufficient respect to the religion that ruined her childhood. How dare she! Tony Blair was awarded one as well, proving that even painfully PC politicians who go around quoting the Koran and saying what a wonderful religion Islam is can still find themselves labelled haters.

And now, eclipsing even those previous undeserving winners, Charlie Hebdo has been dishonored with an award. On March 7, exactly two months after the massacre—nice—the IHRC christened that mag the worst of the international Islamophobes. No one from the magazine was available to pick up the award, of course, since many of its writers are now dead.

The IHRC's labelling of freshly-killed satirists is like a post-mortem justification for the massacre itself, a reminder of the "crimes" these people committed prior to being shot at their desks. In fact, it's merely a less bloody version of the Islamic State's habit of hanging a placard around the neck of some poor bloke about to be crucified or pushed off a building: a reminder of the wickedness done by these individuals who are being, or have been, executed.

It isn't surprising that the IHRC's giggling at the dead of Charlie Hebdo has been met with outrage. But now we need to go further. We need to reject, not only the grisly handing of an Islamophobia award to dead cartoonists, but also the very idea of Islamophobia—the word itself, the notion that to criticize or mock Islam is to be disordered and therefore in need of reprimanding or a cure.

We live in an era of phobias. They are apparently spreading like a ravenous blob, turning more and more human minds black with prejudice. Today, it isn't only fear of spiders, clowns, or open spaces that is branded a phobia—so are certain ways of thinking, certain beliefs, moral viewpoints that fall outside the mainstream.

Islam is protected from ridicule not only by the slur of Islamophobia, but also through accusations of "hijabphobia" against anyone who criticizes the veil, and "shariaphobia," which is used to brand as sickly those who think Western democratic nations should have one, universal law applicable to everyone rather than different courts for different folks.

One Muslim writer describes hijabphobia as an "irrational fear" that has "crept into the subconscious of the unsuspecting all over the world." So you might think your dislike of the veil is motored by secular, liberal concern for the treatment of women as frail sexual creatures who must always be hidden, but actually you're sick; you've been infected by a fear of the Other.

Shariaphobia is, according to one dictionary, "fear or hatred of sharia law." The heated debate about the introduction of a sharia tribunal in Texas has led to accusations of shariaphobia. A writer for the Texan paper the Star-Telegram said commentators' criticisms of the tribunal show that "shariaphobia is back." So even the suggestion that we should have one law for all—a pretty standard Enlightenment idea—is now rebranded a weird, dark fear.

The purpose of all these utterly invented phobias is to delegitimize moral criticism of Islam by depicting it as irrational, fuelled by fearful thoughts that the mass media probably implanted in your unwitting brain. It's like an informal, non-legal enforcement of strictures against blasphemy. Whereas the Inquisition branded disbelievers as morally disordered "deniers," today's intolerant protectors of Islam brand critics of that religion as morally disordered "phobes." In Europe, a hotbed of phobia-policing, people have actually been arrested, convicted, and fined for the crime of "Islamophobia"—a direct echo of the Inquisition's trial and punishment of those who, in retrospect, we should probably call Bibliophobes.

It isn't only Islam and its sympathizers who use the phobe label to chill legitimate moral debate. Everyone's at it.

Gay-rights activists have become way too fond of using the word "homophobe," not only to attack actual anti-gay bigots but also to slam people who simply oppose gay marriage, for religious reasons, or who aren't in love with every aspect of the gay lifestyle. Here, too, legit moral viewpoints are reimagined as irrational fears and in the process demonized. Homosexuality was once treated as a mental illness; now criticism of homosexuality is described, in the words of psychiatrist and writer Martin Kantor, as an "emotional disorder."

Heaven help anyone who criticizes any aspect of transgender politics. Question the idea that boys who identify as girls should be allowed to use the girls' toilets at school and you're a transphobe. Wonder out loud if gender is at least partly biological and you're a transphobe. Accidentally call Chelsea Manning Bradley Manning and you're the most foul, irrational, phobic creature in Christendom.

There's also biphobia, lesbophobia, whorephobia (used against feminists who, wrongly in my view, want to outlaw prostitution), fatphobia, ecophobia (for people who aren't eco-friendly and, what's more, think green politics is a crock), and on it goes.

What we're witnessing is the pathologizing of dissent, the treatment of edgy or just eccentric ideas as illnesses requiring silencing or even treatment. It's a cynical attempt by certain groups and their media cheerleaders to opt-out of the battle of ideas by branding their opponents as irrational, and therefore not worthy of engagement.

Pathologizing moral thought has long been the favored tactic of the most authoritarian regimes. Think of the Soviet Union dumping dissenters in lunatic asylums. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, O'Brien, the torturer in Room 101, offers to cure Winston Smith of his anti-authority outlook: "You are mentally deranged," he tells him. "Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To cure you! To make you sane!"

The 21st-century West is rife with O'Briens, keen to cure us of our phobias. We should respond by challenging the phobia-accusers to ditch the name-calling and instead take part in real, honest, moral debate.

NEXT: Meanwhile, in Voxland: Ezra Klein Calls on Al Gore to Run for President

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The UK-based Islamic Human Rights Commission has disgusted everyone who owns a moral compass

    ::taps glass, shakes moral compass::
    Mine must be broken, because I’m not surprised, much less disgusted.

  2. Brendan is just jealous that he didn’t get the award.

    1. He’s a phobephobe, that’s why.

    2. I’d love the award. It’s a badge of fucking honor to be recognized for standing up to barbarity with ridicule and scorn.

    3. I think we can all agree that islamophobe vituperators are just phronemophobes.

  3. Islam is protected from ridicule not only by the slur of Islamophobia, but also through accusations of “hijabphobia” against anyone who criticizes the veil, and “shariaphobia,” which is used to brand as sickly those who think Western democratic nations should have one, universal law applicable to everyone rather than different courts for different folks.

    It’s also protected from ridicule by the bombings, beheadings and mass shootings. Just a little bit.

    1. “I keel you!”

      1. Hey, watch it. That’s insensitive! Say it again and I’ll keel you.

        Hell, I’d keel you for a Klondike bar.

    2. “We should respond by challenging the phobia-accusers to ditch the name-calling and instead take part in real, honest, moral debate.”

      This is from their site: The Islamophobia Awards is an annual event to acknowledge – through satire, revue and comedy – the worst Islamophobes of the year.

      Not unlike Hebdo’s cartoons- we would all be better off keeping satire in the realm that it exists, an avenue to laugh at ourselves and others through the irony of our reality as we perceive it to be. I for one, will never succumb to satirephobia of any kind. Laughing at ourselves is a good opening for honest conversation through a medium that has no boundaries except, the ones we choose to perceive.

      People distrust anything and anyone that is different, period. And when it involves different religions well, we have centuries of examples to know the inevitable outcome.

      Many Muslims dislike and distrust westerners, just as much as many Westerners distrust and dislike them. If we could start an honest conversation acknowledging that, we might actually move forward.

      1. No, this is where you are confused.

        Westerners distrust Islam because Islam is a dangerous political ideology of hatred and oppression.

        Muslims distrust Westerners because it is commanded by Allah to hate, despise and kill, anyone that isn’t a Muslim.

        You cannot have meaningful dialogue with someone that has as a principal motivation, your god sanctioned death and demise.

  4. Does anyone seriously care about the label “Islamophobe”?
    I mean really, have you ever actually seen someone recoil from someone because they got called an Islamophobe. Other than Muslims, I don’t think anyone gives a shit about this word, or even thinks it has any power. The only people jumping up and down yelling Islamophobe at people are Muslim activists and a small cadre of cynical far-left sympathizers that just using ad hominems.

    1. “Does anyone seriously care about the label ‘Islamophobe’?”

      Hazel, I’ve been called that and at other times a terrorist sympathizer (during the W. Bush administration), a racist (especially online during the current administration), a homophobe, an anti-Semite, et cetera, when trying to argue certain points with others.

      As someone else noted, these labels are used to derail the conversation by attempting to negate one side’s arguments.

    2. “…a small cadre of cynical far-left sympathizers that just using ad hominems.”

      I believe we have a member or two of that cadre around here now and then.

      1. Every time I statistically dispell the myth that only a tiny minority of muslims are fundamentalist jerks, I get called an Islamophobe. It’s not my fault that 89% of Egyptians want apostates to be executed.

      2. You are such a finger-pointer.

    3. Doesn’t the “phobe” indicate that the fear / dislike is unjustified?

    4. The only people jumping up and down yelling Islamophobe at people are Muslim activists and the entirety of the left

      FTFY

  5. Elsewhere on the Internet I recall a simultaneously amusing and depressing exchange, which went something like this for over 400 comments:

    “You criticized Islam! Racist!”

    “Islam is not a race (link to Christopher Hitchens video where he addresses this, the precise one I’m not finding on short notice).”

    “RACIST!”

    “Islam is not a race.”

    (repeat 400+ times)

    Also elsewhere somebody actually admitting that smearing the opposition as racist was not actually accurate, but that such accusations of racism were a “convenient cudgel” and thus acceptable.

  6. It’s ok to be scared of scary things.

    Homophobia is stupid because the evidence shows that homosexuality really isn’t that harmful. People who are scared of gay people tend to be scared for irrational reasons.

    I’d argue that Islam is a little different.

    1. homo (same) + phobia (fear) = “fear of the same”

      I haven’t figured out yet if the person who came up with the term was stupid, or intentionally accusing anyone critical of homosexuality of fearing their own homosexuality.

      1. Meh. I guess it just rolls of the tongue more easily.

        1. That’s what he said…

      2. Since people on the right advocate for “the same”, wouldn’t someone who fears the same be a leftist?

        In that vein, wouldn’t Tony, then, be a homophobe?

    2. Irregardless, calling a dislike a phobia literally makes my head explode. Their are only one or too things more irratating than that.

      1. I literally laughed my ass off when I read this. Now my pants are falling down.

        1. Yes – that was grate.

      2. Meh – “phobia” means “aversion” as well as “fear”. You can keep your head on.

        1. Two late. My head literally exploded two.

          1. Will every body please stop loosing there heads?

            It’s getting messy around hear.

            1. Your hurting my ayes.

              1. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MAKEITSTOPMAKEITSTOP

                1. Give me a brake.

                  1. I hope your all happy. Swiss might be permanently blind now.

                    1. “I hope your all happy. Swiss might be permanently blind now.”

                      Why, it’s Switzy!

                      Well, come on in, Switzy. Where’ve you been?

                      Why, he’s carrying a cane!

                      What is it, Switzy? What happened?

                      Why, he’s blind!

                      Blind? Oh, my God!

                      Switzy, is it something we did?

                      What brought you to this lonely state?

                      Switzy, please tell us no matter how it hurts. What did we do?

                      Look, I can’t.

                      Please, Switzy. I must know what we did.

                      What brought you to this?

                      It was… Solecism.

                      Oh, how could we do it?

                      I’ll manage to get along, somehow.

                      We’ll never forgive ourselves.

                    2. +1 Red Rider BB gun

                    3. All you people committing “Word Crimes”…

      3. I guess that makes you a nomatophobe.

    3. They are both Orwellian constructions that convey a propaganda meaning more than convey objective information.

      1. Mickey,

        This is why I think they are overused by those of us who knowingly wish to avoid dealing with objective information, and by those of us who have an irrational fear of something.

        At this point it might behoove those of us who want to have a rational and good faith conversation to avoid using these terms altogether.

    4. I don’t think there are many people who are legitimately scared of gay people.

  7. When used appropriately, I think the word “islamophobe” can be extremely useful.

    Especially when describing those who want to ignore the Fourth Amendment out of fear.

    Especially when describing those who imagine that Al Qaeda or ISIS is going to take over the United States and make our women wear Burkas if we don’t go to war.

    Just because the term may be used inappropriately sometimes sure as hell doesn’t mean it can’t be used appropriately.

    And every American who’s wonderfully proud of being irrationally afraid needs to hear themselves called a “phobe”. The worst thing the Bush Administration ever did was make it seem manly to so many people to be a coward. “Why I’m so afraid, I’ll support torture, invading Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, or anything else the Bush [or Obama] Administration wants to do to fight Muslim terrorism” is more than just cowardly. It’s cowardice of a certain kind.

    It’s islamophobia, and all of its victims need to be called out. Being afraid of Muslims is irrational, stupid, and effeminate. And wanting to squander the lives of American soldiers to assuage your irrational fear is disgraceful. And wanting to subvert the Constitution to assuage your irrational fear is treasonous. And being proud of your fear is disgraceful. That’s what I mean when I call someone an “islamophobe”.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    1. Naturally, our resident Islam apologist had to clear his throat.

      1. Of course, he’s not above using Islam’s famously shitty treatment of women as a cudgel to criticize American gender attitudes of the past.

    2. That’s what I mean when I call someone an “islamophobe”.

      No, what you mean is “I disagree with your policy views, but it makes me feel better to try and belittle you, such as my severely constrained intellect allows, by calling you lots and lots of redundant names”. Which is why you never actually use the term “islamophobe” without copy/pasting this exact same wall of text about cowardly poltroon dishonourable feminine ratfucking doody headed cowards with small pee pees whenever you encounter anyone who doesn’t share your enthusiasm for a religion you don’t even practice.

      1. No, what you mean is “I disagree with your policy views”

        Actually, what I mean is that wanting to subvert the Constitution becasue of you’re afraid of Muslims makes you a coward, a traitor, and an islamophobe.

        1. And you still can’t understand why nobody likes you.

          1. No question, people who want to subvert our Constitutional rights because they’re afraid of the dark–don’t like being called out as traitorous cowards.

            …and that ain’t never gonna dissuade me from calling it like it is.

            For anybody out there who doesn’t want to be called a coward and a traitor for supporting the subversion of our Constitutional rights out of irrational fear, there’s an easy way to avoid that.

            Don’t support the subversion of our Constitutional rights out of some irrational fear.

            Most people here don’t do that. Some do. Like I said, if the shoe fits, they can wear it.

            Those of them who go around fear mongering–with no express solution or outlet for that fear–can all go fuck themselves.

            In some ways, “I’m afraid of Muslims so we should…[ignore the the First Amendment rights of American Muslims] is better than leaving those brackets blank.

            Leaving what we should do because someone’s irrational fear empty just means the next president, Democrat or Republican, will fill that blank it with whatever they like. Be it the NSA, war in Syria, or whatever else their presidential hearts desire.

            Stoking people’s irrational fear for no express purpose is probably the worst of all.

            Fear is the mind-killer.

            1. So criticizing Islam= subverting the constitution? Finding Islam to be an awful belief system means you have an irrational fear?

              Do you dislike Nazism, Ken? Well then you’re a fucking coward with sand in his pussy. Coward. Traitor. Scum.

              1. “So criticizing Islam= subverting the constitution?”

                Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

                No, actually, what I said is that people who propagate fear for the purpose of subverting our Constitutional rights are treasonous cowards.

                And I said that if the shoe fits, you should wear it.

                “Finding Islam to be an awful belief system means you have an irrational fear?”

                Yeah, that’s exactly what I said, too.

                And here’s an illustration to prove my point:

                http://www.fotoblography.com/w…..aw-man.jpg

                1. Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

                  Repeatedly. I know. You disagree with communism, Ken? You a commuphobe Ken? You coward.

                  1. No, I am not afraid of communists.

                    And if anybody can find me saying I was (much less that I’d tolerate a subversion of our Constitutional rights out of fear of communists), I’d be terribly ashamed.

                    Are you arguing that our Constitutional rights should be subservient to our fear of Muslims? If so, are you proud of it?

                    P.S. You’re right if you’re suggesting that the USSR presented more of a threat to American security than ISIS ever will.

                    1. No, I am not afraid of communists.

                      Oh so you don’t disagree with communism? You don’t think it’s a terrible ideology? So you’re a communist then?

                      Are you arguing that our Constitutional rights should be subservient to our fear of Muslims? If so, are you proud of it?

                      For the millionth time, no. Never have. Never will.

                      P.S. You’re right if you’re suggesting that the USSR presented more of a threat to American security than ISIS ever will.

                      No one can stop you from reading what you want to read. Delusion is like a superpower for you.

        2. Well, unfortunately, it is rare that anyone against whom you sling those clever barbs actually matches the caricature you’ve constructed. Therein lies the problem.

          1. Well, unfortunately, it is rare that anyone against whom you sling those clever barbs actually matches the caricature you’ve constructed.

            Don’t worry, he’ll carry on valiantly as though they do.

          2. If Ken really wants to impress me with his fairness and courage, he’ll take a vacation in ISIS-controlled territory.

            1. If you’re an American and you don’t want to get your head chopped off vacationing in ISIS-controlled territory, there’s an easy way to avoid that.

              You’re not suggesting that repealing minimizing our Constitutional rights is somehow justified so we can vacation in ISIS controlled territory, are you?

              Are you suggesting we should go to war in Syria so we can go vacation there without having to worry about ISIS?

              “If Ken really wants to impress me with his fairness and courage, he’ll take a vacation in ISIS-controlled territory.”

              WTF is that statement supposed to mean?

              Are you suggesting that ISIS is somehow representative of American Muslims and the threat they pose to other American citizens?

              If so? that’s stupid.

              1. Ken, taking giant leaps towards whichever preconceived conclusion would be easiest to debate against.

                1. Just asking the question.

                  Are you afraid of Muslims?

                  I mean really afraid?

                  What do want us to do about it?

                  What’s your plan?

                  P.S. Are you proud of being afraid? Isn’t that something you should be ashamed of? I mean, even if being 1 in 20,000,000 Americans was a rational fear–shouldn’t being afraid be embarrassing?

                  Why aren’t more Americans ashamed of admitting they’re afraid? Why do so many grown American men go around proclaiming how frightened they are of Muslims. Never mind not being embarrassed–they’re actually PROUD of being afraid of Muslims! They brag about being afraid. I’ve seen ’em do it!

    3. ^THIS^ ^THIS^ ^THIS^

      Very well stated Ken. +1

    4. It’s islamophobia, and all of its victims need to be called out. Being afraid of Muslims is irrational, stupid, and effeminate. And wanting to squander the lives of American soldiers to assuage your irrational fear is disgraceful. And wanting to subvert the Constitution to assuage your irrational fear is treasonous. And being proud of your fear is disgraceful. That’s what I mean when I call someone an “islamophobe”.

      Yeah Ken, because one can’t simultaneously be critic of Islam and not support any of those things.

      1. Well you can’t critize our President without being a racist so at least those “folks” are consistent.

    5. It is possible to wish not to be blown up at a sporting event or crushed and cremated in a huge building without wanting to have your rights flung down and danced upon. You know that, right?

      1. It’s possible to want to not be blown up in a sporting event and not advocate undermining our Constitutional rights, too.

        Some of us are really good at that.

        Others? not so much.

        What is it that these people want us to do about the fear of being blown up at a sporting event, anyway?

        Invade all of North Africa and the Middle East?

        Abolish Islam within U.S. borders?

        Deport American Muslims by the millions?

        Repeal the Fourth Amendment?

        What is promulgating this constant fear supposed to accomplish?

        It’s been 14 years since 9/11. How scared am I supposed to be, and what am I supposed to do about it?

        I keep hearing lots of fear mongering. Some of it ridiculous horseshit about how the Muslims are going to take over America and make our women wear burkas.

        Everybody who believes that should have their heads examined.

    6. Especially when describing those who want to ignore the Fourth Amendment out of fear.

      Especially when describing those who imagine that Al Qaeda or ISIS is going to take over the United States and make our women wear Burkas if we don’t go to war.

      This.

      Hate whomever you want, for whatever reason you want. I don’t give a shit.

      What you don’t get to do is infringe upon their rights based upon their religion OR kill innocent people because of the actions of others.

      And I couldn’t agree more, Ken, about becoming a nation of cowardly pussies who want to initiate violence because they are afraid of being a one in 20,000,000 statistic. It’s fucking pitiful.

      1. +1

        Fear mongering is what got us into this NSA mess. Fear of Saddam’s mobile anthrax labs and Al Qaeda ties is what got us into Iraq.

        And if people are still spreading the fear of Islam to keep assailing our Constitutional rights, then there’s nothing wrong with calling that islamophobia.

        Fear of being 1 in 20,000,000?

        Yeah, that’s a phobia! What the hell else should we call it?

        1. I assume you disagree with Nazis. Why do you have such an irrational fear of Nazism, Ken? Why are you fear-mongering, coward?

          1. All hail Free Society…

            King of the Straw Man makers.

            P.S. If you’re trying to undermine the Constitution with fear of Nazis, then, yeah, you’re a fear-mongering coward for that, too.

            Speaking for myself?

            No, I am not afraid of the Nazis, and even if they were a legitimate threat these days, I wouldn’t support subverting our Constitutional rights out of fear of them, either.

            1. An analogy isn’t the same thing as a strawman. If I’m an irrational coward because I find Islam to be a repugnant belief system, then surely the same applies to taking the same attitude towards Nazism, no? On those grounds I can assert that Ken Shultz is a traitorous coward. Either that or a Nazi sympathizer but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

              No, I am not afraid of the Nazis, and even if they were a legitimate threat these days

              Oh so you don’t find their ideology to be despicable? I mean ‘dislike’ and ‘irrational fear’ are the same thing to you so maybe I was a bit hasty giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    7. Obviously here on this board, we’re all big fans of the Bush administration, locking up Muslims, overseas Middle Eastern expeditions, and ignoring the Constitution — so is everyone who criticizes Islam. By contrast, those who adore Islam or constantly find themselves apologizing for the religion never do anything like subverting the 1st Amendment, supporting Muslim preferences over citizens’ rights, or favoring an activist foreign policy in favor of Muslim countries, nationalities, or identities.

      Otherwise, this distinction would actually be worthwhile to explore.

      I award this comment with the Bo Prize For Deliberate Misconstruction of Argument. May it serve you well in all your endeavors.

      1. the Bo Prize For Deliberate Misconstruction of Argument

        Are there other “Bo’s”? Is there an Award Night gala? Cna Reason host it and raise money?

      2. If the shoe fits, wear it.

        I think that’s the fourth time I’ve said it in this thread.

        Not everyone who criticizes Islam is a fear-monger.

        But the fear mongers are fear mongers.

        And the devoted fans of our last two presidents–in both parties–have praised our presidents for their fear mongering and have used fear to justify our last two presidents subverting our Constitutional rights.

        Why pretend otherwise?

        When you see someone spreading fear about Muslims in this country, there’s nothing wrong about asking them what they hope to accomplish.

        There are only so many good things that can happen to our public policy because of fear of Muslims. I can’t think of one right now, but I’ll allow for the possibility. Let me know if you think of one.

        There are lots of bad things that can happen in public policy because of fear of Muslims, though. And over the last 14 years, we’ve seen dozens of them.

        1. I think that’s the fourth time I’ve said it in this thread.

          Not everyone who criticizes Islam is a fear-monger.

          It’s just a coincidence that every single person who utters a negative word about Islam on this board is immediately castigated as a pro-invasion genocide enthusiast. It turns out that Ken is just a misunderstood traitorous coward.

    8. OK, any over-reaction to anything can be called “phobic,” but it’s often hyperbole that’s not particularly helpful in any discussion. Some people around here act as if every cop is going to break down every door and shoot every dog, but I’d never call them “policaphobic” or something.

      It’s not a phobia to dislike the religion of a billion people that, as a matter of official religious dogma, mistreats women and gays and doesn’t believe in free speech or the separation of church and state. It’s not a phobia to worry about tens of thousands of terror attacks, which are supported by hundreds of millions of believers.

      1. It’s not a phobia to worry about tens of thousands of terror attacks, which are supported by hundreds of millions of believers.

        In the last five years, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (that’s including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above from the Economist shows, that’s considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning.

        1. True, but this does not take into account the chilling effect the Hebdo slayings and the Rushdie fatwa have. Also, the low probabilities attached to American terror attacks probably has a lot to do with America’s military response to them. The dead don’t attack you.

          1. The dead don’t attack you.

            So why not kill everybody that isn’t you, Hitler Stalin Mao Cytotoxic? I’m sure the US can throw Canadians on to that pile as well. You’ve got some pretty socialist shit going on up there, we better wipe you all out, just to be sure.

            Christ you are a vile, immoral coward.

            1. You demented fags are really defending Islam, and accusing the enemies of Islam as cowards?

              The only problem with the West’s treatment of Islam is that we have not wiped this primordial mystic scourge from the face of the earth. Anyone who defends Islam is not a man of reason, or a man.

              1. You demented fags are really defending Islam, and accusing the enemies of Islam as cowards?

                I’m hoping that’s sarcasm (but Poe’s law).

                In case it’s not:

                No, I’m defending the principles I live by.

                1. If your principles are worth a damn, Islam should be an affront to the dignity of every one of them.

                  1. If your principles are worth a damn, Islam should be an affront to the dignity of every one of them.

                    Yes, I don’t like many Muslim customs as they inhibit liberty. That doesn’t mean I should go to war with them over it, when they initiate no force against me.

                    They may initiate force against others, but I have no vital interest in stopping it, ESPECIALLY when those being initiated upon aren’t at war. If I did, I’d be at war with half the world at any given time.

                    1. Yes, I don’t like many Muslim customs as they inhibit liberty. That doesn’t mean I should go to war with them over it, when they initiate no force against me.

                      I don’t recall saying “we” should go to war with anyone.

                      They may initiate force against others, but I have no vital interest in stopping it, ESPECIALLY when those being initiated upon aren’t at war. If I did, I’d be at war with half the world at any given time.

                      You do have a vital interest in discrediting Islam for the vile belief system that it is,like you would with any system that stands in opposition to a free society. You can oppose someone without shooting them in the face. You can oppose a belief system without killing everyone who believes it, not that Muslims are necessarily aware of that.

                      I really see no difference between attacking Islam and attacking all sorts of other repugnant belief systems like communism or fascism. Anything less than ridicule and scorn amounts to a subsidy of that ideology’s continued existence and spread.

                    2. As I reiterate below. It is war we are debating here. From my initial statement:

                      Hate whomever you want, for whatever reason you want. I don’t give a shit.

                      What you don’t get to do is infringe upon their rights based upon their religion OR kill innocent people because of the actions of others.

                    3. I see one blurb of someone referencing war that wasn’t even directly responded to. But hey, the debate is whatever you want to be, far be it from me to take on arguments as they are.

                    4. Then perhaps you should start at the top of the thread and reread it.

                      It started with Ken:

                      When used appropriately, I think the word “islamophobe” can be extremely useful.

                      Especially when describing those who want to ignore the Fourth Amendment out of fear.

                      Especially when describing those who imagine that Al Qaeda or ISIS is going to take over the United States and make our women wear Burkas if we don’t go to war.

                      The more immediate response you criticised me for was in reply to someone calling me a fag for something I wasn’t doing:

                      Libertarius|3.17.15 @ 12:38PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      You demented fags are really defending Islam, and accusing the enemies of Islam as cowards?

                      To which I replied:

                      No, I’m defending the principles I live by.

                      Meaning that I wasn’t defending Islam but was defending the NAP.

                    5. So you’re on the same strawman bandwagon as, Ken? Anyone whose spent 5 minutes reading Ken Shultz knows that everyone who criticizes Islam and Muslims’ beliefs is an “irrational traitorous coward” that wants to invade other countries. His original post wasn’t even in response to someone advocating war, he just went there all on his own, as usual.

                      Not that it even matters since Ken’s post is far removed from the issue you were being rebutted about. Which started with your disagreement with the following;

                      It’s not a phobia to worry about tens of thousands of terror attacks, which are supported by hundreds of millions of believers.

                      It’s an argument about what exactly constitutes a “phobia” of Islam. As for the actual issue, there is no doubt whatsoever that the assertion that ‘only a tiny minority of Muslims are barbaric’ , is an absolute myth. It’s millions upon millions of them that support the most vile aspects of what some call ‘fundamentalism’ and others simply call ‘Islam’.

                    6. So you’re on the same strawman bandwagon as, Ken? Anyone whose spent 5 minutes reading Ken Shultz knows that everyone who criticizes Islam and Muslims’ beliefs is an “irrational traitorous coward” that wants to invade other countries.

                      FS, is english your first language?

                      Ken didn’t say that here.

                      It’s an argument about what exactly constitutes a “phobia” of Islam.

                      It’s not a phobia to worry about tens of thousands of terror attacks

                      And my response to Papaya SF demonstrates that worrying about a one in 20,000,000 occurrence IS MOST CERTAINLY a phobia, and shouldn’t be used as an excuse to subvert individual rights via 4A violations.

                      As for the actual issue, there is no doubt whatsoever that the assertion that ‘only a tiny minority of Muslims are barbaric’ , is an absolute myth.

                      Again FS, English, do you speak it?

                      Meaning that I wasn’t defending Islam but was defending the NAP.

                    7. …His original post (the one you like to cite) is a direct response to the author of this article telling people to stop labeling all critics of Islam as Islamophobes. Ken expressed his strong disagreement with this position.

                      FS, is english your first language?

                      Ken didn’t say that here.

                      Get off your high horse, you won’t be able to stay there very long defending the likes of Ken.

                      Ken Shultz|3.17.15 @ 4:21PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      What do you want us to do about that, OneOut?

                      Do you want us to invade all of those countries?

                      What’s your plan?

                      He goes there instantaneously. This isn’t my first rodeo with Ken and he’s always ready to lunge at the chance to mischaracterize someone’s disdain for Islam as genocide apologia.

                      It’s islamophobia, and all of its victims need to be called out. Being afraid of Muslims is irrational, stupid, and effeminate.

                      He routinely describes ALL criticism of Islamic belief as this.

                      His hatred for other people’s disdain for Islam is rooted in the belief that it’s all fear-mongering, which regardless of your personal views about invading other countries, inexorably leads to war.

                      Fear mongering is what got us into this NSA mess. Fear of Saddam’s mobile anthrax labs and Al Qaeda ties is what got us into Iraq.

                      I’ve had this debate with him a dozen times.

                    8. Oh and lest I forget that he has some OCD reflex to quote Dune like 30 times per debate. He chants “Fear is the mind killer” to label other people’s position as phobia, regardless of what they say about war.

                    9. Get off your high horse, you won’t be able to stay there very long defending the likes of Ken.

                      1. I don’t defend Ken. I usually disagree with Ken. We’ve had our own rodeos. I defend what Ken said…THIS TIME. Because it happened to be correct.

                      2. What are you going to do, force me to leave? Some sort of threat?

                      You are wrong on this FS. You made an error because you jumped to a conclusion about what was being argued, perhaps based upon past arguments, but you didn’t comprehend what was actually said and attacked me based on your misconceptions.

                    10. Disregard #2 above. I misread “there” as “here”.

                      My apologies.

        2. That’s a poor measure. What were the odds of being killed by a Nazi in 1938? Of being killed by a Communist in 1916 or 1955? What are the odds of being unjustly killed by a cop? That doesn’t mean concern about all those threats to liberty are unwarranted.

          When (depending on the survey) somewhere between 5-90% of a billion people want to establish worldwide religious law that mandates death for apostasy and blasphemy and official second-class status for non-believers, I think that’s a serious threat to liberty.

          1. That doesn’t mean concern about all those threats to liberty are unwarranted.

            The ONLY threat to liberty is the one we’ve imposed upon ourselves due to our own cowardice.

            Patriot act.
            NSA Spying.
            Warrantless wiretapping…

            There is no terrorist organization that poses a strategic threat to the United States of America. They are not the Russians or the Chinese, who at least have a fraction of the capability to be able to land troops on US soil and march into Washington DC. Or to kill millions of Americans from great distance…

            If the terrorists did their absolute worst, got a hold of a couple of nukes, got them passed our defenses and blew up a couple of cities, do you know what would happen?

            The US would continue to be the most powerful nation in the world, the very next day. No foreign power, no terrorist, is going to take our liberties, because none can. The ONLY entity capable of taking American liberty is Americans themselves. And when they do, they’ll use their fear and cowardice as an excuse to do so.

            I’m not a pacifist. When we are attacked, we should hunt down the attackers and bring them to justice. In order of preference, by capturing and trying them or by killing them if the first isn’t doable. What you don’t get to do is blame innocent people for the actions of their radical subcultures and go to war with an entire group for the actions of a few nuts, because they happen to be of the same religion.

          2. America should resist Islam taking over Europe just as much as we did Nazis or Communists.

            We can’t and at this time don’t need to, use the same methods but our leaders need to pull their PC heads out of their PC asses.

            Energy independence should be our first step and refusing to build a pipeline to aid in that process is ignorant.

            Plus it will lessen the opportunities for oil trains derailing like last week.

            1. America should resist Islam taking over Europe just as much as we did Nazis or Communists.

              Why?

              So we need to stop people from practicing the religion of their choice? Is there an organized force of Muslims in Europe dedicated to violating the rights of people living there? The threat is what, Christians becoming a minority?

              Should we do something in the US to ensure whites don’t become a minority? Should we start castrating blacks and latinos? Booting them out, maybe?

              I think there was a guy in the late 1930’s who had similar opinions about Jews. Hop on board boys. Sieg Heil.

              1. Are you being willingly obtuse of are you truely that ignorant ?

                Islam is not just a religion.

                It is a political and economic system as well as a religion. Acting like that is not true is ignorant. and leads to ignorance such as your last two statements.

                Are you truely defending the idea that Europe and the rest of the world would be just as well off if Europe were ruled by the same type as those who rule Iran and Saudi Arabia ?

                Got any gay friends Francisco ?

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-fall.html

                I’ve read other posts of yours here. You’re not that stupid you’re just being argumentative.

                When Muslims rule no one else has any rights.

                1. Islam is not just a religion.

                  A. Yes…it is.

                  B. And I would care, why? I’m not European. What goes on in their region of the world is of no more importance to me that who you are fucking. I don’t care if Europe is well off. Not my day to watch them. They can deal with their own social problems.

                  Are you truely defending the idea that Europe and the rest of the world would be just as well off if Europe were ruled by the same type as those who rule Iran and Saudi Arabia ?

                  Ruled? They are all democracies. They will be ruled as their constitutions allow or as their people choose (in the cases of pure democracy). As far as I know, there has been no force used, in Europe, by any group against another (with the exception of a few criminals), unless you count France telling people what they may wear.

                  1. A. Yes…it is.

                    No it’s a package deal. A religion that happens to require it’s adherents to strive to implement an Islamic legal system, political system and economic system. But yeah, just a religion, nothing more…

                    As far as I know, there has been no force used, in Europe, by any group against another (with the exception of a few criminals), unless you count France telling people what they may wear.

                    While I’ll agree that governments are criminal, do hate speech codes not count as force? Does state enforced multiculturalism not qualify as violence?

                    1. Key phrase:

                      it’s adherents

                      do hate speech codes not count as force?

                      That’s the government implementing those. In this country, they’re unconstitutional. Place the blame where it’s due.

                    2. Just to make sure you haven’t forgot what you wrote

                      They will be ruled as their constitutions allow or as their people choose […]As far as I know, there has been no force used, in Europe, by any group against another

                      That’s the government implementing those.

                      No shit what do you think I’m talking about when I mention speech codes and state enforced multiculturalism?

                      The point he was making, is that the Islamic culture is inhumane and Islamic ideology breeds injustice. If it were the guiding light of western countries, we would not have the prosperous societies that we have.

                    3. The point he was making, is that the Islamic culture is inhumane and Islamic ideology breeds injustice.

                      And is completely impotent to change the US Constitution short of amendment.

                      If the US government is breaking the US Constitution to implement speech codes, that is an entirely different situation. That is inappropriate force, but still, by the government, not a religion.

                    4. And is completely impotent to change the US Constitution short of amendment.

                      And completely irrelevant to the point that Islam is worth criticizing and ridiculing. You don’t quite understand the concept of a hypothetical do you? ***IF*** it were the case that western countries were governed according Islamic principles, we would not have the prosperous society we have today. It’s a pretty reasonable assertion meant to speak to the cultural backwardness of the religion as compared to the values of European civilization, within which Islam has no legitimate place.

                  2. “And I would care, why? I’m not European. What goes on in their region of the world is of no more importance to me that who you are fucking. I don’t care if Europe is well off.”

                    So, your concern for liberty, rights, and the NAP ends at our shores. Gotcha.

        3. So what? I bet you very few Southerners supported lynching. And the chances of any individual black man in the south being lynched were even smaller than the odds you give. Lynching, was however, a big fucking problem.

          That is the worst bit of sophistry Frank. Jesus tap dancing Christ, if me and a group of followers started wondering the country whacking random gay people, the chances of us killing any individual gay person would be near zero. That however, would not make our actions any less of a threat. Your point completely denies the nature of political terrorism. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t kill all or even a statistically significant number of people. Since it is targeted, it doesn’t have to because it only takes a few deaths to achieve its intended effect of terrorizing the larger population.

          1. Thank you, John.

          2. The North didn’t go to war with the South because they were lynching black men. They went to war because they (as a nation-state) seceded from the union.

            Jesus tap dancing Christ, if me and a group of followers started wondering the country whacking random gay people, the chances of us killing any individual gay person would be near zero. That however, would not make our actions any less of a threat.

            Jesus tap dancing Christ, John, if you did, I wouldn’t call for a war, where bombs kill hundreds of innocent bystanders (making their surviving friends and relatives sympathetic to your cause), to eliminate a couple of thugs. I’d capture or kill the perpetrators (you and your buddies) instead. GET IT? IDIOT!

            Sometimes war is unavoidable. When a nation declares war on you and vows to use all assets at it’s disposal to thwart you, it is justifiable to defend against those assets, despite the collateral damage.

            When a group of thugs declares war on you, declaring war on an entire nation or religion is NOT justifiable. Should we have bombed Chicago to get rid of Al Capone?

            1. The North didn’t go to war with the South because they were lynching black men. They went to war because they (as a nation-state) seceded from the union.

              Only because they didn’t have to. Had the Southerners not backed down and started a full on insurrection, they sure as hell would have. And beyond that, so fucking what? You point that we didn’t go to war doesn’t make your belief that since terrorism only kills a few people it doesn’t matter any less stupid.

              And you sure as hell would call for war if the circumstances got bad enough. You tell me, if Iran sends people over into this country and they only kill a hundred people, is that enough? All you are telling me is that you don’t give a fuck if some other country attacks and kills Americans as long as they don’t kill too many, whatever that is. Well good for you. The rest of us are a little harder nosed about that. Sorry but “hey the chances of it killing you are pretty small” doesn’t make me feel any better about people hiding in our population and trying to kill us.

            2. Ultimately Frank, I can’t imagine any circumstance where you would go to war. I seriously doubt an invasion would do it. Maybe the day they actually shoot you in the head you might buy it, but that is about it. You are just fucking terrified to admit that maybe sometimes people will start a war by attacking the US, you have lost the ability to think rationally about this issue.

              1. You point that we didn’t go to war doesn’t make your belief that since terrorism only kills a few people it doesn’t matter any less stupid.

                It proves my point. The North DIDN’T go to war over the acts of a few criminals.

                You tell me, if Iran sends people over into this country and they only kill a hundred people, is that enough?

                Depends. Was it state sanctioned? If so, the state is responsible. Or was it a group of nut-jobs who just happened to be Iranians? In that case the state of Iran isn’t responsible and only those who took part in the action should be held to task. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? Innocent people are not and should not be held accountable for the actions of those they have nothing to do with.

                All you are telling me is that you don’t give a fuck if some other country attacks and kills Americans as long as they don’t kill too many, whatever that is.

                No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. And I think you know it.

                1. Let me be perfectly clear:

                  THOSE WHO KILL SHOULD ALWAYS BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBERS. IF THE ATTACK IS THE ACTION OF A NATION STATE WAR IS JUSTIFIED AGAINST THAT NATION STATE AND ALL WHO GIVE ALLEGIANCE TO IT.

                  WHEN ATTACKED BY A GROUP OF THUGS, THAT HAPPEN TO LIVE IN A NATION STATE, WAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED AGAINST THAT NATION STATE OR AGAINST THOSE THAT HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THAT GROUP OF THUGS.

                  We don’t bomb criminals in America when they kill 100 people. We don’t lay waste to an entire city block to get such a criminal in the middle of it. GET IT?

                  You are holding innocent people accountable for acts they had no part of and for the actions of those they have no allegiance to. And that, is not only wrong, but it’s sick.

                  I can’t imagine any circumstance where you would go to war.

                  Well let’s see.

                  I’d go to war when attacked by a nation state.
                  I’d go to war when invaded by a hostile force.
                  Id’ go to war in defense of an ally if, and only if, the fall of that ally would significantly impact my country’s well being.

                  And that’s about it, so far as war goes. (Thank Christ)

                  I would engage in actions short of war (that don’t harm innocent bystanders) to bring criminal elements that violate the rights of American citizens to justice. (This includes most terrorist organizations).

                  1. And if anyone is irrational about war, John, it’s you.

                  2. Francisco, I think one problem is that you are dividing everyone into states and individuals, but there are complicating factors. One is a religion which doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state. Another is that a religion which kills apostates and discriminates against (if not attacks) non-believers and blasphemers can’t really be said to be “letting people practice their religion.” Another factor is that members of that religion may not need to publicly or actively support criminal acts in order to benefit from them.

                    In a way, Islam is doing a good cop/bad cop routine on the entire world. Don’t fall for it.

                    1. One is a religion which doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

                      Same can be said for a large portion of Christians within this country. So? How does that affect me? Bottom line is, there IS a separation of church and state here.

                      They don’t need to live just like me. They just need to allow me to live as I choose. I’ll return the courtesy.

                      Another is that a religion which kills apostates and discriminates against (if not attacks) non-believers and blasphemers can’t really be said to be “letting people practice their religion.”

                      Lot of that going on in the US? When was the last time a Muslim tried to stop you from practicing your religion?

                    2. Lot of that going on in the US? When was the last time a Muslim tried to stop you from practicing your religion?

                      I don’t understand how the relative powerlessness of Muslims in the US to impose themselves on others detracts from the fact that their philosophy both demands it and wherever they do have the oppressive wherewithal they do so.

                      Should a person only be allowed to criticize Islam generally if he has had a direct personal conflict with a Muslim that lives nearby?

                    3. Should a person only be allowed to criticize Islam generally if he has had a direct personal conflict with a Muslim that lives nearby?

                      Me thinks you need to reread my initial post:

                      Hate whomever you want, for whatever reason you want. I don’t give a shit.

                      What you don’t get to do is infringe upon their rights based upon their religion OR kill innocent people because of the actions of others.

                    4. Methinks you need to reread everyone of my posts that you’re responding to because I never advocated violating anyone’s rights. I advocate ridiculing Islam and Muslims and not subsidizing their culture with unearned tolerance that Islam apologists would have of us.

                      Religion is not untouchable. It’s only fair to nazis and communists that I take a verbal swing at muslims when the opportunity arises.

                    5. Then why are you accusing me of saying you can’t be intolerant of Muslims. I said no such thing. I simply said you may not initiate force against them.

                      That’s what this entire thread has been about, from the beginning.

                      War and subverting rights because of irrational fear.

                      From Ken’s original post:

                      When used appropriately, I think the word “islamophobe” can be extremely useful.

                      Especially when describing those who want to ignore the Fourth Amendment out of fear.

                      Especially when describing those who imagine that Al Qaeda or ISIS is going to take over the United States and make our women wear Burkas if we don’t go to war.

                    6. Then why are you accusing me of saying you can’t be intolerant of Muslims.

                      Maybe because every time I make an argument about the barbarity and inherent inferiority of the Islamic belief system you go on and on about not violating people’s rights and killing them as though that is what’s being advocated.

                      Thank you for reposting Ken’s original post as a fine example of what I’m talking about. Critics of Islam are not automatically supporters of the NSA and opponents of the Bill of Rights.To argue that is the case every time someone makes a disparaging comment about Islam is to attack a strawman. Ken then goes above and beyond by instantly telling whomever he’s arguing that they’re a traitorous coward. It’s pathetic.

                    7. You might actually want to read what Ken said instead of what you think Ken said:

                      When used appropriately, I think the word “islamophobe” can be extremely useful.

                      GET IT? NOT:

                      To argue that is the case every time someone makes a disparaging comment about Islam

                      Further:

                      Especially when describing those who want to ignore the Fourth Amendment out of fear.

                      Especially when describing those who imagine that Al Qaeda or ISIS is going to take over the United States and make our women wear Burkas if we don’t go to war.

                      IF you fall into the above categories, you ARE a traitorous coward.

                      You are arguing with yourself, FS…not with me.

                2. Wait… First you didn’t care what happens to people in far away lands (“What goes on in their region of the world is of no more importance to me that who you are fucking.”) But now you’re worried about innocent Iranians being killed?

            3. “Should we have bombed Chicago to get rid of Al Capone?”

              Yes. Yes we should have.

              1. Too late. And now Chicago has Nicole.

              2. Didn’t Philly bomb some black Panthers and wind up burning down a city block or two ?

                Good times.

              3. Didn’t Philly bomb some black Panthers and wind up burning down a city block or two ?

                Good times.

        4. It’s not a phobia to worry about tens of thousands of terror attacks, which are supported by hundreds of millions of believers.

          In the last five years*, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (that’s including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above from the Economist shows, that’s considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning.

          So? What does this have to do with anything?

          There are muslims engaging in terrorism. T-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-m. That’s creating terror to advance an agenda.They’re doing this right now with a lot of scary videos of beheadings and stonings and immolations and all manner of nasty terrifying actions. And these very public ones have allowed a lot of people to discover that there are a whole fuckton more, each representing it’s own terrorist attack.

          So the people using terrorism are terrorizing their intended victims. It’s not a rational thing. It’s an !!!!! OMG that guy’s getting his head sawn off!!!!! thing.

          It’s terrorism. It’s working.

          *’in the last five years’? really? they couldn’t chance getting 9/11 in there? that’s just cheesy–9/11 is the thing everyone thinks of.

          1. It’s terrorism. It’s working.

            Ask yourself two questions.

            1. How/why does terrorism work?

            Once you know the answer to that, the answer to the second question is obvious.

            2. How does one negate/defeat it?

    9. Ken’s characteristic wall of text is pretty worthless except for its ability to separate the ‘Bo Imitators’ -who cannot and will not make a real argument or respond to the actual positions of others: Ken, FdA, etc-from real people.

      1. So Ken is a good sock puppet detector? Is that because he constantly accuses people of being a sock puppet ?

    10. “If the shoe fits, wear it.”

      Me thinks he protests too much.

      It sounds like you are the true Islamaphobe. If you think kissing their ass will endear you with them you should rethink . Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a political and economic way of life, more statist than any liberal’s wet dream. If you think you are anti-progressive because they are statists then you can’t be intellectually consistent and type drivel like your post above. If you consider yourself a libertarian or even maintain libertarian ideas you should fear them. And to be an apologist for Islam is to champion the loss of freedom. When one Muslim is surrounded by 10 non Muslims he is a moderate. When one non Muslim is surrounded by 10 Muslims none of them are the mythical “moderate Muslim”.

      http://goo.gl/QS7Fh6

      http://goo.gl/JkUYDU

      I don’t fear them as you would like to imply. I fear the spread of Islam because I am aware of it’s true nature and history. If you were smart, or if you truely value freedom and liberty you would feel the same way and stop your silly name calling and branding. Kipling said it best when he said “the border of Islam is bloody”.

      You shoe doesn’t fit me but my shoe fits me just fine.

      1. When one Muslim is surrounded by 10 non Muslims he is a moderate. When one non Muslim is surrounded by 10 Muslims none of them are the mythical “moderate Muslim”.\

        Now this is Islamophobia.

        1. The link is pretty convincing. (Both go to the same article, though.)

        2. Now these are the facts.

          http://goo.gl/1D0PSi

          As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

          This is the case in:
          United States?Muslim 0..6%
          Australia?Muslim 1.5%
          Italy?Muslim 1.5%
          China?Muslim 1.8%
          Norway?Muslim 1.8%
          Canada?Muslim 1.9%

          At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs

          This is happening in:
          Denmark?Muslim 2%
          United Kingdom?Muslim 2.7%
          Germany?Muslim 3.7%
          Spain?Muslim 4%
          Thailand?Muslim 4.6%

          1. From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves?along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
            Switzerland?Muslim 4.3%
            Philippines?5%
            Sweden?Muslim 5%
            The Netherlands?Muslim 5.5%
            Trinidad & Tobago?Muslim 5.8
            France?Muslim 8%

            At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

            1. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

              Guyana?Muslim 10%
              Kenya?Muslim 10%
              India?Muslim 13.4%
              Russia?Muslim 15%
              Israel?Muslim 16%

              After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
              Ethiopia?Muslim 32.8%

              At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
              Bosnia?Muslim 40%
              Chad?Muslim 53.1%
              Lebanon?Muslim 59.7%

              1. From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

                Malaysia?Muslim 60.4%
                Albania?Muslim 70%
                Sudan?Muslim 70%
                Qatar?Muslim 77.5%

                1. After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
                  Bangladesh?Muslim 83%
                  Indonesia?Muslim 86.1%
                  Syria?Muslim 90%
                  Tajikistan?Muslim 90%
                  Egypt?Muslim 90%
                  Jordan?Muslim 92%
                  United Arab Emirates?Muslim 96%
                  Pakistan?Muslim 97%
                  Iraq?Muslim 97%
                  Iran?Muslim 98%
                  Gaza?Muslim 98.7%
                  Morocco?Muslim 98.7%
                  Palestine?Muslim 99%
                  Turkey?Muslim 99.8%

                  1. 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’?the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
                    Afghanistan?Muslim 100%
                    Saudi Arabia?Muslim 100%
                    Somalia?Muslim 100%
                    Yemen?Muslim 100%

                    Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

                    So you can call names and bury your head in the sand Cytotoxic but you can’t change the truth.

                    1. What do you want us to do about that, OneOut?

                      Do you want us to invade all of those countries?

                      What’s your plan?

                    2. What do you want us to do about that, OneOut?

                      Do you want us to invade all of those countries?

                      What’s your plan?

                      I know that’s what you want him to advocate. It makes it easier to label all criticism of Islam as an endorsement of murder. Traitor. Coward.

                    3. One thing the West could do is end all Muslim immigration. When your boat is sinking, at least stop drilling more holes in the bottom.

                      But of course immigration (a.k.a. “freedom of movement”) is a blind spot many libertarians have. In their view, humans are little bundles of rights and economic actions. They carry no cultural values that impact anyone else, and it’s all so abstract that quantity never matters.

    11. “When used appropriately, I think the word “islamophobe” can be extremely useful.”

      Probably correct, though I think pretty rare. Much more common are those who are enthrall to Romantic notions of the Arab world. They can be spotted by their constant repetition of platitudes like:

      “They like to kill.”
      “They place lower value on human life.”
      “They are sexually deviant.”
      “They are trapped in a history they can’t overcome.”
      etc.

      This sort of romantic collectivism gets a lot of airing, even here from self-styled Libertarians,

    12. It’s a far cry between not believing that a religion or culture should be immune from criticism and believing that we should sweep the Muslim world from the face of the Earth in a bloody red tide, and you’re not doing yourself any favors by implying that those are the two choices presented.

      I have an aversion to Islam’s oppression of women and I think sharia law is pointless and stupid at best and barbaric at worst. I’m frustrated by Muslim communities treating radical Islam and associated terrorism like a drunk uncle that they disavow when he’s not around but tolerate nevertheless.

      I ALSO do not believe that any of that gives the government an excuse to violate my rights as a citizen of this country or as a human being. I also don’t believe that gives me the right to use force against anyone else so long as the only thing they’re doing is believing shit I think is stupid.

      Most importantly, I believe conflating the two positions is the lowest form of grandstanding and contributes absolutely nothing to productive discussion and debate, and I’m surprised to see it from you, Ken, to be quite honest.

      1. “I have an aversion to Islam’s oppression of women and I think sharia law is pointless and stupid at best and barbaric at worst.”

        I certainly agree with you here, but believe that the woman’s issues will make their greatest strides in the Arab world. I believe it’s already happening. Putting in terms for the Romantics to understand, their fanatacism and willingness to sacrifice themselves will give them strength beyond their numbers. and their numbers are already large.

    13. Ken Shultz, the expert at calling people Islamophobes. What a fucking joke.

  8. ” What we’re witnessing is the pathologizing of dissent, the treatment of edgy or just eccentric ideas as illnesses requiring silencing or even treatment. It’s a cynical attempt by certain groups and their media cheerleaders to opt-out of the battle of ideas by branding their opponents as irrational, and therefore not worthy of engagement.”

    This x 1000

    Damn well said.

    1. You’re probably one of those crazy global warming deniers who refuses to admit that the science is settled, aren’t you?

      1. Which would also mean I think the earth is only like three weeks old.

  9. Isn’t Islam the religion of the homophobes and gynophobes and demophobes? Not to mention christophobes, jehovaphobes, buddhaphobes, and just general anthrophobes.

    1. No. Islam is the Religion of Peace. You are an Islamophobe.

    2. Yes, but all sins are forgiven if you oppose the West.

      1. ^This. From the Pabst-drinking radical proletariat hipsters to the edgy Gen-X’ers to the enlightened statesmen/-women of the academic and political left, opposition to the West and to the Enlightenment values which made the West the strongest advocate for human rights and happiness is required. It’s the height of fashion.

        1. Everything built by straight white males must be destroyed, even if those values and institutions are at the heart of modern civilized existence.

          1. Progressives are like angry and stupid teenagers, who wish Mom and Dad would just die, and don’t think about who pays the mortgage and fills the refrigerator.

  10. To be fair, there really are such things as Islamophobes. If your the sort who groups every single Muslim in with the psychotic bastards engaged in jihad against pretty much all civilization, yeah, you’re probably an Islamophobe. But, there is a noticeable tendency of some people to group anyone noting that Islam seems to have a problem in that it inordinately creates and motivates such psychotics with genuine Islamophobes.

    1. But, there is a noticeable tendency of some people to group anyone noting that Islam seems to have a problem in that it inordinately creates and motivates such psychotics with genuine Islamophobes.

      See “Sgt” Ken Shultz above.

      1. Cute.

        But, there is a difference. Plenty of Muslims genuinely do take issue with these bastards.

        1. I’m sure there were Nazis who didn’t approve of mass murder of Jews, and Soviet Communists who didn’t approve of engineered famines and gulags. There are plenty of socialists who take issue with the inevitable results of socialism. And so there are Muslims who take issue with the inevitable results of Islam.

          1. “We’re moderate Nazis! We just like some order… and public works! Why you gotta be a germanophobe h8er?”

  11. Lest we get on our high horses, to borrow a page from Obama, repeating the content of this piece verbatim in the comment section of any given Reason article covering gay rights or police targeting of Muslims, say, would elicit precisely the same “-phobe” accusations. To say nothing of the xenophobes on every Shikha article. Simply calling someone you disagree with an asshole doesn’t carry the same implications of moral superiority. And everyone is susceptible to it.

    1. You mean “Dey tuk r jrbs” isn’t an argument?

  12. But what about the Crusades, man?

    1. Yeah, and Grenada in 1492.

      1. Oh, and Charles Martel at Vienna.

        1. Charles Martel was the battle of Tours.

          The famous battle of Vienna was 1683.

          In my HS history course I learned about the former but not the latter. Not sure of the rationale.

          1. “The famous battle of Vienna was 1683.”

            On September the 11th , 1683 to be precise. Where the western armies defeated and destroyed the Muslim army so throughly that they couldn’t regroup and mount another campaign of conquest for years and years.

            Osama bin Laden liked to speak in historical timelines when he constantly referred to taking back Spain for Muslims by calling it Andalusia, it’s old Muslim name.

            Does anyone think it was a fluke that he struck the Twin Towers on 9/11 ?

            1. Odd you should mention that.

              I’m thinking it was in September Samson took the jawbone of an ass and kicked theirs.

              I see a trend here?

              1. The trend might be that you are seeing things where you want to see them.

                Nothing odd about that though ?

            2. Too many refuse to see.

              This kind of thing, if true, is more terrifying than a headless body bleeding out into the sand.

              It says that Islam is fighting a much longer war than the west is even considering.

  13. What about ‘non-racialized phobes’?

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/…..racialised

  14. Can we call statists ‘Liber-phobes’?
    Freedom-phobes?
    Leavemethefuckalone-phobes?

  15. I cannot believe I just read this tedious piece of shit of an article criticizing me for something I don’t do. I will, however, happily admit that the reason why I thought this and all of Mr. O’kneel’s articles for Reason have been complete ordure is because I am a boringcuntophobe.

  16. “”shariaphobia,” which is used to brand as sickly those who think Western democratic nations should have one, universal law applicable to everyone rather than different courts for different folks.”

    The supporters of Sharia also believe the West should have one, universal law applicable to everyone.

    By definition, Sharia is a law code for the entire Muslim world – to impose it on a territory, Muslims must first conquer that territory. Then *everyone* is supposed to be under Sharia!

    1. If Muslims in a non-Muslim country agree, *voluntarily,* to submit their disputes to the arbitration of a religiously-trained arbitrator, that’s not in principle any worse than the longstanding practice of Jews arbitrating their disputes with rabbis. The key is that nobody be threatened with death or injury to induce them to “volunteer” for arbitration.

      1. In some civil matters yes, criminal no.

        If it’s over a late rent dispute no problem, that’s just like arbitration

        If the disagreement is over a honor killing or stoning an adulterer then everyone faces the same justice system.

        We can’t have one religion condoning murder or such just because it is a part of their culture in the ancestoral homeland for an example.

        1. Well, I should have mentioned that arbitration only applies to civil cases, AFAIK. Arbitrating a crime could be seen as a crime in itself.

    2. From the man who supports a Catholic Sharia…

      Priceless!

      1. You have *got* to be kidding me.

        I was Tonio, my previous stalker, back.

        1. *want* Tonio back

          1. Too late Notorioius. Now your secret life is known to us all.

        2. Admit it, your stating your opinion on abortion all the time is the SAME EXACT thing as an extensive code of laws dictating behavior in diet, prayer, hygiene, women’s clothing, and fasting.

          1. And opposing same sex marriage is the same as throwing homosexuals off of buildings and stoning then stoning their crumpled bodies to death. Exactly the same thing.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-fall.html

            1. – 1 stoning

            2. I’m surprised some moderate Muslim didn’t risk his own life and intervene in this gayphobic murder.

              That’s a perfect example of my earlier statement that when there is one non Muslim among 10 Muslims there are no moderate Muslims.

              1. They didn’t stop it for the same reason no one stops the cops when they beat someone to death. ISIS is the government in the territory they control. To interfere is to die.

                1. Exactly my point.

                  There are no moderate Muslims in Muslim countries for that very reason.

                  The only moderate Muslims exist where they are the minority.

                  1. By that logic Americans approve of police brutality because they don’t want to get killed for intervening.

                    1. I think a (slim) majority of Americans DO approve of police brutality. They may not like who its used against, but that doesn’t mean they oppose it on principle.

                    2. Judging by the frequency with which blacks hit their kids, it’s clear that their culture doesn’t have a problem with aggressive violence on principle.

                    3. I don’t think that police brutality is a religion so it’s not the same thing.

                      Unless you are a cop.

        3. Notorious are you a stalkerphobe ?

          1. He’s an avowed theocrat and all around delusion dipshit. I figured you and Eddie were already dating.

            1. Oops. That was for Acosmist.

            2. Now, SugarFree, don’t get your tentacles in a twist.

              1. Did your Malta Knighthood come through yet, O Brave Defender of the Faith? Who but you can stand against the dusky hordes?

            3. He asked me out but I’m married.

              To a woman.

      2. Just ask him out already. The stalking is getting creepy.

  17. You’re an Islamophobia Denier!

  18. Someone needs to point out that that Muslim extremists have not “perverted” Islam, but in fact are following a 7th century form of the religion. The original doctrine practiced by Mohammed. So all the claims that racial Islam is not Islam is BS. More important, comparing the practices of these Muslims to Christians or Jews is also BS. No where in the New Testament does Jesus say for Christians to convert, conquer or kill all non-Christians. Islamaphobe is another form of the racist label used by the left to stop the conversation. Groups like CAIR do not want Americans to understand the truth or history of Islam because if we do, all their claims will be exposed as lies. Islam has one goal, to dominate the people of the world by conversion, or subjugation. Those that resist both, will be killed. The struggle Muslims have is they cannot decide among themselves which is the core of the Sunni/Shiite battle.

    1. I’ll leave it to Muslims themselves to decide what their religion means.

      If they say it means “conquer our neighbors, sack their cities, and take their women,” then the only response is to defend our respective countries from invasion.

      If they say it means “blow people up,” then we need to bring offenders to justice and attack countries which deliberately shelter the terrorists.

      If they say it means “fight an internal battle against sin, and live peaceably with out neighbors,” then I’m down with it, and there *are* Muslims who interpret their faith in exactly that way.

      Let’s not pull the rug out from the latter group by telling them they aren’t being authentic Muslims, and that authenticity requires them to join the invaders and exploders.

      1. I’m thinking it’s the authentic Muslims who are telling them they aren’t authentic Muslims and that authenticity requires them to join the invaders and exploders. What you failed to observe was that, when they don’t, they too are put to the sword. Far more Muslims are victims of Muslims than anyone else.

        Think of it like black crime.

        1. You are right. The fact remains, however, that it is not for non Mulsims to dictate what is “real Islam”. That is up to Muslims to determine. I Muslims don’t want their religion associated with terror and barbarism, they need to help fight those who are causing it to be associated with such.

          Think of it this way. Suppose a significant number of people calling themselves Libertarians embraced white Supremacy and a return to Jim Crow. Would it not be incumbent on other Libertarians to stand up to these people and do everything they could to ensure Libertarian didn’t come to mean “white supremacy”? Sure, you can’t blame the other Libertarians for the acts of the racist ones. You can however legitimately associate the ideology with the harm caused by its followers, especially when the other followers do nothing to stop the harm.

          Basically Islam is their brand. We don’t owe Muslims the duty of ignoring the reality of what a large number of Muslims do in the name of the religion. We can’t judge them individually but we sure as hell can judge the religion.

          1. you can’t judge Muslims as individuals? do you understand that’s bigot speak 101? Can you judge blacks as individuals? Can you judge Jews as individuals? Can you judge women as individuals? Even the idea that you are “judging” anyone shows your thinking is skewed.

            1. Methinks you misunderstood what John meant.

    2. I agree with you.

      They are not radical Muslims..

      They are Islam’s most fundamental believers.

    3. Someone needs to point out to you that very obviously, you are not student of Islam. Your writing shows you have NEVER studied Islam in any formal way. This website is Reason.com. It’s amazing how hateful people hide behind pretending to be reasonable. You are not a Muslim scholar to tell us what “authentic Islam” is. All you know is, there is a radical group out there and you can use them to attack a religious group. White are modern white Western people following Hitler, the Nazis and the racist of 7th Century Europe. Your group is much more dangerous that a group of bandits living on the Iraq/Syrian border.

      1. Why are modern white Western people following Hitler, the Nazis and the racist of 7th Century Europe?

        1. What the hell are you talking about? Didn’t you write the Necronomicon?

  19. What’s really going on here is that most of the western left (which controls almost all of the dialogue) has consciously chosen to side with radical Islam in our new World War the exact same way they sided with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Most of them of course lack the balls to just come right out and say so, but accusing people of “Islamophobia” is one their tried and true passive-aggressive tactics they use to support their allies.

    And the plain unvarnished truth is that we are now in the middle of another World War, although it’s obviously still relatively low-intensity and more akin to the Cold War than World War I and World War II. It’s radical Islam against pretty much everyone else, with some old-fashioned Shia vs. Sunni tribalism thrown in for good measure, which in many ways makes it even more complicated than the Cold War was.

    1. I caught some Islams trying to bomb my sock drawer this morning.

  20. Islam is protected from ridicule not only by the slur of Islamophobia …

    So there is no ridicule of Islam. o-o-o-kay
    And Free Speech no longer protects hate speech.
    Who’d a known?

  21. As long it’s still okay to criticize ‘Non-Liberals’, then what difference, at this point, does it make?

  22. My entry to win this award:

    Them and their fucking magic carpets and hard to digest spices.

    1. Does the award come in a suspicious package and tick like a clock?

      1. Well that’s just a bigoted assumption. Muslim bombs don’t tick or come in box, they come strapped to the chest of a little girl.

  23. “Phobia” is merely an excuse for shutting down dissent by people who don’t want to admit that they’re doing so. The irony in the case of Islamophobia is that many of those who prate of it, by refusing to show certain caricatures that are key aspects of news stories due to a reasonable fear of being attacked if they do, are actually the ones who are afraid (phobic) about Islam.

  24. Good grief. This subject really brought out some nastiness.

    I think Warty already nailed this subject some time back. To paraphrase; The Christian world became civilized when they stopped being Christian. The muslim world will become civilized the day they quit being muslims.

    Until they have their enlightenment Islam is undiluted barbarism.

    1. I pretty much agree with this, but it will never happen all on its own.

      1. It does unfortunately happen on it’s own in a very nasty way. For the west, it took the turmoil of the 30 years war and other brutal wars of religion to make people see their way for discarding the most irrational aspects of their culture. When religion becomes a threat to the survival of your children, religion’s importance will wane.

        1. Europe only embraced religious tolerance after the religious wars made intolerance unbearable. At first England tried to avoid the wars raging in Germany and France through absolute intolerance. Elizabethan and Stewart England were police states. This didn’t work for long as the country eventually had a civil war and religious dictatorship under Cromwell. Ultimately, Europe learned the hard way that there can’t be a mandatory state religion and other religions have to be tolerated or people start killing each other.

          The Islamic world has not figured this out. They think they can make war on every non Muslim and also make war on each other (depending on if they are Shia or Suni) and it is going to work. It won’t. A lot of this was held in check by the Cold War and the fact that most Muslim nations are fucked up shitholes and generally powerless on the world stage. The cold war is over and thanks to asymmetric warfare even the worst backwards shithole can make a lot of trouble. So all of these problems are now coming out and the world is suffering for it.

          In the end, the entire thing is a Muslim problem. The world isn’t going to convert or die at the hands of Muslims. At some point the world’s patience and humanity will finally run out and Muslims will be clensed from any place they are not a majority and murdered in enormous numbers any place they are.

          1. “At some point the world’s patience and humanity will finally run out and Muslims will be clensed from any place they are not a majority…”

            This has happened repeatedly throughout history. Waves of them sweep into parts of europe and asia and then after a while they are thrown out. Over and over. This is why guys like Vlad Dracula end up being national heroes.

          2. In the end, the entire thing is a Muslim problem. The world isn’t going to convert or die at the hands of Muslims. At some point the world’s patience and humanity will finally run out and Muslims will be clensed from any place they are not a majority and murdered in enormous numbers any place they are.

            And that outcome will ultimately be their doing. Islam will reform, but not before the region is thoroughly soaked in blood to a level we can’t even fathom. Western institutions subsidize their culture’s continued backwardness with unearned tolerance and validation. The best thing we can do for the world wide population of Muslims is not tolerate their crimes and let them sleep in the bed they made.

          3. “most Muslim nations are fucked up shitholes and generally powerless on the world stage. ”

            ..with the exception of Arabia, which may change when the USA becomes an oil exporter again.

            This is one of the reasons why I’m eager to see decentralized power generation. I want to see what happens in the middle east when we don’t have to hand them a trillion dollars a year for oil anymore. They might all have to develop real economies and reassess their relationship to the only first-world economy in the region, the way that Egypt and Jordan have.

            -jcr

      2. It does unfortunately happen on it’s own in a very nasty way. For the west, it took the turmoil of the 30 years war and other brutal wars of religion to make people see their way for discarding the most irrational aspects of their culture. When religion becomes a threat to the survival of your children, religion’s importance will wane.

      3. Mike I think it has to happen all on it’s own for it to be real.

        But in the mean while the West needs to protect itself from the flames.

    2. Do you really think either religion is inherently barbaric? I really don’t think so. Both faiths have been picked up and used by tyrants to divide people. Neither one need be barbaric inherently.

      1. You apparently don’t know the crazy shit that vast numbers of Muslims believe.

        1. Do they think someone raised the dead or walked on water? Or that T. Rex ate only coconuts? Or that a world wide flood deposited sea shells on mountain tops and all that water magically drained away to vast underground lakes?

          I mean, any crazy shit like that?

          1. Yes that crazy shit and more to the point. Like that apostates should be killed and adulterers should be pelted with stones until they die.

            Are you aware of Islamic policy preferences? It’s startling when libertarians defend Islam because their barbaric beliefs are rooted in superstition, but when progressives and socialists sinister beliefs are on the table, you’re perfectly capable of seeing how those beliefs don’t jive with your values as a libertarian.

            1. No religious values jibe with mine. I’ve been hating religion for years now. You’re just hopping on a bandwagon.

              1. What bandwagon have I hopped onto, pray tell? You’re the one who assumed I’m a Christian just because I said a vast number of Muslims believe crazy shit. Which they do.

          2. “Do they think someone raised the dead or walked on water?”

            Do Christians kill you if you don’t believe that? Does someone believing that threaten you in any way ?

            Talk about false equivalence.

            1. So it’s not about believing stupid things, it’s about acting on them? Gosh, it’s almost like I’m supposed to judge people as individuals or something.

              1. Great point, it’s not like the belief’s that dominate a culture will cause individuals in it to tend to behave and think a certain way.

                Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
                http://pewresearch.org/assets/…..df#page=60

                World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
                32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
                41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
                38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
                83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
                62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
                42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
                A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
                (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
                About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
                http://www.worldpublicopinion……09_rpt.pdf

            2. Do Christians kill you if you don’t believe that?

              Not lately, but there was a time when Christians fought wars over how to calculate the date of Easter.

              These days, the biggest Christian faction (the papists) pretty much only kills people by preaching that using condoms is a sin. Lesser factions (Jehova’s witnesses, Christian “science”) kill people by getting them to forego medicine for superstition.

              -jcr

    3. The Christian enlightenment didn’t mean they were no longer Christian.

      It just meant that we are enlightened Christians.

      That is the purpose of the New Testament.

      1. The Enlightenment, as in the historical rediscovery of rational philosophy at the expense of mythology. I’m not sure what the “Christian enlightenment” is exactly. Is that where they had a big meeting and decided claim ownership of a philosophical movement that advanced humanity by secularizing society? (that they opposed every step of the way)

    4. Until they have their enlightenment Islam is undiluted barbarism.

      So, you’re a paid recruiter for ISIS. Islamaphobia is only an issue because of those who apply a negative stereotype to all Muslims.

      They may never have their enlightenment//reformation because it’s much easier these days to simply emigrate to a western democracy.

  25. Being purposefully bigoted towards Muslims is wrong, and screaming “Islamaphobe” to silent dissent is wrong. I’d argue that the latter is more prominent, even if bigotry is still a problem.

    Next question.

  26. my neighbor’s mother makes $86 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her check was $12427 just working on the internet for a few hours. see it here…………..

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  27. Give me a break. In the case of Islam, nobody should forget this religion commands lying and murder. I do not believe any other religion in the modern world does that.

    Within Islam it is very easy to justify murder of any individual who leaves for another religion. Who does that? The Mafia?

    Taquiya. Look it up. The principle of holy lying is why Muslims will always be asked the same questions with repetition.

    Possibly someone will come up with counter examples, but the principle stands.

    1. The principle of holy lying is why Muslims will always be asked the same questions with repetition.

      Which non-Mulsims are doing the holy lying? Is it just extreme social conservatives who are bigoted about darn near everything — especially the wacky notion that the Quran is more barbaric than the Old Testament

  28. The “phobia” label is idiotic. Whatever the Charlie Hebdo editors were, they demonstrated great bravery in defying thugs who wanted them to shut up.

    -jcr

  29. wrong western standards for Islam http://waltherpragerandphiloso…..esque.html

  30. “Stop Smearing Critics of Islam as Islamophobes”

    Is it the same to say, “Stop Smearing Critics of Israel as anti-Semite”?

    1. How about when criticism becomes assault, becomes murder?
      Can we now call you anti-Semitic?
      Do we have to wait for another Holocaust?
      Or do you one of these who believe it never happened?

  31. Bravo!
    Reason magazine has rediscovered it’s roots.
    and has strayed from the Rothbard reservation.

    For a further exploration of related issues, read what the
    Libertarian Defense Caucus has to say about Jihadism.
    Just Google the phrase. Thank you.

  32. How about we start an award of our own:

    The Feral Human Award.

    Given to that individual or group who has demonstrated the greatest desire to reject civilization and return to animal savagery. For this year, we could consider this collection of scum, ISIS, and the entire gaggle of middle school mean girls referred to as “Social Justice Warriors”.

  33. Phobias: “Irrational Fear of X”
    If I don’t like law breakers am I in fear of them? No.
    If I don’t like cowardly murdering anti-semites, am I afraid of them? Bring it on and find out.

  34. So what is it?? You are rolling along just fine and then have to spoil things with the legalizing prostitution bit. It’s like finding a dead body in Mother Teresa’s closet. Leave it alone for crying out loud, it makes you look like a kook.

  35. it is very unreasonable and illogical that you obsess over insulting me over my prayers. Can you logically explain how my prayers hurt you so much that you write long article explaining the need to attack me over my prayers? Maybe you are right and you don’t have a phobia, but then the only other “logical explanation is you are stuck in historical unending white hate.

  36. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her income was $12752 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out the post right here [][][][]-==-

    ===== FOX81.COM

  37. Islamaphobia: A phobia is an unreasonable fear. Just what is unreasonable about fearing people who enslave, torture, and kill you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.