Dimentio
8th January 2011, 12:58
Let me firstly begin with stating that some of the criticism delivered against the religion of Islam by Islamophobes or people who are upheld as Islamophobes is indeed correct.
It is correct that Islam is a religion and an ideology which in it's purest form requires that all segments of society are put in a subservient relationship to that ideology.
It is also correct that Islam is based around the idea of world conquest. While not necessarily all people are going to be muslims, the global Islamic Caliphate should rule over all people, muslims as non-muslims.
It is correct that Islam is a sexist, misogynist religion where women are subservient to men. It is correct that in countries with Shar'iah law, brutal and inhumane punishments are usual and mandated through the law.
Islam is an anti-human, biophobic religion which if implemented correctly would entail the death of creativity and progress (and don't bring up the Abbasid renaissance, that had as much to do with Islam as enlightenment had to with Christianity).
This is why the Western World - according to Islamophobes - need to stand with Israel and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, eventually starting wars against Iran, to defend the "western values" and the people of the west against the "hordes of Islam" (Islamophobes seem to hold LOTR and 300 in high esteem).
This is a typical Islamophobic website, I would claim the archetypical Islamophobic website ~ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The Islamophobes base their reasoning on several errors, which we need to deconstruct and be able to argument against in a better way. I will begin with deconstructing their gravest error first.
I. Idealism
The Islamophobes base their reasoning around Idealism, that the intentions and actions of muslims could be based entirely around the Quran and the Hadiths and that the reasons for militant muslims to conduct their activities are guided by a world conquest paradigm.
Often, they seem to think of the Islamic World as some kind of giant, brown monolith with tentacles going back and forth, ignoring the fact that there is hardly any region where the countries hate one another more than in the Islamic World, and that most governments there are corrupt pro-western police states.
They ignore the situation in Palestine and in most Islamic countries, and instead see the poverty and humiliation as a cause of the "barbarism" of Islam rather than a complex set of circumstances where colonialism has had more influence.
If there wasn't Radical Islamism, the Islamic World would have embraced some other militant, anti-western-hegemony ideology such as Maoism, Arab Nationalism or something else.
In short, the war between some radical muslims and the USA/Israel is not caused by Islamism, but Islamism is largely caused by the war.
II. Idealism again
Does the Islamic world constitute a military threat against anyone?
Answer: No.
Even if all muslims in their hearts desired the absolute conquest of the entire world and it's submission under Shar'iah, and to rape all western women and then stone them (which is the Islamophobic caricature of a muslim), it won't necessitate military interventions due to the fact that they don't have the capacity to do that.
There are some very technologically primitive nations around which have racial superiority theories, such as the Massai, who teach that all the cows in the world are the property of the Massai. According to Islamophobic logic, it would be necessary to take out the Massai due to the fear of "them stealing our cows".
Taken to the schoolyard, this logic would entail the gang of popular kids preemptively attacking the unpopular kids and the nerds/geeks because they might harbour resentment.
III. I might loot, rape and pillage, but you - YOU are a bad human being!
In fact, there is an eerie similarity between radical islamists like bin Laden and the Islamophobes in the aspect of "moral supremacy". The only difference is that the Islamophobes (who most often are westerners) actually have the capacity to cause more damage and suffering would they have more influence.
In short, Islamophobes sometimes use the relative (real or perceived) underdevelopment of the Islamic World as an argument for treating them as inferiors.
For example, a usual argument from Pro-Israeli hawks is that Israel is a technological wonderland in comparison with the Islamic World, and therefore has the moral right.
That is actually a rehash of old colonialist arguments and is reeking of notions which should have been buried before 1945. With the same argument, we could defend the British occupation of Kenya or the German occupation of Poland.
No matter if the peoples of the Arab world defecated in their own pants, ate dirt and threw their faeces on westerners, would there be any right to ignore their claim to the right to govern their ancestral lands. No matter if they were cannibals and still worshipped Baal, arranging live child sacrifices, would there be any excuse to establish mandates over them.
None! Ever!
Not even if they were nazis. Because (II.) intent is not the same as the capacity to follow that intent.
IV. Muslims = The Zerg
Islamophobes are using specific "glasses" when observing the world, which is impairing their capacity to judge reality. As we have already established, the prime weakness of the Islamic World is the disunity of the Islamic countries.
Internally, most states in the Islamic World are also weak authoritarian states where the governments lack the ability to govern without foreign support and the ability to stay in power without oppressing their population, which has given rise to a reactionary right-wing radical Islamist movement which is their equivalent to the Fascism of 1920's Italy. These states have one concern, and that is survival.
The Islamophobes don't see that though.
They see a homogenous mass of hundreds of millions of people uniformly adhering to Allah, who are not motivated by actual rational (if misplaced) judgements, but by sheer fanaticism and a sort of hive mind.
For Islamophobes, an islamist who is blowing himself to death in a Mosque in Iraq is doing it just because... well, because.
They see muslim immigrants as sleeper agents who want to give birth to as many children as possible to islamise western societies.
They see the muslims as a collective who share the same interests, notions, prejudices and fears.
V. Conclusion, Islamophobia is the most dangerous ideology in the west today
Islamophobia is rapidly growing, and is increasing cultural tensions both within European countries and between European countries and other countries, and it is partially utilised (in terms of foreign intervention) and partially discarded (as xenophobia).
It is caused by unemployment and destitution of communities following deindustrialisation.
http://www.gendercide.org/images/pics/graves6.jpg
This is Srebrenica, the worst massacre in Europe after WW2.
Islamophobia is not about criticism of Islam, but about hatred against muslims, because it is drawn around racist and supremacist conclusions about muslims and is only working as a rallying cry if you assume that muslims somehow rather are insects than human beings.
Islamophobia might lead to another Holocaust in Europe in ten or twenty years.
It is correct that Islam is a religion and an ideology which in it's purest form requires that all segments of society are put in a subservient relationship to that ideology.
It is also correct that Islam is based around the idea of world conquest. While not necessarily all people are going to be muslims, the global Islamic Caliphate should rule over all people, muslims as non-muslims.
It is correct that Islam is a sexist, misogynist religion where women are subservient to men. It is correct that in countries with Shar'iah law, brutal and inhumane punishments are usual and mandated through the law.
Islam is an anti-human, biophobic religion which if implemented correctly would entail the death of creativity and progress (and don't bring up the Abbasid renaissance, that had as much to do with Islam as enlightenment had to with Christianity).
This is why the Western World - according to Islamophobes - need to stand with Israel and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, eventually starting wars against Iran, to defend the "western values" and the people of the west against the "hordes of Islam" (Islamophobes seem to hold LOTR and 300 in high esteem).
This is a typical Islamophobic website, I would claim the archetypical Islamophobic website ~ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The Islamophobes base their reasoning on several errors, which we need to deconstruct and be able to argument against in a better way. I will begin with deconstructing their gravest error first.
I. Idealism
The Islamophobes base their reasoning around Idealism, that the intentions and actions of muslims could be based entirely around the Quran and the Hadiths and that the reasons for militant muslims to conduct their activities are guided by a world conquest paradigm.
Often, they seem to think of the Islamic World as some kind of giant, brown monolith with tentacles going back and forth, ignoring the fact that there is hardly any region where the countries hate one another more than in the Islamic World, and that most governments there are corrupt pro-western police states.
They ignore the situation in Palestine and in most Islamic countries, and instead see the poverty and humiliation as a cause of the "barbarism" of Islam rather than a complex set of circumstances where colonialism has had more influence.
If there wasn't Radical Islamism, the Islamic World would have embraced some other militant, anti-western-hegemony ideology such as Maoism, Arab Nationalism or something else.
In short, the war between some radical muslims and the USA/Israel is not caused by Islamism, but Islamism is largely caused by the war.
II. Idealism again
Does the Islamic world constitute a military threat against anyone?
Answer: No.
Even if all muslims in their hearts desired the absolute conquest of the entire world and it's submission under Shar'iah, and to rape all western women and then stone them (which is the Islamophobic caricature of a muslim), it won't necessitate military interventions due to the fact that they don't have the capacity to do that.
There are some very technologically primitive nations around which have racial superiority theories, such as the Massai, who teach that all the cows in the world are the property of the Massai. According to Islamophobic logic, it would be necessary to take out the Massai due to the fear of "them stealing our cows".
Taken to the schoolyard, this logic would entail the gang of popular kids preemptively attacking the unpopular kids and the nerds/geeks because they might harbour resentment.
III. I might loot, rape and pillage, but you - YOU are a bad human being!
In fact, there is an eerie similarity between radical islamists like bin Laden and the Islamophobes in the aspect of "moral supremacy". The only difference is that the Islamophobes (who most often are westerners) actually have the capacity to cause more damage and suffering would they have more influence.
In short, Islamophobes sometimes use the relative (real or perceived) underdevelopment of the Islamic World as an argument for treating them as inferiors.
For example, a usual argument from Pro-Israeli hawks is that Israel is a technological wonderland in comparison with the Islamic World, and therefore has the moral right.
That is actually a rehash of old colonialist arguments and is reeking of notions which should have been buried before 1945. With the same argument, we could defend the British occupation of Kenya or the German occupation of Poland.
No matter if the peoples of the Arab world defecated in their own pants, ate dirt and threw their faeces on westerners, would there be any right to ignore their claim to the right to govern their ancestral lands. No matter if they were cannibals and still worshipped Baal, arranging live child sacrifices, would there be any excuse to establish mandates over them.
None! Ever!
Not even if they were nazis. Because (II.) intent is not the same as the capacity to follow that intent.
IV. Muslims = The Zerg
Islamophobes are using specific "glasses" when observing the world, which is impairing their capacity to judge reality. As we have already established, the prime weakness of the Islamic World is the disunity of the Islamic countries.
Internally, most states in the Islamic World are also weak authoritarian states where the governments lack the ability to govern without foreign support and the ability to stay in power without oppressing their population, which has given rise to a reactionary right-wing radical Islamist movement which is their equivalent to the Fascism of 1920's Italy. These states have one concern, and that is survival.
The Islamophobes don't see that though.
They see a homogenous mass of hundreds of millions of people uniformly adhering to Allah, who are not motivated by actual rational (if misplaced) judgements, but by sheer fanaticism and a sort of hive mind.
For Islamophobes, an islamist who is blowing himself to death in a Mosque in Iraq is doing it just because... well, because.
They see muslim immigrants as sleeper agents who want to give birth to as many children as possible to islamise western societies.
They see the muslims as a collective who share the same interests, notions, prejudices and fears.
V. Conclusion, Islamophobia is the most dangerous ideology in the west today
Islamophobia is rapidly growing, and is increasing cultural tensions both within European countries and between European countries and other countries, and it is partially utilised (in terms of foreign intervention) and partially discarded (as xenophobia).
It is caused by unemployment and destitution of communities following deindustrialisation.
http://www.gendercide.org/images/pics/graves6.jpg
This is Srebrenica, the worst massacre in Europe after WW2.
Islamophobia is not about criticism of Islam, but about hatred against muslims, because it is drawn around racist and supremacist conclusions about muslims and is only working as a rallying cry if you assume that muslims somehow rather are insects than human beings.
Islamophobia might lead to another Holocaust in Europe in ten or twenty years.