Countering islamophobia

[Catmatic Leftist]

Help me with arguments countering islamophobia please. I know someone who was quite progressive in her beliefs and I am worrying that she is developing a turn towards fascism. I posted a link to the video on "My Tram Experience" and she starts posting a rant about how the immigrants are ruining white's experiences and starts quoting outright fascist sources like marmiteman4 to back up her arguments. I guess this is quite symbolic of the times; in economic downturns some people turn towards reactionary politics because it is so easy to blame "immigrants" and "foreigners". It is quite scary and I am concerned for her well-being and I would like sources and readings and books and ideas for counter-arguments.

Thanks.

[Tim Cornelis]

You need to be more specific; examples of islamophobic arguments for example.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I frankly don't see why nationalism would be inherently wrong, in fact it can be a strong preservation of culture.

For example, the French are quite non-violent, and even mocked by the U.S. for surrendering and being less war-like, but their nationalism is still strong, and they expect you to at least *attempt* to speak French in their country and are proud of their culture. And why not? Why should ANYONE sacrifice their own culture? Nationalism doesn't necessarily equal aggressive attacks upon other cultures, but simply preservation of one's own way of being, and seeing that France has some of the best cooking and films and overall lifestyle in the world, I think it is to their credit.

I really wish people would differentiate between someone being an aggressive threat and being proud of their own culture.

As I've already mentioned, I happen to *like* the distinctive world that wasn't necessarily blended, and one world order is just ...retarded.

My recent thread that got shut down is about a similar topic, in terms of preservation of distinct European culture rather than having to acquiesce to various Arabic Muslim groups. If these people took over the largest landmass in the history of the world with the Ottoman Empire, I don't feel that white European Christians owe them jack shit, because they're equally as capable of colonialism and domination themselves, and I think it's foolish not to suspiciously watch them for signs of it, as they largely are displeased that their 1200 year reign ended in 1800, and its puzzling to them that they don't dominate...because their more extremist factions DO WANT a one world Muslim order. The traditionalist Sunni Muslims believe in a "one man" leadership over large groups of people.

You could argue the Pope in Rome wants something similar, but he also doesn't bomb people in order to attempt to achieve those ends.


It's okay. Let's just say we don't want to join their culture because of the violent imperialism of the Ottoman Empire and call it even.

Except it's not even.

The Muslims have actually owned THE largest empire in the world.

Not only that, but their entire faith is in building a political empire united with faith inextricably, and their actual prophet was a plunderer.

Don't let @Shahada bother you. Her name means the single word that is required for a person to become a Muslim, even though she says she isn't one. It is THE Muslim statement of faith.


Why don't you look into how many immigrants are on welfare while you're at it?

It's fascinating to me, the assumptions. People just function on autopilot. Anyone who complains must be ignorant white trash - there can't really be anything going on.

And of course Britain is the only Empire that ever existed, the Ottoman Empire apparently never existed in some of your minds, and neither did the actions of China.

It's the most limited, annoying thing I've ever witnessed.

White people didn't do everything wrong, and we don't owe everyone something. This dogma has to be stopped. There was truth in the beginning, I agree, but it's gotten out of hand.

Do you know who sold African slaves into slavery? North African Muslims.

These are humongous fucking problems that span CENTURIES, and if anyone thinks that recent events in the Western world automatically patch up anything that the Muslim world ever did, you're sadly mistaken.

It's like they've been waiting for their chance to ascend again. If you want that, that's on you, but I for one, do not.

Muslims in Europe are also heavily engaged in Anti-Semitism so anyone calling them the new Jews is sadly, ironically wrong. The Jews are the new Jews.


If "white trash" is an acceptable, proper label, so is "nigger" and "spic" and "Jap" and "kike."

I don't believe I came in here using words like "sand nigger" and "towel head" despite my disagreement with the nation of Islam, because I'm intelligent enough to comprehend that that a person can be Arabic and atheist, et al.

By the same token, I comprehend that a person can be white and have legitimate concerns about protecting his or her own culture, and he or she can even be a poor white (since when is it so trendy to slam poor people of any color? I notice that it's like this subtle form of classism that middle class people enjoy participating in...it's fun to make fun of impoverished or disadvantaged people as long as they're white? and YOU'RE the one who is supposedly "politically correct"? LOL) and have an opinion without being labelled as such.

People would get their asses ripped in half for saying such a thing about these precious Muslim strangers who may or may not be enemies, but you won't even defend the poor who is indigenous to a nation or culture.

Quite telling. I've reached a point in my life where I've begun to see underneath at all, and I recommend studying history further back then just 80-100 years for you to get a complete picture of how black, brown, Jewish, and Muslim people are just as nasty when given the upper hand as some Christian whites.


The influx of Muslim immigrants into Western countries is bringing a heavy, pervasive Muslim influence to the rest of the world. Just when we were getting rid of extremist Christianity (aside from a throng of mouth-breathing morons here and there in the U.S.) now we have to contend with this SHIT.

It's not that I do not like Islamic people - if you're brown, born in Pakistan, whatever, fine, I have nothing against you. This isn't about race.

This is about a group of people aggressively bringing an archaic, sexist, hierarchical and largely UNWANTED culture out into other countries.

I have always been very liberal and I like the idea of cultures learning from each other, but this gives me a sick feeling, even when I see it on television and on the Internet. Something is WRONG about it, and I don't think that it should be passively tolerated on a cultural level.

I think Muslim immigrants should be turned away back to their own countries.

Why do Western countries have this obligation to always take everyone in, anyway?

What is that about?

Feel free to hate me, but it's something I was thinking of when a group of people expectedly took the non-thinking PC route and *****ed about racism in that "My Tram Experience" thread...and it occurred to me....you know...that lady is drunk and lower class, but she's expressing something that's actually VERY REAL and possibly very wrong that's going on in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_In_Europe


I'm glad you're so self-righteously liberal, but after spending hours reading about the history of Islam and its fundamental precepts, and also about the serious problems that are realistically occurring in Europe at this time, I don't think of myself as a bigot, but as someone who is keen the knowledge of what fundamentalist Muslims believe and how they plan to "conquer" as they're not especially pleased that their old violent, conquering empires went out of style. You'll pardon me if it doesn't gladden my heart that a religion with a fierce history of being intrinsically statist and militaristic is sweeping the globe.


But the Muslim faith is intrinsically prejudiced against those who are not Muslim. I am deeply frustrated with the assertion that Islam is no different from Christianity, when in fact that Qu'ran encourages EXTREME, GRAPHIC violence toward non-believers and Muhammad himself was a man of violence. While atrocities may have been committed in the name of Christianity, the simply fact remains that Jesus was inherently peaceful, and because Muhammad was inherently a mass murderer, there is no real redeeming value to Islam.

I was quite tolerant of it before I actually learned about it, because as I say, I am a liberal. But now I feel as though people who tell me to be tolerant of Islam are about as rational as people who might tell me to be tolerant of the Ku Klux Klan.

This is not to say I think all Muslim individuals are violent, or that I want to hurt them in any way, but that I sincerely believe the fundamentalist version of their faith can never amount to anything of worth in the modern world. How could it? Their "prophet" initially had a violent message, so that can't be reconciled.


It's fairly simple. Anyone who kills in the name of Jesus is not actually practicing Christianity. There are perverted forms of Christianity, but if one is to follow the teachings of Christ, one learns forgiveness and acceptance...many of the nastier aspects of Christianity that remain today actually come from the Old Testament, and are a warped interpretation of outdated Jewish kosher laws about things like facial hair, clothing fibers, and homosexuality which Jesus officially put to rest when he taught that love was the highest law and that it is what comes out of a man's mouth - not what he puts into it - that causes sin.

On the other hand, a Muslim is perfectly justified in killing in the name of Muhammad, according to the Qu'ran. Their holy book actually advises in a straight-forward manner that it's perfectly alright to be violent toward non-believers, or jihad. The book actually advises ATTACK, too, not self-defense...if it were merely the difference between pacifism and self-defense, we could debate soundly that it's okay for Islam to preach self-defense. But it does not. It actually preaches attack and plunder. Islam is a religion of vengeance which hearkens back to pre-Christian times. It's almost like it takes the teachings of Jesus and makes them null and void. How comforting. Not only that, but in Islam the laws which segregate women are even more barbaric than even the original Jewish laws in the Torah.

I was horrified to realize that Muhammad had married a 9 year old girl, as well as all of his violent pirate-like plundering and conquering. The "heaven" full of 72 virgins is absurd as well, as they are mindless soulless creatures created supposedly for the pleasures of men, as well as finding out that Muhammad believed that "hell" was primarily filled with women.

It doesn't seem that there's any equality or freedom or dignity for women at all within Islam, and I sincerely why a women would be a Muslim unless she was brainwashed from birth and/or had no other choice.

Islam seems completely counterintuitive to all other world religions.

And no, this is not the religion I want becoming the majority culture in Europe. We have a say in these things, and there is no reason to sit passively by and allow it to happen.

That doesn't mean bringing harm or judgement to individual Muslims, but being certain to push back their culture, which is why I say their immigration should be limited.

If a Muslim person of Arabic origins wishes to free themselves from their culture of birth, that's one thing, but if they refuse to assimilate and have plans to "overtake" the culture around them, that's entirely another...and no, I don't think they should necessarily be allowed to immigrate in the numbers that they have. I think countries have every right to set limits.

This isn't even comparable to Mexican immigration to the United States, which is largely peaceful and most Mexicans assimilate on some level, not to mention that they don't bring in a bizarre, violent religion with them when they come.

I think there should be strong restrictions on Muslim immigration without it being referred to as bigotry. There comes a point where tolerance is stupidity and naivete.


I think countries have rights to set boundaries and protect their own cultures.

I don't think anyone has the obligation to sacrifice their European or Christian culture out of some kind of inappropriate ...PC bullshit.

Attacking Muslims for no reason: wrong.

Disallowing Arabic peoples of Muslim birth to immigrate if they choose to leave behind their culture to some extent and assimilate: wrong. In fact, I'll be the first to argue that many of those women, especially, should be supported in leaving the religion Islam for their own health and well-being.

Negligent allowing of Muslims to immigrate in droves and refuse to assimilate to the culture they're invading: also wrong.

I happen to like European culture and I don't think it should be wiped out. I think it's insane to passively stand by and give into the demands of these people who could quite easily go back to their own fucking country if they want to be extremely conservative, fundamentalist Muslims. Hey, if they want to live that way, fine...but they should go back to their own country and do so.

The question you need to ask is whose rights are actually being compromised here - is it the rights of these immigrants, or is it actually the rights of Europeans to maintain the cohesion of their own cultures. This becomes especially problematic when considering the gross intolerance that seems to be a fundamental tenant of Islamic creeds. We should tolerate intolerance? What a joke.

This is an example of liberalism being taken too far. It reminds me of someone saying "don't allow your mind to be so open that your brain falls out." You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. I'm sorry if I annoy you with these Southern platitudes, but for the first time in my life I'm actually pretty disgusted by the invasion of another culture. It seems wildly imbalanced and excessive. Something is wrong about it. It seems less about pluralism and more like...taking over.


Tolerance and acceptance of other human beings is entirely different than tolerance and acceptance of an offensive philosophy.

For example, I don't think that Christians who refused to tolerate slave holders or the KKK were being any less tolerant of individuals, but they were rightly intolerant of unethical behavior.

No one is suggesting that anyone be violent toward Muslims (I am certainly not), nor suggesting that anyone should be cruel to individuals simply for having been born Muslim...I'm not even saying that we should end the practice of Islam in Middle Eastern/North African countries...I'm saying it doesn't belong in Europe in large numbers and should absolutely NOT be allowed to spread.

these.

[Azraella]

Your friend has a fucked up view of Islam.



a Muslim is perfectly justified in killing in the name of Muhammad, according to the Qu'ran.


There is plenty of support for pacifism in regards to what the Koran actually says.

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/005-qmt.php#005.028

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/2109/THE_PACIFISM_OF_ISLAM_

While I do not believe in Islam, I am very aware of the theological arguments for a pacifistic life espoused by Sufis and many other Muslims. There is violence in the Koran, of course, but it doesn't mean that Muslims completely support a violent forced conversion of the entire world into a theocracy.

[Tim Cornelis]

It often baffles me that people feel the need to grab unto history for arguments that are completely divorced from it. The person in question does it, but from the replies (talk about an empire) you seem to have done it. You seem to have argued that we owe them because we exploited them, which means collective responsibility for generations long.

I would dismiss all the talk about history (slavery trade; Ottoman empire) as irrelevant because it assumes a static monolithic group that exists unaltered throughout centuries.

I would argue every individual is entitled to sovereignty of his person, hence any limitation in the form of national borders abridges freedom. This builds on the common sense notion that more freedom is preferable to less freedom. If she argues freedom is not desirable she is lost.

She is correct in stating that the new Jews are the Jews because anti-semitic attacks are higher than islamophobic attacks.

By playing the "victim" card as you seem to have done you have given her the upper hand in this discussion.

I suppose what you could point out is that Islam is being threatened by the West and not vice versa. Islamophobes seem to be under the impression that a minority of the population is somehow to control the majority. Mass immigration is also utter nonsense. If we look at the Netherlands we see for example there were more Muslims in 2008 than in 2009. Muslims in the Netherlands visit Mosques less than American Christians do churches. Most of them have never read the Qur'an. And more and more female "muslims" eat pig meat, and do not cover their hair. Muslim boys have sex, drink, and do drugs like normal teenagers and do not grow a beard. Islam is threatened by Western culture, not vice versa.


Why do Western countries have this obligation to always take everyone in, anyway?

I would argue what entitles you to live in England, and why is someone from Kazachstan, or Brazil, not entitled to live in England? There is no sensible reason why a person of English descent is allowed to live on that island, but a Brazilian or Kazach is not. What is the justification for this? That those people were not born here? Soil? That they are not English? Blood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_soil


But the Muslim faith is intrinsically prejudiced against those who are not Muslim. I am deeply frustrated with the assertion that Islam is no different from Christianity, when in fact that Qu'ran encourages EXTREME, GRAPHIC violence toward non-believers and Muhammad himself was a man of violence. While atrocities may have been committed in the name of Christianity, the simply fact remains that Jesus was inherently peaceful, and because Muhammad was inherently a mass murderer, there is no real redeeming value to Islam.


It's fairly simple. Anyone who kills in the name of Jesus is not actually practicing Christianity. There are perverted forms of Christianity, but if one is to follow the teachings of Christ, one learns forgiveness and acceptance...many of the nastier aspects of Christianity that remain today actually come from the Old Testament, and are a warped interpretation of outdated Jewish kosher laws about things like facial hair, clothing fibers, and homosexuality which Jesus officially put to rest when he taught that love was the highest law and that it is what comes out of a man's mouth - not what he puts into it - that causes sin.

This is not completely accurate. Muhammad was a military commander, yes. But in a Qur'an verse it says that muslims should cease fighting if their opponents have ceased fighting. This is the verse that is often cited as encouraging war, but the part about muslims having to stop fighting is conveniently left out. The bible too encourages "graphic violence" towards non-believers, the old testament at least. and in the New Testament Jesus is quoted saying he will kill the children of a prostitute if she does not stop sinning in Revelation 2:22-23: "I [Jesus] will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

And in Matthew 15:1-9 of the New International Version (NIV) Jesus upholds one of the ten commandments saying:
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."l

in other words, Jesus criticises people for not upholding the Biblical law of killing children who curseth their parents.

Lastly, the New Testament makes several other references to the Old Testament proving it upholds the laws of the Old Testament, for example in I Corinthians 14:34-35, it says:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Incidentally, this also shows Christianity is anti-women. more reactionary bullshit from the New Testament:

Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives

Despite the prevalence of Christianity in, say, US culture women do not follow this anti-women nonsense. Most Christians probably have never read the Bible, like many muslims in Western countries haven't read the Qur'an.

Ultimately, Muslims are no threat to "western" values of personal freedom because they will be succumbed by the human drive of sex, and freedom under the influence of Western society.

[Azraella]

Most Christians probably have never read the Bible, like many muslims in Western countries haven't read the Qur'an.

Either that or discard the problematic parts. My husband is a Christian anarchist for example and is very knowledgable in theology and the Bible. Ze rejects the idea of the infallibility of the Bible, as it's current form is the utter creation of men.

[Catmatic Leftist]

Are there any sources of professional academic quality on the issue of Islam, the situation in Palestine/Israel etc?

She is now getting belligerent and engaging in all out verbal abuse towards the muslim participants on the forum. Unfortunately one of the mods is really biased against me and leftists in general and he just intercepts all of my reports. I think it would be best if I just stay out of this from here on out. However, I would like some ammo for conversations like these in the future.

[Lanky Wanker]

Shouldn't this thread be about countering nationalism instead?

[cheguvera]

I feel that religions /religious preachers, language & nationality, politicians/dictators & super rich are the main obstacle for the global revolution.