Islamophobia the Myth and the Truth

Fri, 02/11/2012 - 13:00
Share this

By Imnokuffar- What is “Islamophobia?” Islamophobia refers to an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims as an identifiable group- Runnymede Trust.

The term was first used in artist Etienne Dinet and ethnographer Sliman Ben Ibrahim's L'Orient vu de l'Occident (1925), which briefly refers to an "Islamophobic delirium" ("accés de délire islamophobe").

It was popularized during the 1980s and 1990s by writers associated with the British Muslim magazine Q-News, and came to international prominence following the release of the 1997 report Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All, published by the Runnymede Trust's newly-established Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.

The Runnymede Trust is a charity and here is part of its mission statement “Runnymede is working to build a Britain in which all citizens and communities feel valued, enjoy equal opportunities, lead fulfilling lives, and share a common sense of belonging”.

In other words this charity is part of the Multicultural/Politically correct establishment.

What it seeks to do is to undermine traditional values such as family, heritage and (white) communities and to promote their replacement with their twisted multicultural values that favour minorities over the majority.

Islamophobia is a construct that is designed to validate the notion that Muslims are a persecuted minority within society.

This notion of persecution is designed to make people feel guilty in the same way that the idea of racism or sexism is supposed to make one feel.

The construct of Islamophobia however interposes another idea; that Muslims are innocent victims of unfair western societies and more importantly that their beliefs have no relation to their actions such as terrorism.

This is blatantly untrue but is the current media construct and “justifies” Islamic terrorism because Muslims are a persecuted minority not only according to them; but according to the mainstream media, politicians and theoreticians such as the Runnymede Trust.

The definition of Islamophobia according to the Runnymede Trust is identified below with my comments. (Bracketed)
I apologise in advance for the length of this article, however I hope that you will persevere with it as it tackles some very pertinent questions.
The Islamophobia report identifies eight patterns of behaviour that characterize Islamophobia:

1. "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change."

 
Islam is in fact highly diverse, and has changed its shape many times during its 1,400-year history.

There is no reason to believe that Islam is any less likely to change in the future than Christianity, Buddhism, or any other global faith.

This is simply untrue. Islam has an inherent inability to change; in fact the word of the Koran is immutable and unchanging as it claims to be the unvarnished word of God.

The various interpretations of the Koran the Hadiths & Suras that seek to explain the meanings in the Koran are in accordance with the basic repressive values set out in it.

One of the proofs that Islam is static and unresponsive is that there have been only 9 Muslims who have ever won the Nobel Prize compared to 116 for the UK.

Muslims, who constitute 21 percent of the world’s population of around 6.83 billion, have produced only nine Nobel laureates. Four were from Egypt and one each from Palestine, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Bangladesh.

Three of them—the late Prof Abdus Salam of Pakistan, Iran’s Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh—were victims of religious and political persecution, which reflected not only the intellectual paralysis but also the repressive mindset that dominates the Islamic world.

The other two were Yasser Arafat (Nobel peace prize !) and Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk.

The other point to be made is the Islam is monolithic and is characterised by rigidly fixed uniformity. Whilst there may be differences between various sects within Islam often relating to practice and who should have been the successor to Mohammed, ALL Muslims follow the teachings as set out in the Koran.

Not to do so seen as apostasy and is punishable by death. The Muslim cult has never been reformed in the same way as Christianity underwent during the reformation. Nor will it ever be.

Perhaps a clue to why this is, is because 75% of the adherents of Islam cannot read and therefore cannot question.

Whether this is intentional or just a product of their “faith” is open to question.

2. "It is seen as separate and 'other.'

It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them."

Islam bears strong similarities to Christianity and Judaism, and differs regionally depending on cultural considerations.  

Whilst having some similarities with Christianity and Judaism Islam defines itself as superior to both and even goes so far as to say that its adherents are “the best of men”.

This relegates all believers of other faiths as being inferiors. Islam is often seen as “the other” precisely because it is.

Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy.It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head.

Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.

The much trumpeted Turkish democracy is now under threat as the Islamists are slowly undoing the work of Kemal Atturk.

If you look at Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and all the countries of the so called Arab Spring they are mostly headed by Islamists who are intent on forming a new Caliphate with the express intention of transforming the west into another Islamic enclave, reclaiming lost territory (such as in Spain) and enslaving the unbelievers under Islamic strictures.

This is increasingly happening under a resurgent Islam in all the countries infected with the Arab Spring syndrome whereby secular law is increasingly being replaced by Sharia law.

Islam is indeed separate and does not have any values in common with other cultures or civilizations.

It only affects them through the violence of its adherents, through terror and subjugation of the other.

This is its intent and reason for being.

3. "It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist."

The point about sexism, in particular, is often used to silence the voices of Muslim women, who by their religious identity are considered unworthy advocates for their own rights and interests.

This perspective, in turn, enables sexism.
According to the Qur'an, the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man, therefore by definition women are silenced by their own religion that treats them as inferior.

It is not the Kuffar who impose this it is Muslim men and the Quran. Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims).

Atheists are to be killed outright.

The practice of stoning women and men, female genital mutilation, suicide bombings, child marriage (paedophilia) and honour killing are all testimony to barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist nature of Islam. No other belief system practices, promotes or condones such actions.

4. "It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations."

The anthropomorphization of Islam, where an entire religion with over one billion adherents is reduced to a single entity with a single set of cartoonishly villainous objectives, enables wholesale discrimination against the many on the basis of the behaviour of a few. Evidence shows that wherever Islam spreads violence is its consequence.

The takeover of large parts of European cities and the subsequent decline into outright no go zones, characterized by violence, drugs and third world conditions shows this.

The argument that it is only a few Muslims who take to terrorism is a myth. One survey showed that up to 5% of Muslims would turn to terrorism if provoked (say by a cartoon or a film).

This is a substantial minority consisting of millions of Muslims out of a population of 1.5 billion.

The other point to be made is that if it is only a minority, how come the majority does not stop them, but rather stands to one side whilst this minority supposedly defames their beliefs and religion that is trumpeted as being a ‘Religion of Peace’?

The truth of the matter is that Islam is inherently violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and is engaged, as it has always been since its inception at war with any civilization that stands in its way.

5. "It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage."

All religions, and many secular ideologies, have been exploited for political purposes at some time or another; Islam is not unique in this respect.  

Islam is cult that governs all aspects of life for its adherents and has no conception of secular society, law or civil rights. Indeed, Islam has no respect at all for democratic niceties labelling all secular concepts of law, society and civil rights as ‘man made laws’. "The Qur’an is full of direct and indirect, implicit and many times explicit indications that show that the establishment of the Islamic order is a requirement on Muslims whenever possible. ‘If a Muslim believes that there is any human being who has the right to make laws other than Allah then obviously this is total divergence from the path of Islam.

Or any person who believes that secularism is superior to the law of Allah, and then he's violating the basic Q’uranic tenets’.

This is according to the Ayatollah Khomeini.

6. "Criticisms made of 'the West' by Muslims are rejected out of hand."

The demonization of Muslims allows industrialized Western nations to ignore many of their own human rights violations.  

The human rights violations of Muslims make any comparison with the supposed human rights violations of non-Muslims a complete farce.

As pointed out before practices such as stoning, beheading, female genital mutilation, terrorist attacks, suicide bombings and a complete lack of accountability or democracy from the higher echelons of Islamic society are rampant in all Muslim countries.

Islam is characterized by its implicit ability to lie, cheat and steal then blame the other for the consequences of their own actions. Any criticism of Islam is always met with violence or the threat of it.

This is borne out by the Muslim reaction to the film “Innocence of Muslims”, the cartoon debacle, and the two thousand terrorist atrocities that have happened since 9/11.

The difference between western and Islamic societies is that there is accountability; Islamic states have none and justify their repressive behaviour as being in accordance with the word of God.

Who can question God?
The ultimate goal of the Muslims is to make it a criminal offense to discuss their motives and goals of the jihadis, thereby rendering us mute and defenceless in the face of their advancing threat, and to compel the West to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws, and ultimately the rest of Sharia as well.

Muslims are expert at blaming the victim and playing the victim.)

7. "Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society."

 
This is the element of Islamophobia that often becomes most relevant from a civil liberties perspective.

In recent years, conservative politicians have worked to prevent the construction of mosques in Tennessee and New York City (in blatant violation of the free exercise clause), supported ethnic and religious profiling of Arabs and Muslims, and instituted McCarthy-style hearings to root out purported Muslim and pro-Muslim individuals.  

Here, the author is referring to the fact that there was a massive reaction to the proposal to build a Mosque right next to the remains of the destroyed World Trade Towers.

That this was to put it politely not exactly welcome or sensitive to the many people who lost loved ones in the mass slaughter that occurred on that site.

Muslims have a tendency to institute or convert sites where they have conquered into Mosques.

Muslims forbid the building of churches in Saudi Arabia, Oman and increasingly in other countries where they have become the majority.

They actively destroy churches in Pakistan, Indonesia, Africa and have now started to do the same in virtually all the Arab Spring countries.

Muslims are not excluded from western societies; in the vast majority of cases they exclude themselves through hostility to it. )

8. "Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal."

“This enables the secondary function of Islamophobia, which is to marginalize non-Islamophobic non-Muslims from the cultural mainstream. “  

The vast majority of people are so brainwashed by political correctness that they actually believe that Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’ and defend Islam.

They mistakenly see the issues brought about by Muslims as being racial, whereas the fact is that Islam is not a race; it is a cult. They buy the line that it is only a minority of Muslims who present a threat.

That is unless they live in close proximity to them which most of the liberal commentators do not.

The people who defend Islam are mainly from the western cultural mainstream and you can see them on any talk show where Islam is being discussed.

The political class are nearly without exception in thrall to Muslims who they depend upon for votes or who are so corrupted by cultural relativism that they see no difference between Muslims and others.

This is due to their sheer ignorance; they have no knowledge or understanding of the threat Islam poses and more importantly do not want to.

Too have a critical or rational mindset about the cult of Islam would completely upset their utopian view of the world.
To say that that “non-Islamophobic, non Muslims are marginalized is nonsense.

There are high energy Muslims (Baroness Warsi springs to mind) are in fact supported by functionally dysfunctional PC/Multicult idiots who are assisting in the demise of our culture and civilization.)

“Some critics of Islam draw a distinction between anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Muslim sentiment, in much the same way that some anti-gay writers take a "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach towards homosexuality.

Regardless of the intentions of Islamophobes, however, the outcomes in both cases are fairly consistent (and similar to the outcomes of homophobia): bullying in schools, hate crimes in the streets, and discriminatory policies instituted by elected officials.”  

This statement attempts to stigmatize those who have legitimate concerns about Islam. The fact of the matter is that practicing Islam cannot be divorced from being a Muslim with all that entails.

Muslims in Britain and across the world are a protected class. Special exceptions are made for them in virtually every field of Endeavour.

From providing Halal meat in schools to making special exemptions for them to pray and the more exceptions that are made, the more they want and demand.

Often it is the case that Muslims themselves are discriminatory towards the Kuffar and their institutions such as the armed forces, it is they who burn poppies, call for the deaths of soldiers, bully and harm non-Muslims in schools, rape our young women and of course, who promote and practice terrorism.

Take the issue for the Copts in Egypt for instance. Since the new Islamic government has taken over, churches have been burnt or demolished young women kidnapped and forcibly converted, then married to their rapists.

Tens of thousands of Copts have left or been forced to leave their homes due to threats and actual killings, thousands of Copts have been killed; there are gangs of Muslims who are extracting Jizyia that is a tax on unbelievers with the connivance of the police and government.

However there is nothing on the MSM about this.

Why ? Because they believe the propaganda published by such illustrious institutions as the Runnymede Trust.

Finally there is an argument to say that hostility to Islam is justified due to its overt discriminatory, anti-democratic and barbaric ideology.

The authors of this report fail to mention anything that depicts Muslims in a bad light as it would be “discriminatory”. This is a failure of conscience as well as being a failure of due diligence and intellectual clarity.

Anti-Muslim sentiment is not just confined to those who are religious. It is a rational and appropriate response to a threat. It is increasingly becoming the norm with secular people in Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

People who see their basic civil rights being threatened by the takeover of the institutions of the state by Muslims.

These civil rights are concerned with such things as equality under the law, the rights of women and minorities such as Christians, Jews (where they are allowed to exist at all), Hindus and any faith other than Islam.

Islam is proving to be the biggest threat to western democracy and the rights non-Islamic peoples that the world has ever known.
However because it is classified as a “religion” it is exempt from the same examination and sanctions that were (rightly) imposed on Communism.

The Runnymede Trust and other institutions like it are dangerous to all people(s) who value their hard won democratic freedoms and human rights.

They are the real enemy within.
The most pernicious thing about the Islamophobia myth is that once it is used to legitimize Muslim grievances, it is then used to legitimize the violent Muslim response to those grievances.

Once you accept that Islamophobia is a serious problem, you have taken the first step to justifying violence as a response to that problem.

That is how it begins once the narrative of Islamophia is accepted Muslim terrorism becomes legitimized as a resistance to it.

Once you accept that Muslims in the UK or any other country in the west have been marginalized by an Islamophobic society, then criticizing their religion marginalizes them further and justifies their violent response.

The ONLY political party that has the clarity and vision to see and understand the issues involved in this subject is the British National Party.

 

Help Nick Griffin and the British National Party Protect Our Poppy

Click on Poppy Image below for more details



Please read our posting guidelines before posting a comment

If you liked this news article, please donate online or by ringing 0844 8094581 to help with running costs and improvements of this website. If operators are busy, please try again.

Having trouble posting your comment? Do you want help or have feedback about the usability of this website? If so, then please visit http://www.bnp.org.uk/feedback/website

If you like what you read on this website, please join the British National Party, the party that will always put Britain First.


Join online by clicking here today

 

Join today from just £2.50 per month:

OAP - £2.50 per month
UNWAGED - £2.50 per month
STANDARD - £4.60 per month
FAMILY - £5.58 per month
GOLD - £8.75 per month
OVERSEAS - £8.75 per month
PLATINUM (GOLD + Newspaper)- £10.41 per month
OVERSEAS GOLD - £10.41 per month
OVERSEAS PLATINUM - £12.98 per month

 

Salutation:

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Phone No: