Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Western Islamophobia vs. Increasing Anti-Semitism. Who Are We Kidding?

...Dictionaries define the term “anti-Semitism” as discrimination, prejudice or hostility toward Jews for no other reason but their Jewish heritage. Islamophobia is similarly described as discrimination, prejudice and hostility being unjustly directed at Muslims. Superficially, these definitions are almost identical. Closer examinations of their meanings, however, reveals very obvious differences

Canary in the Mine..
Guest Post..
First Posted 07 January '16..

There is so much talk these days about Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination, yet worldwide statistics demonstrate convincingly that, despite all the atrocities committed by Muslim extremists, anti-Semitism is actually growing much faster than anti-Muslim fervor, especially in Europe.

This is a rather fascinating observation, considering that Jews in Europe never threatened the lives of others, never proselytized their religion and never wanted to change their host countries’ governances. Radical Islam openly threatens innocent lives on a daily basis and openly proclaims its goal of upending Western society and democratic government structures in favor of Islamic Sharia law. This is no longer only a desire of radical Islam; the Muslim Brotherhood, considered by much of the European Union and the Obama administration to represent moderate Islam, is openly committed to governance under Sharia.

Threats no longer come from just the radical sectors of Muslim countries. The same ideology expressed by longtime radicals is now expressed by recently-radicalized Muslims living in Western societies, where they (or their parents) had settled to supposedly improve their lives over what they had left behind. Now, they paradoxically attempt to convert their host nations to the same 16th century-style governance that they (or their parents) fled before receiving sanctuary in the West.

Yet despite increasing fear of radical Islam, statistics in European countries and the U.S. persistently record significantly more anti-Semitic than Islamophobic hate crimes. The reasons are unclear but, at least in Europe, growing Muslim populations, characterized by overt societal anti-Semitism, are widely suspected as a principal cause of this.

Dictionaries define the term “anti-Semitism” as discrimination, prejudice or hostility toward Jews for no other reason but their Jewish heritage. Islamophobia is similarly described as discrimination, prejudice and hostility being unjustly directed at Muslims.

Superficially, these definitions are almost identical. Closer examinations of their meanings, however, reveals very obvious differences: While anti-Semitism is directed at a peaceful religion and a well-integrated ethnic minority, to many that are full participants in their local societies, Islamophobia represents a different phenomena, and is a far more urgent concern.

First of all, it is didactically misleading since phobias are irrational, psycho-socially abnormal behavior patterns, and concerns about radical Islam are neither irrational nor psychologically abnormal behavior. The term, therefore, is factually incorrect because, in contrast to Judaism and all other major world religions, Islam is not only a religion but also a political movement with its own distinct anti-democratic political ideology.

If one were to discriminate or express prejudice and hostility toward Muslims because of their religion, such activity would be labeled as anti-Semitism. To publicly express opposition to the political ideology of Islam, which is anti-democratic and contradictory to constitutions of practically all Western democracies, cannot, however, be labeled as discriminatory, prejudicial or hostile to a religion. The protection of a democratic constitution against undemocratic dictatorial forces is, indeed, the sworn duty of every citizen in Western democracies.

Nobody would be considered a religious bigot just because he opposes Communism, Fascism or other dictatorial ideological movements. Yet, criticism of Islamic political ideology immediately conjures the b-word, and raises the specter of Islamophobia. If the Muslim Brotherhood (widely present in most U.S. mosques, and representing most of the organized Muslim political power structure in the U.S.) were to restrict itself only to representation of Islam as a religion, it would be viewed as are representatives of any other major religion. But by actively propagating the introduction of Sharia in their many mosques, the Brotherhood becomes a political organization whose goals are incompatible with the U.S. constitution.

Paradoxically, it is exactly the political ideology of Islam that explains the strong association that the political left in Western democracies has forged with Muslims over the last few decades. On first impression, such a coalition would appear unlikely since the political left has, traditionally, been secular. Yet, despite the obvious religiosity of Islam, its religiously motivated anti-democratic tendencies, its radical discrimination of women and the ideological overlaps between Islam and the third-world, anti-imperialistic socialist ideology (including anti-colonialism, anti-Judeo-Christian morality and strong, third-world, underclass affinities with people of color) have established a strong emotional as well as a political alliance between the political left and Islam.

This coalition has been developing since the mid-1960s, and came together for the first time following the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War in 1967, in which Israel annihilated the combined armies of the Muslim Arab world and conquered all of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria. Suddenly, the prior underdog, Israel, morphed in the eyes of the political left into a White European Colonial outpost in the Muslim Middle East, obviously overlooking the fact that almost half of Israel’s Jewish population were not of European descent but actually refugees from African and Muslim countries. Picking up the argument of the Muslim world, the political left concurred that the Crusaders had returned and conquered Jerusalem again: but that this time, the Crusaders were not Christians but ‘The Jews.’

Friday, March 1, 2013

Turkish PM Erdoğan, Zionism and Islamophobia

Fresnozionism.org..
28 February '13..





Just like Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism, it becomes unavoidable that Islamophobia must be regarded as a crime against humanity — Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, at a UN summit on tolerance [!] in Geneva.

Funny, I have always thought that crimes against humanity were things like the Armenian Genocide, which for some reason Mr. Erdoğan failed to mention.

It is difficult for me to see how Zionism, the movement to allow the Jewish people to finally achieve self-determination in their own land, to finally end their contingent existence and subhuman treatment, compares to clubbing Armenian babies to death.

And why didn’t Erdoğan mention another ‘ism’, Palestinianism?

While Zionism says that Arabs may be citizens of a Jewish state, racist Palestinianism denies that Jews may live in a Palestinian one. Palestinianism calls for the destruction of the Zionist state, while Zionism advocates coexistence. And Palestinianism has been the father of the murderous terrorism that plagues the world today.

He did mention Fascism. He could have expanded on this, discussing the relationship between Hitler and one of the founders of Palestinianism, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Husseini incited pogroms in Mandate Palestine, raised an SS division that murdered Jews in Yugoslavia, incited a major pogrom in Iraq, made broadcasts for the Nazis calling on Arabs to kill Jews, helped former members of the SS find sanctuary after WWII, and more. Talk about crimes against humanity!

As the story linked above mentions, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who was sitting right behind the Turk, didn’t seem to notice anything amiss. Not surprising: the UN, which oozes multiculturalism, seems to draw the line at defending one particular culture, that of Jewish Israelis.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Eurabia and the Recrudescence of Antisemitism

Daphne Anson
17 January '11

Recently, Berlin-based journalist Benjamin Weinthal, a Fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, observed, in an article entitled “Dangers of Ignoring the contrasts in Euro hatreds," which appeared in last week's Jewish Chronicle, that

‘It is now a commonplace in Europe to regard antisemitism and the more recent phenomenon, "Islamophobia", as much of a muchness. Yet there are important historical distinctions between the hatred of Jews and anti-Muslim prejudice. While European Muslims are without question subject to discrimination and violence, no reasonable observer could claim that they face the prospect of a Final Solution-style extermination plan....

Last month, Richard Herzinger, of the German daily Die Welt, neatly captured the wrongheadedness of Europe's new political conviction when he stated that "it is not 'Islamophobia' that is the antisemitism of the 21st century, but antisemitism."

Writing in Libération last November, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner noted that the idea of Islamophobia originated in revolutionary Iran. In Bruckner's view, allegations of Islamophobia allow Islamic radicals to blunt criticism of extremist Islam and rationalise the rejection of secular Western values. In short, "Islamophobia" is a gagging order. But ... Bruckner and the few journalists and academics who question the rhetoric of Islamophobia are a minority.

(Read full "Eurabia and the Recrudescence of Antisemitism")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Muslim Prayer Rugs and Jewish Orphans

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
03 October '10

On a late summer evening, Omar Rivera stumbled over to a local mosque, clutching a beer bottle in his hand and looking for a place to answer nature's call. He chose the Al-Imam Mosque and proceeded to urinate around its exterior, where there were apparently some Muslim prayer rugs lying around. Omar had committed what was a fairly commonplace act of vandalism in the city, public urination. When suddenly he became the poster child for the rise of a "New Islamophobia".

Along with a drunken liberal arts student who slashed a Muslim cabbie, the media transformed poor Omar into the face of a new and terrible wave of hate directed against Muslims. Initial news stories claimed that he had called the mosque denizens, "Terrorists", before peeing on their rug. The NYPD later explained that it had never happened, and that he never said anything for or against Muslims.

After a five-day drunk, Omar probably didn't even know his own name by that point. Neither did Michael Enright, the cabbie slasher, who had a long history of drinking problems. After the attack, he sat down in the middle of traffic, rather than trying to make an escape. Rather than being motivated by any animus toward Muslims, Riviera and Enright were driven by their blood alcohol level and drinking problems. There was no wave of Islamophobia, just two drunk guys who needed to become Friends of Bill.

But the facts didn't matter, by then liberals had begun to construct their own narrative. Omar had clearly been influenced by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Their hateful rhetoric had induced Omar to go and piss on some Muslim rugs in order to show his patriotism and bigotry. This was undoubtedly Islamophobia. And while Mayor Bloomberg did not invite the pissed on prayer rugs to City Hall, as he had the slashed cabbie-- liberals bravely sprung into action to show their support for the micturated upon furnishings.

The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good adopted a statement at the ISNA Emergency Interfaith Summit, warning about a tide violence and condemning "the desecration of Islamic houses of worship". The ISNA is the Islamic Society of North America, an organization that was created by Muslim Brotherhood members. The Muslim Brotherhood, which drew inspiration from Nazi Germany, was also behind such philanthropic organizations as Hamas and Al Querida. But that didn't stop various liberal clergy from co-signing a statement with an organization linked to Islamic terrorists, calling for "tolerance".

One of the signers, Rabbi David Saperstein proclaimed, "We know what it is like when people have attacked us physically, have attacked us verbally, and others have remained silent. It cannot happen here in America in 2010." Of course it can happen here, just not to Muslims. It can happen to the Jews of Malmo or Paris. It can happen to Hindus in Bangladesh and Christians in Egypt. And it can even happen even in New York. While Saperstein was pontification about tolerance, the trial of four Muslim terrorists who had plotted to bomb synagogues in New York was going on. New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good had nothing to say on the subject. They remained silent. Because petty things such as synagogue bombings or Copts being lit on fire are nothing compared to the smell of an infidel's recycled Heineken on a sacred Muslim prayer rug.

When infidels are murdered by Muslims, no one calls for an emergency summit. But when a Muslim prayer rug is pissed upon, everyone had better jump into the Dhimmimobile and denounce that rising wave of hate.

Meanwhile in support of the rugs themselves, J-Street collaborator, Rachel Barenblat of Velveteen Rabbi seized on the chance to promote herself by "passing the hat" and raised over a thousand dollars to replace the urine soaked rugs. At the same time as Rachel was passing the hat for the rugs, five people were murdered in Israel by Muslim terrorists. They left behind six orphans. Rachel Barenblat did not volunteer to "pass the hat" for them, because how can a few Jewish orphans compared to the sacred rugs of the Al-Imam Mosque? She didn't even appear to acknowledge their murders. Unlike the rugs, they were non-people.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia


Petra Marquardt-Bigman
The Warped Mirror/JPost
11 July '10

In a recent article, New York Times critic Edward Rothstein used two newly published studies on anti-Semitism to list some of the points that are often brought up by people who feel that this is an issue that has not all that much relevance for our time.

Inevitably, the notion that critics of Israel risk being unfairly denounced as anti-Semitic is among the points mentioned by Rothstein. While Rothstein repeats the often acknowledged view that "criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic any more than criticism of any particular Jew is," he ultimately argues that it is "easy enough to discern when responsible criticisms of Israel veer into something reprehensible: the structure of anti-Semitic belief is not subtle." As Rothstein explains:

There is a wildly exaggerated scale of condemnation, in which extremes of contempt confront a country caricatured as the world's worst enemy of peace; such attacks, and the use of Nazi analogies, are beyond evidence and beyond pragmatic political debate or protest. Israel's autonomy - its very presence - is the problem."

Unfortunately, Rothstein is completely wrong to assert that there is a clear red line that separates what he calls "responsible criticisms of Israel" from "reprehensible" demonization that echoes anti-Semitic sentiments. Indeed, it is depressingly easy to illustrate that there is no such red line, or rather, that no such red line is accepted by Israel's many ardent "critics."

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Muslims In UNHRC Stop Short Of Saying THE WEST Is Apartheid


Daled Amos
17 June '10
Posted before Shabbat


I guess the West got off easy. Good thing we have the US in the United Nations Human Rights Council to keep these sorts of things in check:

Muslim states said Wednesday that what they call "islamophobia" is sweeping the West and its media and demanded that the United Nations take tougher action against it.

Delegates from Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Egypt, told the United Nations Human Rights Council that treatment of Muslims in Western countries amounted to racism and discrimination and must be fought.

"People of Arab origin face new forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance and experience discrimination and marginalisation," an Egyptian delegate said, according to a U.N. summary.

And Pakistan, speaking for the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the council's special investigator into religious freedom should look into such racism "especially in Western societies."

Yeah, especially.
(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Fort Hood massacre provokes outcry in Guardian and BBC…over “fear-mongering hysteria” against Muslims


Robin Shepherd
Robin Shepherd Online
07 November 09

A Muslim, Palestinian-American soldier massacres 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. Evidence is already available that the perpetrator, Major Nidal Hasan, a military psychiatrist, was incensed at the prospect of being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and that he had compared suicide bombing to the bravery of soldiers in combat who might fall on a grenade to protect the lives of their comrades.

It is also clear that he is a very devout Muslim who opposes the wars he feared being sent to fight in. According to the testimony of a former colleague, Col. Terry Lee: “He said maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor…At first we thought he was talking about how Muslims should stand up and help the armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but apparently that wasn’t the case.”

So clearly, there are good grounds for suspecting that this might at least have something to do with the kind of Islamist agenda which has provoked massacres from Bali to Tel Aviv, from London to New York and from Madrid to Mumbai. Note that all I am suggesting here is that there are “good grounds for suspecting”. In other words, I am arguing that any open minded and intelligent analyst would want to take that possibility into consideration.

Well, not if you write for the Guardian which raced out two op-eds with the aim not of expressing sympathy for the victims but of starkly warning that red neck, Islamophobic loons were about to have a field day. But if its loons you’re after you rarely have to search further than the Guardian’s editorial page.

Read the rest of this entry »