The Shotgun Blog
« My friend the terrorist | Main | Mark Steyn on Rush Limbaugh »
Friday, August 25, 2006
Some notes on Iran
I really wish freedom could come to Iran so every one of us would be safer and less exposed to the threat of Iranian mullahs' terrorism. While this is not wishful thinking and I believe, some time soon, this will happen but there are obstacles preventing this from happening.
I have written a long note on how some one like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran might be able to do it by leading a legitimate coalition of opposition forces in exile and also inside of Iran.
All I can say is that time is not passing by in our favor and we have to get to rid of the clerical establishment of Iran before it is too late.
I'd like to have your feedback and appreciate you helping me learn more and more every day.
Posted by Winston on August 25, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834e0b3bb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some notes on Iran:
Comments
This site suffers from a frightfull amount of Islamaphobia.
Islamophobia is a neologism that in one definition found in Princeton University's Word Net refers to, "prejudice against Islam and Muslims"[1]. The term, which is known to date back to 1991, became prominent in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.[2][3][4][5] The concept of Islamophobia has attracted some controversy, and a number of writers, journalists, and intellectuals including Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, have criticized it for allegedly confusing the criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers[6]. Others such as Jonathan Steele[7], Tariq Ali [8] and Tariq Ramadan [9] do not reject the concept, but differ to how it is manifested, and how "Islamophobia" can be stopped.
The term is formed with the Greek suffix -phobia 'fear of -' in a similar way to xenophobia or homophobia. It reflects the influence of such 1990s movements as multiculturalism and identity politics. During this period, some sociologists and cultural analysts argued that there was a shift in forms of prejudice from ones based on race to ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.[10][11]
Characterizations
Council of Europe
The Council of Europe defines Islamophobia as "the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them". [12]
Runnymede Trust
This graph from the Runnymede Trust attempts to visually summarize all aspects of Islamophobia.In the United Kingdom, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when the UK race relations think tank Runnymede Trust published the report Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All.[13] In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:
Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
Islam 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 is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.
A critic of the Runnymede definition, British columnist Josie Appleton, criticized the definition given by the Runnymede Trust thusly:
This Runnymede report talked about a rising 'anti-Muslim prejudice' that needed addressing in policy. But the section titled 'The nature of Islamophobia' suggests a very broad notion of prejudice — examples of Islamophobia included people seeing Islam as inferior to the West, rather than just distinctively different; seeing Islam as monolithic and static, rather than diverse and progressive; seeing Islam as an enemy, rather than a partner to cooperate with (7). This also seemed to be founded on an over-sensitivity, an attempt to stem any kind of criticism of Islam. Rather than engage Muslims in debate, non-Muslims are supposed to tiptoe around them, for fear of causing offence. Since 11 September we have seen how this attitude can stifle discussion. [14]
UK researcher Chris Allen has not rejected the concept of Islamophobia but has criticised the primary theory, concept and definition of Islamophobia—that of the Runnymede Trust—as naïve and over‐simplified.[citation needed]
The Runnymede Trust issued a report in 2004 which said that Islamophobia had become institutional in many Public bodies.[15]
Stephen Schwartz
American journalist and Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz believes that Islamophobia consists of the following:
attacking the entire religion of Islam as a problem for the world;
condemning all of Islam and its history as extremist;
denying the active existence, in the contemporary world, of a moderate Muslim majority;
insisting that Muslims accede to the demands of non-Muslims for theological changes in their religion;
treating all conflicts involving Muslims as the fault of Muslims themselves; and
inciting war against Islam as a whole.
Schwartz suggests that Islamophobia, so defined, actually exists, though individuals are often accused of it without justification.[16]
FAIR - Forum against Islamophobia and Racism
The UK based Forum against Islamophobia and Racism defines Islamophobia on its Website. It says[17]:
"Islamophobia is the fear, hatred or hostility directed towards Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia affects all aspects of Muslim life and can be expressed in several ways, including:
attacks, abuse and violence against Muslims
attacks on mosques, Islamic centres and Muslim cemeteries
discrimination in education, employment, housing, and delivery of goods and services
lack of provisions and respect for Muslims in public institutions."
Roger Hardy, BBC
Roger Hardy, the BBCs Islamic affairs analyst, defines Islamophobia as "fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims". [18]
Dr Abduljalil Sajid
Dr Abduljalil Sajid (Brighton Islamic Mission, member of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia and chair of the Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony UK) defined the term 'Islamophobia', a word that was first used in print in 1991, by quoting extracts from the 1997 Runnymede Trust report, which provided the first official definition of the term as unfounded hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims. [19]
EUMC's "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001"
The largest monitoring project ever to be commissioned into "Islamophobia" was undertaken following 9/11 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).
From a total of 75 reports – 15 from each EU member nation - a synthesis report was published in May 2002. Entitled 'Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001' [20] it was co-authored by Chris Allen[1] and Jorgen S. Nielsen at the University of Birmingham, England.
The report highlighted the regularity with which ordinary Muslims became targets for abusive and sometimes violent retaliatory attacks, all of which were seemingly becoming more extreme and accepted.
According to the report, despite localised differences within each member nation, the recurrence of attacks at street level upon recognisable and visible traits of Islam and Muslims was the report's most significant finding. These attacks took such form as the following: verbal abuse indiscriminately blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks; women having their hijab torn from their heads; male and female Muslims being spat at; children being called 'Usama' as a term of insult and derision; and random assaults, which on one occasion, left a victim paralysed and others hospitalised.
The representation of Muslims in the media was also noted. Whilst some media initially attempted to differentiate Muslims, this was not always the norm. Inherent negativity, stereotypical images, fantastical representations and grossly exaggerated caricatures were all readily identifiable, drawing upon pre-9/11 established norms to locate further justification and resonance within the media’s audiences.
Similar concerns about the role of politicians and other opinion leaders were also raised. Within the mainstream of political activity, some political leaders made immediate verbal statements stressing the need to differentiate between 'Muslims' and 'terrorists'. In Portugal however, political leaders remained silent. In some other countries, mainstream political leaders were much more vocal and emotionally charged as regards anti-Muslim rhetoric, with both Italy and Denmark being earmarked in the report.
The report concluded that, 'a greater receptivity towards anti-Muslim and other xenophobic ideas and sentiments has, and may well continue, to become more tolerated' [20]. This should be summarized and included in a section somewhere. It shouldn't be a section of its own
Polls
A poll of Americans, commissioned by CAIR, suggested that one in four Americans believe Muslims value human life less than others and teach their children to hate. [21]
In 2006 a survey of Germans by the Allensbach Institute commissioned by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung revealed that 56% of those surveyed wated the government to ban the building of mosques, 62% beleived that there would always be ‘major conflicts’ between Islam and Christianity. 91% linked Islam to the "oppression of women" while 71% believed Islam was "intolerant". 40% of the participants believed that "tough limits should be imposed on the practice of Islam in Germany". The Allensbach Institute concluded that "The clash of civilizations has already begun in the minds of (German) citizens".[22]
A BBC survey taken in the summer of 2004 found that employment applicants with Muslim names were far less likely to be called for an interview than applicants whose names did not appear to be Muslim. This study was taken by using fictitious applications to jobs using candidate descriptions that were similar in qualification and education, but under different names. The survey found that while a quarter of 'nonmuslim applicants' were invited to an interview, only 9% of the applications with Muslim names were responded to with invitations. [23] The Muslim Council of Britain have cited this as further evidence for the widespread existence of Islamophobia.[24]
In 2005 the Guardian, a British newspaper, commissioned an ICM poll which indicated an increase in Islamophobic incidents, especially after the July 7 Bombings. [25][26] Another survey on Muslims, by the Open Society Institute, found that of those polled 32% believed they had suffered religious discrimination at airports, and 80% said they had experienced Islamophobia.[27][28]
In 2006 the Sunday Herald Sun commissioned a Gallup Poll, published on July 30, which reported that four in ten of those Australians surveyed "believe Islam is a threat to our way of life" and one in three people are more fearful of Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks.[29] A similar poll from Australia in March of that year saw that one quarter of those surveyed say Islam as "either a fundamentalist or intolerant faith". However, one of the researchers behind the study, New South Wales University's Kevin Dunn said people tended to feel less threatened by Islam when they had direct contact with its followers. "That varies according to the extent of knowledge someone has and also, fundamentally, the extent of daily contact someone has with Muslims. If you know a few Muslims, you're much less likely to perceive a threat from them."[30]
Use in public discourse and examples
The term most often appears in discourse on the condition of immigrant Muslims living as minorities in the United States, Europe, and Australia, although it has also been used in recent years in countries such as India, and occasionally in connection with non-immigrant Muslim communities or individuals. In the most prominent cases, however, experiences of immigrant communities of unemployment, rejection, alienation, and violence have allegedly [citations needed] combined with Islamophobia to make integration difficult. [31] Maleiha Malik has argued that this has led, in the United Kingdom, to Muslim communities suffering higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health, and higher levels of racially motivated violence than other communities. [32]
Since September 11, 2001, given the strong association between Arabs and the religion of Islam, Islamophobia is sometimes expressed as a form of anti-Arab racism. In the UK, Chris Allen has argued that whilst 'anti-Arab' sentiment is quite rare, Islamophobia has been to some degree transitory: a form of 'new' or 'cultural' racism that has seen the markers of discrimination shift from those of race to those of religion. In Germany, the majority of victims have not been Arabs, but rather are from Turkey,[33] perhaps the most secular Islamic country. Anti-Muslim bias has also occasionally been expressed in violent attacks on Sikhs who were mistaken for Muslims on account of their distinctive turbans.[34]
It has been argued that Islamophobia also exists in India. These claims are based upon a definition [citations needed] of Islamophobia that is more associated with communal politics in India, although accusations of the denigration of Islamic culture and history are also present.[35] Karen Armstrong wrote in the Guardian newspaper that Islamophobia is the modern apparation of anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination that dates as far back as the crusades. [36]
Secretary-General Kofi Annan told a December 7, 2004 UN conference on the emergence of Islamophobia that "[when] the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry — that it is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with 'Islamophobia'."[37]
Jeremy Seabrook, Dr. Anya Rudiger and the Forum Against Islamophobia & Racism have written that the effects of Islamophobia range from individual hatred to widespread discrimination or persecution.[38][39][40][41]
Some do not oppose being labeled "Islamophobic". Filip Dewinter, the leader of the nationalist Flemish party "Vlaams Belang" said to the The Jewish Week that his party was "Islamophobic. Yes, we are afraid of Islam. The Islamisation of Europe is a frightening thing."[42]
Efforts against Islamophobia
Globally there have been a series of efforts against islamophobia, some of these efforts are detailed below.
Throughout the 2000s the Council on American Islamic Relations or 'CAIR' has been active in defending US Muslims against Islamophobia.
In 2006 the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) set up an observatory on Islamophobia which will monitor and document all anti-Islamic activities around the world.[43]
During the ascession talks regarding Turkeys posible entry to the EU, then Prime Minister of Holland, Jan Peter Balkenende, said Islamophobia must not affect the possibility of Turkey's entry to the European Union. [44]
50,000 people signed a petition urging the President of France, Jacques Chirac to curb the growing hatred and discrimination towards Muslims in France. [45]
In the UK a number of methods aimed at curbing Islamophobia have been set up. In Tower Hamlets, a densely populated area with a large Muslim community, a crime reporting scheme called "Islamophobia - Don't Suffer in Silence" has been set up which police hope will raise awareness of Islamophobia and help them to understand the extent of the problem.[46] The British National Union of Teachers (NUT) has issued guidance to teachers in the union advising that teachers have to "Challenge Islamophobia", and that they have a "crucial role" to play in helping to "dispel myths about Muslim communities". [47]
Following a controversial demonstration organized by the Al Ghurabaa organization in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the Muslim Association of Britain organized a peaceful rally in Trafalgar Square attended by nearly four thousand people where organizers made available placards and T-shirts bearing the rally's official slogan, the phrase, "United against Islamophobia, united against incitement".[48][49] A similar themed march, a week later, drew around ten thousand people to the same place [50].
Following the July 7 bombings, the British government set up a number of initiatives aimed at combatting Islamophobia, including the "National Forum against extremism and Islamophobia". [51] There was also plans by the British government to ban incitement to "religious hatred", however, this failed to get through the House of Commons. [52][53]
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said that the Media bore some responsibility for the apparent rise in Islamophobia, and said that a "rising tide of Islamophobia" in the media must be challenged. He compared the reporting of Muslims in contemporary Britain to the way the flight of Jews from Russia had been covered 100 years ago. [54]
In 2006 the Catholic Mission Austria and the Islamic Demonination Austria created a platform called Christians and Muslims, which works against stereotypes and hostility and aims to increase tolerance and respect. As of July 25, 2006 the platform has 1452 supporters.
In 1991 the Islamic Culture Foundation (FUNCI) organised, in collaboration with UNESCO and the Institut du Monde Arabe of Paris, an International Conference about the Contribution of Islamic Civilization in European Culture. In March 13, 2003 they created a Manifesto against Islamophobia.
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan issued a call in 1999 to world leaders to combat Islamophobia. [55] Abdel-Elah Khatib, the Jordanian foreign minister said "The international community must consider how to confront this phenomenon of Islamophobia in order to prevent its proliferation".
References to acts attributed to Islamophobia
Dr Amanda Wise and Ghali Hassan from GlobalResearch.ca have alleged that the 2005 Cronulla riots were the result of a climate of "Islamophobia" in Australia. [56][57]
Dalil Boubakeur, a director of a Paris mosque described the vandalism on a Mosque in Paris, France as Islamophobic. [58]
Attack on a Mosque in Brisbane, Australia.[59][60]
Giles Tremlett of The Guardian referred to the burning of a Muslim Sanctuary in the Spanish city of Ceuta, as an instance of Islamophobia.[61]
Smearing of a Qur'an with what appeared to be feces and dumping it in Nashville, Tennessee, United States.[62][63]
Halima Mautbur, from the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations called an attack on a hijabi Muslim woman "an Islamophobic incident". [64]
Doudou Diène in a report prepared by the UN Commission on Human Rights released on March 7, 2006 mentioned the publishing of the cartoons at the heart of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy regarding, "The development of Islamophobia or any racism and racial discrimination ... " [65]
In a February 10, 2004 report by Al Jazeera the head of the Party of France's Muslims, Muhammad Latreche in discussing the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools was quoted as saying that the legislation would, "institutionalise Islamophobia".[66]
On March 8, 2006 the Islamic Human Rights Commission made a press release entitled, "Islamophobia in Prisons stretches far beyond Belmarsh" concerning prisons in Britain. [67]
Destruction and vandalism of Muslim graves in France. [68]
Vandalism of Muslim Graves in Charlton cemetery in Plumstead, London.[69]
Muslim protesters alleged that the Forest Gate anti terror raid in London was Islamophobic.[70][71]
France, which has a strong secular tradition separating church from State, [72] was accused of Islamophobia when the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools was passed, which bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools. The policy extends to Muslim headscarves, large Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps, and other visible signs of religion, although the display of small[2][3] religious symbols (such as the Star of David, crosses, and Hand of Fatimas) however, is permitted.
The Dutch parliament has voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa in public, which has led to similar accusations. [73]
In Germany, the state of Baden-Württemberg has proposed regulations that require citizenship applicants from the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to answer questions about their attitudes on homosexuality, domestic violence and other religious issues. [74]
References to views labeled as Islamophobic
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has stated that the views of Ann Coulter are Islamophobic [75]
Statements that incite Islamophobia from Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn, according to John Esposito. read relative quotes.[76]
Oliver Duff of The Independent has claimed that the British National Party has attempted to use increasing Islamophobia to make gains in local elections.[77] In previous decades, the BNP was also deemed anti-semitic by Jewish groups.
"The Force of Reason" written by Italian former journalist Oriana Fallaci, who is also accused of outright racism towards Mexicans and Arabs[78] [79]
The Islamic Human Rights Commission gave U.S Attorney General John Ashcroft a nomination for their 2003 "Islamophobe of the year" award for publicly saying: "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you" [80] [81]
The Islamic Human Rights Commission made Daniel Pipes a nominee for their 2004 and 2005 "Islamophobe of the year" awards. He has been called "one of America's most notorious Arab-haters and Islamophobes". [82][83][84]
The political views of ultranationalist Flemish politician Filip Dewinter.[85]
The UK Minister Peter Hain's statement that Britain's Muslim community is "isolationist" was met with accusations of Islamophobia, as well as Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's public claim that Western civilization is 'superior' to Islam.[14]
General references in connection to Islamophobia
While in Kazakhstan, the former Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, prayed for "both Christian and Muslims to raise an intense prayer to the one almighty God", and begged "God to keep the world in peace". He won praise from the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, for "protecting the world from Islamophobia". [86]
In March 2005, Queen Noor of Jordan, while on the BBC television programme "Breakfast with Frost", said, "What grieves me today, truly, is the fact that not only in the United States but also in Europe we've seen the rise, over the last few years, of Islamophobia" adding, "Muslim populations and the Muslim world has been increasingly, not decreasingly, viewed as a menace, as alien, as, perhaps, incompatible with Western societies and values. And I passionately believe that that is not true and that we have a great deal of work to do there.".[87]
In the third episode of the television show 30 Days entitled, "Muslims and America", Morgan Spurlock mentioned, "Since September eleventh more and more Americans associate Islam with terrorism. There seems to be a widespread epidemic of islamophobia".
Criticisms of the concept and usage of the term
Critics of the term such as Afshin Ellian have argued that it has been used as an attempt to police or censor opinion by characterizing any criticism of Islam or Muslims as pathological and irrational.[88] Some of these critics cite the case of the British liberal feminist journalist Polly Toynbee, who was nominated for the title of "Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year" [89] at the Annual Islamophobia Awards overseen by the Islamic Human Rights Commission in May 2003. The nomination was based on her comments in an article she had written for the London-based liberal newspaper The Guardian:
Religious politics scar India, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Sudan ... the list of countries wrecked by religion is long. But the present danger is caused by Islamist theocracy ... There is no point in pretending it is not so. Wherever Islam either is the government or bears down upon the government, it imposes harsh regimes that deny the most basic human rights.[90]
Toynbee has rejected the label of "Islamophobe" and argued that her comments must be judged on their truth or falsity, not on the offence they might give to most members of the Muslim community.
Civil-rights activist Bahram Soroush views the term Islamophobia as a form of "Intellectual blackmail", a means of avoiding legitimate criticism of Islam by "scaremongering".[91]
Kenan Malik, a British science writer, while stating that "there is clearly ignorance and fear of Islam in this country. Muslims do get harassed and attacked because of their faith"[92], has made several points concerning the application of the term Islamophobia in his essay The Islamophobia Myth:[93]
Caution is needed in attributing Islamophobia as the base cause of any event.
It is not sufficient that a Muslim is a victim of crime.
The accusation of Islamophobia can be used as a mechanism to stifle debate and criticism of the cultural practices of Muslim societies.
Finally, anti-social behaviour and deliquency may be the cause of any of the events cited as being islamophobic attacks.
Malik's perceptions have been challenged by Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, who, in a letter to the Guardian, highlights instances of apparent Islamophobia which Malik has omitted. To illustrate this point, he mentions a BBC survey which he claims found that job applicants with traditional English names were more likely to be granted an interview than applicants with identical qualifications and work experience, but with Muslim-sounding names. [94]
Wolfram Richter, professor of economics in the Dortmund University believes that what is seen as Islamophobia is essentially just another form of racism.[95]
On December 7, 2004 at a U.N. sponsored seminar entitled "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”, Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd Ph.D., a former member of the Government of Egypt, disputed the neologism and described the term as "derogatory". [96][97][76]
The Dutch philosopher and criminal law expert Afshin Ellian, criticised the concept in February 2006 in a piece entitled Stop Capitulating to Threats. He claimed that "Free speech is in danger of being increasingly restricted by invoking “Islamophobia” and “racism”. And some intellectuals have already capitulated." Citing an example of a play cancelled and of a journalist who resigned her post because of alleged threats. He asks "What has happened to civil courage? Why do we hear nothing from the publishers, artists, media and colleagues of people who have capitulated about the consequences of this voluntary capitulation?"[88]
Writing in the New Humanist, University of London philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who "fear the rise of Islamophobia" foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy", to the point that “Islamophobia-phobia” can undermine "critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion’s true nature", encouraging "sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow ‘equal’, or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or ‘phobic’". ``[98]
The New Criterion editor Roger Kimball agrees with Benn's depiction of Islamophobia becoming powerful enough to itself trigger fear. He claims that the word “Islamophobia” is a "misnomer" as "A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia—it’s a phobia I experience frequently—we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia."[99]
This is a view shared by the National Secular Society who believe that "There is little evidence of any wave of popular Islamophobia. But there is plenty to suggest that some in high places are suffering from an exaggerated fear of an anti-Muslim backlash, viewing the public as a pogrom waiting to happen."[100]
Johann Hari, a journalist for The Independent, has criticised the use of the term by organisations like Islamophobia Watch to attack him and others. He writes: "If Muslim women and Muslim gays are going to have any kind of decent life, the [muslim] liberals need to receive solidarity and support – but slap-dash charges of Islamophobia intimidate people who could offer it" ... "While Islamophobia Watch talk about defending Muslims, they end up defending the nastiest and most right-wing part of the Muslim community – the ones who are oppressing and killing the rest."[101]
Posted by: Islamaphobic | 2006-08-25 3:09:27 AM
Holy Cow.......not only a troll alert but a Dhimmi alert......unless said idiot above is a Muslim or Muslima....
Actually though, Islamophobia is such a pee cee lying leftist term that only the dhimmiest of idiots can buy into it...it would suggest a 'irrational' fear of Islam...
The reality is that it is not irrational to hate Islam for the evil that it is.....indeed, we have all the proof of Islam's barbarity from its own texts...Quran, Sira, Sahih Hadiths, Reliance of the Traveler and so on and so forth...
In otherwords, most of us are well acquainted with the ideology of Islam and its murderous founder, muhammed.....
Thankfully, even many muslims are now awakening to the disease that is Islam....indeed, in Persia, their are estimates of millions of apostates as in Sub Sahara Africa....also, my closes friend growing up is a apostate from Sunni Islam....
One thing we all need to remember is that the first victims of Islam are muslims themselves....their is no need to hate Muslims....simply hate the ideology that so blinds them with hatred .....
Thanks
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-25 4:19:15 AM
Unless you were absolutely retarded, you would fear islam. You have a cult which teaches its followers to strap bombs on their bodies and go amongst innocent people to kill them. A cult that is so hateful, and oppressive towards its females, that it feels it has a right, and takes joy in thier deaths for a slight infraction against the evil islam. A cult that teaches its males to be cowards, and to use women and children to hide behind to fight. A cult as barbaric and bloodthirsty as islam, really needs to be eradicated.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-08-25 5:18:27 AM
Kudos to Winston for the very real possibility of an Iranian government in exile. It can and should be done.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-08-25 9:18:01 AM
Islamophobic: LOL...wow, not that I even agree that such a word should exist, but I could understand why some people might actually be afraid of Islamics, after all the killing of innocents, headchopping of innocents, stampeding of their own, raping, and general mistreatment of women, and infidels. It kind of makes sense to be afraid of lunatics like that, doesn't it ?
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-25 9:40:04 AM
Markalta:
In the spirit of discovery and coining new phrases, how about one of the robotic left ... Truthophobics.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 10:00:09 AM
Yeah, I think I know a few 'truthaphobes'. Are you going to offer any counselling sessions or group therapy for those types ? :)
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-25 10:06:03 AM
Let me get this straight, trying to help one of the largest Muslim nations in the world (Iran) throw off one of the most sclerotic, hateful, and repressive regimes on earth is "Islamophobic"?
Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, one of the architects of the 1979 Iranian revolution, has called the entire thing a failure and has called for the Iranian people to take their country back. Is he an Islamophobe?
Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the original tyrant himself, has asked the U.S. military - that's right, THE U.S. MILITARY - to liberate his country. Is he an Islamophobe?
Ridiculous.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-08-25 10:08:27 AM
D.J. McGuire,
The terrorist sympathizers love to attach "phobe" to everything thatis dispicable in the face of freedom and liberty from submission to the "moon-god".
When they behave as evil strangers, and we note that, they call us Xenophobes.
When they behave as evil islamofacists, and we despise that, they call us islamophobes.
When they use themselves as supremacists, and promote their race, if they are one, over all people, and we note that, they call us racists.
The list goes on....
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 11:07:58 AM
Rest assured there is no such thing as islamophobia anymore than homophobia. Just more attempts by the hard Left to invent words as a means of controlling speech. I refuse to use their made-up words. By the way another one that has been around a bit longer is gay for homosexual that I also refuse to use. Nothing gay about their lifestyle but they want us to believe the opposite. To accept such rubbish is giving into them.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-25 12:08:22 PM
I don’t know whether it was intentional or not but the last half of Islamophobe’s long 'comment' is spent attacking the use of the “Islamophobe” label.
Posted by: JR | 2006-08-25 12:30:36 PM
JR: I noticed that too after I had posted. Not sure what his point was...
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-25 12:48:56 PM
to lady
that was a great comment. this is typical of what those of us are up against who are not kool-aid drinkers. lots of excuses from people who think if the just act nice to these nuts they will leave us alone. sorry but unless you are completely ignorant, just listen to all their speeches and you will see that the only way they will stop is when we are all converted to islam or dead. and to the writer ISLAMAPHOBIC, give us all a break, they bring this hate for islam upon themselves. what made up word should we make for them?
Posted by: sal | 2006-08-25 12:58:49 PM
Has everybody forgotten that the Iranian president said at the time of the ceasefire just a week ago?
“This is a great victory for Islam.''
Not for Hizb'allah. Not for the long-suffering people of Lebanon.
For Islam.
What did he mean by victory?
My guess is that once again, the deceptions worked and a propoganda victory was won.
Deception No. 1: The United Nations called for a ceasefire, yet Hizb'allah is not a member of the United Nations.
Deception No. 2: Well, he really couldn't pull this one off, could he? Since he called it a victory for Islam, he quite clearly tipped his hand that he considers Iran the head of a unification project. And that project is the eventual reinstatement of the caliphate.
I'm sure there must be more, but I can't think of any right now.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 1:10:52 PM
sal,
This calls for a TERM and DEFINITION contest.
I say, they do appear to be everyone-else-o-phobes! By defnition: the fear of everyone else, but themselves.
Freedomophobes! By definition: the fear of freedom from submission.
Democratophobes! By definition: The fear of one person, one vote system of rule.
Libertophobes! By definition: the fear of being liberated from submission!
antifacistophobes! By definition: the fear of being free from facism in all it's forms!
antiislamofacistophobes! By definition: the fear of being against islamofacism in all it's ideological forms.
antiterroristophobes! By definition: the fear of being seen as against the terrorists! Anyone who cows to terrorists is therefore an antiterroristophobe!
terroristophobe! By definition: a natural state where civilians who are terrorized by terrorists develope rational phobias about terrorists!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 1:17:03 PM
to lady
those are real good to but you better watch out they might make a word for you.
those of us with our eyes open and being realistic are the problem. not the lunatics killing innocent civies. my friends in chicago think we cause the problem and the terrorists are merely freedom fighters. but my question to them is who's freedom are they fighting for. most certainly not women in a muslim world. i find it hard to believe that women in the muslim like being treated worst then animals are treated in most of the regular world. you cannot vote, speak, get an education or for that matter anything that shows you are a human and not someone's personal property. good luck to muslim women if we cannot LIBERATE them from this great islam rule
Posted by: sal | 2006-08-25 3:24:32 PM
sal:
How would you define the people who fire Kayusha rockets indiscriminately and kill innocent civies?
Would that be considered an act of fighting for freedom by your friends?
If that constitutes freedom, what exactly is it they are fighting?
Do jihadists in Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, Serbia act the way they do because Jews stole their homeland? Do you figure that's just an excuse? Or is it part of a bigger picture?
From this list of where jihadists currently operate (from www.thereligionofpeace.com), how many are due to the existence of Israel?
India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:
"Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war."
Qur'an, Sura 9:5
Print the list and ask your friends.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 3:39:43 PM
SET YOU FREE
THIS IS WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND, HOW SOME OF US SEE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS WE ARE THE CAUSE OF THEIR ANGER. WHEN I HEAR THE UN THEY SOUND LIKE WE ARE UNREASONABLE. KOFI ANNAN SEES THINGS DIFFERENT FROM US AND PUTS ALL THE BLAME ON ISRAEL BUT NEVER MENTIONS THE EIGHT IDF SOLDIERS KILLED WHILE THE HEZBO'S PULLED THAT LITTLE STUNT. WHICH I THINK WAS TO MAKE THE REST OF THE WORLD LOOK AWAY FROM IRAN. WE ARE ALL IN DEEP DOO-DOO IF WE CAN'T ALL GET ON THE SAME PAGE. ISLAMONUTS WILL KILL US ALL IF IRAN GETS THE NUKES. OR AT LEAST MOST OF ISRAEL. THE WORLD NEEDS TO FIGHT THIS TOGETHER. EVEN THOUGH COUNTRIES LIKE FRANCE AND RUSSIA ARE REALLY STICKING TO US
Posted by: SAL | 2006-08-25 3:49:47 PM
sal:
A capital posting!
The one that makes me scratch my head is Russia.
On the one hand, they were in Afghanistan and are currently fighting off Chechen jihadists.
On the other hand, they are supplying Iran with Katyusha rockets and whining through their English-language newspaper websites as the US launches a boycott on the state-run weapons manufactures.
It's going to kill off an important industry and cause unemployment, you know.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 4:10:28 PM
There are two words going around lately that should both be taken behind the barn and shot:
Islamophobia and Islamofacism.
Maybe then some kind of dialog can happen, but until that's the case both sides will just continue to lob verbal grenades across the logic divide at each other and the masses will stand in the middle in astonishment.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-25 4:16:31 PM
As far as I can see Islam meets the definition of a terrorist organization. It is pretty simple. Any organization that allows terrorists to operate freely in its name and use its ideology, righty or wrongly, to justify and promote terrorism, and whose membership continue to demonstrate in every poll that they support suicide bombing of infidels can only be called a terrorist organization. Islamofascist may be just too nice.
Back to the post of course the free West should do everything possible to support the Iranian people seeking to free themselves from the thugs in power.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-25 4:56:36 PM
sal,
Freedom to force people to submit is not freedom. And that IS what they want to do! That is what is so dispicable about the Liberal party, as they would rather stand back, and permit terrorists the freedom to be the dispicable people they really are, and claim neutrality, while watching innocent people get hurt every single day of the year!
Freedom to force people to submit to submission is the same as rape and murder!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 7:35:50 PM
@Lady,
That's an interesting viewpoint. So Freedom is only Freedom if it agrees with your ideals?
To make one thing clear, I do not support any Government or institution that things that their values have to be inforced no matter what, that is one of the nice things of living in the West where we have lost that notion. But I think it is also a big mistake to think that we can force our definition of Freedom on someone else.
I AM for support people who want to change their Government to allow more individual Freedoms, we had this chance once before back in Gulf War I, when there was an uprising against Saddam and suddenly Bush the Elder didn't remember that he was promising support (much like during the Bay of Pigs invasion).
Point is: If we truly value Freedom, then we can promote our ideals and support (within reason) people who want the same things we do (and this of course also means defend our freedoms against outside influence).
What we should not do is force our definition of Freedom by gun point on other people. How things like that play out can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Iraq, if we're lucky, will work itself out in ten years time, Afghanistan I would guess at least two Generations, if ever.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-25 7:59:08 PM
That's funny snowrunner because I feel the opposite.......I think if were lucky, we could see something taking hold in Afghanistan...I think Iraq is a disaster waiting to happen...the shia and sunni hatred is to much to overcome...they have been butchering one another since muhammed dropped dead....
As for the North of Iraq where the more secular and democratic Kurds reside, that part of Iraq I am hopeful about....if I were the Americans and Brits, I would establish my bases up north where they are safe and well liked and can also keep a close eye on the mayhem down south...that also is the opinion of my Kurdish friend also...
You can lead people to the fount of freedom but you cannot make them drink of it.....Islam supercedes all in these people's mind..their is no idea of separation of church and state...Just Islam.....I mean, that's not to say I don't approve of getting rid of a murderer like Hussein...I do of course........but I knew the idea of trying to establish a democracy in Iraq was never going to work.....indeed, in any Islamic country, the few that are democracies are just barely!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-26 12:20:59 AM
@Albertanator,
I think both places are a mess. Iraq I still think is easier to fix though as they can just break up Iraq in three pieces and be done.
Afghanistan in comparision is divided by war lords with no real allegiance or overall "binding", this will make it much harder for people finding a common ground, they literally have no understanding what a nation is. Karzei is lucky if he can control Kabul, let's not even talk about the areas further away.
The Irony about Iraq is, btw, that the Government UNDER Saddam was actually secular, out of pure self protection.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-26 12:27:28 AM
Lady:
"Freedom to force people to submit to submission is the same as rape and murder!"
I'm sure you are aware of the "anti-gentile" laws of Israel, which prohibit Israli citizens marrying Palestinians, and if they do, they are not allowed to return to Israel?
Anti-gentile submission, indeed.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-26 1:04:15 AM
Israeli citizens ARE Palestinians just as much as anyone else is, Yasser Arafat being a Cairo born Eygtian Army Colonel.
Actually, Israelis are probably the only legitimate Palestinians.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-26 2:08:22 AM
"Actually, Israelis are probably the only legitimate Palestinians."
Do you mean sort of like Canadian Aboriginals being the only legitimate "Canadians?"
Speller, would you mind explaining to me what you mean by "legitimate" in the context you used it?
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-26 10:28:27 AM
There are no Canadian 'Aboriginals', all of mankind originated in north Africa.
"Speller, would you mind explaining to me what you mean by "legitimate" in the context you used it?", bleats Ian Scott.
I won't bother ever explaining anything to you, Ian.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-26 11:17:03 AM
"I won't bother ever explaining anything to you, Ian."
Difficult for you to write precisely what you mean?
Ok, I'll rephrase what I wrote above for you:
"Israel law prohibits an Israeli citizen from living in Israel if that person marries someone from the "occupied territories."
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-26 11:42:19 AM
@Speller,
> There are no Canadian 'Aboriginals', all of
> mankind originated in north Africa.
Some recent research seems to indicate that there was more than one "tribe" that formed roughly at around the same time (I think it was three).
As a little primer from 1491 by Charles C. Mann page 139 following in the Hardcover Edition:
----------
All human beings have two genomes. The first is the genome of the DNA in chromosomes, the genome of the famous human genome project, which proclaimed its success with great fanfare in 2000. The second and much smaller genome is of the DNA in mitochondria; it was mapped, to little public notice, in 1981. Mitochondria are minute, bean-shaped objects, hundreds of which bob about like so much flotsam in the warm, salty envelope of the cell. The body's chemical plants, they gulp in oxygen and release the energy-rich molecules that power life. Mitochondria are widely believed to descend from bacteria that long ago somehow became incorporated into one of our evolutionary ancestors. They replicate themselves independently of the rest of the cell, without using its DNA. To accomplish this, they have their own genome, a tiny thing with fewer than fifty genes, left over from their former existence as free-floating bacteria. Because sperm cells are basically devoid of mitochondria, almost all of an embryo's mitochondria come from the egg. Children's mitochondria are thus in essence identical to their mother's.
More than that, every woman's mitochondrial DNA is identical not only to her mother's mitochondrial DNA, but to that of her mother's mother's mitochondrial DNA, and her mother's mother's mother's mitochondrial DNA, and so on down the line for many generations. The same is not true for men. Because fathers don't contribute mitochondrial DNA to the embryo, the succession occurs only through the female line.
In the late 1970s several scientists realized that an ethnic group's mitochondrial DNA could provide clues to it's ancestry. Their reasoning was complex in detail, but simple in principle. People with similar mitochondria have, in the jargon, the same "haplogroup." If two ethnic groups share the same haplogroup, it is molecular proof that the two groups are related; their members belong to the same female line. In 1990 a team led by Douglas C. Wallace, now at the University of California at Irvine, discovered that just four mitochondrial haplogroups account for 96.9 percent of Native Americans - another example of Indians' genetic homogeneity, but one without any known negative (or positive) consequences. Three of the four Indian haplogroups are common in southern Siberia. Given the inheritance rules for mitochondrial DNA, the conclusion that Indians and Siberians share common ancestry seems, to geneticists, inescapable.
Wallace's research gave Pena a target to shoot at. Even as the Brazilian government was wiping out the Botocudos, some Brazilian men of European descent were marrying Botocudo women. Generations later, the female descendants of those unions should still have mitochondria identical to the mitochondria of their female Botocudo ancestors. In other words, Pena might be able to find ancient American DNA hidden in Brazil's European population.
Pena had blood samples from people who believed their grandparents or great-grandparents were Indians and who lived in Botocudo territory. "I'm looking for, possibly, a very odd haplogroup," he told me. "one that is not clearly indigenous or clearly European." If such a haplogroup turned up in Pena's assays, it could write a new chapter in the early history of Native Americans. He expected to be searching for a while, and anything he found would need careful confirmation.
Since the 16th century, the origins of Nativ Americans have been an intellectual puzzle. Countless amateur thinkers took a crack at the problem, as did anthropologists and archaeologists when those disciplines were invented. The professionals made no secret of their disdain for the amateurs, whom they regarded as annoyances, cranks or frauds. Unfortunately for the experts, in the 1920s and 1930s their initial theories about the timing of Indians' entrance into the Americas was proven wrong, and in a way that allowed the crackpots to claim vindication. Thirty years later a new generation of researchers put together a different theory of Native American origins that gained general agreement. But in the 1980s and 1990s a gush of new information about the first Americans came in from archaeological digs, anthropological laboratories, molecular biology research units, and linguist's computer models. The discoveries once again fractured the consensus about the early American history, miring it in dispute. "It really does seem sometimes that scientific principles are gong out the window," the archaeologist C. Vance Haynes said to me, unhappily. "If you listen to [the dissenting researchers], they want to throw away everything we've established."
Haynes was waxing rhetorical - the critics don't want to jettison everything from the past. But I could understand the reason for his dour tone. Again the exerts said to have been proved wrong, opening a door that until recently was bolted against the crackpots. A field that had seemed unified was split into warring camps. And projects like Pena's, which not long ago would have seemed marginal, even nutty, now might have to be taken seriously.
In another sense, though, Haynes's unhappy view seemed off the mark. Th rekindled dispute of Indian origins has tended to mask a greater archaeological accomplishment: the enormous recent accumulation of knowledge about the American past. In almost every case, Indian societies have been revealed to be older, grander, and more complex than was thought possible even twenty years ago. Archaeologists not only have pushed back the date for humanity's entrance into the Americas, they have learned that the first large-scale societies grew up earlier than had been believed - almost two thousand years earlier, and in different part of the hemisphere. And even those societies that had seemed best understood, like the Maya, have been placed n new contexts on the basis of new information.
At one point I asked Pena what he thought the reaction would be if he discovered that ancient Indians were, in fact, not genetically related to modern Indians. He was standing by his computer printer that was spewing out graphs and charts, the results of another DNA comparison. "It will seem impossible to believe at first," he said, flipping through the printout. "But if it is true - and I am not saying that it is is - people will ultimately accept it, just like all the other impossible ideas they've had to accept." [...]
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-26 12:37:07 PM
Winston, doesn't the Crown Prince derive his crown from clerics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi
Critics are dismissive of the prospective return of a Pahlavi to the throne. "Speaking purely theoretically, everything is possible," prominent pro-reform journalist Mashallah Shamsolvaezin told AFP. "After all, look what happened in Spain after the fall of General Franco — a king replaced him. But if we look at the reality of Iranian society today, the hypothesis of a return of the monarchy is very far from reality. The revolution and the Islamic republic have reinforced the foundation of a republican system in Iran, and there are very few people who want a monarchy. The overwhelming majority of people are against it."
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-26 12:41:15 PM
@ Speller
Not really but since Iran has been a shia country since hundreds of yrs ago, the highest ranking shia cleric in Iran can have the king to give the religious oath to protect the country and the constitution. Just like any other monarchy in the world where religious clerics endorse the coronations and do stuff like that.
Remember that Iran between 1909 to 1979 was a completely secular country, as secular as Canada or UK.
Posted by: Winston | 2006-08-26 11:15:26 PM
Yes, that's an important distinction, Winston. The Iranian diaspora I met in North Van who arrived here in the few years after 1979 were fleeing clerical hard-line rule, not clerical endorsement.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-26 11:28:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.