Folks, the term ‘islamophobia’ was invented to enable the OIC to ramrod it’s Islamic agenda in the West, where freedom of speech still has some semblance -or an appearance of- being protected. Those in the West who willingly support and promote the meme are nothing more than fools. Thanks to the Baron over at the Gates of Vienna for shedding some light on the subject. KGS
Baron Bodissey: If the OIC achieves its goals, and Islamophobia is outlawed in the West, lawmakers, bureaucrats, and the police will require guidelines about the ways in which this ugly disease manifests itself, so they can recognize those who suffer from it and assign them to a secure facility for treatment. DHS will need to write up a handbook for its local agents describing what to watch out for. Federal and state legislators will need a clear definition of the word to include in the laws they pass against it.
So what is Islamophobia? What’s a good working definition of the word?
Fortunately, someone has already done the hard work of laying out the concept in detail. And, needless to say, the defining was done by Muslims themselves.
The following article, “A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia”, was written last year by a European group called the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an umbrella organization of Muslim NGOs from all over the continent.
Even though it was composed from a European perspective, this definition is probably similar to what will be used in the United States when required. I’ll go through it by sections, bolding phrases and sentences that merit further discussion:
Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discrimination motivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.
Notice that this lead paragraph presupposes an understanding of what is in the mind of an Islamophobe. It assumes that opposition to Islam must be motivated by fear and hatred. It excludes the possibility that opponents of Islam may be motivated primarily by rational self-interest, rather than angry passion.
The text does not specify it, but one may assume that EMISCO’s definition denies the existence of any other motives for opposing Islam. It is simply considered impossible that any non-Muslim could inform himself about the scriptures, teachings, and laws of Islam, read the history of Islamic expansion, observe the behavior of Muslims in his own time, and come to the reasoned conclusion that Islam is a dangerous political ideology that has degraded and impoverished every society in which it has become dominant.
Such rational conclusions cannot be drawn. The possibility of doing so will be defined out of existence. “Fear”, “mistrust”, and “hatred” are the only acknowledged motives that anyone could have for opposing Islamization.
Islamophobia, What a crock of crap. IMHO one can never debate, discuss, or even have a polite and civil dialogue with most Muslims concerning the ‘teachings’ of the prophet. Some of them just go off into an insane rant. How can one deal with a group of people that in their eyes and minds are 100% right and there is no compromise, and the Infidel is the enemy, and is is unclean and unholy? When it comes to dealing with them it’s their way or no way. In our Western nations they want it both ways, all of the benefits of our society(especially economic) while clinging onto their 7th century political/religious system, which they themselves admit is not compatible with the Wests’.