My view.

Joined
2 Oct 2010
Messages
3,624
Reaction score
667
Country
United Kingdom
*Taken from an external source....

Islamophobia is a term used by certain groups of Muslim apologists in order to protect Muslims from scrutiny. However, rather than protecting a group of people against bigotry, the term merely acts as a way to silence critics who raise valid points about the real and troubling aspects of Islam.
The very term Islamophobia is itself misleading. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. In the case of Islam, however, it often makes practical sense to be afraid. I have genuine fears about a religion that advocates the murder of its apostates and victimizes its own members, especially innocent women and children.
Moreover, many people who have been labeled as "Islamophobes" do not exhibit signs of a phobia. Many are individuals who bring up relevant critiques against the institution of Islam. Having a well-reasoned and valid complaint is not the same as bigotry or fear, and labeling it as such is dismissive towards the greater discussion. By labeling its detractors as bigots and racists, Islam and its apologists are suggesting that Islam cannot stand up to scrutiny on its own.
Individuals have certain inherent rights. People have the right to be assessed as individuals rather than judged for their race, ethnicity or religion. The ideologies or religious beliefs that people hold, however, do not have these same rights. Put simply, ideologies are not synonymous with the people who have them. A Muslim may be innocent and well-meaning, and treating him badly because of his or her religion would be a serious case of discrimination. Criticizing the religion itself, however, is not discriminatory. No ideology is above reproach, be it Islam, fascism or democracy.

I've never posted previously on the matter and I won't in the future - just agree with the view.

W - over n' out.
 
Sponsored Links
We've done your view over and over, and over again.
The UN, government organisations and scientific bodies disagree with your view. Is that not enough for you, or do you prefer the 'closet racist' view that you embrace?
 
We've done your view over and over, and over again.
The UN, government organisations and scientific bodies disagree with your view. Is that not enough for you, or do you prefer the 'closet racist' view that you embrace?

And we'll keep on doing it. Now instead of your usual unfounded smears against people who hold that view. Try for once to tell us what is wrong with anything said in the statement
Islamophobia is a term used by certain groups of Muslim apologists in order to protect Muslims from scrutiny.
Fits you like a glove. You worm!
 
And we'll keep on doing it. Now instead of your usual unfounded smears against people who hold that view. Try for once to tell us what is wrong with anything said in the statement

Fits you like a glove. You worm!
So how does anti-semitic fit with you?
Is it just a made-up word to close down discussion? Or is it a real pervasive feeling out there? Was it ever thus so? Do some prejudices come back to haunt us?
Do some prejudices turn into other prejudices (Gypsies, Blacks, Immigrants, etc) as long as it's 'them'. They're to blame?

BTW, who is we, in the "we'll keep on doing it"?
Is it an oganised group? Or a disorganised group of EDFL/NF sympathisers?
 
Sponsored Links
The "we" I was referring to are any people who are not intimidated by your well practised and thread worn unfounded accusations. You worm.
You mean the other RWRs?
Name them! And shame them ! If you dare.
I notice a few of them have dropped of the radar. Is it because your vitriolic racism has become too much for them?

Your response to the first part of my comment:
upload_2016-9-2_3-15-48.png


I assume from your lack of response that you've fallen into one of your drunken comatose states?
 
Last edited:
Just reading through some of Susan Gardiner's comments
Benton and Gomez go on to say that this commission “concluded that women married to Chinese were ‘happy and contented and extremely well treated’ but that the Chinese had ‘frequent illicit intercourse with white women’ and seduced under-age girls. [Hmmm, this is beginning to sound familiar.]
https://susangardinerwriter.wordpre...se-immigrants-in-the-early-twentieth-century/
It looks like spuey has taken his inspiration from Susan Gardiner.
 
So how does anti-semitic fit with you?
Are you deliberately ignoring the point of Dubya's argument? The word 'Islammophobia' does have a genuine, legitimate meaning, but it is currently being used widely as a knee-jerk weapon of censorship against reasonable, factual criticism of Islam. If 'antisemite' was used in the same way to dismiss legitimate criticism of the Jewish faith, then the same would apply. However, the word does not seem to be used that way (currently) so it is not equivalent to 'Islammophobia' at all. It does not carry the same baggage.
 
Last edited:
Are you deliberately ignoring the point Dubya's argument? The word 'Islammophobia' does have a genuine, legitimate meaning, but it is currently being used widely as a knee-jerk weapon of censorship against reasonable, factual criticism of Islam. If 'antisemite' was used in the same way to dismiss legitimate criticism of the Jewish faith, then the same would apply. However, the word does not seem to be used that way (currently) so it is not equivalent to 'Islammophobia' at all. It does not carry the same baggage.
You cannot reason with the unreasonable...
 
Are you deliberately ignoring the point of Dubya's argument?
That's what he does.

The word 'Islammophobia' does have a genuine, legitimate meaning, but it is currently being used widely as a knee-jerk weapon of censorship against reasonable, factual criticism of Islam.
It is.

If 'antisemite' was used in the same way to dismiss legitimate criticism of the Jewish faith, then the same would apply.
Or, indeed, 'semitophobe' could have been invented.
Further proving the point - 'anti-islamist' could easily be used to describe people who are against the religion/philosophy. As it is clear that being against the religion/philosophy is not an unreasonable stance, 'islamophobe' and 'racist' are misused to make out that such a stance is against the people themselves and silence the criticism.

However, the word does not seem to be used that way (currently) so it is not equivalent to 'Islammophobia' at all. It does not carry the same baggage.
It is just the wrong word to use.
A phobia only affects the person who has it. Islamophobes will all be having an anxiety attack and in no state to cause offence to anyone.
Racists will be looking for someone of a different race (see, the clue's in the name) to abuse, probably not even considering what religion they follow.
 
The UN, government organisations and scientific bodies disagree with your view. Is that not enough for you, or do you prefer the 'closet racist' view that you embrace?

And of course these government organisations or the UN is correct?
pfffft...
 
Are you deliberately ignoring the point of Dubya's argument? The word 'Islammophobia' does have a genuine, legitimate meaning, but it is currently being used widely as a knee-jerk weapon of censorship against reasonable, factual criticism of Islam.
Not in this forum.
If you can find me a thread which is genuinely critical of Islam without racist abuse, I'll post a public apology, for my criticism of Dubya's comment.
Are you prepared to do the same, i.e. if you can't find a thread that is genuinely critical of Islam without someone resorting to racial abuse, will you accept that the argument is wasted here because it doesn't apply here.
It does apply elsewhere, but not here.
 
You mean the other RWRs?
Name them! And shame them ! If you dare.
I notice a few of them have dropped of the radar. Is it because your vitriolic racism has become too much for them?

No, we probably fell asleep as a result of your repetitive, never-ending, mindless, pc, lefty twaddle. :rolleyes::rolleyes::sleep::sleep:
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top