15

Is Islamaphobia Irrational?

Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago to Education
214 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Since a phobia is described as an irrational fear, Islamaphobia becomes an oxymoron.
Need proof? The following are some reasons for a rational fear of Islam and its Muslim followers. I use the word "some" because for the sake of brevity, I could have listed many more. Keep in mind that the following were all perpetrated by Muslims:
The shoe bomber
The Beltay shooters
The underwear bomber
The USS Cole bombers
The Madrid Train Bombers
The Bali Nightclub bombers
The London Subway bombers
The Moscow Theater Attackers
The Boston Marathon Bombers
Pan Am 93
The Iranian Embassy takeover
The Israeli Olympic Team massacre
The Kober Towers bombers
Embassy Attack in Benghazi
The Beirut Marine Barracks massacre
The 1st World Trade Center Bombing
The 2nd World Trade Center Attack on 911
Tha Achille Lauro Hijack
The Peshawary Schoolchildren massacre
If that doesn't prove that it is perfectly rational to fear Muslims, nothing will. However, that doesn't mean that one should run cowering when encountering a Muslim. Quite the opposite should be the case.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 1 month ago
    But what is the basic motivation behind the atrocities? Is Islam really the problem or is it bigger?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely. So when Trump wants to stop the influx of syrian muslims until we figure out how to litmus test them, I have to agree we should NOT let them in
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ number6 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    John : I would agree with religion vs Objectivism.

    Islam poses ZERO threat to humanity .... radical Islamists who are terrorist do.

    Its like Jewish people do not pose a threat to humanity but many radical Zionsist do and have.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    This is still, by definition, statistical discrimination, and you are drawing conclusions about the character of an individual based upon their genetic heritage. It is irrational. Now, once somebody has told you that they believe in Islam as a religion and way of life, then you can judge their character and the content if their mind based upon actual evidence, rather than associations with other share a genetic lineage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Lets avoid discussions that are essentially the splitting of hairs between different mystical doctrines. At their core, both Christianity and Islam are irrational in their belief of a supernatural being and are collectivist in their ethical, moral, political, and other philosophical conclusions.
    Objectivism, which at its core is egoist and individualist, is diametrically opposed to both (all) religions in purpose, origin, and the conclusions it draws about the world.

    While Islam appears to currently pose the greatest physical threat to humanity of all modern religions, all mysticism poses a philosophical threat. All religions should be opposed not on their outcomes, but at their core and their flawed irrational basis.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ number6 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The word terrorist is not tattooed on the heads either, nor is the word terrorist tattooed on the heads of the people who committed all the listed atrocities I showed.

    The next step is for you say most of the listed terrorist activity is by people who are Arabic, so we should categorize ALL Arabs as terrorists (even the Christian and Jewish ones)

    Your canned BS and ignorance helps recruit radical Islamists. read "The Islamist" and/or "Radical" by Maajid Nawaz and maybe it can help you understand. (Or, of course, you can keep believing the propaganda which only strengthens the radical cause.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The Greek prefix anti- means "something that takes the place of something else." And in this case it seems the polar opposite. But the Communists needed an alternative worship system. Will Durant famously observed--repeatedly, in his signature work--that "religion attends the birth of civilization; philosophy attends its funeral."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, give me a break with the syllogism crap. All the atrocities listed by me were perpetrated by radical Muslim extremists. Since there are approximately 200 million of them, and the word "Radical" is not tattooed on their foreheads, it is only common sense to be wary of Muslims. That doesn't mean aggressiveness, or bellicosity, or discourteousness, it merely means be careful. and be alert and be prepared.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Jesus" is the Greek name. In Aramaic I imagine He called Himself "Yeshua."

    The warts? I was thinking of King David, and maybe Moses in some of his bad moods. You see, the Tanakh doesn't mean to say that any of its heroes and leaders set a good example all the time. One must discern the good examples from the bad examples in the behavior of any figure in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

    But the Qur'an holds up Muhammad as the perfect exemplar in everything he did. And considering some of the more atrocious things he did...!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    +1

    Drawing these specific distinctions is important. A group defined by violent, anti-human evil, like the KKK or ISIS, is abhorred by any rational individual.

    Blanket condemnation of a group not Defined by similar characteristics is just lazy. The innocent get destroyed if justice is by a "margin of error".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If there was a large, loud anti-radical voice coming from Muslims, it would be a lot easier to accept them. But, there isn't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I get that without reading Arabic, one is reading a translation and agree that makes it possible for the translation to be slanted. That is going to be true for any thing that is translated from Arabic including the info that you suggest reading. I have seen info that refutes the translations that I have read but the material has not been presented to me by anyone with credentials to make it valid. The versions that I've read have been presented to me by more than one source with credentials. Is it possible that they are not telling the truth? Yes of course but at least they were able to speak Arabic and their story is believable. It is also backed up by the actions mentioned in this post as well as actions in the Middle East.

    So tell me, do you speak and read Arabic? If so then I can place some credibility with you. But you will have to give me more reasons other than just what you state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Nope. I'm pretty careful with my use of words. Communism became a substitute religion, or perhaps you'd call it a faux religion. Worship of the State whose hierarchy dwelt in the Kremlin and awarded the status of saints and prophets to the leaders. Their anti religion stance was to fend off competitors. At least, that's how I see it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Being a Jew, I hate to disagree with you, however, many of the biblical leaders of the old bible were de-warted to a large extent. Sort of like those pictures of Jesus, showing him as a sandy haired, blue-eyed Nordic type. But I understand why you are comparing Moe to regular humans. In Islamist terms he was a manifestation of God much like Christianity's portrayal of Jesus.
    By the way, can anyone tell me where the bible writers got the name Jesus? The closest I can get is that it may be Greek. There certainly was never an Ashkenazi Jew with a name like that. Possibly Joshua (Yoshua) or Jacob (Yakov) but no one was ever called Jesus.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely correct.
    Now, if you could only convince the jerks in DC ....
    But that may be too much to hope for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    One should be vigilant, but not fearful. Be prepared to defend oneself without paranoia. Keep in mind that the traditional defenders of your rights are no longer necessarily on your side.

    It is sad that the country through the wimps in Washington through concession, taking sides, and inaction, have caused the nation to be fearful. But that doesn't mean that people should be cowering in fear. However, there is no sense in acting under the pretense that we are the same country that it was in WW2.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ number6 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Be careful the bias of the authors that you read. Unless you read Arabic, you are reading and interpretation. Many of those interpretations have an anti-Islam slant.

    Please read : "The Lies About Muhammad" , "Refuting Isis", an "Dymystifying Islam" for a start ... The primary difficulty with anti Islam speech is the bias built into the beliefs of the speaker (or writer).

    The essence of Islam (per Muhammad) "You will not enter paradise until you believe and you will not believe until you love one another, shall I tell you of something which, if you do it, you will love one anither? spread Peace among yourselves."

    Proslytyzing is not encouraged in Islam and, believe it or not, a difference between Islam and Christianity is the belief that man AND woman are both creations of God and are equals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    CBJ:
    You are right. And, for that I am thankful. While Islam is the predominant religion among Arabs, it is also adhered to by other ethnic groups. There are also Arabs who subscribe to different religions as well. It is a wonder to me that Homo Sapiens still clings to ancient philosophies which were born out of ignorance in order to explain what was unexplainable thousands of years ago.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    hi, mccannon:
    Actually, it is not a topic of discussion in The Gulch.
    If a person is an Objectivist, that person does not believe in any formal religion, and is most likely an atheist. Although I must say, that Jesus seemed to be a nice Jewish boy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Suzanne43 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, Herb for bringing this amount of radicalized Muslims out. People see the 10% and think, "Oh, we can deal with that." They forget that it's 10% of a couple of billion. In Brian Kilmead's book on the Tripoli pirates, the Muslims true beliefs come out...convert to Islam or be enslaved or die.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. There is no more "exactly the same" among the varieties of persons that count themselves as Muslims as there is "exactly the same" among all the denominations and sects of Christians. Even where there is more or less doctrinal agreement there are huge variations in what an adherent believes is and is not a proper way to behave in the world at large.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo