When one is labeled Islamophobic, what exactly does the charge constitute? What it should mean is that you are guilty of harboring a fear, more explicitly a fear of the standard Islamic reprisals to those who dare question their ideologies and similarly those who reject or resist Islamic dogmas from taking root in Western society. Islam has quite proudly adopted a method of persuasion which invariably includes death, injury or torture. Would fear then be an entirely irrational response, without reference to precedent, paranoid or steeped in bigotry? No, in fact, reality dictates that such a fear is actually very credible and self preserving. This might be because people generally have an aversion to having their limbs suddenly ripped from their torso while going about their day. We should in fact be afraid of Islam because it poses a very real threat to democratic freedoms and values . Where it gains strength it decimates opponent’s and strangles every facet of life and society.
It’s not a threat that is going to go away, and the collective credulity of the masses coupled with a gutless approach of appeasement, insisting on tiptoeing around Islamic aggression, only concedes more ground to noxious ideas. We ignore their own admissions of superiority, their explicit agenda to subjugate all nations to the tenets of Islam and crush dissent wherever it may be found. One need only examine the Koran and hadith to discover that this is not wild conspiracy theory in the realm of Satan worshipping, shape-shifting reptilian US presidents, no, it is written unequivocally in deeply revered and sacred texts, plain to the sight and cannot be edited. Why do we not take them at their word? Thus the term should be free of negative connotations, but is instead used to cast aspersions on the defiant and shield proponents of Islam from criticism.
Murtaza Hussain, the columnist for Al Jazeera, must live in a very different world to the rest of us. He insists Muslims are a peace-loving folk, the victims of a growing persecution led by a bloodthirsty gang of fascists now known as the new atheists. Hussain finds support in this absurdity in US writer, Glenn Greenwald, citing in his column that Islam is unfairly demonized by a malicious campaign of hatred , receiving undue focus from religious dissidents such as Sam Harris who should instead be concentrating on more viable threats (Jainism perhaps).
Greenwald appears to be suffering from a mental illness that renders him incapable of differentiating reality from delusion. One does not require an acute awareness of Arabian culture to recognize that Muslims have this habit of bringing a pipe bomb to an argument. One needs to ask this basic question without prejudice, who is more likely to kill and injure innocent people or simply those that fail to submit to your espoused ideologies ,is it people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Robert spencer and Geert Wilders, or is it people who claim they are God’s appointed representatives and acting on his behalf are under divine instruction to propagate a strictly non-negotiable collection of contrived ranting’s of a warmongering, rather inhospitable Arabian merchant, who according to him, received this final revelation supernaturally via the Archangel Gabriel.
However, I don’t actually believe Greenwald is mentally ill, there is something much more insidious at work here. Greenwald is merely a hypocrite and a coward and they are much more common than we would like to think. It is precisely this kind of coward that apologists of the prophet rely on to advance the agenda of global jihad, finding leverage with the western espoused spirit of multiculturalism and tolerance as a means to an end. Greenwald, perhaps in the interests of self preservation, conspicuously cowers to political correctness with an ostensible concern for the welfare of seemingly peaceful Muslims. Projecting Islam and it’s adherents as the passive victims in this struggle, doesn’t bode well for anyone familiar with either the present or history. Also disturbing is a distinct absence of candor among the proclaimed moderates; citing the predictable, tired old alibis when confronted with inquiry into Islamic themes such as Jihad ,apostasy and the fate of the infidel, it’s routine lip service to intrusive outsiders. Although honesty has scarcely been a feature of the Islamic discourse, we should by now, be catching on to the familiar tactics of Allah’s apologists.
Hussain’s slippery navigation of Harris’s work, with desperate and treacherous leaps of logic, attempts to somehow align Harris into the same fold as a faction of undeniably bigoted 18th century scientists, the connection being that Sam Harris is also a scientist therefore also a racist. No one does more than Hussain himself to impugn his intellectual integrity with his scrupulous handling of facts, launching an attack on Harris and friends from the safe confines of Canada, founded on the very principles and values that Islam’s faithful seek to erode.