Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Some of what you posted is exaggerations or outright fabrications used by various nationalists. Why would Serb, Sikh, and Hindu nationalists be any more reliable sources than all the Islamophile PR agents? Did Muslims kill people in the Balkans and India and frequently take slaves? Yes. Did they rule it for hundreds of years? Yes. Was it "centuries of darkness and mass murder and colonization?" Not really, unless you're like many of these writers and the sources they cite where they appear to be very selective about their primary sources due to their political affiliation.
You appear to be quoting Sikh extremist websites there. Hindus and Sikhs often have a massive grudge against Islam for historical reasons, far more than anyone white does outside the Balkans; India is currently ruled by the Hindu nationalist BJP. Obviously the Muslim empires killed a lot of people in India over the years (it's unusual that an empire doesn't), but it's not really fair to compare the deaths of many wars and acts over centuries to the atrocities of World War 2, which happened in only 6 years and would have been much worse if the Axis had won.

Timur was horrifying, though. 17 million died from his campaigns, all with 14th century technology, almost as many as died in World War 1.

I should have noted that some of the sites I posted are highly biased but quote primary/reliable sources. I tried not to include anything that didn’t include citations. I also tried to find non-biased articles, but honestly it’s pretty difficult. If either of you know of any better articles or resources I could read I’d appreciate it.

Yes, those articles were written by Serbian/Hindu nationalists, but they’re like the only people who talk about the topic of Islamic imperialism. Most people who know about it either gloss over it or outright whitewash it.
 
I should have noted that some of the sites I posted are highly biased but quote primary/reliable sources. I tried not to include anything that didn’t include citations. I also tried to find non-biased articles, but honestly it’s pretty difficult. If either of you know of any better articles or resources I could read I’d appreciate it.

Yes, those articles were written by Serbian/Hindu nationalists, but they’re like the only people who talk about the topic of Islamic imperialism. Most people who know about it either gloss over it or outright whitewash it.

Ottoman war crimes are pretty well known. The Great War Youtube channel covers the Armenian and Assyrian genocides as part of its coverage of World War 1, and mentions the Ottoman attempts to incite jihad against the Allies. I remember people giving The Young Turks a hard time over their views on them, as well.

As for the Mughals and other Indian empires, I'd agree their atrocities aren't very well known outside India, but I think that's because of how long ago it was. Centuries old history is rarely common knowledge unless it's politicised.
 
tumblr_p2ya2pseB61w4eqqho1_1280.png
 
This article posted in the Articles & Happenings forum is very relevant to this thread:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/colle...who-say-god-bless-you-are-islamophobic.40386/
https://simmons.libguides.com/anti-oppression/anti-islamomisia#Islamophobia

If you’ve ever wished someone a “Merry Christmas” or said “God bless you” when someone sneezes, you’ve committed an act of “Islamomisic microaggressions,” according to college librarians at a Massachusetts college.

The Anti-Oppression Library Guide at Simmons College in Boston is a collaborative effort among the school’s librarians, reported CampusReform.org.

“Islamomisic Microaggressions are commonplace verbal or behavioral indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicates hostile, derogatory, or negative slights in relation to the beliefs and religious practices of Muslims,” the librarians argue. “They are structurally based and invoke oppressive systems of religious/Christian hierarchy.”

A spokesperson told Fox News the guide is not a policy of Simmons College.

“The information in this guide is an introductory resource intended to provide general information about anti-oppression, diversity, and inclusion,” the statement read. “It is by no means a complete guide to social justice issues, religions, conversations or points of view.”

As disclaimer, the guide adds, “We are not immune from the limits and hidden biases of our own privileges and perspectives as allies. We welcome and greatly appreciate any feedback and suggestions for the guide, particularly from the perspectives and experiences of the marginalized groups listed and not listed here.”

The librarians argue Christians are especially guilty of Islamomisic microaggressions for using phrases like “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Easter,” and “God bless you.”

Some other microaggressions aimed at Muslims include “endorsing religious stereotypes,” such as viewing hijabs as fashionable, suggesting Muslims practice the “wrong” religion, and having “the assumption of one’s own religious identity as the norm.”

The controversial resource argues “people who follow Christianity have institutionalized power,” or “Christian privilege,” which is demonstrated when they “expect to have time off work to celebrate religious holidays” or worship without fear of violence or threats.

The guide also argues that Christians suffer from “Christian fragility” and may become angry, hostile, or defensive during conversations about religion because Christians lack the skills for constructive engagement with other religions.

“Within this dominant social environment, Christians come to expect social comfort and a sense of belonging and superiority,” the librarians write. “They may become defensive, positioning themselves as victims of anti-Islamomisic work and co-opting the rhetoric of violence to describe their experiences of being challenged on religious privilege.”

The page features a TED talk by Melissa Boigon, where she said Islamophobia has turned into a fear of Arabs and not Islam itself. Boigon stated there is nothing “violent or anti-American” about sharia law.

“Islam is a religion of peace,” Boigon said. “Muslims did not kill Americans on 9/11. A very small extremist group that can barely gain any footing, even in the most conservative Muslim circles committed heinous crimes on 9/11. Islam is a religion of peace.”

The guide also links to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which lists Fox News Channel as an “Islamophobic Organization.”

This is my favorite part:
The guide also argues that Christians suffer from “Christian fragility” and may become angry, hostile, or defensive during conversations about religion because Christians lack the skills for constructive engagement with other religions.

I'm just amazed that the authors actually spoke about "Christian fragility" in relation to Islam/Muslims. Islam is the most fragile religion in the world. The majority of Muslim countries have blasphemy laws that are strongly enforced. In 2012, The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation called for a global ban on criticism of Muhammad (although thankfully Western nations strongly opposed it and so it never happened). Muslims are unable to leave Islam and join another religion/abandon religion in many Muslim countries. Books, comics, and movies that make fun of Muhammad are met with violent reactions (including murder in some cases). I can keep going.
 
This article posted in the Articles & Happenings forum is very relevant to this thread:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/colle...who-say-god-bless-you-are-islamophobic.40386/
https://simmons.libguides.com/anti-oppression/anti-islamomisia#Islamophobia



This is my favorite part:


I'm just amazed that the authors actually spoke about "Christian fragility" in relation to Islam/Muslims. Islam is the most fragile religion in the world. The majority of Muslim countries have blasphemy laws that are strongly enforced. In 2012, The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation called for a global ban on criticism of Muhammad (although thankfully Western nations strongly opposed it and so it never happened). Muslims are unable to leave Islam and join another religion/abandon religion in many Muslim countries. Books, comics, and movies that make fun of Muhammad are met with violent reactions (including murder in some cases). I can keep going.
To say nothing of the fragility exhibited directly by this puff-piece itself: that muslims are poor little porcelain babies who will fall apart if they hear a positive and friendly remark from another person that happens to be drawn from that person's religion.
 
To say nothing of the fragility exhibited directly by this puff-piece itself: that muslims are poor little porcelain babies who will fall apart if they hear a positive and friendly remark from another person that happens to be drawn from that person's religion.

Seriously. A lot of Muslims have no problem with being told "Merry Christmas" or whatever (at most, they just won't say it themselves because it's seen as endorsing non-Islamic religion). They actually appreciate the sentiment. Only buzzkill hardliners and extremists get salty about it, because how dare filthy kafirs try to tempt pious Muslims into accepting their Satanic pagan holidays?
 
She's apparently being sponsored by The Body Shop, now. I guess they're pro-extermination of Jews.
I may have been thinking of, and I can't believe I'm saying this, another hair model who refuses to show her hair.
 
Sjws always look at history through the lens of postcolonial studies so it's always good to point out that Arabs introduced the racialization of slavery to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Africanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

Some of what you posted is exaggerations or outright fabrications used by various nationalists. Why would Serb, Sikh, and Hindu nationalists be any more reliable sources than all the Islamophile PR agents? Did Muslims kill people in the Balkans and India and frequently take slaves? Yes. Did they rule it for hundreds of years? Yes. Was it "centuries of darkness and mass murder and colonization?" Not really, unless you're like many of these writers and the sources they cite where they appear to be very selective about their primary sources due to their political affiliation.

The identity of the historian shouldn't matter. As long as they cite reliable sources and make arguments that fit those sources.

I'm sure a Brit could write reliably about ww1 Germany without going into an incoherent screed about "subhuman huns"
 
It is better to get info from a neutral source, though. Even better if it's a dedicate historian from a different culture all together.
 
To say nothing of the fragility exhibited directly by this puff-piece itself: that muslims are poor little porcelain babies who will fall apart if they hear a positive and friendly remark from another person that happens to be drawn from that person's religion.
I was going to say, someone should write a think piece about the most serious case of fragility in existence - post-modern fragility.
It is better to get info from a neutral source, though. Even better if it's a dedicate historian from a different culture all together.
My old history professor used to say that the best historian actively works to document against self interest, trying to prove things that run counter to what they and their culture want to believe. As he put it, it's as close as you can get to the scientific method studying history. It's a difficult path though, no matter your culture.
 
The identity of the historian shouldn't matter. As long as they cite reliable sources and make arguments that fit those sources.

I'm sure a Brit could write reliably about ww1 Germany without going into an incoherent screed about "subhuman huns"

That's the thing, those aren't necessarily reliable historians. Those blogs cite people like Koenraad Elst, Alain Danielou, Sita Ram Goel, and K.S. Lal, who all have links to Hindu nationalism. I have not read their books, but if on the subject of Islam and India, they are often criticized by most historians in the field, their works are not generally accepted as good sources, and they have obvious reasons to present primary sources the way they do (being Hindu nationalists, which ties into the whole India vs Pakistan rivalry so it isn't just religious in nature), it's best to take what they say and weigh it against what other writers have to say on the subject. The historical record regarding the Mughals, Delhi Sultanate, etc. is pretty rich, and there's plenty of English-language sources available.
 
I'm sure a Brit could write reliably about ww1 Germany without going into an incoherent screed about "subhuman huns"
Yes, but would you expect a British Historian who published a book called Do It Again Bomber Harris: Why Germany Should Be Glassed and was part of the Kill All Germs party to give an unbiased account of German history?
 
Yes, but would you expect a British Historian who published a book called Do It Again Bomber Harris: Why Germany Should Be Glassed and was part of the Kill All Germs party to give an unbiased account of German history?
Unbiased no way, but it definitely sounds like an entertaining account.
 
There is one thing that I constantly see no answer given. There is nothing in the Quran that says anyone has to wear a specific tyoe of clothing aside from men to not wear gold or silk yet if you point out that she also could just wear a hoodie or hooded blouse or hooded jacket with the hood up instead of a hijab because it won't draw attention to them in non Muslim countries which is part of the whole point of Islamic dress code is to not be flashy or prideful but they never respond to the contradictions being pointed out to them of taking pride in wearing a hijab in non Muslims countries and how they wouldn't even wear a hijab when strictly following the rules.

Why always and only a hijab even if it draws negative attention and may actually be going against the Quran?
 
Personally I dont think the Hijab itself is a problem or a symbol of oppression. I think the Hijab being COMPULSORY is a huge problem. The Hijab on its own, I dont mind, it can be beautiful (Nice bright colours), for the woman, it can make them feel more comfortable (spend less time worrying about their hair). There are no consequences for a woman taking their Hijab off in the streets in western society, so most muslim women in the west that wear the Hijab do it out off their choice.

Problem is when countries such as Iran make it compulsory and supporters of these muslim countries come up with BS reasoning such as " Allows men self control" or "It is written in the holy book". I dont give a fuck what the holy book says everyone should be allowed human rights and autonomy. Setting consequences for women who dont want to wear a Hijab is a violation against basic human rights
 
Sjws always look at history through the lens of postcolonial studies so it's always good to point out that Arabs introduced the racialization of slavery to Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Africanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanj_Rebellion

The identity of the historian shouldn't matter. As long as they cite reliable sources and make arguments that fit those sources.

I'm sure a Brit could write reliably about ww1 Germany without going into an incoherent screed about "subhuman huns"

Most cultures practised slavery at one time or another. The Vikings were infamous for taking and trading slaves, especially from Ireland. It being "racialised" (which it often was anyway, since people from other cultures were taken as slaves) doesn't matter very much. The Abbasids had the same attitude to slavery as other 9th century civilisations.

It is, however, true that the very last countries to abolish slavery were Muslim: Niger in 1960, Saudi Arabia and North Yemen in 1962, Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1981. It wasn't a criminal offence to own slaves in Mauritania until 2007, and even today the law isn't enforced very strongly.

given that they come from immigrated families, and muslim immigrants sadly have a reputation to refuse to interact, mix and marry with other communities, this is probably not the case.
You have more chance to see women with no hijab in Marracash than arab ghettos in american/european cities.

The word "ghettos" is important here. The Lebanese Christian diaspora is mostly affluent and fairly secular. The slums in Marrakesh don't look terribly enlightened either.

You can see a stark contrast in Syria between the richer loyalist areas, where women with uncovered heads are common, and the poorer areas where the rebels were most popular, where uncovered heads are rare, or even forbidden by the rebels who control the area. Most Muslim countries, aside from places like Saudi Arabia and Iran where head covering is compulsory, have a similar divide between the urban upper class and everyone else. Muslim communities in France or the UK tend to mostly be from the more religious lower class, since they economically migrated to earn more money. There are exceptions to this, though, like the Iranian diaspora, many of whom are secular and upper class people who left after the 1979 Revolution. They don't live in "Arab ghettos", though.

Arab ghettos aren't common in the US anyway, if they exist at all. Over 3/4 of Arab Americans are non-Muslim, and most are above average income. US ghettos are almost entirely black and Latino.
 
Last edited:
Surely everyone agrees with me, this is clearly the work of alt-right trolls!
79fcbfd.jpg

28700768_10215381463750974_3065240689380649741_o.jpg

29426046_2014719055521624_2675565712587620352_n.jpg

I really want to believe this is a troll.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom