The hate industry, Islam and Islamophobia

People influenced by the Islamophobia and xenophobia are refusing to admit that their views associating terrorism to the Muslims are a total failure. The war on terrorism is a reflection of the West fear at their civilization, which is in the final stages of self-destruction. People like Robert Spencer and Brigitte Gabriel refuse to acknowledge that the inventions and achievements of Muslim scholars have contributed to the renaissance of Europe at the same time life flourished in the Muslim cities of Damascus, Baghdad and Cordoba, which had the highest standards of living such as public baths, sewer systems and street lighting at night. People like Mark Styen are also addressing the demographic problem in Europe with all the bias possible. Muslims shouldn't be concerned about the reluctance of Danish, Swedish, Canadian or Spanish women birth rates to ensure that the labor market adequately supplied by the labor force to sustain the pension system is described by Mark as leniency in the granting of privileges.


The bias exercised by the Western media in their criticism of Islam is remarkable. For this reason, they receive prestigious salaries and collect revenue from advertising during top-rated T.V and radio shows. Conservative research institutes collect donations and fees, and they certainly will not offer a neutral view. Capitalism, whose principles can be summed up as anything got a price, transformed the Islamophobia into an industry, with a lucrative revenue as a result of book sales, articles and meetings on various media outlets. Islamic hate industry derives substantial revenue from patronizing the hate speech under the banner of Islam. There are many t.v, audio and written media outlets that play the hate tone against the followers of other religions and even followers of other Islamic sects. Both sides need one another, the hate industry on both sides feed on each other propaganda.


The negative propaganda against Muslims, which is reinforced by the behaviors of some individuals doesn't necessarily mean the dissemination of this propaganda to all Muslims. Historical events such as the Crusades or the Inquisition courts must not an excuse of blowing up train stations in London, attacking an airport in Belgium or the stabbing incidents in Europe, where the knife has become the favorite instrument of slaughter, in the name of religion and God. But both, Muslims and Christians practice dual standards. Islam had no role in the European religious wars and wasn't part of World War I and World war 2, which wiped out over 80 million victims mostly civilians. Western powers besieged Iraq for years under the pretext of possession of weapons of mass destruction, the lack of food and medicine killed more than one million Iraqi children, and then they invaded Iraq and destroyed its infrastructure, displaced its population and opened detention camps in which the most brutal interrogation techniques practiced. No Weapons of mass destruction discovered and the war destroyed the country; meanwhile, George W Bush explicitly declared the war to be a crusade. What was the outcome of the war in Iraq? The emergence of terrorist organizations more bloody than its predecessors, where the Organization of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia, which surpassed the organization of al-Qaeda in criminality and bloody after which ISIS appeared. Now, the Western media promoting the extremist Khorasan group as an imminent danger to the security of the West and the safety of its citizens.


Islam or Christianity is just a religion that doesn't promote peace or violence but depends on personal behavior. If a person is by nature is peaceful, his character and behavior will reflect in his religious practices and vice versa. There are countless passages in the Christian and Jewish sacred books that incite violence against followers of other beliefs. It is absurd to simplify the fact that the violent acts of the Christians or Jewish people don't quote texts from the holy book to support their actions. They read and believe in these texts validity, do they? Those who blame religion and not people for violent and criminal acts should explain the high rates of crime, especially rape, theft and drugs, in countries and societies that describe themselves as secular and support separating religion from the state, the United States, Britain, France, Italy and others. How is that mass murder in Las Vegas 2017 interpreted when a gunman opened fire from his hotel window at a concert near the hotel? What is the justification for numerous shootings incidents in American schools and universities? And what about the 2011 mass murder in Norway, where a right-wing extremist named Andrés Bering opened fire on a camp for what he described as pro-Muslim left-wing youth? How will all these incidents be justified? How does the Western media's describe crimes committed by people with a white background as criminal offences justified while being labelled as terrorist crimes if committed by Arabs or Muslims?

End

 

islam is hateful. islam is primarily a governmental system, it is secondarily a religion. However, I've never considered it an industry. That's new one to me.

 

All three major religion run their own hate industry including Islam

 

I agree with a surprising amount of what you're saying, and I think that we have some small but key disagreements.

People influenced by anti-far-right sentiments are refusing to admit that their views associating Islamophobia with Nazis or the like are a failure.

Just like I reject viewing Muslims as the enemy of the west, I reject viewing the alt-right/far-right/medium-right as the enemy of the civilised world. Just like I can respect Islam without adopting it, I can respect the new-right without adopting it. It is possible to see aggression from Muslim groups as an understandable (but ultimately misinformed) reaction, just as it is possible to see aggression from far-right groups as an understandable (but ultimately misinformed) reaction.

I think you and I are correct in saying that the best way of producing a world in which Muslims and Westerners can live together is one where we understand their views. I just believe that the same happens to be true to alt-righters (or whichever slice of the political spectrum you are turning yourself against).

 

That's not true.
Judism has hate in their past, but isn't followed anymore like it was 2000 years ago.
It has evolved.
Buddhism does not preach hate.
Hindu does not preach hate.
Christianity does not preach hate.

Islam is written around hate, as it's main topic.

 

BTW, the topic in the OP is total BS.
I could start tearing it down right from the beginning.


You have to stop Bullsh-ting people and face the religion for what it really is. Islam needs to be re-written.
They need to remove Muhammed from the religion, and write in someone who is not a murdering, thieving, sexual pervert.
People want to emulate the main person,

 

Are we going to talk about why the West is in the final stages of self-destruction?

 

Most of those inventions and achievements were taken from Europe in the first place. The muslims drove Europe into the Dark Ages with their incessant attacks and raids, cutting off all trade in the Mediterranean. Any achievements by the muslims during their Golden Age was only fueled by looting, invasion, and stealing wealth (including taking slaves) from surrounding cultures.

The raids on Western Europe didn't begin to relent until the Ottoman sultanate was able to unite (through conquest) and subjugate the rest of the surrounding muslim caliphates, and turned his attention towards Eastern Europe, which bore all sorts of savagery while Western Europe was entering the Renaissance.
That's probably one the major reasons surrounding European powers consented to allow Venice so much power and concessions, because they recognized the need for Venice to maintain a strong navy to keep the muslims at bay, and Venice needed that navy to secure its trade routes through the Mediterranean. All through this time there were Barbary pirates, encouraged to attack European ships by the Ottoman sultan.

Or the muslims were just a conduit for other knowledge (such as from India) to reach Europe. For example, it's believed those "Arabic numerals" actually originated from India but Europeans just called it "Arabic" because it was transmitted to them through the Arab region of the world.

 

Generally speaking.
Muslims contributed nothing to any society. With few minor exceptions.
The so called, "golden age', Was nothing more than living off the fruits of what they could steal.

 

Not just fruits. They took slaves to do all their work and toil.
In many parts they worked their slaves so hard they had very short lifespans.
Which didn't matter because there were always more slaves to take.
This was more towards the start of the Islamic expansion (though they continued to buy slaves as novelty for the wealthy much later).
https://www.answering-islam.org/Green/slavery.htm

Extortion and jizya taxes on the Jews and Christians were also a big source of revenue.

And of course the Ottomans maintained a monopoly on the trade through the Isthmus of Suez. That was the whole reason Columbus set sail to the West trying to go around the world to find another trade route to India.

 

Life for the wealthy in the Muslim World was certainly lavish and extravagant. Poverty was widespread though.
A typical harem might hold 10 to 30 girls taken as slaves from Europe, and two or three eunuchs to guard it, taken as slaves from Africa.

The society lived under some pretty harsh laws, even harsher than Europe at the time. They might chop off your hand if you were caught stealing a fruit from the market, or throw you into a pit of lye if the ruler thought you were disloyal.

If you think that's just unbelievable, you might read this account that happened as late as the early Twentieth Century:

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/montreal-exhibit-recalls-armenian-genocide

I'm pretty sure there was an old Sinbad the Sailor episode that also had this as a plot element.

 

If you look at history, some of the most savage things in Europe (the Spanish Inquisition and Vlad the Impaler) happened in areas shortly after they had been invaded by the muslims.

I don't think that's just a coincidence.

Not just in Europe either, I've also been studying up on the history of Rajasthan in India.

 

It didn't directly have a role in World War 1 and 2, but I am aware of countless smaller ways it may have contributed in small part.
First of all, the muslims in Bosnia played some role in the conflict leading up to the assignation of Ferdinand that kicked off the first World War, and then off course the Ottoman Empire was one of the three belligerents, so this all has a place in the background to put things into proper perspective. Then there's a whole connection with Hitler, and how his life perspective was shaped, which I won't go into here, but I can think of at least three different muslim connections with that.
It might not have played a big role but I wouldn't say there was no connection.

Well that and getting rid of the genocidal and ruthless Saddam Hussein.

Couldn't have been more brutal than what Saddam already had.

 

I'm glad you mentioned Hitler.
Hitler had a fascination with Islam, not for the religion,
But rather for the control it had over the people.

They make the "perfect soldier", wanting to die in battle.

 

We also have rulers who would not allow Jews and Christians to convert.

The money coming in from the Jizya was needed.

 

Read that article from the link earlier posted.

https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/montreal-exhibit-recalls-armenian-genocide

The Turks didn't like the Armenians because they were viewed as disloyal, some of them having taken the side of Russia in the Turkish-Russian war, but what it really may have been at its core was that Armenians were christians and not muslims. (and the Armenians were not just a minority group living among the muslims but represented majorities in their own territories in Turkey's far East)

 

Hitler and Muhammed led similar lives.

The only major difference was,
Hitler was not a sexual pervert.

 

Hate the religion, not the follower.

That being said, Islam is the only religion today where those preaching tolerance are the heretics and the orthodoxy still promotes 'convert or die.' Most religions once preached this. All of them except Islam reformed hundreds or thousands of years ago.

 

That's all culturally relative.

Who are you to say taking another 14-year-old into your harem is perverted?

 

That's true.
However if I am 63 years old and take in a 10 year old, that is perverted. in any culture
Also we have an example of a warrior in big Mo's. Group, after a raid,
who refused a virgin child, even after Muhammed suggested it, because he thought it was not right.
If I like to lay with my head in the lap of menstruating women, that's perverted.in any culture.

Accused of having sex with a dead woman, that's a little kinky.

 

delete

 

total biased and non-sense

 

Slavery was a very common practice before Islam, why you restricted it only to Muslims?

 

Jizya or Tribute is that non-Muslims pay is much less than the Zakat that Muslims pay. You don't like the word Al-Jizya, use the word tax

 

I agree with you. But the fanatical on both sides need each other to continue the status of hostility, It is in their best interest both.