"Fear of Islam,"ie., Islamophobia, Has Been the Rational and Justified Position Among Non-Muslims for 1400 years...

 

Sorry Democrats and other idiots. Fear of Islam has been entirely justified by “Infidels,” ie., non-Muslims, for 1400 years. During that history, notable writers have repeatedly commented on the depravity, cruelty and criminality of Muslims since it’s inception. Below is a transcript from famous Islamic scholar, Dr. Raymond Ibrahim, taking issue with Joe Biden’s executive order asserting that Islamophobia is a result of “hate and racism,” that must be countered somehow. Dr. Ibrahim dares to set the record straight.

In short islamophobia, literally fear of Islam, has been the mainstream position among non-muslims for nearly 1,400 years-- ever since Muhammad started attacking killing and enslaving non-muslims infidels in the name of his God. And it is because his followers continue hating, attacking and killing "infidels" that islamophobia exists to this day. In short Islamopobia is rational and entirely justified because the Muslim’s crimes remain horrifying to civilized people for all these centuries.

Here’s a transcipt of his video exposition:

One of Joe Biden's very last acts before leaving office, aside from all those presidential pardons, was to release in December what the White House called the first ever US national strategy to counter Islamophobia.

This document asserts that “Islamophobia in America is a by-product of hate for and racism against Muslims. Thus the first of the document's four strategies to counter islamophobia is 1) to increase awareness of hatred against Muslims and Arabs and 2) broaden recognition of these community's heritages. 3) To recognize that Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build our country since its founding but 4) they have also routinely experienced hate, discrimination and bias due to "baseless" stereotypes, fearmongering and prejudice.”

Let's for now ignore the demonstrably false claim that Muslims have helped build our country since its founding. In reality Muslims were the first to terrorize our country since its founding as I will presently show. And let's instead focus on the assertion that Muslims have routinely experienced hate discrimination and bias due to baseless stereotypes.

There are only two ways to understand this; either Americans are really dumb and/or evil, buying into and acting on any meaningless stereotype thrown their way, or else what non-Muslims routinely experience is not built on top of baseless stereotypes but rather something else---ie., reality. History argues for this second interpretation.

Muslims have indeed routinely experienced aversion from non-muslims but that's because non-muslims have always understood, often from direct and personal experience, what Islam is all about. The fact is, from the very start, Western peoples-- especially their luminaries--portrayed Islam as a hostile and violent force often in terms that would make today's Islamophobe blush.

They did so for the simple reason that, for centuries they were on the receiving end of Islamic violence and conquests. But it wasn't just what they personally experienced at the hands of Muslims that developed this ancient phobia to Islam. As already discussed in a previous video, as far back as the 7th Century, Islam's scriptures became available to nearby Christians such as John of Damascus born around 675, one of History's earliest Islamophobes, based solely on these primary sources of Islam Christians concluded “that Muhammad was a demon-possessed false prophet who had very obviously concocted a creed to justify the worst depravities of man for dominion, plunder, cruelty and carnality. This view prevailed for well over a millennium throughout Europe.”

And it was augmented by the fact that, Muslim's were, well over a millennium after Muhammad, still invading Christian territories plundering them and abducting their women and children. As mentioned, the United States first conflict with Islam, indeed its first war as a nation, came not after September 11, 2001 but in 1801 as a response to jihadist raids on American ships for booty and slaves (The Barbary Wars).

After meeting with an ambassador from Barbary, Jefferson sent a letter to Congress saying: "We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their barbary's pretensions to make war upon Nations who had done them no injury. And we observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador from Barbary answered us that “Islam was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their Authority were Sinners, that it was their right and duty (Muslims) to make war upon them. ie., non-muslims wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners. (Check out Quran 95-the sword verse). And that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

Assuming you need more examples, here is a minuscule sampling of what Europeans thought of Islam throughout the centuries: according to Theophanes, an important Eastern Roman chronicler, who was born around 758, he wrote quote "He, Muhammad, taught those who gave ear to him, that the one slaying the enemy or being slain by the enemy entered into Paradise. (That's Quran 9111.) And he said Paradise was carnal and sensual orgies of eating drinking and women. Also there was a river of wine and the women were of another sort and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring and all sorts of other nonsense.

Also, according to Thomas Aquinus, one of Christendom most influential theologians and philosophers, born around 1225, he wrote “He, Muhammad, seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure and he gave free reign to carnal pleasure. In all this, as was expected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for the proofs of the truth of his doctrine, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. In other words Muhammad's proof that God had sent him was that he was able to conquer and plunder others; which is not exactly impressive Thomas is saying. He continues— Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.

Although a contemporary of Thomas Aquinus, Marco Polo, born around 1254, was far from a bookish scholar-- being a merchant and world traveler, yet he made very similar observations. Marco Polo wrote: "according to their Doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith is properly taken and the theft is no crime. While those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians are considered as Martyrs. If therefore they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them (he's referring to the Mongols), they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all ‘Sarasins’ (Muslims). “

When the Mongol Khan later discovered the depraved criminality of one of his Governors, Achmed, Polo writes that the Khan's "attention went to the doctrines of the sect of the Sarasins (meaning Islam), which excuse every crime, yay, even murder itself, when committed on those that are not of their religion. And seeing that this Doctrine had led the accursed Achmed and his sons to act as they did, without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for the sect of the Sarasin, meaning Islam, so he summoned the Sarasin and prohibited their doing many things which their religion allowed.”

Let's fast forward here's what John Quincy Adams, America's sixth president, who was born before the Revolutionary War in 1767, had to say about Islam: "Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the Faith and Hope of immortal life, and the future retribution, he, Muhammad, humbled it--meaning piety and religious living-- to the Dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain by degrading the condition of the female sex and the allowance of polygamy. And he declared undistinguishing and exterminating warfare as a part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his Doctrine was violence and lust to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature. “

According to Alexis de Tocqueville, born in 1805, a French political thinker and philosopher best known for his popular work "Democracy in America" he wrote "I studied the Quran a great deal I came away from that study with a conviction that, by and large, there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammadans. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence, rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.”

Then there was Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt born around 1858 and he's the 26th president of the United States and an accomplished student of history.

According to him "Christianity was saved in Europe only because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries—and on up to and including the 17th century, had not possessed a military quality with, and gradually a growing superiority over Muhammadans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Muhammadan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Muhammadans have had complete sway wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity and those Christians have ultimately disappeared.”

I can go on and on with many more examples. See my book "Sword and Scimitar" where I have many more quotes from the contemporaries who dealt with Islam over the centuries. But the point should be clear; even so some at this point may argue that these and other historic charges against Islam are mere byproducts of Christian/Western xenophobia and intolerance for the other.

But if that were true how does one explain that many of Islam's Western critics also praised other non-western civilizations as well as what is today called moderate Muslims? For example aside from speaking well of the Pagan Mongols, Marco Polo also held the Brahmans of India, the Hindu religious leaders, as being “most honorable--possessing a hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons.” And despite Marco Polo's criticisms of the sect of the Sarasins he referred to one Muslim leader as governing with Justice and “another who showed himself to be a very good Lord and made himself beloved by everybody.“

Perhaps British Statesman Winston Churchill, born around 1874, who once went so far as to compare pious Muslims to rabid dogs in his book"The River War"that summed up the matter. He wrote"individual Muslims may show splendid qualities but the influence of the religion paralyzes the Social Development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde Force exists in the world.”

In short, islamophobia, literally fear of Islam, has been the mainstream position among non-muslims for nearly 1,400 years-- ever since Muhammad started attacking, killing and enslaving non-muslims infidels in the name of his God. And it is because his followers continue hating attacking and killing "infidels" that islamophobia exists to this day.

Therefore that which Muslims routinely experience, to quote from Biden's anti-islamophobia document, has never been due to baseless stereotypes but rather reality and self-preservation on the part of the"Infidel." People have eyes and ears to see and hear with and they act accordingly.”