‘Islamophobia is a reasonable reaction to jihadi violence’


It isn't Islamophobia when they REALLY want to kill us…

It isn’t Islamophobia when they REALLY want to kill us…

Indeed so.

It seems that we have to spell this out for some of the morons on the Left. There was nothing wrong with Nazi-phobia, nor Communism-phobia, nor North-Korea-phobia, nor Iranophobia. They were all (and some still are) existential threats to Western democracy and freedoms, and fear of them is a perfectly normal reaction.

Islamophobia, which has been turned into the great ‘Shut up, he explained’ of our time, is a reasonable fear of the pure Islam practised by Islamic State, and an increasing number of home grown Muslims who believe that our Western democracies must be torn down and replaced with the 7th century pre-medieval nightmare of sharia. Not only that, but many such Muslims are prepared to use random acts of violence to terrorise innocent citizens into submission.

That all seems pretty reasonable to me, but our Lefty friends will say that’s being ‘racist’ – so predictable, so boring and so wrong.

At least this guy has the right idea:

Genuine Islamophobia (fear of Islam) is the bitter fruit of the violent intolerance so routinely displayed by Muslim fascists towards anyone who might criticise their faith.

Rather than the epidemic of irrational prejudice that is such a staple of left-wing mythology, genuine Islamophobia is an entirely rational response to jihadi thuggery.

After all, isn’t it reasonable to be alarmed at the sight of Islamist hoodlums on the streets of Sydney advocating the beheading of anyone who slights Mohammad? Isn’t it sensible to be fearful when Boko Haram and ISIS put this bloody doctrine of decapitation into practice against “kaffireen” – the Arabic word for “infidels”.

And isn’t it wise to be worried when the supposedly moderate Grand Mufti of Australia defends the jihadists of Hizbut-Tahrir and blames Islamic radicalisation on the Australian Government and Israel?

This campaign of verbal and physical intimidation is designed to pressure non-Muslims into compliance with Q’uranic prohibitions against blasphemy. And this totalitarian effort to impose self-censorship through fear has met with success.

Media outlets now routinely refrain from showing material that might be deemed offensive to Muslim sensibilities. Sky News viewers were treated to such a display of cowardice when ex-Charlie Hebdo writer Caroline Fourest tried to display the magazine on screen during a live interview. The newsreader responded with absolute panic, directing the camera to cut away while announcing: “We’ve chosen not to show that cover. So we’d appreciate, Caroline, not showing that. We do apologise to any of our viewers who may have been offended.”

This craven practice of sanitising media coverage is rationalised through sanctimonious declarations of multicultural sensitivity. But every so often, the Islamophobic truth comes to light, as when CNN journalist Brian Stelter confessed his network would refrain from broadcasting images of Charlie Hebdo because “it could also be a safety risk for staff”.

Much ink has been spilt in debate over the Islamic bona fides of ISIS. But in this month’s The Atlantic, editor Graeme Wood argues that the link between jihadi violence and Muslim theology is undeniable. “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic … the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.” (source)

Comments

  1. johnbuk says:

    Yes, all very logical. But the mistake you’re making is the “logic” bit – we’re not talking reason here but emotion and, perhaps more apposite, ensuring the lefties are seen to inhabit the moral high-ground (according to them). They are more interested in strutting the world stage displaying their moral superiority than thinking anything through – that’s why their “rules” only apply to others, not them. It’s also why they take great care to ensure their superiority is advertised widely – after all what’s the point of being righteous if no-one knows? Sadly I’ll probably miss the denouement when they smile broadly at the jihadist in a “welcoming friendly embrace” just as the knife slices through their scrawny neck and the first wave of questioning doubt is brought to a sudden halt.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: