https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/03/24/meet-the-militant-monk-spreading-islamophobia-in-india/

"Adityanath is a controversial and deeply divisive figure for his militant, misogynistic and anti-Muslim rhetoric. He has been a vociferous supporter of a campaign called Love Jihad, ostensibly to stop Muslim youths from marrying Hindu women, claiming, without evidence backing this up, that the intention was to convert them to Islam. His supporters have called for digging up Muslim women from their graves and raping them. In 2015, he said that if he was given the chance, he would install idols of Hindu gods in every mosque. In an undated video uploaded in 2014, he said, “If [Muslims] take one Hindu girl, we’ll take 100 Muslim girls. If they kill one Hindu, we’ll kill 100 Muslims.”

No, of course not. It exists pretty much everywhere islam is practiced.

One religion hating/fearing another exists everywhere religion is practiced :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One religion hating/fearing another exists
> everywhere religion is practiced :)

this has been running for centuries - the problem first arose with muslim expansion in it's infancy but came to a head after independence from the british and partition into india & pakistan and the exodus of peoples that followed.

Both sides (and the brits) have been guilty of atrocities and massacres but here is an extract summation of the basics:


**Throughout the Middle Ages, Muslim expansion into the Indian Peninsula threatened the Hindu way of life. In time, some Indians converted to Islam. Throughout the Modern Age, Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus coexisted within a fragile system, with violence often breaking out between the two groups.

In the 20th century, Hindu-Muslim tension played a vital role in the partition of British India. While Hindu Indians dominated the central and eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, Muslim Indians dominated the western part of the region (in what is now Pakistan). This is important to remember as we move forward!

In the early 20th century, many Muslim Indians belonged to the upper classes of society. But as democratic thinking grew among the poor and lower classes, which had a large composition of Hindus, many Muslim Indians became concerned. Hindus were increasingly coming to power. The Muslim League, technically called the All-India Muslim League, was established in 1906 to protect the civil rights of Muslim Indians, particularly those of the upper class.

Meanwhile, the Indian National Congress, a political organization and party established in 1885, worked to secure greater autonomy from the British Raj. The term 'British Raj' simply refers to British rule over the Indian subcontinent. While the Indian National Congress contained some members who were also members of the Muslim League, by the 1930s it became increasingly dominated by Hindus. By this time, many Indians also began demanding complete independence from British rule.

Enter Gandhi. Mohandas Gandhi was the leading figure of India's independence movement. He became famous for his acts of civil disobedience toward British authority. **

http://study.com/academy/lesson/muslim-and-hindu-conflict-in-india-and-the-partition-of-india-and-pakistan.html

ghandi's vision was a democratic republic of equals, muslims wanted a sharia state where non-muslims are treated as second class citizens and subject to a daily tax which allows them to remain in the country as second class citizens. Or, they can convert for full rights, but only if male since females are property to them.

There was a muslim principality within the eastern indian lands that did not want to join democratic india so was massacred by the indian army to prevent a muslim kingdom destroying the democratic society from within, which is discussed here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24159594

Islamophobia is nothing new and very often was not an irrational fear, which most phobias are by definition; an irrational fear.

Muslims are like rabid mormons, imo: they are brainwashed and follow their 'prophet' by obeying whatever their imam inteprets their scriptures to mean, like mormons and 'current doctrine/policy'. The muslims have just been at it a lot longer, and are quite upfront about their command to convert or kill non believers. Many modern thinkers take this order to 'kill' to be a spiritual death of their 'deconverted' self rather than a literal slaying, however, in the early days, physical slaying was the norm, as it still is in some places.

And the Liberal government of Canada passed a motion today that made "Islamophobia" illegal. It singles out Islam in this motion. Many here are wondering if this is pandering to Islam to the exclusion of other faiths and if this now condones sharia law and all that denotes.

Legitimate critique of Islam or Islamic society isn't the same as Islamophobia. Nor is it the same as being critical of some Arab, African, or South Asian cultural practices either.

I don't know what makes some people want to shoot someone simply (and usually erroneously) thinks they are Muslim. Mosques aren't like the YFZ Temple or the Pizzagate resturant but some people think all manner of atrocities are committed inside of them. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they are a terrorist in waiting.

Irrational craziness like this and that of the Hindu monk from the article is no different than the bizarre rhetoric of the neo-Nazis and white nationalist Christian Identity groups in America. They dream up all manner of plots and fears about the evil ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government, i.e. Jews) and their henchmen (i.e. blacks) and how all the "white" people are just one step from being wiped off the face of the Earth.

It's long past time to leave Hate behind.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legitimate critique of Islam or Islamic society
> isn't the same as Islamophobia.

Indeed. And that is why people should stop using blanket accusations of islamophobia to stop genuine critique of this ideology. If you call everyone campaigning against gay bashing, circumcision or rape; or anyone campaigning in favor of restaurant hygiene legislation, mandatory swimming lessons in school or a christian prayer breakfast "islamophobes" then some of those people will embrace the term.

If TSCC called us "mormophobic", would we let them?

It's the same as anti-mormon. Islamaphobia is a simple label to put an end to any discussion of the Islamic dogma.

Exactly. Most Muslims are not radical terrorists

So there is no islamic doctrine to enslave the kafir?

Yeah, but look at this non problem.

islam is a religion, not a race, therefore to be wary of islam in any way is not racist, and to use the 'racist' tag is ignorance of the meaning of the word and insulting to people, of all religions or none, who suffer racial prejudice. No religion deserves to be more 'protected' by law than any other religion.

Did you know muslims do not buy insurance, they see it as a form of gambling: they are exempt from obamacare as employers due to their religious views. If this is 'equality', I don't want it in that form. I see that as a 'special allowance' being made for one religion over all the others. This is in practice a tax on non-muslim business owners, which is called for by sharia law; tax the non-believers until they are bankrupt and lose their property and leave the area or convert.

"If you want to know who rules over you, look for who you cannot speak out against" said some famous person once. At the moment, it is islam that cannot be spoken against without accusations of bigotry and/or death threats. Catoonists and comedians can ridicule any religion with impunity, except islam - this may warrant execution from a mad mulsim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlHOWnYN7J4

...and they would most definitely fit into the crazy as loons warped reality lot.


The Amish don't buy insurance either (unless you think "Amish Aid" i.e. Amish Mafia protection money is a real thing) and try to keep their differences out of the legal system by arbitration. If Muslims or anybody else want to do that it's their business.

Just because different people exist doesn't mean they are a threat to you or your way of life.

and just because you think they are not doesn't mean the same, either.

the president of turkey has recently warned europeans that non-muslims in europe will not be safe to walk the streets without fear of attack: he has implored ex-pat turks to riot against the 'european nazis' that would not let him hold rallies in various european cities in support of a 'yes' vote for the upcoming referendum in turkey giving the president almost full dictatorial power. Anyone in turkey promoting a 'no' vote is being imprisoned for 'inflammatory speech' against the president.

The day after he asked turks to rise up and riot across europe, some nutter gets a 4x4 and a knife and rampages in westminster. Maybe coincidence, maybe not. Yes, I know the guy was english, not a turk, but islam is a foreign religion to this land and had been for centuries.

My fear is for my children and any they have: as has happened in ireland with catholics almost outnumbering protestants, muslims will in a couple of generations outnumber non-muslims and everywhere will then become a sharia state complete with child brides. When a religion intends to outbreed all others to gain political control of the area (as the turkish president, amongst others, has suggested muslims do) - as the mormons once tried to do - then society in general has a major problem. Just think of medieval europe under the roman catholics who also adopted a breeding strategy.

What would be the point? If you wanted that you can hop on a plane and fly to the mideast.

But, if you wanted to live in a pluralsitic western country with a secular government with a good economy and practise your religion as you see fit and just be left alone to mind your own business, that's a different story.

Sorry, just don't buy the "they're here...and they're taking over" bit.

Sadly, none of this is new.


A.D. 1290: Edward I Expels Jews From England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion


Muslim Population in England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Islam_in_England_census_2011.svg



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 11:08AM by anybody.

I'm scottish, we never expelled any jews and in fact, we offered sanctuary to jews who were being persecuted in europe and england.

It's not so much british muslims who want the muslim state, it is those who still identify with their country of origin, ie, have not integrated and see themselves as separate. Third generation immigrants and converts seem to have the most zeal.


more on the renewal of the ottoman empire:

"""Calling Turks the “future of Europe,” Turkey’s president on Friday implored his compatriots living on the Continent to have multiple children as an act of revenge against the West’s “injustices.”

“Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses,” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday in the city of Eskisehir, while campaigning for a referendum that would solidify his power. “Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That will be the best response to the injustices against you.”

The remarks come at a time of increasingly fraught relations between Europe and Turkey in the wake of the migrant crisis, the concurrent rise of Islamic terrorism and right-wing nationalism in Europe, and a crackdown on civil liberties in Turkey.

Turkish citizens have lived in Europe for decades and have often been the focus of anti-immigrant sentiment. Mr. Erdogan has found that addressing overseas Turks is a convenient way to stir his own citizens’ nationalism and attack a Europe that has become increasingly hostile to Turkey as his government becomes ever more authoritarian."""

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/world/europe/erdogan-turkey-future-of-europe.html?_r=0


Erdogan has been facilitating the refugee crisis in europe by allowing people traffickers to keep trafficking and allowing the refugees free movement through turkey to europe. He will stop them for money for his government and european privileges for turks.

Last year the turkish army obeyed turkish constitutional law and tried to remove erdogan from power as he was making turkey into a muslim state - the coup failed because erdogan called all muslims to defend him, which they did. In the aftermath thousands of people were executed by erdogan - including university professors, military and police officers, and he fell out with obama for not handing over a 'ringleader' who has political asylum in the US. Erdogan is not the first, nor will he be the last, muslim calling for muslim men to migrate to non-muslim countries and to have as many children by as many wives as possible to 'outbreed' the non-believers.

Those people who first came to british shores in the 50s and 60s seeking refuge from persecution in other countries in no way want to make britain a mulsim state - their grandchildren, on the other hand, have a different opinion and behave more like mormons. On top of this, a lot of muslims believed that obama was foretold in the koran and would help spread islam, the 12th imam had arrived on earth and would make himself known soon, and the caliphate had been established and therefore we are in the end times foretold in their scriptures. Many muslims want to be a martyr for allah to ensure their place in paradise.

Like the early mormon 'saints', many muslims and converts believe the end times are now - today and tomorrow. Their scripture says they will be victorious in the end, just like the early mormons believed. If mormon ideology is dangerous, this 'radical' (ie believing in prophecy from the koran) form of islam is just, if not more, dangerous.

I think the question we should be asking now is: with the failure of 'the caliphate', will this be the end for islamic belief in the prophecies contained within the koran?

There is no easy solution.

My hopes are that when individual, or small groups of muslims behave in bigoted ways towards non-muslims, the rest of their religious community were more vocal in disavowing the hateful rhetoric and/or hateful actions;

and,

I also hope that non-muslims calling out muslims' bad behaviour are not automatically labelled as 'racist' or 'islamophobic'.

Further - immigrant criminals should be treated accordingly, not allowed special treatment because they come from a backward society. They chose to come to our shores, they must respect our laws. As they say, when in rome, do as the romans do. Any respectable person will be the same in a new country, even if they have undergone great trauma, likewise a disrespectful person. Claiming ignorance of the law is no good and would not be an acceptable reason to forgive those who commit a crime in their country of origin.

Islam can only be addressed in the same way mormonism is addressed: with information and an environment in which apostates can be safe from threat of physical harm. These groups need to stop living in groups and become more british by living side by side with us all instead of in self-created ghettos, like they do in england and elsewhere. That will not happen until all branches of islam stop thinking all non-muslims are 'unclean' and 'unworthy' of rights.

It's time to have a good interfaith conference on tolerance in Mecca, Saudi Arabia where representatives of major world religions meet to discuss tolerance/understanding and how to deal with barbarian dogmas that describe themselves as being religions. For starts, any group that has people put to death for homosexuality or apostasy ought to be considered barbaric, murderers, and inhumane. If Islam seeks respect by the civilized world then they must earn it just as any religion must do.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My fear is for my children and any they have: as
> has happened in ireland with catholics almost
> outnumbering protestants, muslims will in a couple
> of generations outnumber non-muslims and
> everywhere will then become a sharia state
> complete with child brides.

Some European countries already recognize child marriages performed in Muslim countries. In the Netherlands, where I live, this legal recognition only ended in December 2015. In Germany, 1,500 minors, mainly Syrians and Afghans, currently (2017) live in a legally recognized marriage, with many more suspected to do so below the radar.


> When a religion
> intends to outbreed all others to gain political
> control of the area (as the turkish president,
> amongst others, has suggested muslims do) - as the
> mormons once tried to do - then society in
> general has a major problem.

However, such a strategy doesn't work. Even though the birth rates of Muslim immigrants to Europe are higher that those of the natives, they are declining, too.


> Just think of
> medieval europe under the roman catholics who also
> adopted a breeding strategy.

They did? Never heard of that. There was no birth control, so I have a hard time imagining how such a strategy would work.

they made 'withdrawing' a mortal sin. All seed must be sown within a woman. As monty python said "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm gets wasted, god gets quite irate".

In terms of birth control, "withdrawing" isn't exactly a reliable method. Interestingly, though, one expression for this in my native language is "leaving church before the singing starts". Maybe that's where that came from?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 11:58AM by rt.

I don't hate. Not people, religion, or even cabbage. However, I do not trust anyone who subscribes to a belief system where the leaders are the mediator of 'gawd.' Mormons? Muslims? Global warming fanatics? BLM? War hawks? Communists? All of them believe in their 'religion' and would kill to defend it if the leader said to.

Patriots? By your definition, you can't possibly trust any soldier.

you conveniently forgot global warming deniers.

Sorry, but "phobia" and "hate" are such worn out monikers today, that my initial response is just to roll my eyes. It's the lazy person's way to dismiss diverse opinions as somehow unworthy of consideration. This guy in India sounds like he's a nutjob, so I don't believe he's a good example of a reasoned response to Islam in India.

But,

It's a bit troubling the way some people's initial reaction to most instances of Islamic terror is to rush to some public arena and warn others not to allow it to influence their opinion of Islam. And they'll follow up their admonition by citing the numerous instances of terror committed by other groups.

Okay, been there, done that. But may we add a bit of context?

Imagine if you will that the Danites had split from mainstream Mormonism and started their own sect like some polygamous groups have done. They claim to be the true, rightful heir of Joseph Smith's mantle, and continue a reign of terror everywhere they go.

For our scenario, let's say they move overseas, gain significant numbers, form their own armies, and begin conquering entire countries. They leave in their wake bloodshed, rape, and violence that is unspeakable. In short order, they control huge swaths of the Middle East. As part of their regular rhetoric they make public announcements calling upon all true Mormons to rise up, kill all non-Mormons, and give fealty to their god. They specifically warn the United States that they are worthy of death, and promise to visit that judgment upon them.

Sadly, a handful of Mormons heed their cry. An otherwise normal bishop in a small Texas town quietly embraces their hateful rhetoric and takes up arms against his co workers killing scores of them. A ward clerk in Florida visits this violence on a gay nightclub with even deadlier results. Across the globe both individuals, and small groups of Mormons emerge with no warning whatsoever from the pews of regular Mormon churches and commit violent acts that terrify even those that knew them best. Most of them give little clue of the horrific acts they were contemplating, and the only common thread to be found is that they all emerged from Mormon Churches. And they all clearly embraced the murderous rhetoric of a Mormon sect.

What should our response be? The countries the Danites control have no reliable infrastructure to vet immigrants. Should we just hope that none of those who travel from those locations will be the ones who wish to visit death upon us? And how should we treat our Mormon friends down the street? We can easily recognize that only a miniscule number of them actually pose a threat, but is it wise to completely dismiss any concern whatsoever? Should we castigate and seek to silence voices that tell us Mormonism is the common thread, even if very few Mormons ultimately embrace the deadly elements of the theology?

I'm not sure we can reach a consensus on the best way to move forward with this, but it's clearly something entirely different than any of the comparisons that are often presented.

Freedom of religion means freedom for all and not just for some.

Based on what you have said, you really seem to believe Islam is just some kind of alien invasion force that is hell bent on destroying America and Western Civilisation and killing all who refuse to submit or convert.

Are all Muslims the same? Do you believe the Muslim fundies when they say their version of Islam is the only version of Islam? Does someone have a right to practise this or any religion as you do yours? Do you not believe that individuals commit crimes and not religious faiths?

America has far right evangelical Cristofascists in real life just as in "The Handmaid's Tale." There are also evangelical Christians that reject hate who believe in social justice and equality for all. You can say the same of any religion.

Mormonism is a cult run by a group of ossified old men who have convinced themselves that making people cough up ten percent of their income for life to invest it while enriching themselves and their cronies is for the common good. They tolerate no dissent.

But who decides what is Christianity? What is Islam? What is Judaism? What acts committed in their name are legitimate and which are not?

My aim with this article was to show how rabid anti-Islamic religious intolerance isn't unique to America or Europe.

So, do you think Islam is just a murderous death cult that has to be wiped out like the Thugs in colonial India -- or do you believe that anyone in America has the the right to practise their faith how they see fit -- even if you don't agree with it...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 04:14PM by anybody.

america has never experienced muslim 'expansion' before, the countries which have experienced this all tell the same tale: they enforce a regime of conversion, taxation or death in their wake and even kill their own - similar to the behaviour of some christians in the middle ages.

The problem is the refusal to admit there is a problem in some corners of islam that makes it incompatible with western society.

and there is not a shred of evidence that supports this Islamic invasion of the West stuff that's not racist. I can't have a debate with deluded people. This is all too reminiscence of fear of the "black menace" in America. I'm out of here.

don't forget to wear your body sack, shun or beat the gay neighbors, make sure the wife doesn't have the car keys ----- etc.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Freedom of religion means freedom for all and not
> just for some.
>

Read my post again. I presented a scenario and asked questions. I used real world scenarios. How is that possibly offensive or threatening to you?

You don't seem aware of how your personal bias is preventing you from intelligently engaging this topic.

Keep in mind that 9/11 was the worst terror attack in the history of the world, and it was perpetrated on our soil by radical Islamic terrorists. Yet, take a look at the breath taking double standard you show in the space of just a few words:

When referencing Muslims you insist, "Do you not believe that individuals commit crimes and not religious faiths?"

But a few words later, you reference the evils of "Cristofascists" seeming to claim that religions do actually commit crimes -- if they're Christians.

Your worldview is entirely upside down. You consistently cry for an end to "the hate," but clearly mean that to apply only to the actual group that has killed thousands of our citizens. Hatred is apparently entirely appropriate if its aimed at Christians.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 01:11AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

And perpetrated by a very, very small group of men at that.

Did you ever actually read bin Laden's so-called "declaration of war" against Jews and "crusaders" (i.e. the mostly Christian USA)? I have. It's a very interesting document.

Bin Laden (and other like minded terrorists) basically blame the US for creating the dictators and despotic regimes of the mid-east and Arab world and all the associated poverty and economic problems. Another issue was the presence of American military forces so near to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden went on to state he wasn't interested in attacking other European countries like Sweden because they weren't a threat and weren't engaged against Muslims or Arabs.

Bin Laden attacked America for political and not religious reasons. Religion was and is just a convenient cover for these terrorists. All of the "they hate us because of our religion and way of life", freedom, democracy, etc stuff is just propaganda. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes.

Just as the US and USSR fought proxy wars, so do Saudi Arabia and Iran and they use lots of nasty people like DAESH to do their dirty work for them. They are regional rivals for power and religion serves (again) as a convenient cover.

Terrorism is a political, social, and economic problem. Your "ends justify the means" anti-Islamic anger just works in their favour. Most Muslims don't support the terrorist minority and Islamophobia just plays right into the terrorist's hands. Hate won't protect you or your family.

Think for a moment. If Islam is terrorism as you say then why did all of the terrorist attacks start AFTER World War II, the creation of modern Israel, and the start of the Cold War? Why didn't all the Muslims who live in London, Paris, or Dearborn, Michigan working for Henry Ford start shooting and killing people fifty or sixty or seventy or eighty years ago? Nothing like that happened back then in Europe or America. Terrorism is asymmetric warfare borne out of desperation -- as in Algeria.

Terrorism really has nothing to with religion. The terrorists use religion to justify their actions. Don't let the terrorists win by letting them manipulate you into doing their work for them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 11:36AM by anybody.

everyone knows that is fake news :p

that's just the 'official' story, which as we have experienced in mormonism, is never the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me whichever thing I hold supreme.

Tall man,

Best post I've read in awhile on this site. Well said.

Hatred of Islam won't make you any safer.

I have never understood why so many Americans have this need to defend Islam. A religion that subjugated women and persecuted gays. We should all be Islamophobic,that's not a bad thing.

I have never understood why so many Americans lump all Muslims in with he terrorists and assume terrorists are primarily influenced bytheir religin. Ever heard of politics, colonialism ,and other historical injustices? Islamophobia is one of the most unattractive aspects of this board.

Does it matter what percentage of mormons accept gay people . . .

if the dogma of mormonism rejects homosexuals and leads to suicides?

The dogma of Islam doesn't get a pass because there are nice muslims.

Disagree totally.I dont agree with a lot of Islam, but most Muslims arent evil and the religion has good and bad-just like most things.

Islam isn't the problem. Terrorism is. And Islam the religion is not terrorism -- but the terrorists want to goad America and the West into a global anti-Islamic crusade as they believe it will force the majority of Muslims who are "fence sitters" to join their cause.


There's also a big difference between cultural practise and Islam. They re so intertwined it's hard to separate them. What is considered "Islamic" in one country may not be in another.

I don't support polygamy, FGM, child marriage, misogyny, and other similar practises that are associated with some Arab, African or Muslim cultures just as I don't support the FLDS. There are many interpretations of Islam just as in Christianity.

But -- if someone is of legal age and not coerced and they aren't breaking any laws and they WANT to be Muslim -- that's their choice in a democratic society with freedom of religion.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Islam isn't the problem. Terrorism is. And Islam
> the religion is not terrorism.

Go say that to the people of Iran, who had freedom of religion until 1979 and have been living under a fascist dictatorship ever since. Or dozens of other countries.

For women and gays living in most parts of the muslim world, islam IS terrorism. Day after day after day. They expect you to be on their side. But you are on the side of their jailers and executioners.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 02:30PM by Dave the Atheist.