Thanks to the Baron from the Gates of Vienna we have yet another exhausting essay on the absurd word concoction that scares  politically correct dhimmies to death: Islamophobia.
Some time ago, Hugh Fitzgerald dissected the Islamic cookbook masterfully, but I guess every once in a while a little refresher course  comes in handy, if only to highlight the absurdity of it all.
The worlds Muslims, who have a religious mandate to wage perpetual war (jihad) against us until the world is Islamic, are prepared to throw everything they got into the ring, and for that reason they seem to be winning. Their dogma is primitive and revolting, but their persistence  and determination is scary. Fact is: they kill and die for their so-called religion. What are you prepared to do for yours, infidel?
You may be interested in an article that appears at the Arab website Asharq Alawsat, by Ibrahim Kalin, senior adviser to Turkish premier Recep Tayyib Erdogan. Kalin warns the West about the dangers of “Islamophobia” and proposes that it be designated a crime against humanity. continue reading (Brussels Journal)

What is Islamophobia?

As I have mentioned previously, one of major goals of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is to stop “Islamophobia”, which is its preferred term for the criticism of or opposition to Islam by non-Muslims.The word “Islamophobia” is of relatively recent coinage. I never encountered it until after 9-11, and it was subjected to widespread ridicule, at least among non-Muslims and non-leftists, when it first became widely known. However, after the OIC and the UN harped on it for a few years, and the progressive media solemnly repeated the Muslim party line, “Islamophobia” gained general currency as a serious, scholarly word for a dangerous mental deficiency that needed to be eradicated in the West.
It piggybacked its way into politically correct usage on “homophobia”, which in turn drew on the word “xenophobia” as its ideological predecessor. Strangely enough, “xenophobia” is not in my Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, but appears in my Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. The word is not terribly old; it was coined in the late 19th century during a period when many mental disorders were first being labeled with Greek neologisms. Based on the Greek word for “fear”, a “phobia” was the general term assigned to conditions of morbid fearfulness. “Hydrophobia”, for example, was used to describe a morbid fear of water. The stem “xeno-” means “strange” or “foreign”, and “xenophobia” was originally synonymous with “agoraphobia” — it meant “a morbid fear of open spaces”.It wasn’t until the 20th century, with its new preoccupation with race, that “xenophobia” was assigned its current meaning: “a morbid dislike or dread of foreigners”. In the second half of the century, after the racial ravages of National Socialism, any distaste for foreigners or preference for one’s own kind was stigmatized as “xenophobic”. This shunning helped pave the way for mass Muslim immigration into Western countries by transforming opposition to such policies into a mental disorder.Half a century later, the “xenophobia” precedent has helped legitimize its stepchild “Islamophobia”, which does similar service in stigmatizing any resistance to Islamization.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So much for the pedigree of the word “Islamophobia”. We know its function: to delegitimize the opponents of Islam by transforming their political opinions into a mental illness. And not just a neutral mental illness like obsessive-compulsive disorder or schizophrenia, but an evil sort of lunacy, for which one should be committed to an asylum for the criminally insane.If the OIC achieves its goals, and Islamophobia is outlawed in the West, lawmakers, bureaucrats, and the police will require guidelines about the ways in which this ugly disease manifests itself, so they can recognize those who suffer from it and assign them to a secure facility for treatment. DHS will need to write up a handbook for its local agents describing what to watch out for. Federal and state legislators will need a clear definition of the word to include in the laws they pass against it.So what is Islamophobia? What’s a good working definition of the word?Fortunately, someone has already done the hard work of laying out the concept in detail. And, needless to say, the defining was done by Muslims themselves.EMISCO: European Muslim Initiative for Social CohesionThe following article, “A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia”, was written last year by a European group called the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an umbrella organization of Muslim NGOs from all over the continent.Even though it was composed from a European perspective, this definition is probably similar to what will be used in the United States when required. I’ll go through it by sections, bolding phrases and sentences that merit further discussion:

Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discriminationmotivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.

Notice that this lead paragraph presupposes an understanding of what is in the mind of an Islamophobe. It assumes that opposition to Islam must be motivated by fear and hatred. It excludes the possibility that opponents of Islam may be motivated primarily by rational self-interest, rather than angry passion.

The text does not specify it, but one may assume that EMISCO’s definition denies the existence of any other motives for opposing Islam. It is simply considered impossible that any non-Muslim could inform himself about the scriptures, teachings, and laws of Islam, read the history of Islamic expansion, observe the behavior of Muslims in his own time, and come to the reasoned conclusion that Islam is a dangerous political ideology that has degraded and impoverished every society in which it has become dominant.

Such rational conclusions cannot be drawn. The possibility of doing so will be defined out of existence. “Fear”, “mistrust”, and “hatred” are the only acknowledged motives that anyone could have for opposing Islamization.

Manifestations of Islamophobia include hate speech, violent acts and discriminatory practices, which can be manifested by both non-state actors and state officials.

“Hate speech” is already well-established as a stand-alone crime in Europe, but in the United States it must accompany a “violent act” or other statutory crime before it can be prosecuted. Perhaps the intention here is to help it become a crime by redefining the scope of “discriminatory practices”, which are already illegal in the USA.

This seems to be the general tactic being pursued by Hillary Clinton and the State Department in their consultations with the OIC — to identify those who oppose Islamization as “discriminatory” as they engage in their “defamation of religion”.

Gates of Vienna

Islamophobia, Islamic Slander, and the OSCE

OSCE logoAs reported previously, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff represented BPE yesterday at the “Confronting Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in Public Discourse” conference in Vienna. Elisabeth presented a brief paper during the meeting, which was posted here last night.

She submitted a longer version of the same paper to the conference organizers. It contained more detailed arguments, an appendix citing Islamic law, and footnotes for sources. It has been accepted, and was registered by the OSCE. An HTML version of the paper is below.

Pax Europa

Buergerbewegung Pax Europa

In cooperation with and endorsed by

International Civil Liberties Alliance,
Mission Europa, Wiener Akademikerbund

Today’s meeting is ostensibly concerned with confronting intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in public discourse. Actually, however, it focuses on “Islamophobia”, a term invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1990’s. According to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, “it has become ‘a matter of extreme priority’ for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.” It appears that the UK-based Runnymede Trust in 1996 coined the “accepted” definition, which includes any and all of the following components:

1. Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.
2. Islam seen as separate and other:
(a) not having any aims or values in common with other cultures,
(b) not affected by them, and
(c) not influencing them.
3. Islam seen as inferior to the West — barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
4. Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in ‘a clash of civilizations’.
5. Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and ‘normal’.

Runneymede has been in a close relationship with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation for some time. Pax Europa and its affiliations note with grave concern that this definition — or any definition — of Islamophobia cannot and does not address the underlying problems with Islam and its teachings.

For example, Pax Europa believes that Islam denies equal rights to men and women. According to the above definition, simply raising this point has been considered Islamophobia. Pax Europa believes that for many, there is a political ideology component to Islam. Since its ideology informs the doctrine of political organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, it is indeed a political ideology. Pax Europa is accused of Islamophobia for speaking to this reality, even when it can demonstrate a factual basis for the statements it makes in this regard.

Pax Europa is of the opinion that criticism of a religion, including Islam, must remain legitimate. This is echoed by the OSCE: “Criticisms of religious practices (just religious practices, not religions themselves?; BPE) are legitimate speech.” We believe, however, that while Muslims are not a monolithic group, for those Muslims who accept Islam as an ideology, there are elements of Islamic law that are monolithic, in that all Muslims worldwide, whether they live in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, consider the Koran and the Hadith (authentic sayings of Mohammed) as the basis of their legal system. Certainly groups like the Muslim Brotherhood profess this! How are groups like Pax Europa to discuss such issues if not allowed to speak to the language and doctrines that define them?

We further note that the distinction between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” speech is one of grave concern. We would like to recall the OSCE commitments (Copenhagen 1990) which state with respect to freedom of expression:

The participating States reaffirm that

9.1) – everyone will have the right to freedom of expression including the right to communication. This right will include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The exercise of this right may be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are consistent with international standards.

The participating States express their commitment to

10.1) – respect the right of everyone, individually or in association with others, to seek, receive and impart freely views and information on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights to disseminate and publish such views and information;

When we review the OSCE Commitments, their direct nexus is to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19 UDHR. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Pax Europa is of the opinion that the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) require public expression to conform to Shariah law. This includes perceived “anti-Muslim discourse” as well as cases of “discrimination”, whether intentional or unintentional. This is not speculation. In December 2005, at the Third Extraordinary Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, the OIC implemented a ten-year plan “to meet the challenges facing the Muslim Ummah”. Article 6 of the OIC Charter states:

The Islamic Summit is composed of Kings and Heads of State and Government of Member States and is the supreme authority of the Organisation. It convenes once every three years to deliberate, take policy decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realization of the objectives and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah.[1]

Section 1 of the ten-year program covers “Intellectual and Political Issues”, and under category VII, “Combating Islamophobia“, we read this:[2]

2. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation. [emphasis added]
3. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia. [emphasis added]

If the OIC’s Ten Year Plan really does come from a “Summit,” and it does, it means that the plan reflects the policy objectives and state actions of non-EU state actors against citizens of EU Member States. Further, as Article 6 of the OIC Charter makes clear, the “Combating Islamophobia” initiative has been undertaken as an objective of OIC Member States and the Ummah. Neither the European Union nor any of its Member States belong to that Ummah. Hence, not only are the OSCE Commitments and Article 19 of the UDHR being compromised, but it appears that it is happening on behalf on foreign state actors in concert through the OIC. This should not come as a surprise. From the Secretary General of the OIC himself, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on behalf of all 57 OIC Member States:

8 thoughts on “"Islamophobia"”

  1. Why is the word Islamophobia so popular among the Muslims?
    1 – By saying “I’m Semite too”, an Arab admits that his ‘cousin’ is a monkey !…
    ( not a grate honor… but a grate shame to the “Ummah” ! )

    2 – Out of the 1.5 Billion (!) Muslim on this planet, only… 360 Millions are Arabs, e.i. Semites!
    (Here comes the problem, a Muslim in Indonesia can’t claim: ” I can’t be an Anti Semite coz I’m a Semite my self “‘ which he is not ! )

    3 – Now, how to enjoy the “benefits” the Jews have by playing the “Victim Card” from morning till evening by yelling “Anti Semitism !”, “Holocaust !”, “6,000,000” and emotionally extorting the West which is already stricken by guilty feelings?

    We are in the “New speak era”, aren’t we? Invent a new word, silly!
    Maintain the three principals :-

    A – “Keep your eye on the ball”- ( Who is the target? The enemy of course!)
    B – Bang your head on the wall, & limp on your left leg !
    C – Wear you best western suit and yell the mirror image of the word “Anti-Semitism”, which is:-

    I S L A M O P H O B I A !

    Origin of the Word “Antisemitism” http://goo.gl/bewlJ

  2. Everyone was born muslim, according to allah’s “messenger” (false prophet), thus an ‘islamophobe” would logically be someone scared of himself / herself, if such was possible.

  3. “Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discrimination
    motivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam”

    Kafirphobia is a crime against humanity!
    Show Islam no respect it’s all about the Quran stupid kafir

    Should the West tolerate e.g beheadings (8:12, 47:4), cucifixion (5:33) of unbelievers, the cutting off hands of thiefs (5:38), lashing adulterees with 100, 80 harsh stripes (24:2, 4) ordered by the coward sadist Allah?

  4. The Islamic supremacist propaganda machine cranks out another “Islamophobia” report

    Another hit job on Spencer

    “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” from the Center for American Progress is just the latest in an ever-lengthening string of markedly similar “exposés” of so-called “Islamphobes.” Each purports to show that the anti-Sharia movement in America is a sinister cabal of well-funded, dishonest hacks stirring up hate against innocent Muslims in order to profit from it. Each has been highly distorted and markedly unfair, twisting the facts and cooking the data in order not to enlighten but to manipulate, not to educate but to propagandize.

    Just in recent months there have been two other reports, both almost identical in substance to “Fear, Inc.”: the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Jihad Against Islam” and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations’ “Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States.” Each of these is lavishly produced, printed on glossy paper and full of colorful illustrations. With the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the midst of a full-scale, years-long campaign at the United Nations to compel the West to criminalize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit and motivate terrorists, it would be useful to know who is funding these slickly produced reports; but, true to form, the mainstream media instead glosses over the radical and genuinely sinister ties of the organizations that produced them, and repeats their agitprop as if it were fact.

    But it isn’t. In what follows I must, for reasons of time, limit myself largely to responding to the report’s attacks on me; however, the “Fear, Inc.” attacks on my colleagues and others doing similar work are no more substantive or less manipulative and propagandistic.

    The misinformation starts on the first page, when the “Fear, Inc.” authors call me “one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report.” The term “anti-Muslim” is immediate evidence of the manipulative, propagandistic nature of this report: my work, and the work of the other scholars and activists demonized in “Fear, Inc.,” has never been against Muslims in the aggregate or any people as such, but rather against an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. In fact, years ago at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”? My correspondent thought so. He responded: “So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.”

    In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim” to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world — quite the contrary.

    The report also contains a – by now obligatory – lengthy excursus on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik: “While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended.” While granting that we are not responsible for Breivik’s acts, the report also takes pains to point out that “Robert Spencer and his blog were cited 162 times in the nearly 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik, the confessed Norway terrorist who claimed responsibility for killing 76 people, mostly youths.” Not surprisingly, it doesn’t mention that I have never sanctioned or justified violence, or that Breivik was plotting violence in the 1990s, before I had published anything about Islam, or that he complained that I was not recommending violence, or that he recommended making common cause with jihadists, which I would never do – indicating that his “manifesto” is actually ideologically incoherent, and not a legitimate counter-jihad document at all. These facts are not mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” because they would interfere with its propagandistic agenda.

    As for the claim that Breivik committed his murders because of the worldview we had created that “sees Islam at war with the West,” “Fear, Inc.” is also silent about the many Muslims who have declared that they are indeed at war with the West, in the name of Islam. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: “Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.” CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad said in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” (He now denies saying this, but the original reporter sticks by her story.) The prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj said in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” The most influential Islamic cleric in the world today, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has said: “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice.”

    True to form for these “Islamophobia” reports, “Fear, Inc.” ignores such statements and many others like them, attempting to create the impression that the only ones responsible for the idea that Islam is “at war with the West” are the “Islamophobes.”

    Without offering any substantive refutation, “Fear, Inc.” dismisses as “inaccurate and perverse” my statement that Islam is “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world.” What is “inaccurate and perverse” is the report’s denial of this, since it is a matter of objective verification that all the mainstream Islamic sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence do indeed teach that the Islamic umma must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. The report does not and cannot produce any evidence that Islam does not contain sects and schools that teach this.

    Most of what “Fear, Inc.” says about me is just name-calling, but it makes an attempt at substance with this: “Spencer’s views on Islam—and his credibility in discussing Islam at all—are challenged by scholars at his own alma mater. He has ‘no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,’ according to Islamic scholar Carl W. Ernst, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Instead, Professor Ernst says Spencer selectively uses textual, religious evidence to mainstream the claim that ‘Islam is not a religion of peace.’ Indeed, Spencer gives misplaced credence to the ‘Sharia threat’ argument that is then mainstreamed by the Islamophobia network.”

    Ernst’s dismissal of my work on the basis of my having “no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,” besides being false, is completely void of substance: the determination of whether or not one’s work is accurate is not decided by the number of one’s degrees, but by the nature of the work itself. What’s more, Ernst’s claim is especially laughable given the ideological dominance of the far-Left Middle East Studies Association (MESA) among academics in this field today, such that dissenting voices are seldom, if ever, heard. Ernst’s own objectivity, moreover, is in severe doubt after he flew to Tehran in December 2008 to accept an award from Iran’s anti-Semitic, genocide-minded Islamic supremacist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Another compromised authority that “Fear, Inc.” cites is Charles Johnson, the “Little Green Footballs” blogger who several years ago moved from the right to the hard Left, betraying his former friends and posting vicious and arguably libelous false charges about them. For “Fear, Inc.,” Johnson’s blog is “popular” and “right-leaning,” when in fact it is no longer either one.

    “Fear, Inc.” likewise trumpets the 2004 Amman Message as a “Sharia-based condemnation of violence from the world’s leading Islamic authorities.” The report deceptively fails to mention, however, that the Amman Message forbids Muslim-on-Muslim violence based on takfir, or declarations by one Muslim group that another is apostate. The Amman Message’s three points, mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” do not address violence or non-violent jihad activity against non-Muslims at all, and the Amman Message’s website actually endorses an undefined “legitimate jihad.”

    That is indicative of the dishonesty and one-sidedness of this report. The chief indication of that dishonesty is the wildly misleading presentation of financial data – making the sums involved appear much greater than they actually were by lumping together donations given to disparate organizations over a period of many years. When examined closely, the sums involved are actually far lower than those regularly received by Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups such as the ones that have produced the recent “Islamophobia” reports. Hamas-linked CAIR just announced today that it had almost reached its goal of raising $650,000 during Ramadan. I have never received that kind of support for Jihad Watch during any comparable period of time.

    An honest presentation about “Islamophobia” would address the American people’s reasonable concern about the continuing series of violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and outline ways in which the Muslim community could lessen suspicion against Muslims by cooperating fully and honestly with law enforcement anti-terror activities. But instead, “Fear, Inc.” is designed to portray Muslims as victims and demonize all those who stand in the way of the misogynistic and unjust agenda of the Islamic jihad, whether advanced by violent or non-violent means. As such, it is simply an instrument of that jihad.

    UPDATE: Hard-Left pseudo-journalist propagandist Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post writes a predictably shoddy and biased piece about the report here. It contains absolutely none of the substantive refutation that I posted above, although it links to this point on my name, without alerting readers to the fact that the link on my name would take them to my response to the report. Also, earlier today I sent Boorstein this:

    The $42 million figure is wildly misleading. It is an aggregate amount covering many years and many organizations. When are you going to cover the much more substantial funding of hate groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR, the SPLC, etc.?
    This is a witch hunt designed to smear and discredit all who dare to speak out against Islamic Sharia-inspired misogyny, denial of the freedom of conscience, etc. Just today I have a story at Jihad Watch about a Muslim apostate whose life was threatened by Islamic supremacists in Norway. Why do you ignore the Westward spread of such Sharia-based thuggery and demonize those who stand for the human rights of such people?

    She rendered that as: “Robert Spencer, another subject of the report, said the financial picture it gives is misleading because it lumps together various organizations over time.”

    Nor does Boorstein’s piece contain any of the substantive points that David Horowitz raises here or Pamela Geller here. Boorstein “reports” the already wildly misleading figure of $42 million as “about $50 million.”

    She has served her masters well, although she does inadvertently reveal the report’s true anti-free speech goal of defaming and discrediting freedom fighters: “‘This isn’t playing games. We want to end Islamophobia. If we want to do that, we have to identify motivators of this hate industry, marginalize them and demand they be held accountable,’ Shakir said.” That’s Faiz Shakir, one of the authors of the report and a Center for American Progress Vice President.

  5. Spencer and Horowitz in National Review: The term “Islamophobia” is designed to create a modern-day thought crime

    In “A Rational Fear of Islamism” in National Review today, David Horowitz and I discuss “Islamophobia,” showing that not all fears are irrational, nor criticism unwarranted.

    (There is no “Islamism”- only Islam. I reject this misleading term just like I dismiss every effort to belittle the jihad and the sharia.)

    In recent months, several reports have appeared to a generally uncritical reception in the press, which purport to expose alleged conspiracies organized by “Islamophobes” against American citizens who mean us no harm. These reports single out for condemnation a dozen prominent conservative figures (and mostly the same dozen) who have publicly criticized the misogyny, bigotry, and terrorism promoted by many (but not all) Islamic institutions and religious texts.
    The term “Islamophobia” itself was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the political fountainhead of Islamic terror, having spawned al-Qaeda and created Hamas. Not coincidently, the reports themselves have been produced by Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But the latest and most elaborate Islamophobia report, transparently derivative of its predecessors, has been issued by the Center for American Progress, which is a brain trust of the Democratic party. It thus marks a disturbing development in this ugly campaign.

    On examination, the term “Islamophobia” is designed to create a modern-day thought crime, while the campaign to suppress it is an effort to abolish the First Amendment where Islam is concerned. The purpose of the suffix — phobia — is to identify any concern about troubling Islamic institutions and actions as irrational, or worse as a dangerous bigotry that should itself be feared.

    Is fear of terrorists inspired by Islam irrational? There have been 17,800 terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah since 9/11. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that 30,000 shoulder-ready surface-to-air missiles have recently gone missing in the Muslim nation of Libya, where both government and rebels support the Islamic jihad against America and the West?

    Would not a reasonable person be concerned about the attacks plotted and carried out by Muslims in the United States who claim to be inspired by the Koran and who regard themselves as holy warriors in the jihad declared by Osama bin Laden and other Muslim fanatics? These Muslim attacks include the successful massacre of unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Hassan, a self-declared Muslim warrior whose anti-infidel rantings were ignored by the military brass.

    These Muslim terrorists include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others.

    If the FBI and law-enforcement agencies had not had serious fears of Muslim fanatics, had not been possessed by a species of “Islamophobia,” all those would-be terrorist attacks would be successful attacks and carry long lists of dead innocents — infidels — along with their names….

    There is more.

Comments are closed.