"According to the dominant narrative—as upheld by mainstream media and Hollywood, pundits and politicians, academics and “experts” of all stripes—Islam was historically progressive and peaceful, whereas premodern Europe was fanatical and predatory."
Interesting article although, as I regard Edward Said's concept of "Orientalism" with its supposed "othering" of non-Europeans as a load of claptrap spouted by a resentful west-hating Arab Christian dhimmi, I cannot logically endorse Brendan O'Neill's concept of "neo-Orientalism"
Of course, the UK has one or two Muslims of Pakistani origin. However they are all moderate sharia-rejecting Muslims who believe the practice of Islam should be confined to ritual and dietary observance like prayers, fasting and the like. Yes indeedy, the UK has somehow managed to combine untrammelled Muslim immigration with ensuring that only moderate Muslims enter the country and not people who might get murderously enraged if they think their prophet had been insulted either in reality or a dream.
Unfortunately such Islamic iimperialist claims on other people's countries are routinely endorsed and encouraged by historically illiterate western progressive commentators who have swallowed wholesale the claptrap put about by too many western "historians" (who have spent too much time being impressed by Islamic geometric ornamentation rather than critically assessing historical records) that Islam-dominated lands of past centuries - particularly Muslim-occupied Spain - were prototypes of the harmonious "multicultural" societies they moronically hope to create through open borders mass Muslim immigration.
This continued aggressive intent by the "Muslim World" to "take back" non-Muslim lands that were only "theirs" in the first place through the doctrine of "might is right" is sufficient moral justification, on grounds of self defence, for past western invasion and occupation of the hostile Islamic entity's core territories like Algeria, as well as the creation of the state of Israel as a Bulwark against those inspired to attack their non-Muslim neighbors on the false premise of a divine mandate supposedly given to a seventh century Arab trader known as "Muhammad".
The killer was motivated by a warped ideology that loathes democracy, freedom and Jews, and worships violence and death. Ali even told the
And that ideology is called ISLAMISM
Unfortunately the author is not averse to a bit of "pretending" so as to avoid facing unpalatable
They are supposedly chomping at the bit to go after Muslims and are incapable of distinguishing between a religion (Islam) practised by millions of law-abiding Brits and a political ideology (Islamism) that has claimed dozens of British lives in recent years.
That the practice of Islam "by millions of law-abiding Brits" does not go beyond eating halal, praying and other rituals does NOT mean that is all Islam is about. Furthermore, Muslim parents who put their female children in hijab are enforcing a piece of Sharia law on them. They are carrying out the Quranic command to "enjoin the right and forbid the wrong" (Quran 22.41) ie enforcing the dresscode of Allah on their girl children like it is enforced on females in general in shariah states. In other words it is a political act as well as a religious one.
In Europe and North America there is a tendency among ethnic minorities, whatever their differences, to see themselves as united in common historical and present-day victimhood at the hands of racist white people. This collective self image is of course supported and encouraged by white leftists. In France "people of color" are eager to join countries like the UK and US in likewise dividing the French population into non-white victims and white victmizers.
Any white leftists reading this care to answer the question posed by Hatun Tash (a Person of Color) of why she should respect Muhammad?
For my part, I respect Muhammad as much as Muhammad respects me. So how much does Muhammad respect me? Well, in verse 7.716 of his fake divine revelation Muhammad likens rejectors of Islam like me to dogs. That's how much Muhammad respects me.
If any leftists out there , for whatever muddleheaded leftist reasons, want to respect Muhammad despite him calling you hellbound dog analogs that is YOUR problem. However, don't demand that the rest of us join you in your craven self-abasement.
In the following video a Muslimah points at a Bible and says "I don't believe in this". This is her right, as I am sure she would agree. Unfortunately, we know from experience that many Muslims are not so accepting of the right of non-Muslims to openly express our disbelief in the Quran. Indeed, in Muslim majority countries (eg Pakistan) pointing at the Quran and saying "I don't believe in this" could very easily get a person savagely killed. Given the teachings of Islam it is easy to understand why Muslims feel at perfect liberty to deny the cherished religious beliefs of non-Muslims but have such difficulty in accepting the right of "Kafirs" to do likewise vis a vis their own religion of Islam.
However, it is unfortunately necessary to remind leftists and other political "progressives" that the freedom to openly deny or otherwise "offend" the beliefs of the followers of religions other than one's own should not be the sole privilege of Muslims.
Well, he was compiling the "sahih" hadith 200 years after Muhammad's death and he did it in Bukhara hence the name which is today's Tajikistan.
The hadiths are pure fabrications. the 'ishnad' are probably also made up after 200 years.
isnād, (from Arabic sanad, “support”), in Islam, a list of authorities who have transmitted a report (hadith) of a statement, action, or approbation of Muhammad, of one of his Companions (Ṣaḥābah), or of a later authority (tabiʿī); its reliability determines the validity of a hadith
Islam is based on a collection of different religions, mainly pagan, Jewish, Christian, Sabean, Zoroastrian, and a mixture of others Muhammad (if he even existed) came across and created his cult from all those.
Also, Islam did not start in Mekka, and not in the 7th century as the SIN (Standard Islamic Narrative) claims.
The perpetrators were the Abbasids from today's Iraq in the 8th-9th century.
They then retrofitted Islam to the 7th century to Mekka.
Multiculturalism: Where different cultures are forced together to despise and hate each other.
Say what western leftists? Why don't we lay on free planes from Nigeria to fly in unlimited numbers of its Muslims into our countries? After all who but a farrightracistislamophobe would be concerned that we could be letting in considerable numbers of people like THIS GUY and many more who share his views and are willing to act on them? Moreover, even if one or two do slip in among the vastmajorityodmoderatemuslim seekers after a better life who follow the dominant shariah-rejecting pacifist lovey-dovey Sufi creed, we can easily bring in legislation to stop people from saying the sort of hurtful provocative things that goaded Muslims into an entirely justified murderous rage against the Christian student named in the above linked article who, after all, was simply an Aunty Tom who chose follow the religion of the white colonialists instead of Islam, which is the true religion of all self-respecting People of Color!
The racist hatred of black people that drove the perpetrator of the recent Buffalo supermarket mass shooting is of course not confined to the creature that carried out this despicable atrocity. For every white racist individual who carries out such an act there will be many more white racists who secretly approve of what they have done. Even if there are white racists don't actually approve of such murderous expressions of anti-black hatred their dislike of non-whites will prevent them from feeling any human sympathy for or genuine outrage on behalf of the victims of this atrocity and others like it.