A Fourth Reich Rising? Anti-Islamic Sentiment in the West

by Piobar | August 3, 2011 at 01:03 pm

441 views | 1 Recommendation | 7 comments

Pogroms, concentration camps, fear of a global Jewish conspiracy, all these things were accepted at one time, because of fear and bigotry. Jews were the dark, sinister force behind every plot, bent on world domination through, ironically, finance and communism. Today we see these views as abhorrent. There are laws against hateful rhetoric, racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. But there is one group where it is still seen as acceptable, if not out-right encouraged, to direct the narrow-mined hatred of the masses: Muslims.

Islam, it is claimed, is a religion of war. The main goal of the Muslim faith is, or so we are told, to force conversion upon us, by any means necessary. Halal meat, no alcohol, and music consisting of drums and vocals only, this, we are told, is what our future looks like. Fear mongers in the media tell us that building a Mosque is the first step towards Islamic hegemony! Politicians wearing huge, gaudy gold and diamond Crucifixes demand that the Burqa or Hijab be banned, minarets are right out, because public demonstrations of religion have no place in “their country” and lead to discrimination and hate crimes. It is everywhere, on the news, in the papers, and particularly on online forums such as this, comments about "fearing the Muslims" or the Islamic bogeyman. Goebbels would be hard pressed to match the vehemant intolerance of the modern "Concerned Citizen."

Looking back through history, there are many examples of Islamic states accepting Jewish and Christian subjects, as long as those subjects were willing to accept the laws and keep the peace. In the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Ottoman Empire, there were many Christian and Jewish subjects. The Muslim rulers did not feel the need to instigate an Inquisition, impose dietary constraints, ban churches from displaying crosses, or prevent the building of a Synagogue because the Jews and Christians worshipped differently. In Moorish Iberia, the Muslim rulers were equally willing to accept Christian and Jewish subjects right to their own beliefs. Indeed, historically, European, Christian nations have been more intolerant of other races and religions than the “Muslim horde” we are being told to fear. The're all out to get us, and ban our beloved pork products to boot!

In Philosophy, we talk of Fallacies. One, the sweeping generalization, states basically, that judging all by the actions of the few is fallacious. Basing an argument on a fallacious premise is seen to weaken the argument, and in many cases invalidate it. What we are seeing these days is a sweeping generalization that if a small group of Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims must be terrorists. The media, using our fears to boost ratings or readership, are more than willing to feed into this fallacious frenzy. So too are our politicians, who, seeing the unease being created, are willing to use the “Muslim threat” to boost their own support. A self perpetuation climate of fear and hatred.

In the Nazi Third Reich, the fear mongers of that era spoke of “socialists and Jews” as co-conspirators, attempting to destabilize the world for their own evil ends. The rhetoric has changed little in the last seven and a half decades, but now, instead of Jews, the target are Muslims. The recent massacre of youth at a political camp in Norway highlights this beautifully. A man, claiming to be a part of the Knights Templar, who have been re-established, apparently, wearing a Police uniform, and using an automatic rifle, went after a youth summer camp, killing indiscriminately. In his Manifesto, he talks of socialists and Muslims, in the same way Hitler’s propaganda machine did, less than a century ago. Indeed, the SS claimed decent, through the Teutonic Knights, from the Templars as well.

It is not only the ranting and violent actions of one mad-man in Norway, but indeed a multi-national neo-anti-Semitism. I use the phrase because of the fact that the Arab Muslims are indeed Semitic people. So indeed, anti-Semitism is a part of this Anti-Islam storm sweeping the world. In the United States, not long ago, preachers were calling publicly for burning Qurans in protest of the building of a Mosque in the area around “ground zero.” Here in Canada, Muslim girls are frequently forced to fight for their right to wear a Hijab on the soccer pitch. In Switzerland, the building of Minarets on Mosques is strictly verboten. In France, controversy raged over the opening of Halal burger shops last year.

Nations that once stood together to fight against Hitler and his Fascist regime are now espousing the same rhetoric and discriminatory practices that our forebears fought so hard to destroy. Book burnings, racial and religious discrimination, mass hysteria and hatred towards the “others,” how long until we see concentration camps start springing up? The motivation for terrorism is only furthered by the West holding Muslims at arms length. Starving, poverty-stricken youth, feeling discrimination and disdain at every turn are the main source of recruits for terrorist groups. Instead of breaking out the red arm-bands and jack boots, if people are serious about stopping Terrorism, lets try something new and crazy, like equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Deal with the causes, or else do not complain about the effects. Novel, I know, but maybe, just maybe, by not forcing youth to see terrorism as their only option, they may choose another route in life.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 19:21 on August 3rd, 2011

Noble sentiment for sure, however you can not force individual rights and freedoms on a people who are governed by caste, classism, authoritarianism, and religious dictates that are used to create not only inter-religious hostility but induce international strife by exporting such thinking. [Though we are attempting to do so with enforced democratization of selected Islamic States]. One gets the thought that you hold the "West" responsible for Islamic jihadist terrorism. Holding to that opinion my friend is in itself a argumentative fallacy.

Also you have your history ass backwards. Prior to the rise of the Seljuk Osman [Ottoman] Empire there was a kind of mutual understanding between Muslim and Jew that religious sites were to be left alone if not entirely respected. The people themselves suffered abuse depending in which majority they resided. Jews kept the Muslim from participating in their society as equals for the most part by not employing them unless it was something menial. While Muslims going back to the time of Muhammad placed the religious tax, the Jizya on the Jew and other Dhimmi [and later the Christians], and of course also wouldn't employ them unless it was something menial.

When the Mogul/Seljuk Muslim began their expansion into the middle-east they took no notice of this mutual understanding respecting religious sites and as part of their militarist policy they destroyed most everything in their path as a scorched earth policy. Even with in the Muslim lands they invaded a Mosque of the enemy was not necessarily spared destruction. The Seljuk was not considered any kind of Islamic savior by the then Persians or Arabs. It was with this example that Muslim Arabs began taking Jewish and Christian religious sites for their own.

Also it's rather specious argument to hold the single individual from Norway, or a Qu'ran burning Floridian Pastor as example of "breaking out the red arm-bands and jack boots". While omitting the hundreds of Bible burnings that have taken place by Muslims long before the Pastor from Florida mimicked such behavior, or Anders Breivik's killing spree, with out mentioning the literally 100's of al-Qaeda killings that take place in 60 odd countries on a daily basis.

IMHO a broad sweeping positional argument is not the best way to address the current inter/intra religious/political discord. To do so omits the totality of history to favor a chosen victim from a pool that exceeds the one.

Piobar

at 07:46 on August 4th, 2011

Thanks for your input! You are correct, of course thirty-aught-six. I was myself using sweeping generalizations, but for the purpose of highlighting how ridiculous many of the comments about how Anders Breivik ‘took the wrong course of action for the right reasons;’ people commenting that the "Muslims and socialists" are out to take away our right to eat pork, or that they are all a part of some conspiracy. My goal here was to hopefully highlight the fact that such further polarization is not going to solve the problem, and could, in fact, do more harm in the long run. And, of course, with a little luck, maybe spark some conversation, or in the least get people to think about the issue.

In many nations in the West, the poor, unwelcome, Muslim youth are a prime target for Terrorist recruitment. Jobs are scarce for everyone these days, but in many places, Muslims are having an even harder time finding employment, fear, bigotry, or a sense of “us and them” if you will, stand between them and the few jobs that are available. They are willing to accept "our" culture, as long as they are allowed to retain their faith. The two are not completely incompatible, or at least need not be.

I agree that you cannot force rights and freedoms upon someone who is unwilling to accept them. But we do not need to feed into a segregation mentality. Not every Muslim is out to destroy the West, or unwilling to take advantage of the rights and freedoms they are offered here. Yes, many of the older generation to not want to assimilate. But that is not to say they are not willing to INTEGRATE, which is perhaps more important. But it is the youth, who grow up within a Western nation, who see that culture as their own, who grow up just wanting to fit in, but being denied because of the actions of a sweeping generalization, who then become jaded. These jaded youth are exactly what groups like Al Qaeda, among others, are looking to capitalize on; “home grown Terrorists” are a hot commodity, and it is among the disenfranchised youth that they are found.

Also, I am not "choosing a victim" from history. True, Jews and Christians were taxed for their faith in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Ottoman Empire. Muslims and Jews were burnt, hung, beheaded, in Christian empires. Death or taxes, which one do you think more people would prefer? True, the American Revolution was in part about over-taxation, real or perceived, so maybe the Christians and Jews should have risen up against the Turk?, and the Jews and Muslims should have fought for religious freedom against Ferdinand and Isabella, King John, Richard the Lionheart, Charlemagne, or any other Christian ruler who wanted their property? Often, people are victims because they chose to be, but not always. My point was not that the “poor Muslim victims” need special treatment. Equal treatment for all, no matter their race, religion, colour or creed, is what I would personally like to see.

As for the Seljuk Turks and their bloodthirsty actions during their expansion, they were mercenaries from the Steppes, in Central Asia, expanding for their own secular reasons. It was not about religion. You would be hard pressed, in point of fact, to find a war that truly WAS about religion. The Crusades were not about Holy Places, they were about Papal authority. The French "Wars of Religion" were about who should rule the nation, not about Protestants against Catholics. Secular motivations, not religious ones, are what wars are fought over, and politicians and leaders are the ones calling the shots. Religion is thrown in there to motivate the poor foot-soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for the already over-stuffed coffers of their King, or lord, or Mullah, or Sheik, or Sultan, President, Prime-Minister, or what not. Things have not changed that much over the centuries. Then, as today, resources, power, and politics were what wars were fought over. It is not Christianity that terrorists hope to crush, but Western hegemony. We need to stop feeding into the culture of fear and descrimination, it only fans the flames.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 13:10 on August 4th, 2011

As you suggest things ought to be handled better at the receiving end for the immigrant. However, as per my earlier comment, no thing happens in a vacuum in of itself. The immigrant has his obligations also. It's not altogether unreasonable for a minority with in a host country to respond aggressively to perceived threats against their culture when you have a "invading" culture aggressively demanding special social/religious considerations. It requires a moderating influence from both ends of the spectrum. We got to this situation in part by adopting "victim rights" instead of defending "individual rights and freedoms". If having defended in law individual rights and freedoms we would not have woman's rights, gay rights, children's rights, religious rights, or any of the multitude of "rights" that pop up as we declare a new social victim.

Piobar

at 07:19 on August 5th, 2011

I do not deny that you make some great points, and I am with you on the fact that the bleeding-heart, everyone is a victim, poor us attitudes have done far too much damage and gone too far. But my original purpose in writing the above tirade, and I admit that is what it is, was to highlight that further polarization, by assuming all Muslims are blood-thirsty killers, and spouting out anti-Islamic sentiment is not going to do anything but further hostility. It is easy to understand why, in the current climate of “fear the Islamic hordes” that seems to be prevailing, many Muslim immigrants are unwilling to integrate into their new society. I say integrate, rather than assimilate, as one need not abandon his or her heritage to be a productive member of society. Judge individuals on their own actions, not on their religious affiliations, racial or ethnic background, that is what our ancestors fought for in World War Two, World War One and many other conflicts. My main goal in life has always been to respect those sacrifices, and try and uphold all that they fought for, including religious freedom and equal rights for all.

I agree completely with you, basic human rights should be sweeping; the women's rights movement crew were some of the most hypocritical people I ever had to deal with while I was in university, and actually threatened the school with legal action for a friend of mine trying to set up a "men's centre" on campus to provide legal advice to men who are being denied access to their children, or just needed a place to go heat up their microwave lunches, because a women's centre is a necessary haven for women, a men's centre would be a bastion of chauvinism". By having "special interest" group rights, what happens to everyone being equal? We are all equal, but some of us are more equal, apparently. That, also, leads to further conflict down the road. My rights do not trump yours, nor do yours trump mine, if there is a conflict, we work it out or let the courts decide. The fact that I am a white male was not more within my control than it was for a woman born with one leg and a different colour of skin; I should not have more rights than her, nor she than me. Nor should my belief in "God" be worth more than someone else's belief in the same diety because they call him "Allah."

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 08:36 on August 5th, 2011

As long as it hasn't escaped you that your 'tirade', if you like, is against the expression by a vocal minority, not the socially prevailing attitude. And that vocal minority is reacting to a vocal minority attitude. Whether it is a Anjem Choudary in England, a Anders Breivik in Norway, a Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali in Australia, or a Floridian Pastor named Terry Jones, none of these people represent the majority or express the will of the people they claim to represent. Unfortunately it is they who's face and opinions are taken up by the press, and saturate the media. It has less to do with Religion and more to do with religiously selling newsprint.

Piobar

at 08:49 on August 5th, 2011

I am well aware of the fact that the vocal minority are the ones inciting hatred and conflict. As you say, it is the media who pick up their views and spread it as the gospal, as though all in the West believe all in the East to be the enemy. But, as a result of an irresponsible media representing the world thus, the "minorities" continue to grow, drawing more people in, as one will respond to the other, further marginalizing both in the eyes of their opponents. Sometimes, freedom of expression can go too far. Both sides need to see that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists, and the majority of Westerners do not see them that way. Instead, the rantings of of the few are presented as the sentiments of all, a general distrust is developing, and relations break down further. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. The more the voice of the West is seen as anti-Islam, the more the Islamic youth will feel drawn to anti-Western, pro Jihad groups, which further leads to a distrust of Islam.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 14:55 on August 5th, 2011

Or it could be that the anti-Islamic sentiment has grown out of the jihadist groups like PLO, the PLF, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, The Armed Islamic group, HAMAS and their Al-Qassam Brigades, Jemaah Islamiah, Jaish-e-Mohammed, The Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Abu Nidal Organization behind Fatah and the Taliban to name but a few. All attempting to rest control of a people to impose a distorted and extremist religious ideology and authoritarian governments. But as you say, Islam is such a peaceful and loving social expression that there really is no need for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims seeking refuge in the Christian world and that if Westerners only realized how loving and peaceful Islam really was these jihadist groups would fade away their violent work done.