Such arguments might suggest that the Islamic critics are right, and that Islamophobia is deep and pervasive. After all, Steyn's book made it into the New York Times bestseller list, Amis' new book The Second Plane - a collection of his essays about Islam and terror - is likely to do the same, and Wilders was recently voted 'Politician of the year' in a poll run by the Dutch public broadcaster NOS. Yet, however obnoxious the beliefs of Steyn and Amis and Wilders may be, we should not exaggerate their impact. Their arguments no more make Western societies institutionally Islamophobic than the actions of Mohammed Atta (who piloted the plane into the Twin Towers) or of Mohammed Siddique Khan (who led the men who bombed the London underground on 7/7) makes Islam an institutionally violent religion.
Not many would go along with Steyn in suggesting that mass slaughter might end up being the only answer to the 'Muslim problem'. Others, however, are quite happy to treat all Muslims as criminals and to inflict collective punishment. The British novelist Martin Amis (who is a great proselytiser for Steyn's demographic arguments) generated a storm recently after that 'The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.' What sort of suffering? 'Not let them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.' Amis later suggested that this was just a 'thought experiment' but even thought experiments, especially when expressed in a public interview, can be revealing of attitudes.
In 2007 the public opinion company Globescan conducted a major for the BBC World Service. Respondents were asked whether there existed 'common ground' between Muslims and non-Muslims and whether conflict was inevitable. More than three-quarters of Britons thought that common ground did exist and just 15 per cent believed that conflict was unavoidable. There were similar kinds of figures for most other Western nations. In the UAE, on the other hand, fewer than fifty per cent believed in common ground between Islam and the West, while nearly a third believed in the inevitability of conflict. There were similar figures for Turkey, Kenya, Indonesia and India. The belief that Islam and the West are incompatible seems to be driven less by the alleged Islamophobia in the West than by anti-Western sentiments in countries with large Muslim populations. The Globescan survey also showed that far more people in India, Indonesia, and the Lebanon believed that global tensions were caused solely by an intolerant Muslim minority than in Britain, Australia, France or America. Again, there seems to be more to anti-Muslim hostility than the Islamophobia of Western nations.
In his trial, neither Oguz nor his mother showed any remorse; on the contrary, his mother stated that her son’s deed “was committed in the name of Allah and was a gift to the state and the nation”.
A small anecdote reveals how surprising can be the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. Three years ago, Britain's Channel 4 broadcast a drama, Yasmin, which told the story of a Muslim woman struggling to deal with the rise of anti-Muslim sentiments after 9/11. At one point in the film, Yasmin is walking home and is attacked by a group of youths. It proved impossible to film this scene as the director had originally wanted. Every time the actress playing Yasmin was attacked, passers-by, unaware that this was a film, stepped in to stop what they thought was an actual assault. The headscarf-wearing Yasmin was repeatedly saved by non-Muslim passers by. The director was eventually forced to rewrite the scene and turn it into one in which Yasmin is protected from the youths.
Who has appeared on such shows like CTV’s, "Your Morning" - discussing how to be an ally and help fight oppression of other races.
Jordon VeiraFounder/Director of Spoke N’ Heard an arts-based social enterprise that works to support young artists with “ARTrepreneurial” development, equipping them with the tools to create art that de-stigmatizes mental health and promotes resiliency/resistance against oppression.
First Speaker begins at
The whole thing is not even done intentionally; it is done subconsciously, by the scholar selecting some text to read at school, which, describes how the good Muslim silenced his critic; and this silencing — achieved in a violent way — can pass as an admirable act of bravery.
Another person, also well-educated — judging from the newspaper articles that he writes — and an observant and good Muslim, whom I “know” only through email communication, had a completely different attitude: he said that those passages must be wrong, that they don’t reflect reality.
For more information on the event, including footage of the live stream, please click How to use this resource
This resource is made as a community tool, to be shared, distributed and engaged with on a not for profit basis.
This does not exculpate Muhammad from the atrocities, however, any more than Hitler is exculpated from exterminating the Jews because he never touched a single Jew with his own hands.
It takes an extremely perverted mind to go and search for insulting things that were written in another country, another culture, and another language, and announce how much insulting those are to that mind and to like-thinking ones.
At least theoretically, the criticism offered by your peers should be objective, so if you’re saying nonsense (that is, things that contradict the known evidence — that’s what most of “scientific nonsense” is), your writings will fail to be published.
Now, Western science is founded upon which means that if you are a scientist and submit your findings for publication, you should know that a panel of other scientists (your “peers”, but unknown to you) will review your writings, and judge them according to their knowledge of related work.
The film, titled “Submission” (which is the meaning of the word “Islam”), was a 10-minute story showing four women while praying, covered with semi-transparent veils, through which their nude bodies could be outlined, and on top of which Qur’anic verses that are unfavorable to women were projected, in Arabic.