1400 children sexually exploited in UK town Rotherham: report

[Albertosez]

Jacky54; you present an article by an Islamaphobic website.

I present two articles; one by a Jewish scholar, one by a Muslim reporter.

Neither deny what is written in the Hadiths; but the latter two do question, with good reason, it's accuracy; but do accept that her age is used as an excuse by some Muslims, even today, for child brides.

Note; child brides; not the sexual abuse of hundreds of children. Extra marital sex is actually forbidden in the Koran.

I suggest you actually read both articles before commenting on them.

But a bit bit of extra raping is ok - right ??

[oldsailor35]

I work with a number of Pakistanis. None of them are Muslim, although one is Ahmadiyya and the Muslims say it's not a part of Islam. The others are Christian. So, I am not sure why the finger is being pointed at a particular religion. The problem happens everywhere regardless of religion or geo-political boundary.

The main problem is not who does it, it is how it is reported and dealt with. In this case, and it would seem in a number of other instances (Christian Whites, like Jimmy S and Co.), there has been less than aggressive enforcement of the laws. Protection, instead of being given to the victims, has been accorded to the perpetrators.

The likes of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris were just opportunists. These Pakki's are downright violent rapists, females have no say, they just have to do as they are told.

[7by7]

It is obvious that none of you have read the two articles I have linked to.

Just as you ignore the fact that the largest number of child brides occur in a Hindu country; India.

Child brides and child abuse is not just a Muslim problem; it's a world problem.

Wherever it is committed, those doing so can find some excuse for it.

This abuse will only be stamped out by concentrating on everyone who commits it and everywhere it happens; not by blaming just one religion and ignoring everyone else.

You could kill every Muslim on the planet and child abuse would sadly continue.

[jacky54]

Oh right it's ok for Islamic child brides because a few Hindus do it, er I know Krishna had a few gopies but none are recorded as being NINE YEARS OLD WHEN RAPED. You are starting to sound a rather desperate, you could kill every Muslim on the planet and there still would be sex abuse, and terrorism, but about 95% less. What other religion is based in violence as much as Islam, and what other founder of a religion, murdered, stole, enslaved, raped slaves and children and persecuted other religions. or have you got a few hadiths lined up to say he did not?

Edited September 10, 2014 by jacky54

[7by7]

The difference, 7by7, is that many of the other people are not Prophets. I don't think that Buddha was messing around with the young ones and there isn't much evidence that Jesus was messing around with anyone, and certainly not children.

Lots of people did lots of things a long time ago, but one might hold Prophets to a little higher standard. He does not meet that standard on this issue and also misses the mark on quite a few others.

You are missing a vital point; despite what the Hadiths may say; written several hundred years after the event, historical records, even comparing different accounts, show that she must have been at least 15 when they married; probably older. Read the whole of the two articles I linked to and quoted from.

In those days, the age of consent, as we now call it, was deemed in all societies and all religions as the onset of puberty.

BTW, did you know that, according to the Protoevangelium of James and many other sources, Mary was only 12 when she gave birth to Jesus?

The founder of Christianity the child of a paedophile! Not his fault, of course, but what does it say about his father?

Maybe that explains the numerous cases of child abuse by Catholic priests? Their God impregnated a child, so it's ok for them to do so as well!

Of course it doesn't; no more than the age of Aisha, whatever that may have been, when her marriage to Mohammed was consummated explains the actions of vile paedophiles who are Muslims.

What on earth does Mary being 12 have to do with it? Nothing. Nice diversion, but if someone was being bad, it would have been Joseph, but you don't say how old he was. She was probably older than 12 since the onset of puberty at that time was generally older than it is now.

But you miss the point. The first time I ever heard about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha was from Muslims in the Middle East and yes, they did use it to justify having sex with underage girls. Jesus, was is the center of Christianity, not Joseph; not Mary.

So you say 15, but most Muslims still think it's 9 and it has widely been used as a justification for sex with underage girls.

It would be interesting to hear how the perpetrators in this story justify their behavior.

Most accounts which mention both Mary's and Joseph's ages put her around 12, him around 50.

Not a diversion; but an example of the thinking of those times; as we both say, it was considered then that the onset of puberty meant a girl was able to legally marry. It, unfortunately, still is in some countries and some societies; Muslim and non Muslim.

Yes, as the articles I linked to say (have you read them yet?), Aisha's reported age is widely used by some Muslims as justification for sex with underage girls; I made that point in the post you and others are trying to rubbish!

I also made the point that the onset of puberty was considered the 'age of consent' in many societies, including Christian Europe; King John married a girl of 12; Henry V11's mother was 13 and into her second marriage when she gave birth to him.

Nowadays, most societies believe that physical maturity, puberty, comes before mental maturity and, rightly, the age of consent has been raised; in many countries to 18.

It's 16 in the UK; but only since 1885. Before that it was only 13.

Unfortunately some societies still hold to the old belief that puberty means sexual maturity; Muslim and non Muslim.

[jacky54]

It is obvious that none of you have read the two articles I have linked to.

why is it obvious? just because nobody wants to comment on some rubbish links full of lies does not mean they have not read them does it.

[jacky54]

Most accounts which mention both Mary's and Joseph's ages put her around 12, him around 50.

Well what took you so long, OK i'll bite lets have the 'accounts' then. She was not of course pregnant by him anyway. So if you are suggesting 12 was bad, how about 6 then, most accounts say Mohamed married Ayisha at 6 and raped her at 9. Also I don't think Joseph married 11 others or raped slaves, stole from caravans, ordered murder or persecuted other religions.

It's also well known that some Muslims like the Ayatollah Khomeini ok'd sex with infants and he wrote a book about it, have you read that one? Some stomach churning quotes are here, while it;s true catholic priests have been up to no good can you really imagine a Christian Bishop writing about sex with babies and animals?

He says: ‘A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2012/01/19284/

Edited September 10, 2014 by jacky54

[7by7]

Oh right it's ok for Islamic child brides because a few Hindus do it...............

A few?

From the site I linked to earlier

in terms of absolute numbers, India surpasses other countries by a wide margin: about 40 percent of all child marriages take place there.

Before you say it; yes, there is a Muslim population in India.

But to say that this minority population is solely responsible for the above appalling statistic is so ridiculous that even you would refrain from so doing.

I have never said that it's ok for anyone to marry a child; but nice try at twisting my words; yet again.

.....What other religion is based in violence as much as Islam, and what other founder of a religion, murdered, stole, enslaved, raped slaves and children and persecuted other religions.....

You obviously know very little about both history and current affairs!

Oh, I forgot; whenever example are given of the terrible deeds committed by followers of other religions you merely dismiss them as off topic and irrelevant!

[Albertosez]

Here's another thought - most White English , Eu, American , Auz etc would openly declare who they are on either a Forum or in public - because we have nothing to hide and we are open to accept / deal with a pot shot !

I have never seen the same on TV where Muslim Posters would declare where they are from, their colour or their ethnicity.

Why is that? I am proud to be White and English. Do the Muslims think there is something wrong to be a Muslim?

I seldom see Posters accepting who they are unless they are non- Muslim. Why is that - are they also v embarrassed to admit who they are ??

[7by7]

It is obvious that none of you have read the two articles I have linked to.

why is it obvious? just because nobody wants to comment on some rubbish links full of lies does not mean they have not read them does it.

Because none of you have commented on any of the points raised in them; you merely attack the messenger; as usual.

Have you read them?

[7by7]

Most accounts which mention both Mary's and Joseph's ages put her around 12, him around 50.

Well what took you so long, OK i'll bite lets have the 'accounts' then.

I have already named one.

She was not of course pregnant by him anyway.

So you believe in the immaculate conception!

Explains a lot.

It's also well known that some Muslims like the Ayotalla ok'd sex with infants and he wrote a book about it, have you read that one?

I have never denied that some Muslims have 'ok'd' sex with infants; in fact the opposite! If you actually read the articles and the post in which I linked to them you would know that.

[H1w4yR1da]

Jacky54; you present an article by an Islamaphobic website.

Yes and one that provides a heap of Islamic scripture. You claim that the haidiths are not reliable as they were written hundreds of years after the pervert died, yet the koran was not written down until after he died, so what. Also, if the time element is important then surely the earlier ones citing the rape of a nine year old are more reliable than later ones trying to change the facts? Do try to stop using the Islamaphobe tag, nobody believes it!

I think 7by7 is trying to elevate the word 'Islamophobe' to the rank of the word 'racist' in the sense of 'let's stifle any debate' but actually, in this day and age it has absolutely no shock value and is actually becoming a term of endearment.

[7by7]

Here's another thought - most White English , Eu, American , Auz etc would openly declare who they are on either a Forum or in public - because we have nothing to hide and we are open to accept / deal with a pot shot !

I have never seen the same on TV where Muslim Posters would declare where they are from, their colour or their ethnicity.

Why is that? I am proud to be White and English. Do the Muslims think there is something wrong to be a Muslim?

I seldom see Posters accepting who they are unless they are non- Muslim. Why is that - are they also v embarrassed to admit who they are ??

I haven't searched through the entire membership of TV, but would suggest that, given the nature of this forum, there are very few Muslim members here.

Elsewhere, I know of many Muslims who are not afraid of declaring their faith; nor defending it against extremists; whether those extremists be right wing white supremacists or Islamic jihadists.

Edited to fix quote

Edited September 10, 2014 by 7by7

[jacky54]

Oh, I forgot; whenever example are given of the terrible deeds committed by followers of other religions you merely dismiss them as off topic and irrelevant!

What IS relevant is the life of the fake prophet, the book of vicious fairy tales called the Koran, the commentaries on the life of the fake prophet called the hadith and 1400 years of the deluded and mislead carrying out violence in the name of these things, do you ever watch the news? none more so than today as exampled by 100's of depraved Muslims raping 1400 children in one town in the UK alone, where do they get their ideas from?

Edited September 10, 2014 by jacky54

[7by7]

Free Dictionary

Islamophobia (ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)
n
1. (Psychology) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

Thesaurus
Noun 1. Islamophobia - prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West"
bias, prejudice, preconception - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

[7by7]

Oh, I forgot; whenever example are given of the terrible deeds committed by followers of other religions you merely dismiss them as off topic and irrelevant!

What IS relevant is the life of the fake prophet, the book of vicious fairy tales called the Koran, the commentaries on the life of the fake prophet called the hadith and 1400 years of the deluded and mislead carrying out violence in the name of these things, do you ever watch the news? none more so than today

QED

[jacky54]

Free Dictionary

Islamophobia (ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)

n

1. (Psychology) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

If it was fear of Muslims it would be Islamomuslima surely? fear of Islam is not an insult, it's just a common sense reaction to the socially backward, devise and threatening force that it is. Anyone who is not afraid of it does not really understand it.

[7by7]

Inclusion of the 'phobia' part is to show that it is irrational.

pho·bi·a (fb-)

n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

No one, including the vast majority of Muslims, is denying that Islamic extremism is dangerous and to be feared and combated.

It is extending that fear to the whole of Islam which makes it irrational and therefore a phobia.

Edited September 10, 2014 by 7by7

[jacky54]

Ok all but three on here have an aversion to, or dislike of a rather sick religion, we can be pretty sure the 1400 raped and tortured children in Rotherham felt the dame way, can we move on now?

Edited September 10, 2014 by jacky54

[arjunadawn]

Let's connect the dots regarding the authority and icon for acts such as these. You may protest I reach too far, but these acts in Rotherman are epidemic in Islamic history; therefore it is very relevant. Lets consider why muslims feel inclined to violate what should be a universal prohibition- sex with children:

Mohammed desired his friend and financial backer's 6 year old daughter. He was already married. He told his friend he had a revelation and that god said for Mohammed to marry her. He married her. It is debatable (by muslims) whether she was too young for sex (6 or 9), or the story Islam now holds to, that Mohammed waited until she was a few years older to consummate the marriage. So, we must ask "Why were Mohammed's clothes always covered with semen?"

Mohammed used to bath and do other things with his baby wife on his lap, and he would "thigh her with his penis!" In fact, "one of Baby Aisha’s wifely duties was to clean semen stains from the prophet’s clothes."

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
" I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's

Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
" I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to

wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on

them."

Perhaps it is true that Mohammed only "thighed" Aisha (utterly sick). Does it matter if he had sex with Aisha at 6 or at 9 (the two ages under deliberation)? No, it is sick!

Islamic exegsis for the rules of life in conformance with the Koran and Hadith are established if there is a scriptual authority. How about using the body of an infant to ejaculate. Yep! Islam has this covered under Mufa' Khathat- The Thighing of Infants. ( Mufakhazat Alzigaar)

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/mufa-khathat-cleaning-mess-up.html

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/fatwa-number-41409-surah-654-mufa-khathat-thighing-of-infants/

http://islamandtheabuseofwomen.blogspot.com/

http://samhindu.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/of-female-children-in-islam/

http://muslimhadith.blogspot.com/2008/05/mohammad-had-lots-of-semen-on-his.html

The following Fatwa is an effort to revise history and declare Mohammed married Aisha when she was 9 years old. This is a bold faced lie; she was 6 years old. The only dubious question is whether he had sex with her at 6 years old when he married her or at 9 years old when she ostensibly entered puberty:

http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=42

When trying to understand (not justify) the Rotherhman tragedy) we must ask "Who was Mohammed that he should be emulated as the perfect man?"

"What is important to understand is that none of these depraved, criminal acts are crimes to Muslims. They are all holy, divine acts to be emulated by all Muslim men. They are all Sunna [The traditional portion of Muslim law based on Muhammad's words or acts, accepted (together with the Koran) as authoritative by Muslims].

• Molested his wife. One of Baby Aisha’s wifely duties was to clean semen stains from the prophet’s clothes. The prophet would take a bath with Baby Aisha and thigh with Baby Aisha taking his penis and rubbing it up and down her thighs. Being a man of mercy he did not penetrate Baby Aisha until she was nine.

• Raped Baby Aisha when she was nine (texts have been altered to change the age.
• Raped a retarded woman.
• Had sex with his dead aunt.

• Captured women and raped them. Kept women as sex slaves. Muhammad had sex with 61 women: many he raped.

• Had eleven wives at one time. Sexually abused his wives. Raped his wives. Forced sex during their menstruation including Baby Aisha.
• Had Jewish boys as young as 13 years old beheaded after pulling down their pants and inspecting groin for pubic hair.

• Married his daughter – in – law.

• Approved prostitution.

• Encouraged the rape of women in front of their husbands.

• Recommended wife beating. Hit his wife – Baby Aisha."

http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/islam-the-crimes-of-prophet-mohammed/

http://www.islam-watch.org/Larry/Muhammad-in-Islamic-writings-sex-life-sexual-abuse-pedophilia.htm

[jacky54]

Good post and yet millions follow this 'man', is there any hope for humanity? Feel a bit sick after reading that!

Edited September 10, 2014 by jacky54

[arjunadawn]

Does Islam justify child sexual abuse, child brides etc.?

Unfortunately, some Muslim teachers and leaders think that it does, using the 'fact' that Mohammed married a six year old girl and consummated that marriage when she was nine; but did he?

Yes! Islam justifies child abuse! Period! It is overwhelming. (Cultural relativity being celebrated as it is means muslims dont see it as child abuse, and western apologists dont see it at all!). It is ingrained into both Koran and Ahadith. There is so much information supporting this that when someone says there is no information supporting this they have either never read the documents or hope you have never read the documents.

Next question: Yes! Mohammed married 6 year old Aisha. There is only circumstantial evidence suggesting he did not penetrate her until she was 9, as islamic apologists are currently revising. In Mohammed's defense as to he perhaps not consummating the marriage until 9 years old, there is overwhelming scriptural references to one of Aisha's daily jobs being cleaning Mohammed's semen from his clothes. He was often bathing with Aisha and "thighing" her- rubbing his penis between her legs. Indeed, so ingrained is their reality that there are fatwas detailing the manner in which Infant Thighing is to be done. These facts suggest he just sexually abused her without penetration; but it is suggestive, and it is child abuse regardless.

Sexual abuse of all children is a core social component of Islam (not a pillar). From the bacha bazi boys of Afghanistan to the numerous male sexual rapes in the arab world, Islam practices this historically despised act.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2835389/posts

http://vladtepesblog.com/2011/08/12/western-complicity-in-the-rape-of-boys-in-the-islamic-world/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/rotherham-muslims-victims-sexual-abuse-vulnerable-girls-muslim-communities

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/taliban-muslims-sexually-abusing-young-boys-being-trained-to-be-suicide-bombers

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/frank-crimi/funding-islamic-schools-of-child-sexual-abuse/

http://europenews.dk/en/node/29775

On a previous post I posted unassailable information and history supporting institutionalized pedophilia in islamic scripture. I am well aware discussions (in the now current climate of silencing critique) on these matters are sensitive. I know this. But all the points made are valid points supported by citation and links. Only rarely will I just weigh in from emotional outrage. These are facts available to every citizen of planet earth.

I implore people to wake up and see what is going on.

[arjunadawn]

Free Dictionary

Islamophobia (ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)

n

1. (Psychology) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

Thesaurus

Noun 1. Islamophobia - prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West"

bias, prejudice, preconception - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

Language is also a victim of jihad and the liberal degradation of meaning. Many may not know this but any one with a classical education would know this,Islamophobia simply does not mean what is cited above. Islamophobia is a root and suffix, the subject being Islam, and the action being fear. Period! Whether or not liberal apologists have successfully morphed the meaning of this word or not, Islamophobia means Fear of Islam! Period.

It defies reason to suggest someone cannot have fear without having bias. Does someone with a fear of open spaces or spiders also hate open spaces of spiders? Do they not kill roaches but kill spiders because they are phobic and hate and are biased to spiders? This inversion of the meaning of language is a well established issue for controversy; language has been targeted for a long time. It is noteworthy that the Organization of The Islamic Conference, in one of many jihad lawfare efforts, seek to make critique of islam illegal with anti blasphemy laws. You really think online dictionaries and wikipedia are not part of the islamic battlespace?

http://www.lady-patriots.com/are-we-already-living-under-muslimu-n-anti-blasphemy-laws/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/

This word suits your posts because it enables you to sail it through cyber space as a pejorative that arguably neutralizes your opponents point of view as invalid, being based on emotional hatred or bias. It is transparent. It does not work. The use of "Islamophobia" defines the speaker as possessing "limited tools."

(In order for the ridiculous new definition of "Islamophobia" (above) to be valid, every single phobia listed in the DSM-V needs to be revised reflecting the broadening of the term- "phobia").

Edited September 10, 2014 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

What on earth does Mary being 12 have to do with it? Nothing. Nice diversion, but if someone was being bad, it would have been Joseph, but you don't say how old he was. She was probably older than 12 since the onset of puberty at that time was generally older than it is now.

But you miss the point. The first time I ever heard about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha was from Muslims in the Middle East and yes, they did use it to justify having sex with underage girls. Jesus, was is the center of Christianity, not Joseph; not Mary.

So you say 15, but most Muslims still think it's 9 and it has widely been used as a justification for sex with underage girls.

Most accounts which mention both Mary's and Joseph's ages put her around 12, him around 50.

Unfortunately some societies still hold to the old belief that puberty means sexual maturity; Muslim and non Muslim.

If Mary were 12 (no where is this information available. It is only infered because at 12 a Jewish girl becomes a woman after Bat Mitzvah) she would have been twice the age of Aisha when married. Muslims may be saying or even now thinking that Aisha was 9 (still way too young to marry and have sex) but this has not been the debatable issue in Islam. The debatable issue was whether or not Mohammed had sex with Aisha when he married her at age 6 (we know he practiced the Islamically approved "Infant Thighing" whereby he used his penis between her legs), or if in fact he consummated the marriage at age 9 when she menstruated.

They apparently concluded that he consummated at age 9 (this may be true) but this issue was now an open observation to the modern western world, and Islamic scholars retreated, embarrassed not for the actions rather they could not defend this easily to other cultures. Therefore, they have now begun revising and inculcating that Mohammed married Aisha at age 9. However, literature and history are telling witnesses and everyone who probes knows no revising can change the fact Mohammed married Aisha at age 6. Indeed, Abu Bakr, her dad, was appalled, but conceded when Mohammed pressed Allah wills it.

[jacky54]

top posts arjunadawn, very interesting read

[arjunadawn]

7by7

I have read the two links that you posted that no one was linking. The first link (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/did_prophet_muhammad_rape_a_nine-year_old_aisha) is simply not correct. This is the noise of the islamic current revision in response to the modern social networking age placing Islam in the awkward position of having to defend this globally. Previously it was just accepted as fact within the Islamic world and few outsiders realized he married a 6 year old. The essence of their not being correct is contained in the second link (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth), also an act of revisionist gymnastics. Everyone knows there has been a contemporary effort to mitigate the embarrassment of the Aisha issue.

The first link begins early by saying the notion that Aisha was 6 first appeared on rightwing websites. This is utter nonsense. The place where it first appeared are in the religious texts themselves- Hadith- sayings of the prophet. Moreover, none other than Aisha herself stated her age. This is dissembled by saying people did not celebrate birthdays and thus weren't always aware of their age. Really? With ten fingers on her little hands this girl didn't realize she was not on the second hand counting fingers, age 6? This is utter nonsense. But we dont then question other people's ages, just her age because it is convienent to do so? The reason the Guardian points out this perception continues to exist is muslims believe this. Of course they do. Its only the stewards of islam that are aware it is a cultural black eye and seek to window dress it.

In order for us to accept the error of this issue and concede there is no underage pedophilia we first have to look for context in Mohammed's life. Conduct a brief search to weigh in your own mind the nature of this man, and then consider whether the claim Aisha was 9 when married is true. Context is historiography- it does suggest truthfulness of something in the past.

[arjunadawn]

Good post and yet millions follow this 'man', is there any hope for humanity? Feel a bit sick after reading that!

I don't know. I think there is a large segment of the population waking up to what this is really all about, but a significant amount of people do not want to know, or motivated by years of devotion to a political ideology, cannot accept that cultures are not relative. They cannot accept that some behaviors are abhorrent and inferior. They have committed their lives to a point of view and the only thing that will change this for many is fear- palpable, present fear.

I worry about our children and our civilization. When looking to islamic conquests you will note that the majority of scientific or other social achievements relative to that land took place before the conquest, and then the state just atrophied, the host consumed. I worry, as another noted here, that the decline of western civilization by liberal policies of unbinding the glue that binds people to their nation, their tribe, their community, their faith, their forefathers, results in a balkanization of the lands- islands of desperate, disparate people living but not living as a single people. It is in this vacuum that islam is now expanding.

Language is everything; it is the basis for our interior perceptions. If we cannot define a threat we cannot counter the threat. Until we can have frank discussions on the nature of the problem we will only be reactionary. We may advance here, we may have a tactical victory there, but until we can address the core ideology, jihad advances further each day. For every jihadi you can imagine arrayed in some battlespace there are dozens more in suits, in organizations, in charities, in think tanks, spending vast sums, and spreading jihad. It is in essence, a white and blue color worker concept.

[jacky54]

Strange, after some of the best posts on the subject the silence from the apologists is deafening!

[arjunadawn]

Inclusion of the 'phobia' part is to show that it is irrational.

pho·bi·a (fb-)

n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

No one, including the vast majority of Muslims, is denying that Islamic extremism is dangerous and to be feared and combated.

It is extending that fear to the whole of Islam which makes it irrational and therefore a phobia.

Just saw this. Poppycock! John or Jane fear death; are they irrational? All people are averse to the smell of human feces, it's actually wired into us to avoid that which is dangerous to life; is everyone irrational? When walking to the ledge of a tall building rooftop I have fear. By 1944 the sound of boots marching in Warsaw made those hiding in cupboards have fear. There are generally accepted universal archetypes that populate the human psyche. Some of these are quite curious, such as the snake. What's been discovered is over the long train of time snakes represented such a threat to survival- at some or multiple points- that in some manner this fear / aversion is ingrained into most of us; do we hate? Are we irrational?

The idea that someone who fears the National Socialist Party (Nazi) is irrational is intellectually vacant. Fear (or even bias) which is born of repeated observations of actions threatening self preservation is not irrational!

Irrational is continuing to defend an obviously virulent, contagious, ideology who's very aim is your personal destruction and subsuming into submission.

Edited September 11, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Steely Dan]

Good post and yet millions follow this 'man', is there any hope for humanity? Feel a bit sick after reading that!

I pity the servants, I don't think they had washing machines and biological detergents in the Golden age, let alone the 7th century.