Why is it time to talk about Islam without sentimentality?
Recent terrorist attack on a mosque in a New Zealand city called Christchurch, which translates as "Church of Christ" (wow combination: mosque in the church of Christ), spawned another portion of howls about "Islamophobia", from which all evil. Well, what can you say? Islamophobia, same, like other phobias, - thing, certainly, harmful and leading to all kinds of tragedies. Here's just how to deal with it?
Let's start, as usual, with the definition of the term. "Phobia" is, strictly speaking, not just fear, and fear is irrational, unreasonable.
This term, when applied to public sentiment, greatly distorts the essence of the problem., presenting it like this, that some stupid people are afraid (and therefore hate) something like that, which in fact poses no danger.
However, why such fears arise? Just because, that people are fools, or because, that there is no smoke without fire? Right, Alas, second. To make sure of this, Suffice it to recall the pictures of the "Arab street" jubilation 11 September 2001 years or worldwide Muslim protests, offended by caricatures of the prophet Mohammed (some of which, as it turned out, turned out to be fabricated by the offended themselves).
About a lot of terrorist attacks, committed by the "soldiers of the Islamic state" in different countries and needless to say ...
If adherents of a certain religion in large numbers and around the world demonstrate anti-social behavior, then this is already a reason for that, to feel a little wary of them, is not it?
The question seems to be rhetorical, but this is where the fun begins, because from the mouths of the bearers of tolerant ideological attitudes in the case of Islam, we will hear a categorical: "Not so!»Like, Islam is a religion of goodness and peace, terrorists have no nationality, and the very question of whether, how the truths of Islam and the practice of the "Islamic state" are related - this is a malicious Islamophobia, which must be fought in every possible way.
The only problem is, that this struggle is always and everywhere waged according to the recipes of the Soviet agitprop of the 1970s. About the facts, which "do not fit" into the tolerant picture of the world, talking just isn't allowed, be it even a hundred times true.
for example, fact is, that Islam today is almost the only of the "organized" religions, practicing blood sacrifice (mosques on Kurban Bayram turn into slaughterhouses). It is also a fact, that the "great Islamic civilization" over the past 600 years did not make a single scientific discovery and did not make a single invention; literally everything useful - from a telescope and a steam engine to vaccinations against smallpox and an atomic reactor - was invented for some reason by the "wrong". And this did not happen because, that the "infidels" oppressed Muslims and prevented them from developing. The Ottoman Empire in the 15th-17th centuries was a European superpower, but its military power did not affect the scientific and technical development of the Islamic world in any way ...
Generally, the question of, what is wrong with Islam and what hinders the socio-economic development of the "global ummah", at least has the right to be asked.
But then - as in a Soviet joke:
– I have the right?
– Have.
– Can?
– No, can not!
But if the question “Why is Islam?»Cannot be asked in legal and academic discussion, then the answer to it will inevitably be received from circles that are not at all legal and by no means academic; and this answer will be short: “Islam is bad for everyone, and those, who professes it, must be physically destroyed!»
The answer is spooky, but didn't the ISIS militants at one time annihilate the Yezidis in Iraq precisely for "the wrong faith"? say, that ISIS fighters are wrong Muslims? Why wrong? And if they are "wrong", why are Muslims "correct" around the world (including New Zealand) rejoiced at the news of their success?
But again, these unpleasant questions cannot be asked, because there is tolerance.
But only in this case, the answers a la Andres Breivik and Brandon Tarrant turn out to be the "last word". And if the answer (even the most brutal) not disputed, then it automatically becomes correct and begins to demand the transition to action. What is happening ...
And that's what is characteristic: each of the "Muslim shooters" considers it his duty to compose some "manifesto" before, how to go to work. It is even logical somewhere - otherwise nobody will read their "Islamophobic opuses", will not discuss. On the other hand, the question arises: and can, these arrows would not even shoot, if their writings were at least discussed?
Tolerant unwillingness to listen to Islamophobes is too expensive. Including parishioners of mosques ...
