# Counter-Islamophobia Toolkit



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 1, 2019)

First, we introduce the conductor of this project.



> In a new, pan-European research project, my colleagues and I [*Amina Easat-Daas*] set about to devise a toolkit that can be used to counter Islamophobia. It summarises a range of the best methods and tools we saw being used to challenge Islamophobic thought and actions in Europe.



Now for a summary.

*The Toolkit*
Written by Prof. Ian Law, Dr Amina Easat-Daas and Prof. S. Sayyid, the overall aim of the Toolkit is to compare the operation of counter-narratives to Islamophobia in eight European Union member states (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and United Kingdom) in order to examine their use and
effectiveness in terms of providing alternatives to prevailing narratives of Islamophobia. This addresses the need for a deeper understanding and awareness of the range and operation of counter-narratives to Islamophobia across the EU, and the lack of a systematic categorisation and ranking of these two types of narratives across Europe.

In particular the paper examines:


The main types and content of dominant narratives of Islamophobia
The main types and content of counter-narratives to Islamophobia
The main legal and policy interventions through which the European human rightslaw apparatus has attempted to conceptually analyse and legally address Islamophobia.
The results are based on fieldwork with 272 politicians and policymakers, NGOs and activists, and media, arts and academic professionals and textual data from political, policy, media and NGO discourse, and digital data from social media platforms.

*Ten Dominant Narratives of Islamophobia*


Threat to security
Unassimilable
Demographic threat and proselytization (denouncing the alleged increase of the number of Muslim individuals in European countries and the supposed consequent spread of Islamic religion at the expense of the state)
Theocracy (the supposed prevalence of the exclusive reference to religious norms and values made by Muslims when dealing with societal matters)
Threat to identity
Gender inequality
Ontological diversity (Muslims and Islam as essentially and irremediably different from non- Muslim population and the associated moral landscape)
Innate violence
Incomplete citizenship
Homophobia (Islam equates with bigotry and thus intolerant towards homosexuals)
*Ten Dominant Counter-Narratives to Islamophobia*


Challenging and contextualising constructions of Muslim ‘threat’
Building inclusive nations: challenging exclusive and discriminatory national projects
Cultural compatibility and conviviality: challenging the narrative separation of cultural and ethnic groups
Elaborating plurality: challenging narratives of Muslim singularity
Challenging narratives of sexism
Building inclusive futures
Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives
Emphasising humanity and Muslim normalisation: challenging narratives of division
Creating Muslim space(s)
Challenging distorted representation: verity and voice
For developments on this issue in each of the countries, read the blog posts.
Read more about the project in general here.

=Article Ends=

The question here is whether all these "Islamophobia" and "anti-Muslim" countering programs are at all rational or even meaningful. If they aren't, then the very term "Islamophobia" looks more and more like merely the Islamic equivalent of the oft-abused term "antisemitism".

The full "toolkit" is attached to read and comment on.


----------



## Oskar Dirlewanger (Dec 1, 2019)

Countering islamophobia is pointless. Islamophobes are homosexuals mostly and will be outbreed by muslims anyway. While incel babies whine about islam Real Men eat delicious kebab and fuck slutty hijabi babes.


----------



## Pissmaster (Dec 1, 2019)

That's a hell of a lot of work to try and defend a group that can't answer a question like "why is it mandatory for women to wear hijabs at all times, even when it's hot as a motherfucker outside" without sounding extremely sexist or dodging the question


----------



## Randall Fragg (Dec 1, 2019)

I like how the “toolkit” is a bunch of nonsensical word/salad. 
Like, what does “Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives” mean? What policy goals does it involve? Why is it a pressing issue?


----------



## Harnessed Carcass (Dec 1, 2019)

'Building inclusive futures, Creating Muslim space(s), Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives" this sounds like a bunch of towelheads and sadniggers were trying to 'muh safe space' into getting government funding. They should get the cry baby antics out their ass and stop sounding like political light weights.


----------



## SigSauer (Dec 1, 2019)




----------



## No Exit (Dec 1, 2019)

None of those counter narratives, assuming I've interpreted that gibberish properly, are counters at all. I'd say it's what a lot of "islamaphobes" are against. If you try to combat bigots with this toolkit you'll only be proving them correct.


----------



## Slap47 (Dec 1, 2019)

I like how all I have to do is pull out a Pew Poll and emphasize that the ideas of the Ahamadis and Sufis are hated by most Muslims.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 1, 2019)

Check this out! You will find a lot of european countries at the very top and guess which muslim country is at the very bottom. 

Also if you want someone to refute islamophobia very effectively, I highly recommend the Andalusian Project. He makes them degenerate apostates really ass mad when they are proven factually wrong.


----------



## ScamL Likely (Dec 1, 2019)

Seems like a downgrade from the old toolkit.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 1, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> Check this out! You will find a lot of european countries at the very top and guess which muslim country is at the very bottom.


You mean Nepal? Because that's _not_ a Muslim country.



maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> Also if you want someone to refute islamophobia very effectively, I highly recommend the Andalusian Project. He makes them degenerate apostates really ass mad when they are proven factually wrong.


So you mean some smug Muslim YouTube apologist? _This_ is what we're supposed to take as a big-brained mujaddid?


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 1, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> So you mean some smug Muslim YouTube apologist? _This_ is what we're supposed to take as a big-brained mujaddid?


You are more than welcome to factually prove him wrong. The people that attempted to do so made asses of themselves by stumbling and falling since the hard facts weren't on their side.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 1, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> You are more than welcome to factually prove him wrong. The people that attempted to do so made asses of themselves by stumbling and falling since the hard facts weren't on their side.


Since we're now appealing to authority...






						WikiIslam
					

2,800+ critical articles on various areas of Islam based on its own sources, the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars.




					wikiislam.net
				




Have fun.

Edit: Wait, wasn't @maalikthefakemuzzie the guy who said the rape of some Middle Eastern woman wasn't all that bad because she enjoyed it or something?


----------



## The Last Stand (Dec 1, 2019)

How many Deep Thoughts threads you made alluding to Islam? Four?


----------



## Xarpho (Dec 2, 2019)

> Creating Muslim space


It already exists. It's called North Africa and the Middle East.


----------



## Shmidty Werbenmanjenson (Dec 2, 2019)

I want Maalik muscleman with the edgy angelsword avatar and deus vult totally not homo for brown OP poster to fight in real life. Or kiss.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 2, 2019)

The Last Stand said:


> How many Deep Thoughts threads you made alluding to Islam? Four?


I don't keep count, but I don't think it was that many.



Shmidty Werbenmanjenson said:


> I want Maalik muscleman with the edgy angelsword avatar and deus vult totally not homo for brown OP poster to fight in real life. Or kiss.


Yeah I'd rather not.

Furthermore, I watched the video that Maalik was shilling, and I wonder why such a low-level apologist was described as some great Islamic scholar who brings apostates to tears with his truthfulness by @maalikthefakemuzzie.

For example, around 1:10, Quran 2:191 is discussed, which Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi claims was a verse of self-defense, a typical argument of Muslim apologetics that has been long-refuted. The Andalusian also seems to have ignored the surrounding verses that give context to 2:191, and clearly show that it has nothing to do with self-defense.

Yet it's supposedly the guy the Andalusian was responding to that was taking the Quran out of context. I will respond to many more bad arguments once I look at the video again.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Dec 2, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> Check this out! You will find a lot of european countries at the very top and guess which muslim country is at the very bottom.


Literally at the top of the page




When your country is so ass backwards that there aren't police, or the police are corrupt, or the tradition for settling disputes is to go to the other guy's house and shoot him instead of letting the police handle your argument about whose fault it was that your goat died while you were having a little threesome with your neighbor, yeah no shit you're going to see a "low crime rate".

If you think anyone is buying that Iceland has a 150x higher crime rate than Albania, Yemen or Burma, you might be a Muslim.


----------



## Damn Near (Dec 2, 2019)

A rebuttal: muslims should fuck off


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Dec 2, 2019)

Randall Fragg said:


> I like how the “toolkit” is a bunch of nonsensical word/salad.
> Like, what does “Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives” mean? What policy goals does it involve? Why is it a pressing issue?


Well what does it mean? We have 12 doctoral students and 200 government employees working on answering those questions and making 3 times your annual salary


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 2, 2019)

@Iwasamwillbe 
Before I start I must disclose that 22:39 is the first verse that talks about warfare.

“Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.”

As for the verse you mentioned, read the verses before and afterwards because it reveals that it is apparent that the polytheists being ambushed are in fact hostile and armed.

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” -2:190


“But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” -2:192

The reason why it doesn’t make sense to interpret this to be general attitude towards non-muslims, is because at the time there was a large war waged by polytheists because they got assmad over their idols being disparaged.


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Dec 2, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> @Iwasamwillbe
> 
> 
> The reason why it doesn’t make sense to interpret this to be general attitude towards non-muslims, is because at the time there was a large war waged by polytheists because they got assmad over their idols being disparaged.



However that is not the sole way that has been interpreted historically


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 2, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> @Iwasamwillbe
> Before I start I must disclose that 22:39 is the first verse that talks about warfare.
> 
> “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory.”


Quran 22:39 being the first Quranic verse to discuss warfare is a complete lie, both in terms of chronology and in how the Quran was arranged.

The verse is also being brought out of context (how ironic) to say that Quranic war was merely in self-defense, while in actuality, it was a deceitful piece of rhetoric used to claim that the Quraysh's defenses against initial Muslim threats of aggression were somehow morally bankrupt.


maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> As for the verse you mentioned, read the verses before and afterwards because it reveals that it is apparent that the polytheists being ambushed are in fact hostile and armed.
> 
> “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” -2:190
> 
> ...


I already posted the link that refuted these boilerplate Muslim apologetics, and I will post it again.

Here is an even more relevant quote from that article:

*



			Why They are Wrong
		
Click to expand...

*


> The verses (2:191-194) were narrated at a time when Muhammad had just migrated to Medina, where the Quraish had no real interest in him.  It was not until he began raiding their caravans that hostilities resumed.  The immediate historical context is that Muhammad was trying to justify his deadly raids during the "sacred months."
> 
> Muhammad said that "fitna is worse than killing" (thus distinguishing the two).  If by _fitna_, he meant ' killing', 'persecution' or 'oppression', then he would have used those words.  Instead, he used a word that means 'sedition' and is tied to a lack of belief in Allah as a monotheistic god, since that is the only authority against which the Quraish were rebelling.
> 
> ...


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 2, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> Quran 22:39 being the first Quranic verse to discuss warfare is a complete lie,


This is some real galaxybrain-tier claims you are making. The evidence regarding 22:39 as the first verse regarding warfare can be found at tafsir Ibn Kathir, Right here. I would also like you to show me some evidence from authentic ahadith that say it is not the first verse.


Iwasamwillbe said:


> I already posted the link that refuted these boilerplate Muslim apologetics, and I will post it again.
> 
> Here is an even more relevant quote from that article:


Yes, raids against Quraysh polytheists were orchestrated because it was an ambush, the nature of an ambush is applying the element of surprise. They didn't do it for no reason, they were expelled out of mecca to Medina due to threats of assassination from the Quraysh tribes.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 2, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> This is some real galaxybrain-tier claims you are making. The evidence regarding 22:39 as the first verse regarding warfare can be found at tafsir Ibn Kathir, Right here.


Claims that are wrong, since verses about warfare already existed in previous suras, such as Sura 2, of verse of which we literally just talked about a few posts ago.

Even if we were to grant that the Quranic verse arrangements are so disjointed chronologically that an individual verse can predate another verse despite the former verse existing in a later sura, it still wouldn't mean that those verses were actually talking about self-defense. Muhammad generally had a very strange view of what "oppression" means, which included "defending yourself against Muslim aggression", as shown below.


maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> Yes, raids against Quraysh polytheists were orchestrated because it was an ambush, the nature of an ambush is applying the element of surprise. They didn't do it for no reason, they were expelled out of mecca to Medina due to threats of assassination from the Quraysh tribes.


Wrong again. The Muslims (or, more accurately, Muhammad himself) fled (i.e. wasn't expelled) to Medina _after_ he made a treaty of war against Mecca. It was after this that Muhammad was barred from entering Mecca by the Quraysh polytheists, something that I frankly find no reason to fault the Quraysh for.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 2, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> Claims that are wrong, since verses about warfare already existed in previous suras, such as Sura 2, which we literally just talked about a few posts ago.


What if I told you the Quran is not arranged in chronological order but longest to shortest? Because this sounds like you are misassuming the former instead of the latter. And quite frankly I really don't care what you think, Ibn Kathir is a reliable narrator and he states that this is the first verse talking about warfare. And speaking of reliable narrators.
EDIT: I should clarify that is aranged from longest to shortest with exception surah fatiha at the beginning. This is because Al-fatiha is a fundamentally important surah muslims are supposed to recite.



Iwasamwillbe said:


> Wrong again. The Muslims (or, more accurately, Muhammad himself) fled (i.e. wasn't expelled) to Medina _after_ he made a treaty of war against Mecca.


That you link you just showed cited I*bn Hisham/Ishaq. *This is a pretty big mistake you are making because his narrations are unreliable due to not naming his teachers in the process and that sahih bukhari or sahih muslim are more authentic sources.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 2, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> What if I told you the Quran is not arranged in chronological order but longest to shortest? Because this sounds like you are misassuming the former instead of the latter.


It's not arranged from longest to shortest either, so I don't know where you got that from.



maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> And quite frankly I really don't care what you think, Ibn Kathir is a reliable narrator and he states that this is the first verse talking about warfare. And speaking of reliable narrators.


And he's wrong on that point then. Even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter.



maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> That you link you just showed cited I*bn Hisham/Ishaq. *This is a pretty big mistake you are making because his narrations are unreliable due to not naming his teachers in the process and that sahih bukhari or sahih muslim are more authentic sources.


What the hell does not naming one's teachers have to do with the authenticity of the narratives one recollects, especially when the narratives are generally seen as reliable by hadith scholars, despite the reservations of some? Hell, I would consider _Ibn Ishaq_ the more authoritative source, since Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both came much later than him, and Ibn Hisham saw fit to edit out "distasteful things" from Ibn Ishaq's work (criterion of embarrassment and all that).

To my knowledge, neither Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim seriously contradict Ibn Ishaq anyway.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 3, 2019)

@Iwasamwillbe 
So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 3, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> @Iwasamwillbe
> So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.


Did I not just say that even if Ibn Kathir wasn't wrong on 22:39 being the first verse to discuss warfare, it still wouldn't matter?

Learn to read, dumbass.


----------



## Manwithn0n0men (Dec 3, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> @Iwasamwillbe
> So far you have not provided any evidence proving that 22:39 was not the first verse that talks about warfare. If you keep this up I will continuously label you as a galaxybrain because this is absurd.



So while I've not spend a lot of time studying Islamic clerical principles I want to see if your a reasonable enough lad to debate with

you understand these interpretations are a reflection [in regards to War, Terrorism, "Things the state does] are all products of the place of Islam within its political world. And we could both dig in and fine different interpretations influenced by 1300+ years of political context?


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 3, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> Did I not just say that even if Ibn Kathir wasn't wrong on 22:39 being the first verse to discuss warfare, it still wouldn't matter?
> 
> Learn to read, dumbass.


You are asserting 22:39 is not the first verse regarding warfare, despite numerous tafsirs claiming it is. You are asserting a contradiction that it is not the first verse regarding warfare.

It is this evidence I am demanding because 2:191 did not come before 22:39, you thought because you assumed the Quran was ordered Chronologically. And thereligionofpeace.com does not at all prove the muslims were intial aggressors, but that they should not hold back in battle.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 3, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> You are asserting 22:39 is not the first verse regarding warfare, *despite numerous tafsirs claiming it is*.


Well you could list them then. Or not. It proves nothing regardless.




maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> You are asserting a contradiction that it is not the first verse regarding warfare.
> 
> It is this evidence I am demanding because 2:191 did not come before 22:39, *you thought because you assumed the Quran was ordered Chronologically*.


Which is a straw man argument, as I've never assumed that. My argument was that Surah 2 (and its verses) predates Surah 22 _in order of the time it was revealed_, the same way Surah 96 predates Surah 1.



maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> And thereligionofpeace.com does not at all prove the muslims were intial aggressors, but that they should not hold back in battle.


Wrong again, Ahmed.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 3, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> Which is a straw man argument, as I've never assumed that. My argument was that Surah 2 (and its verses) predates Surah 22 _in order of the time it was revealed_, the same way Surah 96 predates Surah 1.


Citations or it Didn't happen.
EDIT: lol you couldn't find it.


Iwasamwillbe said:


> Wrong again, Ahmed.


1.) Hamza beat up Abu Jahl because he previously beaten up our prophet (PBUH)
2.) They were fully justified because they were forcibly expelled from their homes which was Mecca as compensaton. Same way you have the right to kill an intruder if you were in the United States.
3.) The third link does not prove that the hijra to Medina was not due to Meccan threats.

Since you are using it as an ultimate authority, 2 can play at this game.








						iJihad: The Masked Arab
					

In this episode we deconstruct two videos in a series by The Masked Arab where he argues that ISIS represents the teaching of Islam. Although a speaker of Ar...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 3, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> Citations or it Didn't happen
> 
> 1.) Hamza beat up Abu Jahl because he previously beaten up our prophet (PBUH)
> 2.) They were fully justified because they were forcibly expelled from their homes which was Mecca as compensaton. Same way you have the right to kill an intruder if you were in the United States.
> ...


1. Hadith or it didn't happen. Because it looks very much like it didn't.
2. They were "forcibly expelled" because Muhammad continually threatened the Meccans, even making treaties of war against them. No matter what, the Quraysh did nothing wrong.
3. Probably because calling on someone to prove a negative in this context is disingenuous as fuck, especially when the first paragraph of their text makes it clear who the initial threat-maker was.



> Only Muhammad was in danger at Mecca - and this was _*after*_ he made a treaty of war against the local residents while living among them, thirteen years into his preaching.



And please spare me the YouTube apologetics from pseudo-intellectuals such as Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi (who will be mostly be referred to as "the Andalusian" going forward). Your attempt at tu quoque about appealing to authority is even more hilarious considering you've been shilling this guy since your first post in this thread.

Edit: And _of course_ the Masked Arab responded to the Andalusian.


----------



## maalikthefakemuzzie (Dec 3, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> 1. Hadith or it didn't happen. Because it looks very much like it didn't.
> 2. They were "forcibly expelled" because Muhammad continually threatened the Meccans, even making treaties of war against them. No matter what, the Quraysh did nothing wrong.
> 3. Probably because calling on someone to prove a negative in this context is disingenuous as fuck, especially when the first paragraph of their text makes it clear who the initial threat-maker was.



1.) You can read the conversion to Islam section on Hamza ibn Abdul-muttalib's wikipedia page citation: Muhammad ibn Saad. _Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabair_ vol. 3.
2.) Stop using religionofpeace.com and start using hadiths. Does it say that muhammad (PBUH) was threatening meccans before going through with an all out war? Quote the hadiths that say so. Did he (PBUH) attack caravans? Quote the hadiths that say so. I do this and I expect you do the same.
3.) Asadullah ali has a PHD in islamic studies.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 3, 2019)

maalikthefakemuzzie said:


> 1.) You can read the conversion to Islam section on Hamza ibn Abdul-muttalib's wikipedia page
> 2.) Stop using religionofpeace.com and start using hadiths. Does it say that muhammad (PBUH) was threatening meccans before going through with an all out war? Quote the hadiths that say so. Did he (PBUH) attack caravans? Quote the hadiths that say so. I do this and I expect you do the same.
> 3.) Asadullah ali has a PHD in islamic studies.


1. Many of the Wikipedia pages on Islamic subjects are deliberately biased in favor of Islam, and the page still doesn't prove anything in your side's favor, unless you automatically interpreted "attacked the Prophet and abused and insulted him" to mean physical violence, of which there was no corroborating evidence of.
2. The Religion of Peace directly cites authentic and reliable hadith, so this "start using hadith" line is a pretty transparent attempt to move the goalposts. Especially since you only quoted the hadith once during this entire conversation, to "prove" that Quran 22:39 was the first Quran verse about warfare.
3. I don't care that the Andalusian has a PhD in "Islamic Studies", and to say he's right just because of that is not only an appeal to authority, but naked credentialism.

This isn't even going into the supposed "value" of an Islamic Studies degree anyway.

Edit: I saw that you edited in the Wikipedia page's citation of Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir Vol. III. It still proves nothing in favor of you, however.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Dec 3, 2019)

Holy fucking christ who the fuck cares if Hadn Bin Fucked slapped and pulled Abdul Ibn Shitsmear's hair in 1307 and that's what justifies Islam's violent conquests. Sit down and read this conversation from start to finish. It's enough to give you an aneurysm.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Dec 3, 2019)

Varg Did Nothing Wrong said:


> Holy fucking christ who the fuck cares if Hadn Bin Fucked slapped and pulled Abdul Ibn Shitsmear's hair in 1307 and that's what justifies Islam's violent conquests. Sit down and read this conversation from start to finish. It's enough to give you an aneurysm.


I'm sorry and I feel for your pain, but you should understand that all those conquests were in _self-defense_, at least according to humongous brains like Maalik and the Andalusian.


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (Dec 3, 2019)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> I'm sorry and I feel for your pain, but you should understand that all those conquests were in _self-defense_, at least according to humongous brains like Maalik and the Andalusian.



A muzzie or muzzie apologist in 2019 making up reasons why muzzies are in the right when they do muzzie shit isn't interesting or strange, it's par for the course. They can never admit that Muhammad did something wrong or that certain things done a thousand years ago might not be very nice by today's standards. Muhammad is blameless and virtuous in all things.


----------



## Chive Turkey (Dec 8, 2019)

Let's take a look at their problems and  solutions.


> *Ten Dominant Narratives of Islamophobia*
> 
> Threat to security
> Challenging and contextualising constructions of Muslim ‘threat’


So meta-arguments aimed at nitpicking the form of argument made that Islam is a threat, rather than the substance. This will neither settle the issue, nor appease the people you're trying to convince.


> Unassimilable
> Building inclusive nations: challenging exclusive and discriminatory national projects


'People feel Muslims don't assimilate? Clearly the problem is that _everyone else_ isn't inclusive enough and should be forced to be more tolerant!'


> Demographic threat and proselytization (denouncing the alleged increase of the number of Muslim individuals in European countries and the supposed consequent spread of Islamic religion at the expense of the state)
> Cultural compatibility and conviviality: challenging the narrative separation of cultural and ethnic groups


Another non-answer that doesn't address the issue, but tries to reframe it as obtusely as possible. 'It's not Islamization at all if _we_ just pretend we're all the same happy family!'

Also, imagine denying that a religion like Islam is proselytising by nature, and even going so far to imply that believing that is 'Islamophobia'. This is some  Orwellian shit.


> Theocracy (the supposed prevalence of the exclusive reference to religious norms and values made by Muslims when dealing with societal matters)
> Elaborating plurality: challenging narratives of Muslim singularity


Fair enough, not all Muslims are religious fundamentalists and it is wise to point this out. HOWEVER, I can see this failing hard because you'll have to balance this against the doublethink of not offending the hardcore Muslims by implying that more secular behaviour is good and desirable.

(I'm guessing they switched 5 and 6 up by mistake)


> Threat to identity
> Building inclusive futures


We're inclusive enough. That's the issue people are having: that we're doing all the effort in being accommodating to Muslims, and they feel its not being reciprocated and may lead to a parallel society. They want to see assimilation from a group they've invited been told to accept into their countries, not more demands that they shut up about it and be more tolerant.


> Gender inequality
> Challenging narratives of sexism


Read: ignore reasonable fears that hardline interpretations of a 1400 year-old Abrahamic religion might encourage sexism by just redefining what 'sexism' means.


> Ontological diversity (Muslims and Islam as essentially and irremediably different from non- Muslim population and the associated moral landscape)
> Deracialising the state: challenging institutional narratives


Nigga what. How is 'deracialisation' going to address the ideological in-group/out-group dynamic that a multi-ethnic, proselytising faith _has constructed itself._ Commandments strictly regulating marriages and interactions between non-Muslims and others, and the 'Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb' dynamic aren't the result of 'institutional narratives', they're core tenets of the fucking religion since it has existed.


> Innate violence
> Emphasising humanity and Muslim normalisation: challenging narratives of division


Eh, reasonable enough. There's not a lot else you're going to do about that except maybe rewrite portions of the Quran that the critics deem to be violent, and good fucking luck with that.


> Incomplete citizenship
> Creating Muslim space(s)


So the solution to a perceived lack of integration by Muslims is... to advocate actual institutional segregation through safe spaces? Are these people fucking high?


> Homophobia (Islam equates with bigotry and thus intolerant towards homosexuals)
> Challenging distorted representation: verity and voice


The fuck is this even supposed to mean.

tl;dr these people are batshit and trying to use Postmodernist lingo to not address any fears people might have about Islam. If anything, this will confirm their fears because it basically condones lack of integration and encourages it further by portraying Muslims as a special protected group to which the rules of law and logic should not apply, and everyone else should treat them with special reverence.


----------



## Dreamland (Dec 8, 2019)

Chive Turkey said:


> So the solution to a perceived lack of integration by Muslims is... to advocate actual institutional segregation through safe spaces? Are these people fucking high?


No they're just retarded at best and creating treasonous agitprop at worst. The toolkit overall screams "The left can't meme, so we must mobilize the fourth estate" with it's hamfisted directives and strictures on how to construct an idea.
The fact of the matter is that even though they can start whinging about "das rascist" and that they mean no harm, everyone with an isis.webm gore folder can just dump it and say that the will of the ummah is to shed the blood of the kuffar and munafiq to make for a much more compelling (and truthful) argument.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Dec 8, 2019)

Lemme just save all those six figure salaries and propose a real effective solution free of charge.

If Muslims want everyone to stop being "phobic", how about they stop being so scary?

None of us would be phobic if they gave us cake rather than trying to fucking murder the non-combatants like children at shitty pop concerts at every possible opportunity. In fact we'd probably find them pretty chill dudes.

So yeah. Bring me cake. I'm also ready for my honorary doctorate now for solving violence in the middle east.


----------

