Three stages of jihad

Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,705
Well, not a racist exactly but since I use the term the same way for convenience (it's easier to type and say than "religious bigot" or something similar)....
 
"Stealth Jihad" sounds like a terrible straight-to-video action film.
 
What's the difference between opposing the cultural values of a certain religion and being a bigot?
 
Usually the presence of strawmen in their narrative, I'd think. A bigot is biased, without understanding. A person can be opposed only if they hold a coherent position regarding what they oppose.
 
Why is stealth before defense?

Please watch the video first before you comment that i am a racist.

I did as requested: watching the video before commenting that apocalypse is a racist.

The speaker asserts that Mohammed acted, that Muslims act, and that the Koran commands them to act, in one of three ways based on the level of power they possess in the society they inhabit. Stage one: they are significantly outnumbered by people of other faiths: they play nice and call for religious toleration (outwardly, while secretly wanting no such thing). Stage two: they have some power within society: they engage in terrorist acts while claiming that it is all a defensive reaction to persecution they are suffering. Stage three: they have significant control: they forcibly impose Islam on everybody else.

By this model, we're in stage two, with stage three imminent.
 
So I looked up the term stealth jihad to check if it was a legitimate term in Islam that I didn't know about. Nope, just something bigots use as a shorthand for what they consider the infiltration of Islam and Muslims into America's cultural life, rather than the natural products of a cross cultural exchange.

TBH, Stealth Jihad reminds me of the kind of action movie Arnold Schwarzenegger would've been the star of.
 
So I looked up the term stealth jihad to check if it was a legitimate term in Islam that I didn't know about. Nope, just something bigots use as a shorthand for what they consider the infiltration of Islam and Muslims into America's cultural life, rather than the natural products of a cross cultural exchange.
so you're saying that a thread full of hacky harambe jokes would be an improvement on the op
 
Don't be fooled by the fact that the opening post is anti-Islamic. I learned that a lot of faiths have a 'stealth' phase; they're very pro-tolerance while they're in the oppressed minority. Some faiths internalize this, and so are benign once they have power ... but I've found many that do not. There are a few that really surprised me, because I only knew their proselytizers from the 'oppressed' regions and was startled how unliberal their faith was when it was from regions where they held historical power.

It can be true for any cohort that has fringe beliefs and want the ability to practice them.
 
The modus operanti certainly seems pretty realistic, but it's not specific to Islam. It's the same being used by any ideological group with oppressive tendencies.
 
I'm sorry, but being opposed to a major religion like Islam makes a person racist.

Well, not a racist exactly but since I use the term the same way for convenience (it's easier to type and say than "religious bigot" or something similar)....

This is silly.

I can't oppose it on the grounds that it is innately misogynist ( it is, ) that it is innately irrational ( it is, ) etc.?

There are things baked in to Islam ( and Christianity, and Judaism ) that I don't condone or tolerate. Not "just the extremists," either, but innate to the actual, authentic faith.

Sorry, Islam is not "oppressed." It's the second largest religion in the world. Saying "please don't pick on the poor Muslims" is about on par with saying "please don't pick on the straight white Christian males."

Just because Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh think water is wet, doesn't mean it's not wet.

Now, I agree that the American Right is hypocritical because of their own theocratic tendencies, as well as being unable to deal in sufficient nuance to differentiate between "Islam is problematic" and "A Jihadist is under every bed!!! SHARIA IN AMERICA!!!"

So don't confuse me with the Faux News crowd, either, but I'm not about to kiss ass and say Islam is just fine and dandy either. Nor am I gonna buy that "just the extremists" bit.

EDIT: As for the OP: Of course this probably isn't real per se, but I imagine that's the natural progression of any power hungry group that is a minority. Of course they aren't going to demand major concessions in an area when they are 1% of the population.

A better question is: How will Islam treat people who aren't Muslim if it becomes a majority somewhere? Granted, I'm sure many times it's no worse than Christianity, but I'd not want to take the chance. Suffice it to say, the idea of a Muslim majority in the United States is just moronic, and anyone who takes it seriously is a fool.
 
AlpsStranger said:
Sorry, Islam is not "oppressed." It's the second largest religion in the world. Saying "please don't pick on the poor Muslims" is about on par with saying "please don't pick on the straight white Christian males."

No one is saying that "Islam is oppressed" - that is an absurd strawman. But to deny that Muslims are oppressed in certain places, or that there is widespread prejudice against Islam (and even de facto legal discrimination in some places) in the West, is ridiculous.

AlpsStranger said:
So don't confuse me with the Faux News crowd, either, but I'm not about to kiss ass and say Islam is just fine and dandy either

Too late. By peddling such simplistic nonsense you've already confused yourself with the Faux News crowd.
 
I'm sorry, but being opposed to a major religion like Islam makes a person racist.

Well I've never seen racism directed at Muslims who didn't look brown.
 
Top Bottom