For the sake of argument, let's assume that ISIS don't represent Islam.
ISIS do think they represent Islam, so according to the earlier said argument, ISIS are Islamophobes.
There are many other similar terrorist outfits ie groups who promote a version of Islam similar to that of ISIS. According to the earlier said argument, they're also Islamophobes.
There are recognized governments who carry out similar punishments in the name of Islam...yes, they're also now Islamophobes.
There are other Muslims who support above said groups and governments. They're also now Islamophobes.
Now, think about this.
How many Islamophobes are there within the muslim community itself if we go with the main premise?
There are millions of Muslims who have a favourable view of groups like ISIS, or don't show any unfavourable opinion openly.
There are many Muslims who think that suicide bombings are justified. There are many Muslims who think that apostates should be executed. There are many Muslims who think that critics of Islam should be punished, and so on.
Put all of this together and you'll find that, according to the above stated premise, the Muslim community has far more Islamophobes outside of it.
Also, not to mention that, according to the above said premise, Muslims who carry out physical attacks against non-Muslims, their property or their heritage, solely in the name of Islam, are also Islamophobes.
Ben Shapiro, in one of his videos show that the majority of the Muslims are radicals. If we go with the above said premise, we have to conclude that the majority of the muslim community are actually Islamophobes.
That leaves us with an important question :
How can we know an islamophobe apart from a practicing muslim BEFORE he carries out an islamophobic attack against us, our loved ones, our allies etc ?
As I said earlier, Ben Shapiro, in his video, proves than the majority of Muslims are radicalized according to a pew study.
So, here is the conclusion.
Premise 1. Most Muslims have a radical point of view about Islam
Premise 2. Only Islamophobes have a radical point of view about Islam
Conclusion : therefore, most Muslims are Islamophobes.
Now we have to wonder.
If most "Muslims" are actually Islamophobes, and one can't be both at the same time either, how truthful is the claim that there are over 1.8 billion Muslims?
Another thing. This also means that any "muslim" who meet in your life have an above 50% chance of being an islamophobe.
Obviously, it's not good to get along with Islamophobes, according to the very same people who say that those who associate ISIS with Islam are Islamophobes, so how can we make sure that we stay away from Islamophobes, without staying away from all who look like Muslims?
We can't.
As you see, if you think that ISIS represent Islam, you have to stay away from all Muslims, for your own safety.
If you think that ISIS don't represent Islam and anyone who thinks they do is an islamophobe, you have to stay away from all Muslims for your own safety.
Either way, you have to stay away from all Muslims for your own safety.
Yet another classic case of leftist dilemma, my friends.
However, it's not over yet. What about all the seemingly controversial material we find in the Islamic texts?
I said "seemingly" because according to the premise, they're not actually controversial. They just seem that way, right?
Now, let's put aside the quran for a while, even though we find such material there too. Let's look at the hadith for now.
Hadith basically go like this.
A wrote down that B said that C said that D said that E said that D said that G said that Muhammad did so and so.
Now, here's the thing. Many of these hadiths state that Muhammad did some very, very problematic things.
So, if we think that the hadith writer and his chain of narrators are all Muslims, and not Islamophobes, that makes Muhammad...an islamophobe!
If the greatest muslim who ever lived was an islamophobe, then there are no Muslims in the world today, and thus Islam is a goner.
However, if Muhammad wasn't an islamophobe, that means either the hadith writer, or one or more people in the chain of narration, was an islamophobe, or Islamophobes.
Then there's another problem. Why didn't Muslims have a problem with these early Islamophobes?
In fact, why don't Muslims have a problem with "muslim" Islamophobes to begin with? Why do Muslims have a problem only with the clearly non-Muslim Islamophobes?
Let's say that Muhammad was a muslim and that person D in the above said narration was an islamophobe.
Now, Muhammad said that the best Muslims are the ones in his generation, and two generations forward.
Going by this, we can't consider G or F or E to be the Islamophobe. So, let's assume he was D.
Now, we have to wonder. Why didn't C have a problem with D telling C something very, very problematic about Muhammad? Why didn't B or A or the hadith writer himself didn't have a problem with that statement?
Of course, you can make the case against C, B, A or the hadith writer as well.
Now we have to wonder. Why didn't Muslims have any problem with any of those early Islamophobes, even the ones within their own community?
Why did they start having a problem later on all of a sudden, especially after their spreading was radically slowed down?
Putting all of this together, I'd say that the new premise doesn't help Muslims at all.
Instead, it demonizes Muslims even further, by indirectly accusing them of promoting islamophobia.
Notice that I didn't even go into the quran interpretations, Muhammad's life story texts, or history of Islam etc etc. Believe me, it gets a lot worse if I do that.
To the Muslims who read this, how about you understand who your real enemies are, and reject them, instead of being angry with us for exposing your actual enemies? 😊
