Occidentophobia - a refusal to accept the essential concepts of life in the West.
 

Young Muslim men refuse to embrace the social codes of Western life. They were raised on the idea that their religous ethics trump the ethics of the infidels.

In December 2013 Professor Rund Koopmans of the Berlin Social Science Centre published a study on 'Fundamentalism and out-group hostility' in which he compared hostility among Muslim immigrants and Christisn natives in Western Europe. Almost 60% felt that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam, 75% felt there is only one interpretation of the Quran possible to which every Muslim should stick and 65% felt that religious rules were more important to them than the laws of the country in which they lived. In regards to Christians, he concluded that less than 4% could be characterised as consistent fundamentalists.

In the modern welfare state immigrants were more dependent on the welfare state than the average citizens. As a group they receive more money than they pay in taxes. They also show up much higher in crime statistics than their numbers would justify.

Almost 60% of Europe's Muslims reject homosexuals as friends and 45% think that Jews cannot be trusted. Whilst about 1in 5 natives can be considered Islamophobic, the level of phobia against the West is much higher, with 54% believing that the West is out to destroy Islam.

Muslim integration is successful when Muslims are willing to give up the mental confinement of their countries - countries, let's not forget, which they left in search of a better life. For as long as they refuse to adapt to a European state of mind , they will perpetuate resentment and a culture of violence.

What did 'we' do to 'them'? We opened our cities, our houses, our wallets. And in our secular temples of progress - our metro stations, airports and theatres - their sons are killing themselves and taking our sons and daughters with them.

There is nothing for which we need to apologise. Occidentophobia originated in the Muslim community. We need to demand they abandon it.

From an article called 'Muslims hate the West' published in 2016 which I found very interesting. Thoughts please.




,

Well that's going to be balanced

It came from an article from Politico which apparently tends to have a left centre bias, not a right-wing source as you suggest.

I think the title of the article was a bad choice.The majority of home grown muslims i don't think fall into this category.The ones who grew up with western values.Yes there are home grown terrorists but they are a minority.
The article is possibly true though of muslims who grew up in strict muslim countries and dont want to adjust to the western way of life.Hence why we get ghettos with shariah courts etc.

How come they called themselves British Asian like on that BBC Radio Asia advert? If I moved to a Muslim country would they call me British Asian? No they'd call me British and sinful

I love the smell of hilarious xenophobic propaganda in the morning.

I love confirmation-bias.

Can I ask how you found this article. I have a feeling you probably typed 'Muslims hate the West' in to Google.

In the 60's/70's in Yorkshire, quite a few Asian families moved into our area to work in the cotton mills. Everyone seemed to get along fine. They didn't try to interfere in our way of life and we accorded them the same courtesy. Then the asian population grew and with it came the imams and that's when problems started to arise.
When muslims are only a small minority they manage to get along with people, but as soon as their numbers grow. so does their aggression and demands.
In parts of London 'sharia patrols' are out after dark forbidding non muslims from walking past their mosques, telling British women how to dress and heckling anyone who they percieve as gay.
What's really alarming is that a non muslim would almost certainly be jailed for uttering racist remarks to a muslim, yet muslims can scream death threats and 'down with britain' and 'kill the police', even when the police are there and very little if anything is done about it.
Radical muslims feed on democracy and the freedom it gives them to infiltrate our countries, yet would be the first to stamp out and last vestige of freedom or democracy for us.

Roughtly 200 million females are the victims of female genital mutilation in the world today. This means at best, their clitoris is removed with a razor blade or scissors and at worst, their clitoris and labia are removed and they are sewn up leaving just a small hole for urination and menstruation. Those who don't bleed to death or die from infection go on to have massive problems with sex (penetrative sex is almost impossible without pain and injury) and childbirth puts the mother and child at risk of a painful death. FGM is practised almost entirely by Muslims... a patriachal religion where women have almost no say in their own lives.

This barbaric act is carried out in order to keep Muslim women from having sexual thoughts and to keep them pure for marriage. So... are we surprised that the countries supporting FGM not fans of the West, with our feminism and our equal rights?

Christian woman experience FGM as well, by the way.

Also, it seems to be more cultural, it's not practiced in most Muslim countries, It seems to be most prevalent in African countries. Barbaric tradition though

It's disgusting, but yes it's more of a Central African thing

You will notice I said "FGM is practised almost entirely by Muslims". The number of Christians and others are tiny in comparison. In most Muslim countries where FGM is practised women have no control over their own lives including access to heathcare, education... and a tiny percentage of Christians (and others) who carry out FGM only serves to illustrate how massive the problem is in Islamic countries.

No wonder they want to come here then, eh?

It's not practised in all Muslim countries. But this thread is talking about occidentaphobia, not Islam. I pointed out that it's mostly a Muslim practise even though it says nothing about it in the Koran, only male circumcision.

Women have no rights over their own bodies in FGM practising countries, I'm sure they wouldn't be the ones deciding which country to move to. That would be the man.

To be fair though, male circumcision is completely unnecessary too (although not as damaging) and that's still being practiced as well by the west, those new born baby boys have no choice in the matter either

You can't equate one with the other. Male circumcision is widely used in a surgical way for heath rather than a religion observance. Most men in the US are circumcised but not for relgiious reasons. It's not like having your clitoris hacked off with a pair of scissors. There's no justification for FGM.

This isn't an anti-Muslim stance from me, it's reasons why people who live in backward countries - like the countries who carry out FGM - don't have much time for the west.

The whole male circumcision thing is an argument for another thread I guess but imo it is horrific as well

The vast majority of FGM is carried out in Northern African countries and has been going on for over 2000 years - since before the birth of Christianity, let alone Islam - so is almost certainly rooted in once-obscure tribal traditions, and would be going on in those areas regardless of the majority religion. Like a horrific "Christmas Tree", I suppose.

But let's not let pesky facts get in the way of a good bit of anti-islam rhetoric.

I love you Niamh... but if you think male circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable, you really don't know enough about FGM.

Yes, FGM pre-dates Islam. That's a well-known fact. Because it's happening mainly in Africa (although it's going on all over the world) doesn't make it less important.

Here's a pesky fact for you. 200 million women. TWO HUNDRED MILLION. Almost entirely Muslims. Nothing getting in the way of that fact.

They're not equatable in terms of physical impact at all, and it can be necessary for medical reasons, or chosen as a matter of preference (as a circumcised male I imagine that I probably prefer it, though admittedly don't know the alternative :think: ) HOWEVER there is a comparison to be made beyond the physical.

I am 100% against the unnecessary circumcision of infants for any reason other than medical. For the simple reason that I am 100% against the notion that a parent owns the body of their child. No further discussion involved: it is just simply NOT their choice. Making any physical alteration to another person's body without their informed consent is abhorrent, full stop. An infant or child cannot consent to the procedure, and so carrying it out without a medical reason should be considered deliberate bodily harm. Simple as that :shrug:.

If later in life someone decides to be circumcised, for ANY reason - health, aesthetics, religion/culture - that's fine, great, go for it, totally a personal choice. Much like a piercing or tattoo I guess. It's just not OK to permanently physically alter your children in any way :shrug:.

But you're falling into the "correlation implies causation" trap there, when there is clear evidence that the practice is cultural and not religious. To make what point, I don't know.