Lonely men and incels (and Muslim extremists)

I do know lonely men and incels are different from each other. Unlike lonely men in general, incels are toxic cretins who feel entitled to sex and female obedience and they blame women for their loneliness.

So, I cringed so hard when Jordan Peterson cried after being mocked by Olivia Wilde as incels’ hero; he asserted that there was nothing wrong about giving the marginalised ones a voice.

Now, as a Muslim, I am going to compare incels to Muslim extremists. I can’t help but seeing the similarities.

Yes, people from both groups do need help….. in fixing their toxic selves. Their worldview compels them to harm others, especially those who don’t share their identities and beliefs. They are hated not because they are inconsequentially different, but because they are dangerous to be around with.

The last thing we need is letting those people feeling even more empowered. They deserve to feel ashamed of themselves.

Now, what if those people didn’t start as such? What if the incels started as genuinely lonely men? What if the religious extremists started as members of marginalised Muslim minorities or Muslims who feel aimless with their lives?

If that’s the case, it shows our failure as societies. Our negligence result them in their desperation to seek help….. and the extremists are the only ones who lend hands, hands which guide them to the dark paths. Then, we have the gall to act surprise.

But, even with such tragic origin stories, I still don’t see why we shouldn’t crap on them. Their idea of self-empowerment is cruelty against others; they cannot comprehend that it can be achieved through other means.

They are also defeating their own causes. They went from deserving our support to ones who deserve to be hated. They also give other assholes more reasons to be negligent and discriminatory towards the likes of them.

I also don’t believe all incels started as lonely men and all Muslim extremists started as aimless or disenfranchised Muslims.

If you are a man who grew up among toxic masculinity, you can easily become incels without going through the “neglected lonely man” stage. If you are a Muslim who grew up among fellow believers who make Islam their entire personalities, you can easily become an extremist without going through the “aimless or disenfranchised” stage.

Overall, in differing ways, they are all victims of circumstances which they had no control over; it is important to acknowledge how they become the way they are.

But, it is also important to acknowledge that the way they are is dangerous. Considering humans are grey, we can both the victims and the villains. I don’t see why we can’t feel sorry for incels and Muslim extremists while also harshly condemning them at the same time, especially when they have fulfilled their violent desires.

I don’t see how not condemning them benefit anyone.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

“There is no bigotry here!“

Some nationalistically zealous westerners I have encountered love to claim that their countries are bigotry-free.

Their evidences? People of religious and racial minority backgrounds not being hunted down like animals, having high-ranking jobs both in public and private sectors and even becoming celebrities. How can there be bigotry when minorities can achieve high status in their own countries?

I notice that those people often harbour anti-Muslim sentiment as well. With that in mind, I want to do the same thing with my country.

I declare that Indonesia, world’s biggest Muslim-majority country, is free from any bigotry, both religious and racial!

Indonesians Christian thrive in every field imaginable; from national government to corporate business, they can ace everything! There are also Hindus thriving in national governmental institutions; some have also become high-ranking government officials!

Our state broadcaster broadcast not just Islamic sermons, but also Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and, recently, Confucian ones. From all of those religions, only Confucianism does not have dedicated state-funded universities.

In the 50’s, while western Protestants and Catholics were too busy hating each other, Indonesia already had non-Muslims working as high-ranking government officials. Not to mention that from all historical figures who are appointed as national heroes, at least forty of them are non-Muslims.

Chinese-Indonesians are among the most well-off and educated demographics in the country. They also thrive in almost every field imaginable. In fact, one of the most beloved politicians in the country is of Chinese descent… and also a Christian.

Apart from paragraph four, those are indeed facts. I have used them to rebuke foreigners who think Indonesia is the same as Saudi Arabia and ISIS territory. But, I will never use them to sweep the dark side under the rug.

Indonesia only officially recognises those six aforementioned religions, none are indigenous. Those who identify with none of them have to choose one in official documents. Students cannot opt out of religious classes at schools, including the public ones. While there are non-Muslim high-ranking government officials, Indonesian presidents have always been Muslims.

It is also much easier for non-Muslims to be charged with blasphemy than Muslims are; that Christian Chinese-Indonesian politician was convicted while his detractors – many of whom are Muslim extremists – have yet to be. While rare, violent religious clashes have definitely occurred. Not to mention Islamic extremism is getting more and more common and the government barely do anything about it.

And race relations are even worse.

For more than thirty years, Chinese-Indonesians were banned from publicly expressing their ancestral heritage and running for office. They were disproportionately blamed for supporting communism, even though non-Chinese-Indonesians were just as active as communists. In the late 90’s riots, they were brutalised, raped and had their houses and livelihoods burned down; they have yet to get justice. While the far richer ones were safe, their socioeconomic status made them an even bigger scapegoat.

Don’t forget the Indonesian Papuans. While they don’t suffer from pogroms (that I know of), they are certainly among the most neglected demographics. The national government started building highways in the region only a few years ago. The poorest and second poorest provinces in the country are the Papuan ones and, at the same time, one of the most expensive cities in the country is also Papuan; I doubt the government can afford to pay the subsidies forever.

I should also mention Western New Guinea – now called Indonesian Papua – was annexed from the Dutch. While there were Papuan individuals involved, there are no evidences that the annexation had widespread support among the Papuans.

Their homeland was annexed, they have been neglected from the very beginning, they get called monkeys… and the flag-wavers have the gall to accuse them of acting like thin-skinned and ungrateful brats.

I believe that even if Chinese-Indonesians and Papuan-Indonesians are predominantly-Muslim, they would still get severely discriminated against. Their races and/or non-Austronesian lineage make them easy targets.

Oh and that beloved Christian Chinese-Indonesian politician? He is also one of the most hated public figures.

Now, what’s the point of my rambling?

If an Indonesian of minority backgrounds has criticisms about Indonesia, especially ones based on their personal experiences, and I respond by spewing paragraphs four to seven, you would be justifiably angry at me.

Instead of acknowledging the reality, I choose to whitewash it by claiming the good side is the only existing side. Not only I choose to be intellectually dishonest, I also give my fellow human beings the finger by dismissing their grievances. My mind fails to realise that one can praise and condemn a country at the same time.

Now, what if I am not an Indonesian Muslim of Austronesian descent? What if I am a Christian westerner of white European descent….

… And I screech about how my western homeland is the epitome of multiculturalism because non-whites and non-Christians can achieve high statuses and be free from lynching, even though stereotypes, hate speech, discriminations and history denialism are rampant?

Some of you would still be angry at me. Some.

The rest of you would actually agree with me. You see the west as literally the only beacon of civility and morality in existence, where literally every good thing in life comes from. You cannot comprehend the world outside the west has anything good to offer without western influences.

No, don’t deny it. You know damn well those people exist. In fact, you may be one of them.

If you perceive any criticisms of your beloved western homeland as slanderous and bigoted, you are one of those people.

If you perceive any acknowledgement of the positive aspects of the Muslim and/or non-western world as whitewashing, you are one of those people.

If you condemn the Muslim and/or non-western world for doing something and yet praising the west doing the exact same thing, you are one of those people.

If you believe Muslims and/or non-westerners are obligated to be grateful of westerners for every good thing in life, you are one of those people.

if you have believe minorities not getting mass murdered is enough to make the west the bastion of multiculturalism, you are one of those people.

If you feel personally attacked by this blogpost, you are definitely one of those people.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

They are not stupid, they are worse

As a Muslim, I have had many online arguments with anti-Muslim bigots. But, a handful of them stick out.

In one, someone babbled about how literally every Muslim in the world was morally obligated to fight ISIS directly, as in we have to go to the Middle East – – even though many of us are not from the region, let alone being directly complicit – and sacrifice ourselves fighting those extremists. While this is not my first time encountering association fallacy arguments, this one is the most extreme examples.

But, that’s not even the most memorable thing about the encounter. He also said ISIS soldiers were idiotic.

That surprised me. He could have used other words like barbaric, monstrous, animals, savages or even assholes. But, he chose idiotic.

In this case, I consider it a lightweight insult because – thanks to its mundanity and borderline childishness – it fails to convey sincere, impassioned and righteous anger. But, this is not even the main problem.

Idiocy means you fail to utilise your common sense; when your nonsensical actions do harm others, you never intended to and you may feel guilty about it. Meanwhile, immorality means you have little or no regard about your fellow humans’ well-being: either you don’t care about the impacts of your actions or you purposefully inflict harm upon others.

If you are a full grown adult who are smitten by blatant propaganda, then you are unequivocally a fucking idiot. If you are a teenager, I would still call you one, albeit with a gentler tone.

But, we know damn well ISIS is more than just that.

ISIS soldiers beheaded people, pushed queer men off the top of buildings and sexually enslaved women and girls. ISIS sympathisers either wholeheartedly support the atrocities or tolerate them.

If you commit, support or tolerate the unspeakable, you are not an idiot. You are someone which even the worst expletives cannot adequate describe you. Yes, you are worse than a cunt.

I don’t know why that person chose to call ISIS members idiotic. He might think morality and intelligence were interchangeable. He might think the lack of intelligence was the worst sin of all. I can only assume.

But, one thing for certain: he trivialised the victims’ sufferings.

They suffer because of others’ ungodly actions. But, by claiming that idiocy was the worst sin committed by ISIS, he made it sounded like the victims’ trauma was caused by the routine stupidity we encounter in our daily lives AKA they were snowflakes. While he didn’t intend it that way, the unintentional insinuation is there.

Even without his backfiring moralistic anger, this person was already problematic (you have issues if you don’t see anything wrong about guilt by association). But, I think everyone can learn from him.

Even if your anger is sincerely righteous, you should think twice about how you express it. Make sure your choice of words and imagery do not infantilise the people you want to defend… or, like in this case, unwittingly make light out of their sufferings.

Like it or not, being moral also requires us to use our heads, which – I admit – is harder than it sounds. I am certain I have committed similar sins.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think you experience religious bigotry?

If I ask you to define it, I am certain your answer would be something like “demonisation of (an) entire religious group(s)”. That should be clear-cut enough. But, of course, every human has their own thoughts, even wrong ones.

If someone thinks you and “your people” are complicit of immorality simply because you share a generalised label with the perpetrators (e.g. Muslim or Christian), then you definitely experience bigotry, regardless of how explicit or implicit it is.

But, do you know what is not religious bigotry? Condemnation of the bad apples!

I have encountered so many Muslims and Catholics who are unable to differentiate the two. Some of my fellow Muslims think it is bigoted to trash on Taliban, ISIS and the likes. Some Catholics I have encountered also think it is bigoted to trash on the sexual predatory-complicit Roman Catholic clergy.

Neither is bigoted because both target a very specific fragment of each group; that should be obvious enough. But, for some reasons, people get too defensive about it.

Maybe they are insecure about their own moral integrity, they feel personally attacked by condemnations meant for others. Or maybe it is something sinister.

It is possible they actually agree with the bad apples, which they consider to be the true believers. It is also possible they believe we should defend those who share labels with us, regardless of how immoral they are.

To call either one morally undignified is an understatement.

Or maybe, they are just simply a bunch of pitifully insecure beings. But, even that can bring horrible consequences.

The defensiveness compels others to have those aforementioned dark assumptions. We are lucky if the others are fellow believers. What happens if they are the bigots?

Our defensiveness makes us look like we are supportive of the bad apples or, worse, we are the bad apples! You cannot blame anyone for having such perceptions! If you are neither, why would you get defensive when people condemn the bad guys?

Don’t get wrong: bigots are a bunch of cunts. They will always dehumanise the “others”, regardless of the facts; hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.

But, at the same time, we shouldn’t exacerbate the problem by perpetuating the stereotypes. It is no biggie when we are the only ones affected. But, bigotry is a form of collective punishment; if you misbehave, those who share labels with you will suffer the consequences… and vice versa.

You may think the defensiveness helps defending people like you. In reality, what you do empowers the bigots; you give them even more ammunitions.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Those positive Muslim stories no longer entice me

In fact, as a Muslim, I find them nauseating nowadays.

I used to relish on them. I used to believe those feelgood stories would help tackling anti-Muslim bigotry; even if they didn’t, they would give the bigots the finger.

But, slowly, I started to feel uneasy about such stories. Then, I realise they can be problematic for two reasons.

Reason one: they exacerbate some Muslims’ denialism

There are some Muslims (focus on the word SOME) who genuinely believe the Muslim world is inherently problem-free. Consequentially, those particular Muslims dismiss Islamic extremism a conspiracy by the CIA and/or Mossad. Either that or they see it as harmless expressions of faith, hated only by “fake Muslims” and “Islam-hating infidels”.

The more they encounter those saccharine stories, the more they feel entitled to praises just for doing the bare minimum.

Reason two: they are infantilising

Oh, a group of Muslims behave like decent human beings? So fucking what? How is people doing the fucking bare minimum worth the news?

If our decent behaviours are worth the news, it means you are still surprised by our ability to be virtuous. Therefore, regardless of how “woke” you claim to be, you still see us as mere stereotypes. You still expect the worst from us.

So, should we keep the negative media coverage, then?

Well, yes…. with a big but.

On one hand, we have to keep making a big deal out of Islamic extremism. We have to keep reminding everyone -especially Muslims- that it is not something to be tolerated, let alone embraced.

It is also something which does not feed on attention-seeking. Its growth will continue regardless of our (in)attention. Unless you are one of the Muslims who care more about our image than our moral integrity, you would want the negative coverage to continue.

But, on the other hand, many western media outlets (which are unfortunately globally influential) seem incapable of reporting extremism without pigeonholing the Muslim world. They don’t always interview Muslims. When they do, they interview extremists and present them as good representatives. When they do interview peaceful Muslims, they often treat the peacefulness as a bombshell; worse, they also accuse those peaceful Muslims of being complicit to extremism, simply for sharing a religious label with the extremists.

Obviously, journalists must suppress their preconceived beliefs. Unfortunately, we are talking about humans here; it is easy to succumb to prejudice. Even if they try their best, they have prejudiced higher-ups to bow down to.

But, regardless, those saccharine narratives are still the wrong way to go. As mentioned earlier, they belittle our ability to be dignified human beings and they encourage some Muslims to exaggerate the goodness of the Muslim world, discourage them from acknowledging the problems.

Whether we like it or not, the negative coverage must go on. Because feeling good all the time benefits no one.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

So, you think you hate Islam and Muslims? Well, I have questions for you

  1. What are the five pillars of Islam?*
  2. What are the six articles of faith in Islam?*
  3. What is Sunnah?*
  4. What are the names of the first two Surahs (chapters) of the Quran?*
  5. How many verses does each Surah have?*
  6. How are Hadiths different from the Quran?*
  7. How many times should Muslims pray in a day?*
  8. What is the total daily Rakaat?*
  9. What is the Quranic chapter we silently recite in every Rakaah?*
  10. What is the phrase we recite before doing any activities, especially reciting prayers?*
  11. What is the phrase we recite to show gratitude?*
  12. What is the phrase we recite when we seek divine forgiveness or when others say outrageous things?*
  13. What is the phrase we recite when tragedies strike?*
  14. What is the phrase which is the Islamic equivalent of “Oh My God”?
  15. What is the phrase which we recite while making promises, even empty ones?
  16. What is the name of the fasting month?*
  17. How long should Muslims fast in a day?*
  18. When are Muslims prohibited from fasting?*
  19. Name at least four Islamic holidays.*
  20. Who are the first, penultimate and last prophets of Islam?*
  21. Name at least four other prophets.*
  22. Name the three holiest cities in Islam.*
  23. What is the name of the water spring highly revered in Islam?*
  24. At which holy city is it located?*
  25. Name each city’s main mosque.*
  26. Is the Islamic calendar solar, lunar or lunisolar?
  27. What are the two major denominations of Islam?*
  28. How did Islam branch into those two?
  29. Name the other smaller denominations.
  30. Which denomination is accused of creating its own last prophet?
  31. Which denomination is perceived as pantheistic rather than monotheistic?
  32. What are the countries with the largest and second largest Muslim populations?**
  33. At which parts of the world are they located?**
  34. Name at least four Muslim-majority countries.**
  35. Which of those countries declare Islam as their state religion?
  36. What is each country’s dominant denomination?
  37. What are the most commonly-spoken languages in those countries?
  38. What are the most commonly-spoken languages in the Muslim world?**
  39. How do Muslims call the headscarves?**
  40. What are the contributions of the Islamic Golden Age?
  41. What are the differences between Jihadism and Islamism?***
  42. Which extremist groups are Jihadist and which are Islamist?***
  43. Did you know that the Muslim world is not a monolith and therefore, many Muslims will not like how I frame the questions, particularly the snide ones?**

If you know the basics of Islamic rituals and mythology, * would be easy to answer. If you know the basic human facts about the Muslim world (yes, we are humans), ** would be easy to answer.

If you know the basics of Islamic extremism, *** would be easy to answer.

If you struggle to answer any of the marked questions and somehow you still hate Islam and the Muslims, then you hate them without knowing shit about them.

Basically, you are a bunch of fucktards.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The (so-called) United States of Islam 2

In the previous essay, I talked about how cute it is that non-Muslims are more obsessed with Muslims’ so-called unity than we are. Now, I will focus on my interactions with them. Disclaimer: I cannot confirm whether my fellow Muslims share my experiences.

If you have joined any conversations about Islam and/or Muslims, you would have heard of taqiyya and how people intentionally misinterpret it.

I won’t talk about the taqiyya-screaming crowd. Conversing with them is like to talking unhinged sentient walls that run in circles. I will talk about the ones who were open-minded enough to move the conversations forward, but still close-minded enough to move the goddamn goal posts.

Instead of dissecting those individuals one by one, I will summarise the gist of their belief as a group.

Most of the time, it started with my complain about our image as a monolith, which disregards our vast racial, ethnical, cultural, political and yes, even theological diversity. Even some Muslim-majority countries boast a high level of cultural diversity which tokenist westerners can only dream of.

If they didn’t use the Taqiyya card, they would “refute” me by claiming that Muslims do have a pope. But, they could not think of a single name! Those who could usually mentioned rulers of countries like Saudi Arabia or Jihadists who proclaim themselves as rulers of all Muslims.

Anyone with basic knowledge about Islam and Muslims know how brainless those people sound.

First of all, there are two main branches of Islam: Sunni and Shia; globally, the former is the majority while the latter is a minority. Mind you, I still haven’t mentioned the relatively smaller branches like Ahmadiyyah and Sufism… and how each branch has its own different madhabs or schools of thought.

How can the ruler of Saudi Arabia rule the entire Muslim world? Never mind the non-Sunnis, even many Sunnis would not be happy about having their religious lives dictated by someone who doesn’t share their madhab. Don’t forget about the ever-volatile Middle Eastern politics being a contributing factor.

I should also mention there are non-Turkish Muslims who believe Turkey -with Sultan Smeagol as the president- should take the lead. They genuinely believe in Neo-Ottomanism despite not being of Turkic heritage. They are like the Turkish version of Weeaboos.

In my home country Indonesia specifically, Muslim citizens have a long list of religious authorities to choose from. There are organisations like the ministry of religions, MUI, NU, Muhammadiyah and FPI.

You can also choose one out of many celebrity preachers or the imam in your neighbourhood mosque. You can choose more than one authorities at the same time and cherrypick their words or none at all and choose to interpret the teachings yourselves.

The self-proclaimed popes “refutation” was obviously their gotcha attempt. They didn’t take into account that I was not dumb enough to think authority -whether de jure or de facto– was valid without recognition.

If I proclaim myself as your ruler out of the blue, your immediate reaction would be seeing me as someone who needs psychiatric interventions and deserves a swirly, NOT as someone worthy to be led by.

Here’s a tip: unless you want to be seen as a pitiful human being with underused brain, never use the words of madmen we never associate with as your smoking guns against us.

At this stage, some would start using the taqiyya card. Those who didn’t would acknowledge the non-existence of a Muslim pope.

But, the venom-spewing didn’t stop there.

Instead of respecting our distinct sense of collectiveness, they insisted we should be more centralised like the Christians are if we want to be free from extremism. Of course, this insistence is problematic.

For one, it is naive. The idea that simply having a pope will help us fighting extremism means we have to believe every authority figure is morally upright… and we know damn well only bootlickers believe that.

Christian denominations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism and Roman Catholicism are highly-centralised yet still afflicted with social illnesses, some of which are undoubtedly caused and perpetuated by the leaders themselves; Roman Catholicism in particular is infamous for interfering with countries’ domestic politics, even to this day. Should I also mention about how centralised ISIS and Al-Qaeda are?

Secondly, Christianity is not centralised. Its denominations are. Believe it or not, only Roman Catholics acknowledge the pope as their spiritual leader.

Lastly, they were obviously irked with me shattering their make-believe. If they weren’t, they would have gladly moved on and learned from their mistakes. Instead, they demanded us to fit into the pigeonhole. They believed it was our moral duty to abide by their words.

They also unwittingly contradicted themselves. They demonised us because supposedly being one giant organisation made us prone to radicalisation. But now, they demanded us to become one giant organisation if we actually care about fighting extremism, framing our refusal to abide as a triumph for the extremists.

They are like parents who verbally abuse us for not doing something and then verbally abuse us for doing it.

They don’t care about the truths and they don’t care about humanity. They just want excuses to shove their beliefs down our throats and to make Uncle Toms out of every Muslim they encounter.

They just want excuses to be tokenist, gas-lighting, goal post-moving, delusional cunts.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The (so-called) United States of Islam

For years, I wondered why many non-Muslims insist the entire Muslim is one giant organisation in which literally every member knows each other and shares the exact same admittance, trainings and goals and acknowledges the exact same centralised religious authority.

Basically, they think the Muslim world is more structurally rigid than any Christian churches. You know, a factually incorrect belief.

I still don’t know exactly why they posses it. Maybe they have Christian-centric views of religions. Maybe they want an easy path of dehumanising the others (just like they do to Jews and LGBT people). But, I do notice something else: some of them are obsessed with the concept of ummah.

In Islam, the Arabic word for community also specifically refers to the entire Muslim community, transcending literal and figurative border. We Muslims are encouraged to unite with our fellow believers. Ideally, that’s how the Muslim world should be.

Of course, reality is never ideal. We are anything but united.

Sunnis and Shias waging war against each other, Sunnis violently discriminating against Ahmadis, Iraq-Iran war, Qatar Gulf crisis, the unstable relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia, Bangladeshis still harbouring grudge against Pakistan, the Arab spring, the Somali civil war, ISIS killing fellow Muslims, just to name a few.

When we do care about the plights of Muslims abroad, we only think about ones like the Uyghurs and the Palestinians. You know, the ones persecuted by non-Muslims. Even then, we shoot our own feet by ignoring the nuances, not realising that religion may not be the only factor of persecution, if at all.

From my personal experiences as an Indonesian, the word umat -the Indonesian spelling variant of ummah– has a strong nationalistic connotation; every time I hear Indonesian says the word, they almost always refer to Indonesian Muslims specifically.

In fact, if you add the word manusia after umat, you will have the Indonesian for ‘mankind’. Basically, when we use it to refer to a global community, it becomes entirely non-sectarian.

As I said, I still don’t know exactly why people insist on seeing us as one giant organisation. But, it goes to show that they really overestimate our ability to unite and they certainly take our terminology more seriously than we do.

It is so cute, they should have be the Muslims, not us.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The curious case of angry Muslims

If you don’t know what the context is -either because you are reading from the far future or you live under a rock-, this is a response to the recent beheadings committed by Muslim extremists in France. I started writing this in late October.

Actually, this is more targeted to people who have opinions about said cases.

And, my God, I hate their opinions.

Some argue the anger is justified because Muslims are frustrated with the constant demonisation. I highly agree and disagree with the sentiment.

If you are a part of a Muslim minority and you grew up being constantly demonised for your faith, anger would an inevitable emotion. While the violence is not justifiable and will never be, the anger certainly is and will always be.

But, how about Muslims from Muslim-majority countries? Why do they have to be outraged as well?

Okay, I am being too simplistic. Every Muslim -regardless of their national origins- has the right to be angry. Believe it or not, we are humans, after all.

But, the problem with Muslims from predominantly-Muslim countries is we live surrounded by fellow believers. We live in places where our religion is the dominant, ‘golden child’ religion.

Basically, we don’t know how it feels to be a religious minority. While we have the right to be angry, there is no reason for us to be THAT angry.

Some people told me it has something to do with post-colonialism. They argue Muslims still suffer from self-hatred due to past European colonialism. While the colonial governments might disdain Islam, I don’t buy the assertion at all.

I mean, is it really self-hatred when Islam is the state religion of many Muslim-majority countries? Is it really self-hatred when not all of them immediately became quasi-theocratic after independence? Is it really self-hatred when Saudi Arabia -the greatest exporter of Islamic extremism- is not a fucking former European colony?

If anything, they are angry because they are privileged! They are used to seeing their beloved religion as untouchable. Hence, any efforts to prove otherwise is perceived as a personal attack against them.

I despise Charlie Hebdo and I refuse to give slain edge lords their martyrdom. But, I also despise how some try to frame the entire Muslim world as victims when clearly not all of us are! How is that different from bigots who lump all of us as extremists?

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

No, turning former churches into mosques does not benefit the Muslim world, you pseudo-spiritual swines

Predominantly-Muslim countries like Turkey already have not only an abundance of mosques, but also an abundance of prayer rooms. Why do we need more of them? Why do you act like we are deprived of our religious needs within our own territories?

Besides, if you genuinely believe in Allah’s omnipresence, you don’t need a mosque to communicate with Him; you can pray fucking everywhere. And you know what? Muslims who live in places where they are an extremely tiny minority have done just that! You are just a teeny whiny swine!

No, don’t act like this is not a big deal. Erdogan turns a museum -which is a place of learning and therefore, benefits fucking everyone– into a place of worship -which benefits only one fucking religious group! He sends a message to the world that it is acceptable for Muslims to disrespect non-Muslims.

I should also remind you that Hagia Sophia started as a church and Erdogan is also planning to turn another museum which is also formerly a church into a mosque. Not only he encourages his fellow Muslims to be selfish, he also trivialise the plight of many prosecuted Christian minorities all over the world, many of whom don’t have fucking churches of their own! He gives every Christian in the world the middle finger.

If you don’t have a problem with that, it is either you are bigoted yourself or you are unable to see bigotry right in front of you. And yes, being complicit to bigotry is as bad as committing it.

No, don’t act like you don’t want vengeance against Christians. If you don’t, why do you have to remind everyone that anti-Muslim prosecutions, especially ones committed by Christians, exist? Why do you think it is appropriate to respond with ‘two wrongs make a right’?

No, your virtue signalling does not work on me. If you really care about the plight of Muslim minorities, why the fucking hell are you excited about a predominantly-Muslim country having a new mosque? You cannot claim to care about the poor and then get a boner when the rich get tax cuts!