It takes a nation to protect the nation
This forum collects miscellaneous examples of Kuffarophobia.
Kris Donald was tortured then burned alive by 3 Muslim Pakistanis, in a crime which was clearly identified as race hate. Yet the media has forgotten it and can only remember Muslims shopkeepers that allegedly received a dirty look, and the leftist loons that control Wikipedia want to remove this memory (which is so awkward for the denizens of the current narrative).
There is a (formerly government funded) Tell Mama for Muslims to report what they perceive to be Islamophobic behaviour, but no corresponding organisation for the Kuffar to report the far more widespread and serious discrimination and abuse they receive from Muslims, and by extension, from their so-called 'scripture'.
Furthermore, Fiyaz Mughal, in response to various alleged threats against his person, was allowed to testify in court by video link. Yet thousands of underage girls pimped and enslaved by Muslim grooming gangs were not given this option, and nobody batted an eyelid. Many of these girls and their families said they did not pursue the case as they were worried about reprisals from the Muslim thugs that groomed them. If they had been offered video link testimony, the number of convictions could have been much higher.
There are several Muslim police organisations, as below, yet there is no Kuffar police organisation. Again, blatant discrimination against the kuffar, which nobody would even dare question. Is it anywonder that the kuffar find it difficult to mobilise against threats, when they are not even allowed to form an association to protect their interests? Is it any wonder that Muslims are able to head off many issues at the pass, because their members are able to form a 5th column in every organisation which they join, then operate from that organised basis?
The examples from the Muslim Controlled BBC are legion, but I will start by pointing out this general trope. Whenever the Mohammed is referenced he is called the prophet Mohammed, yet when Jesus Christ is referenced he is never called the Messiah, or some other honorific.
The argument may be made that since most Muslims are called Mohammed, they need to say 'the prophet' to distinguish his name. However, he is only recognised as a prophet by Muslims, nobody else recognises that. But he is recognised as a warlord (and a supremely successful one) by the historical record, and by Muslims, so a suitable way of distinguishing him would be to call him the warlord Mohammed. We all know, that isn't going to happen.
There is a media feeding frenzy over any new deceased (Jimmy Saville) or octogenarian pillar of society that has had allegations of paedophilia made against them:
Yet even after tens of thousands of young girls have been pimped and used as sex slaves by Muslim grooming gangs, they are still able to hang around outside school gates with impunity, and the impotent headmasters are reduced to sending emails to the parents, warning them to pick up their children promptly.
Notice how the media will report a single badly behaved EDL demo attendee as representative of the entire organisation, yet it doesn't matter how many Muslims riot, or go on the rampage, or preach hate and death to the kuffar, that is never taken as representative of Muslims.
Al Beebazeera's policy could be to refer to him as "Mohammed, the founder of islam". However, to do that is to say that islam was founded and is historical. Muslims object to that, because in their totalitarian mindset islam is the one true ideology, therefore it cannot be historical or founded. It is. It is the truth. That is why people are not referred to as "converts" but as "reverts".
The BBC's policy is thus completely sharia compliant. And sharia compliance = kuffarphobia.
Alan Lake said:
The argument may be made that since most Muslims are called Mohammed, they need to say 'the prophet' to distinguish his name.
It is fine for Muslims to selectively abort female foetuses, but imagine the uproar if the Kaffir started to do it?
Once you recognise that non-muslims are victims of kuffarophobia, you find that the examples are all around us, but we don't notice it, because we have been groomed to think it is normal, and even if we don't like it, it is just 'our lot'. You also notice that the blatant fascism of Islam, which would be totally unacceptable in any other political ideology, is given a free pass. An example of the latter is that Muslims are allowed to bring their children up as Muslims, when that indoctrination condemns them to execution if they leave. The only fair system, if the death-on-exit rule is allowed to stand, would be to make it illegal to bring a child up as a Muslim, but that children can convert to Islam at age 16 or 18 if they so wish, when they attain legal adulthood. The basis is that adults can enter into an organisation which condemns them to death on exit, but children can not.
Another glaring example is demonstrated by the names given to Muslim children. The name 'Jihad', which I just saw again today as a normal name of a peaceful Muslim, means "Kill and subjugate the kuffar". Well, would we allow a child to be named "Kill and subjugate the nig..."? Obviously not. Therefore, it should be illegal to name your child 'Jihad', and every person currently named, should be told to either change that name, or be convicted of a hate crime.
Kuffarphobia from Muslims is the corollary of Dhimmitude in us. The Dhimmitude is our way of accepting and adapting to the Muslim Kuffarphobia. Some aspects of this correspond to the Stockholm Syndrome, as described by Philip in this comment:
It seems as if most of Western Civilization is suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
"Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat."
Leftists and softies certainly identify with the Muslims that; harass, beat, threaten, abuse and intimidate us. And they do not see Muslims as a threat.
They may subconsciously fear the Muslims as much as we do, but they think that becoming friends with them will save them. What will save them is when they fully believe in the same values as the aggressor and become Muslim.
However, I think the word Kuffarphobia is better than Dhimmitude, because the former emphasises the hatred and oppression directed towards us, thereby highlighting the guilty party, whereas the latter just emphasises our capitulation as victims. The Kuffarphobia is all around us but we don't notice it as we have got used to it; but by using the term it will help us to become aware of the infractions as they happen.