Merriam-Webster’s dictionary describes the word “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.” In the wake of recent events, is fear of Muslims, labeled “Islamophobia,” really exaggerated, inexplicable, and/or illogical?

I’ve concluded that not only is fear of Muslims logical and explicable, but it is by no means exaggerated and, most probably, understated. The deliberately misleading term “Islamophobia” itself amounts to a cudgel used to silence critics of what Dutch Parliamentarian (and possible new Dutch Prime Minister) Geert Wilders has at times characterized as a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

I could enumerate just some in the endless litany of recent (and even not-so-recent) violent attacks that radical Muslims have perpetrated in (delusional) Western societies that welcomed and unsuccessfully attempted to absorb and assimilate large numbers of Muslims. However, Raymond Ibrahim has already done so, writing extensively (and magnificently) about historical events that provide countless examples (here and here) of aggressive Muslim behaviors resulting in widespread slaughter. His writings elucidate numerous historical episodes consuming people of all ethnicities and religions, including their fellow Muslims, with particular cruelty reserved for Africans, Armenians, and, of course, Jews.

Image: Salman Rushdie (edited), a “lucky” victim of Muslim violence, for he survived the deadly attack against him. YouTube screen grab.

Why has

If Islam is peaceful, why do these prominent critics need constant protection?

If we look around the world, Muslims are fighting in many places:

Even the incomparable “Islamophobes” in China, who view any religion as a threat, place particular focus on Islam, which could be why the........

© American Thinker