'Islamophobia' fuelling terrorism: UN chief

[The Eagle]

Sir, the issue is not Islam. Pretty bad stuff is also to be found in religious books of other people. We however have generally, overwhelmingly agreed that the stuff incompatible with today's world should be ignored if not outrightly outlawed (example India, or just about any other western country).

That is an open mind willing to accept, introspect and correct.

All we get from Muslims is denial, crying victimhood and outright supremacism. Hence his point that since a dialogue with Muslims is nearly impossible, for many fear is a rational choice.

Actually, it is selective thinking and reading as well that plays a role while listening to opponent. A Muslim will never demand any amendment in Islam (Fact without any doubt) hence, any non-Muslim demanding the amendments in Islam is clearly an attempt of conflict point (what to expect then) so the solution lies that none can force others to change the religion and rights be granted without any difference. A Muslim speaking from his side to explain the matter doesn't mean that he is out-rightly defending from start but this is the mindset that few have about Muslim. As I said, the daily and continue repetition of same thing actually freezes the ones mind, the propaganda. Islam openly condemns terrorism and denies any affiliation but very few believes you know why, the selective listening and reading.

People don't believe what they don't want to and do not pay attention to such as what they don't want to hear. By the meaning of defending, everyone deserves the right to defend but should be in the manners. Muslim are victim of the terrorism because just look around and tell us, how many non-Muslim countries are continuously bombed on daily basis but on other hand, suicide attacks regularly claims many innocent lives in Muslim countries and allies never miss a day to bomb the same as well. Islam do not believe in superiority at all for white, black, rich or poor etc at all and what non-Muslims sees as supermacism is nothing but an excuse against the demand of rights & equality. If issue is not Islam then who is a Muslim that since a dialogue with Muslims is nearly impossible and by the same definition, it highlights the continue crusade. For a Muslim, today's or any world cannot amend Islam or Quran at all though any offense by a Muslim can be discussed and be resolved because there no illegality exist in Islam and it is the ones personal approach and doing which cannot be labeled or generalized to Muslims and Islam at all.

 

[mohd497]

You quite simply validated his point about why islamophobia is a valid response for many people. Because instead of giving a rational response to allay his fears, you responded with denial.

If people can not reason with you, they are going to respond in a different manner.

Fear? Fear of what?

You know what world should be scared of is cold war between US and Russia to gain influence. Toppling of governments because of oil. Controlling government so they can control the flow of oil and to be sold in dollars.

Arm and train ISIS to topple Syrian government. Arm and train afghan taliban to set back soviet union.

Elect fascist like trump who can nuclear strike any country because he didnt like the tweet.

Religions are peaceful .. it is the people who ruin it. So blaming religion is very ignorant of him while the secular free world US is responsible for middle east mess. Then Christianity when he himself knows how much it was changed with time just to cater egos of kings.

 

[Rank]

Terrorism fueling islamophobia and islamophobia fueling terrorism....vicious cycle.

yes in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Japan, Hiroshima...

 

[Tshering22]

To cut long in short and as I said before, a Muslim cannot be banned being Muslim only and Terrorism has not religion. Leading Islamic Scholars have long ago declared every type of terrorism as Haram/illegal/prohibited. Muslim society doesn't need such fix alone but the the whole world and Muslim countries cannot be blamed for the same alone. The Islamophobic are those who actually blames Muslim for everything and opposes Islam just because of Muslims only. Pointing out the problem and real issue doesn't allow anyone to call someone Islamophobic etc and same problem exists with others as well.

That's what I said; it has to have a collective and timely solution. You cannot expect the non-muslim world to sit and see Sunnis, Shias, Wahhabis, Sufis etc debate as to which is the true Islam. Most terrorism and acts of violence under religious terrorism usually end up with a 'god is great' scream either at the beginning or the end of the act. In countries where Islam is not native or doesn't belong, this is seen as a clear criteria of classification.

Not correct, I agree.

But the repetitive nature of such actions is only hardening people's stance towards your religion.

The solution to this is by Muslims living in non-muslim countries taking the initiative to not justify old demographic change methods and condemning the acts openly stating that it is wrong. So far, only Indonesia and Turkey have had the guts to call religious terrorism as religious terrorism, despite being Muslim majority.

Which is why these two countries have largely not been labelled as potential terror-sympathisers and are respected.

If Burqa Ban is justified as anti-terrorism which disrespects Muslim Women at large than how others expect a Muslim to respect their law or religion when such can cause damage to Muslim. Not a plausible explanation to justify the burqa ban that too from the world that actually reached Moon, Mars even searching for life there, can track a tiny thing on earth by satellite and with the help of every tech yet finding Burqa as a cover for terrorism.

It is not just for you.

Those monks who wish to seek public services in India too must remove their face cover when entering a plac e of public or business. This includes both notable Jains and Buddhists. Do we like it (not all but generally)? No. Do we refuse? No. Because we know who will suffer. The common people will. And that violates our basic tenet which is humanity and compassion.

So the observant people of our community relent.

Why can't Muslims do that?

You say that humanity and compassion are the most desired traits in Islamic community.

Then why is banning burqa a wrong thing according to you? In today's time when there are more than just a single piece of cloth for women to cover their bodies, how would this outrage their modesty?

After all, your priority is that women must not be disrespected right? Then it is also the society's duty to teach males not to ogle at women in a wrong way regardless. That's the true teaching. And this has nothing to do with religion at all.

There are many non-Muslim Indians in India who commit crimes against women and everyone else. They do it because they are pure evil. Many people who even kill, are tried as murderers and punished. But they don't say religion tells them to kill.

While if you see, a large number of such cases done in developed countries by certain members of your community usually has a religious or a quasi-religious justification. This, antagonises the locals and hence they turn against you guys.

Even then, they give the opportunity to people like Mr. Sadiq Khan who is the mayor of London. I don't see a Tenzing Yonten becoming the mayor of Karachi or a Ramesh Kumar becoming the governor of a province in your country; let alone some place like Arabia.

So you see how a collective perception, over a period of time builds up? UK is just one example.
Similarly, in the United States there are many Sikhs, Hindus, Jews etc as well. Many Vietnamese Buddhists live there.

Why are these names not associated with religious terrorism?

I am just logically trying to explain it to you as to how and why people build an image and how it leads to bad consequences.

Don't take this as criticism or flame baiting.

Read about Rohingya Muslims killing and for a while, for the sake of humanity and you will find the more rage and vengeance inside you that very few can control and the rest will avenge.

Much to the chagrin and ignorance of Pakistani citizens, the problem of Rohingyas didn't start in 2000s. It started way back in 1930s, when the region of Arakkan or what is Rakhine now was trying to do what Pakistan and India did.

The local non-Muslims did not like the idea. Tensions flared and it continues to this day. Now you add an unaccountable military junta in power, that too with military principles of total obedience, and you see how brutality adds up.

Please don't go by a lot of images shown on the internet which are either photoshopped (such as a famous pic where a Buddhist monk is standing in between 2 huge piles of dead bodies). This was successfully marketed by radical muslims to radicalise the general populance.

Later it turned out that the pic was from a journalist's blog covering the Myanmar tsunami.

Yes there have been riots and many innocents on both sides have been killed.

It is tragic and wrong.

Which is why the solution must be decisive and be taken together as a country.

I previously quoted different religions merely for reference and for burqa ban reference, what about a Nun in veil that may carry a bomb underneath and those who attacked Muslim Prayer Places from Babri Masjid to Quebic in Canada, were not wearing Burqa at all but still nothing stopped them doing so.

I don't know about Quebec but many of the rioters even from Hindu community have been charged and punished; simply as criminals. When one or two incidents like these happen in non-Muslim countries, they come to the global notice. But when atrocities against non-muslims happen in Muslim majority nations, it usually doesn't reach outside.

Why is that?

Because there is no consensus between the people as to what is the right interpretation of religion.

In an organised structure where question religious authority is deemed as treason, having a single, logical peaceful interpretation is very very important.

Just so that the youth and representatives of your religion should make the elders of your community proud.

The white guy shoots many of students in a college/school was not a burqa terrorist and examples goes on as the list is long. What I am trying to say is, those banning countries are actually scared to hell due to their atrocities and war crimes against Muslim that even doubts any Muslim because of the religion, as terrorist.

Such shooters are usually punished as per the law. They don't usually yell a religious edict or verse before attacking people. Also, you don't see random groups of similar people in other parts of the world claiming a single source to their indoctrination.

Let's take your example. If a white guy in USA shoots a few dozen people (which also includes fellow whites), he doesn't shout 'All Hail Christ'. If he does, you don't see shady terror groups mushrooming in UK, Ireland, France, Sweden etc making videos about how Christ followers will only get to live and others will die.

All of this happens in the case of countries from Middle East to even sensible countries like Malaysia.

Hence, most of these countries tend to be wary of Muslims.

A padre wears gown as well, and can hold a suicide jacket underneath etc. A man riding motorbike with helmet and fully packed can also be a risk being anyone. These Burqas were never ever a threat until & unless, Muslims are bombed and then the fear of response however, there are still countries that did not ban Burqa but living in Peace. India never reported in Burqa group or Burqa causing any threat to peace at all, despite of large Muslim populace but if the one has to be a terrorist etc, wouldn't be stopped by Burqa alone and this issue has to be addressed. Banning and stopping Muslim merely is not the solution at all but will fuel more hatred among Muslims against them that doing so.

See the tendency to call it hatred? That's where the things start going wrong.

How many Christian religious groups have you seen blowing up people in the name of Christ? I know and agree that there are many militant groups especially in non-white parts of the world (my part of India included), but how many do you see collectively doing the damage?

None.

A biker's helmet is a popular spy movie dress where someone completely covered in black helmet and gear is unidentifiable.

Yes you are right.

This can also be a perfect disguise for killers. Which is why in ATMs, banks, public places etc whenever you enter the premises, there are boards telling you to remove your facial coverings such as sunglasses, covering helmets, headgear etc.

I don't know about Pakistan, but in USA, India, European countries, etc if you walk into the bank with a completely covered helmet which hides your face, people will immediately ask you to remove it. Soon bank authorities would also tell you here to remove your cover. So much so that at metro stations in India, the CISF officers (including Sikhs), run a detector device over turbans that the Sikhs wear. A plastic explosive may not be detected but its detonator has metal components which can be detected by these machines.

Also you must understand that you are in a non-muslim country when in the West or East.

They will have the same rights to decide what the people should wear or not that many Muslim countries do when non-Muslims visit or live in their lands. These rules change now and then and it is best to comply with the regulations or move out if one is not comfortable.

Let me give you an example here: about a decade ago, there was a news article which gained notoriety around the world. A British woman was caught wearing micro-bikini and walking on the roads of Dubai near a famous beach side. She was fined by the authorities and deported from Dubai for a reason that read as "violating the modesty in public, dressing inappropriately and doing so during the month of Ramzan".

She was in a Muslim country and didn't follow Muslim rules. So she was shown the door.

Why should it be anybody's business what the other person is wearing? If it is, and such regulations are subject to change depending on a lot of circumstances such as culture, social norms, national security etc, then it has to be a two-sided affair.

While islamic rules are normal in islamic countries, they may or may not be seen as normal in other countries. And they cannot be expected to be seen as a norm.

Racism does exist yes, but when certain blanket rules are made for everyone, it is best to comply with them for one's own safety and security.

Burqa is banned simply on the basis of the inability to identify a person.

You don't see a ban on your traditional headscarves right?

Then how is it anti-islamic?

And they are banning whatever or allowing whatever in their country. If either I or you live there then we need to respect the laws.

@UN chief... why this MOFO can't send UN army to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen?

Because UNPKF doesn't undertake activities classified as 'combat'. Only 'peace-keeping' missions.

Also, the P5 have to agree and we all know what happens in P5 meetings.

Not all countries agree and if 1 representative says 'NO', all must disagree. That's how VETO works.

 

[The Eagle]

That's what I said; it has to have a collective and timely solution. You cannot expect the non-muslim world to sit and see Sunnis, Shias, Wahhabis, Sufis etc debate as to which is the true Islam. Most terrorism and acts of violence under religious terrorism usually end up with a 'god is great' scream either at the beginning or the end of the act. In countries where Islam is not native or doesn't belong, this is seen as a clear criteria of classification.

Not correct, I agree.

But the repetitive nature of such actions is only hardening people's stance towards your religion.

The solution to this is by Muslims living in non-muslim countries taking the initiative to not justify old demographic change methods and condemning the acts openly stating that it is wrong. So far, only Indonesia and Turkey have had the guts to call religious terrorism as religious terrorism, despite being Muslim majority.

Which is why these two countries have largely not been labelled as potential terror-sympathisers and are respected.



It is not just for you.

Those monks who wish to seek public services in India too must remove their face cover when entering a plac e of public or business. This includes both notable Jains and Buddhists. Do we like it (not all but generally)? No. Do we refuse? No. Because we know who will suffer. The common people will. And that violates our basic tenet which is humanity and compassion.

So the observant people of our community relent.

Why can't Muslims do that?

You say that humanity and compassion are the most desired traits in Islamic community.

Then why is banning burqa a wrong thing according to you? In today's time when there are more than just a single piece of cloth for women to cover their bodies, how would this outrage their modesty?

After all, your priority is that women must not be disrespected right? Then it is also the society's duty to teach males not to ogle at women in a wrong way regardless. That's the true teaching. And this has nothing to do with religion at all.

There are many non-Muslim Indians in India who commit crimes against women and everyone else. They do it because they are pure evil. Many people who even kill, are tried as murderers and punished. But they don't say religion tells them to kill.

While if you see, a large number of such cases done in developed countries by certain members of your community usually has a religious or a quasi-religious justification. This, antagonises the locals and hence they turn against you guys.

Even then, they give the opportunity to people like Mr. Sadiq Khan who is the mayor of London. I don't see a Tenzing Yonten becoming the mayor of Karachi or a Ramesh Kumar becoming the governor of a province in your country; let alone some place like Arabia.

So you see how a collective perception, over a period of time builds up? UK is just one example.
Similarly, in the United States there are many Sikhs, Hindus, Jews etc as well. Many Vietnamese Buddhists live there.

Why are these names not associated with religious terrorism?

I am just logically trying to explain it to you as to how and why people build an image and how it leads to bad consequences.

Don't take this as criticism or flame baiting.



Much to the chagrin and ignorance of Pakistani citizens, the problem of Rohingyas didn't start in 2000s. It started way back in 1930s, when the region of Arakkan or what is Rakhine now was trying to do what Pakistan and India did.

The local non-Muslims did not like the idea. Tensions flared and it continues to this day. Now you add an unaccountable military junta in power, that too with military principles of total obedience, and you see how brutality adds up.

Please don't go by a lot of images shown on the internet which are either photoshopped (such as a famous pic where a Buddhist monk is standing in between 2 huge piles of dead bodies). This was successfully marketed by radical muslims to radicalise the general populance.

Later it turned out that the pic was from a journalist's blog covering the Myanmar tsunami.

Yes there have been riots and many innocents on both sides have been killed.

It is tragic and wrong.

Which is why the solution must be decisive and be taken together as a country.



I don't know about Quebec but many of the rioters even from Hindu community have been charged and punished; simply as criminals. When one or two incidents like these happen in non-Muslim countries, they come to the global notice. But when atrocities against non-muslims happen in Muslim majority nations, it usually doesn't reach outside.

Why is that?

Because there is no consensus between the people as to what is the right interpretation of religion.

In an organised structure where question religious authority is deemed as treason, having a single, logical peaceful interpretation is very very important.

Just so that the youth and representatives of your religion should make the elders of your community proud.



Such shooters are usually punished as per the law. They don't usually yell a religious edict or verse before attacking people. Also, you don't see random groups of similar people in other parts of the world claiming a single source to their indoctrination.

Let's take your example. If a white guy in USA shoots a few dozen people (which also includes fellow whites), he doesn't shout 'All Hail Christ'. If he does, you don't see shady terror groups mushrooming in UK, Ireland, France, Sweden etc making videos about how Christ followers will only get to live and others will die.

All of this happens in the case of countries from Middle East to even sensible countries like Malaysia.

Hence, most of these countries tend to be wary of Muslims.



See the tendency to call it hatred? That's where the things start going wrong.

How many Christian religious groups have you seen blowing up people in the name of Christ? I know and agree that there are many militant groups especially in non-white parts of the world (my part of India included), but how many do you see collectively doing the damage?

None.

A biker's helmet is a popular spy movie dress where someone completely covered in black helmet and gear is unidentifiable.

Yes you are right.

This can also be a perfect disguise for killers. Which is why in ATMs, banks, public places etc whenever you enter the premises, there are boards telling you to remove your facial coverings such as sunglasses, covering helmets, headgear etc.

I don't know about Pakistan, but in USA, India, European countries, etc if you walk into the bank with a completely covered helmet which hides your face, people will immediately ask you to remove it. Soon bank authorities would also tell you here to remove your cover. So much so that at metro stations in India, the CISF officers (including Sikhs), run a detector device over turbans that the Sikhs wear. A plastic explosive may not be detected but its detonator has metal components which can be detected by these machines.

Also you must understand that you are in a non-muslim country when in the West or East.

They will have the same rights to decide what the people should wear or not that many Muslim countries do when non-Muslims visit or live in their lands. These rules change now and then and it is best to comply with the regulations or move out if one is not comfortable.

Let me give you an example here: about a decade ago, there was a news article which gained notoriety around the world. A British woman was caught wearing micro-bikini and walking on the roads of Dubai near a famous beach side. She was fined by the authorities and deported from Dubai for a reason that read as "violating the modesty in public, dressing inappropriately and doing so during the month of Ramzan".

She was in a Muslim country and didn't follow Muslim rules. So she was shown the door.

Why should it be anybody's business what the other person is wearing? If it is, and such regulations are subject to change depending on a lot of circumstances such as culture, social norms, national security etc, then it has to be a two-sided affair.

While islamic rules are normal in islamic countries, they may or may not be seen as normal in other countries. And they cannot be expected to be seen as a norm.

Racism does exist yes, but when certain blanket rules are made for everyone, it is best to comply with them for one's own safety and security.

Burqa is banned simply on the basis of the inability to identify a person.

You don't see a ban on your traditional headscarves right?

Then how is it anti-islamic?

And they are banning whatever or allowing whatever in their country. If either I or you live there then we need to respect the laws.



Because UNPKF doesn't undertake activities classified as 'combat'. Only 'peace-keeping' missions.

Also, the P5 have to agree and we all know what happens in P5 meetings.

Not all countries agree and if 1 representative says 'NO', all must disagree. That's how VETO works.

Firstly with chanting slogan while blowing oneself and its affiliation with Islam. You may agree that mere chant of slogan does not mean its true affiliation and relations with a religion. You will be aware of mercenaries and working of those groups to do that and to achieve such type of terrorism they launch a faction of same religion like what ISIS did that has nothing to do with Islam but always chant Islamic slogan while killing people. Previously these free masons/mercenaries were doing other things yet new handlers came into play and changed direction. The sole purpose was to enter Islamic Countries not just because of religious fight but was necessary to hold the ground for resources and presence of influence. These rent a killers/suicide bombers are available on payment and you can read the same through Doval's speech as well (quoting Doval to validate the point of killers available to hire and not in context to divert the topic towards Pakistan-India).

The world powers and countries needs to understand the same game and are needed to sit with Muslims countries to discuss and resolve the matter whereas no Islamic country will deny to fight the terrorism except these culprits.

The country's law must be followed, no disagreement but every country law is based upon the surety of guaranteed rights to every minority as well like a non Muslim country has the law as per her majority/religion/culture but so also, secure the minority and that is where those laws are defined as per the norms of minority's religion. Islam does not permit any woman to go outside without proper hijab/veil so the lawmaker has to keep in mind the same and there are alternatives to counter any security risk that a terrorist can use such veil. If the law which cannot secure minorities like Muslims in non-Muslim countries than that is not the law but a biased and partial approach based upon Islamophobia that cannot guarantee the rights of a citizen but Muslim Minority. The mere one sided imposition of Law does not works like that or I would say then Trump is most favourite person currently on the face of earth yet all those non-Muslims protesting against him, are actually fools like Muslims then who is Trump and his supporters. A democracy cannot impose one sided law upon Minority (ies) like this otherwise, that is not a democracy at all or to avenge the same, Islamic Countries may come-up with a law that totally freezes minority and ask them either to leave or accept. So by the same logic, any law passed by the country will be treated as valid even if it is against human rights and religious respect. You will never hear any Muslim/Islamic Country that it's law every discriminate Minority at all because Islam does not permit the same and defines/explains the rules let alone Muslim Democratic countries.

The guy killing while chanting any religious slogan or not, is still a killer and must be treated as a terrorist that kill others and a hired gun to malign Islam will definitely use a slogan openly to make sure that witnesses treat it as a Muslim terrorist. In short, anti-religious law is not acceptable to any religious person either christian, Muslim, Hindu etc at all and none wanted to be disrespected. Therefore, on some points, the law of few or many countries or the approach towards Muslims actually fueling terrorism. Sometimes, the people that defend their right are also labeled as terrorism. As I said before, innocent killed due to bombing of US/NATO etc, the relative will hold rage and vengeance in heart and may reach to any level for revenge that mostly, proxies avail the opportunity to delude a person and call it Jihad which is against the norms/Law/Teaching of Islam.

All in all purpose of discussion w.r.t. Islamophobia warrants that non-Islamic countries needs to understand that a specific mafia is doing it on purpose to divert the focus towards Islam and to achieve their own goals that from one extent, other religious are also behind the same agenda but yet not unveiled. These hired guns/rent-a-killer or suicide bombers are called proxies and you will be ware of the use of same through different powers for their own interests from cold-war to throwing out governments etc. Blaming the whole country and banning from travel is the phobia that actually these culprits achieves by doing so and calling xyz countries as terrorist state is not a plausible explanation at all. If we go by the same logic, Muslims with opinion about US/West etc as enemy will deny access to those countries into their homeland too and soon we will be seeing two parallel worlds on the same planet without any contact so can you believe it, I am sure the answer is No. None will believe it do so like this hence, the communication gape has to be removed and sit-in & discussion is must otherwise, everyone will be making decision as per own mindset/observations which is not necessarily to be right always.

Beside the communication and talking to other countries for eradication of terrorism, it is also necessary that western world/US etc may realize that they cannot inject their type of democracy or law into Islamic World/Eastern/M.E countries due to change of culture, ethnicity, language and religion as well so rather than meddling into one's affair, the assistance through other means while staying out of the ground can do wonders.

World police decided to bomb a terrorist but burned the innocent's house, the person will indeed reach to a level to avenge injustice. On the same time, labeling a religion Islam as terrorist will not solve the matter hence, generalizing Islam with Terrorism will fuel more rage/hatred etc and people will fall prey to the extremists.

 

[Tshering22]

Firstly with chanting slogan while blowing oneself and its affiliation with Islam. You may agree that mere chant of slogan does not mean its true affiliation and relations with a religion. You will be aware of mercenaries and working of those groups to do that and to achieve such type of terrorism they launch a faction of same religion like what ISIS did that has nothing to do with Islam but always chant Islamic slogan while killing people. Previously these free masons/mercenaries were doing other things yet new handlers came into play and changed direction. The sole purpose was to enter Islamic Countries not just because of religious fight but was necessary to hold the ground for resources and presence of influence. These rent a killers/suicide bombers are available on payment and you can read the same through Doval's speech as well (quoting Doval to validate the point of killers available to hire and not in context to divert the topic towards Pakistan-India).

The world powers and countries needs to understand the same game and are needed to sit with Muslims countries to discuss and resolve the matter whereas no Islamic country will deny to fight the terrorism except these culprits.

The country's law must be followed, no disagreement but every country law is based upon the surety of guaranteed rights to every minority as well like a non Muslim country has the law as per her majority/religion/culture but so also, secure the minority and that is where those laws are defined as per the norms of minority's religion. Islam does not permit any woman to go outside without proper hijab/veil so the lawmaker has to keep in mind the same and there are alternatives to counter any security risk that a terrorist can use such veil. If the law which cannot secure minorities like Muslims in non-Muslim countries than that is not the law but a biased and partial approach based upon Islamophobia that cannot guarantee the rights of a citizen but Muslim Minority. The mere one sided imposition of Law does not works like that or I would say then Trump is most favourite person currently on the face of earth yet all those non-Muslims protesting against him, are actually fools like Muslims then who is Trump and his supporters. A democracy cannot impose one sided law upon Minority (ies) like this otherwise, that is not a democracy at all or to avenge the same, Islamic Countries may come-up with a law that totally freezes minority and ask them either to leave or accept. So by the same logic, any law passed by the country will be treated as valid even if it is against human rights and religious respect. You will never hear any Muslim/Islamic Country that it's law every discriminate Minority at all because Islam does not permit the same and defines/explains the rules let alone Muslim Democratic countries.

The guy killing while chanting any religious slogan or not, is still a killer and must be treated as a terrorist that kill others and a hired gun to malign Islam will definitely use a slogan openly to make sure that witnesses treat it as a Muslim terrorist. In short, anti-religious law is not acceptable to any religious person either christian, Muslim, Hindu etc at all and none wanted to be disrespected. Therefore, on some points, the law of few or many countries or the approach towards Muslims actually fueling terrorism. Sometimes, the people that defend their right are also labeled as terrorism. As I said before, innocent killed due to bombing of US/NATO etc, the relative will hold rage and vengeance in heart and may reach to any level for revenge that mostly, proxies avail the opportunity to delude a person and call it Jihad which is against the norms/Law/Teaching of Islam.

All in all purpose of discussion w.r.t. Islamophobia warrants that non-Islamic countries needs to understand that a specific mafia is doing it on purpose to divert the focus towards Islam and to achieve their own goals that from one extent, other religious are also behind the same agenda but yet not unveiled. These hired guns/rent-a-killer or suicide bombers are called proxies and you will be ware of the use of same through different powers for their own interests from cold-war to throwing out governments etc. Blaming the whole country and banning from travel is the phobia that actually these culprits achieves by doing so and calling xyz countries as terrorist state is not a plausible explanation at all. If we go by the same logic, Muslims with opinion about US/West etc as enemy will deny access to those countries into their homeland too and soon we will be seeing two parallel worlds on the same planet without any contact so can you believe it, I am sure the answer is No. None will believe it do so like this hence, the communication gape has to be removed and sit-in & discussion is must otherwise, everyone will be making decision as per own mindset/observations which is not necessarily to be right always.

Beside the communication and talking to other countries for eradication of terrorism, it is also necessary that western world/US etc may realize that they cannot inject their type of democracy or law into Islamic World/Eastern/M.E countries due to change of culture, ethnicity, language and religion as well so rather than meddling into one's affair, the assistance through other means while staying out of the ground can do wonders.

World police decided to bomb a terrorist but burned the innocent's house, the person will indeed reach to a level to avenge injustice. On the same time, labeling a religion Islam as terrorist will not solve the matter hence, generalizing Islam with Terrorism will fuel more rage/hatred etc and people will fall prey to the extremists.

As someone who has seen both genuinely good muslims and some really negative ones, I really hope that one day a peaceful solution is achieved in which all the threats between us (non-muslims and muslims) is solved. Simply for the sake of human race as a whole.