Islamophobia: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "<blockquote>"In Mohameddanism there is no regenerative power; it is 'of the letter, which killeth,' - unelastic, sterile, barren.... To... progress it must prove an obstacle from its very character... It has no power of adaptation, expansion, development." - ''Reverend James Cameron Lees'', 1882<ref>Revered James Cameron Lees, 1882, quoted in Professor Joseph A. Massad's ''Islam in Liberalism'', Published in 2015 by the University of Chicago Press</ref></blockquote> = P...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<blockquote>"In Mohameddanism there is no regenerative power; it is 'of the letter, which killeth,' - unelastic, sterile, barren.... To... progress it must prove an obstacle from its very character... It has no power of adaptation, expansion, development." - ''Reverend | <blockquote>"In Mohameddanism there is no regenerative power; it is 'of the letter, which killeth,' - unelastic, sterile, barren.... To... progress it must prove an obstacle from its very character... It has no power of adaptation, expansion, development." - ''Reverend Lees'', 1882<ref>Reverend James Cameron Lees, 1882, quoted in Professor Joseph A. Massad's ''Islam in Liberalism'', Published in 2015 by the University of Chicago Press</ref></blockquote> | ||
= Petro-Imperialism = | = Petro-Imperialism = | ||
Revision as of 23:09, 11 July 2023
"In Mohameddanism there is no regenerative power; it is 'of the letter, which killeth,' - unelastic, sterile, barren.... To... progress it must prove an obstacle from its very character... It has no power of adaptation, expansion, development." - Reverend Lees, 1882[1]
Petro-Imperialism
European anti-Ottoman Propaganda... informed the representation of Islam as despotic by Enlightenment figures... (They) described despotism as a system that does not recognize private property, facilitating imperial disposession by Europe... Imperial arguments with regards to "Arab" and "Islamic" oil since World War I through the present moment, articulated under the sign of "development"... (argue that) colonized natives... had no right "to deny their bounties to those who need them." By the conclusion of World War II, a report produced by the Office of Strategic Services for the US State Department argued that "the principle of equitable distribution and exploitation overrides to some extent the sovereign rights of the oil producing countries and presupposes a kind of trusteeship of the big Powers over the world's oil resources."[2]