Any Signs of Long-Predicted Anti-Muslim "Backlash"?

This is a serious question, one that calls for a statistical, quantitative answer.

Every time a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing over an imminent anti-Muslim “backlash,” in which American rednecks, racists and all-around yahoos are going to start beating up Muslim kids, vandalizing Muslim-owned businesses, and torching mosques.

I think such fears are overblown, and show a decided lack of respect for Americans as a whole. All things considered, I think if a broad, violent “backlash” were likely, it would have happened by now.

But never mind my hunches- what do the numbers say? Are there any statistics showing that anti-Muslim violence is widespread, or rising substantially?

Well, one can certainly hope. For instance why don’t they go disband and remove the mosque where they know training went on, and common sense things like that? If we find a drug lab we disband it don’t we? We just don’t arrest the people and leave it for others to run, so why not here?

In our own Christian churches I would also like to see more name calling at their allah and things like hymms sung in our churches putting down their beliefs, after all the koran itself is just filled with anti-Jesus statements, saying he lied and was not anyone and that his death was a fake, I have read it myself. So, why don’t we have our own against their beliefs? Look at WW2, we certainly stopped the emperor worship, we did not go in and say “hey. maybe he is god” and respect it, did we?

Only for America, or generally? Because the Anti-mosque initiative in Switzerland just passed recently.

How about the Iraq war? And the torture of prisoners; and especially the support from many people for such torture. Why does it only count as a backlash if “rednecks” and “yahoos” do it, instead of guys in offices and bombers?

astorian is asking about violence against uninvolved Muslims and Muslim institutions.

Since when do Christians not “put down” the beliefs of others?

And you do realize that Allah is just another word for God? YOUR God.

Astor, to better answer why there is not more violent action here, it is because people realize there is insurance and any damage done will be fixed free, and put our police to helping them for free as well.

What many may not know is they usually get these mosques built by their members for free, so any insurance payment becomes yet more money for terror supplies, so no, you sure do not want to do violence to their buildings, it has the opposite effect of what you would want. What you want is laws to cause any mosque that terror suspects come from to be forcibly torn down by the state so there would be no rebuilding or insurance payments. Just the way illegal drug labs are removed.

But you know most of the violent sects do not even build anything here in the first place. Most of the bad sects doing this do not have facilities in this country at all, most here in US are indeed peaceful. In Europe however they do have such facilities but they usually do not do terror nearby so as to get a backlash, so far.

What you do need to watch with peaceful ones is where their offerings go, I suspect the purpose of most of the peaceful sects is fund raising for the others. This is why they will stay peaceful, it is useful to their plan. Many so called islamic charities have openly been found to just be terror funding agencies. I am sure that is true of most of the churches as well, even better if they can attract non-violent people to give as well and not know, see?

Yes, the annual FBI statistics recording hate crimes indicate it does happen, and it happens significantly. In the year of 9/11 attacks on Muslims rocketed compared with the year before:

For comparison, by 2008 the number of anti-Islamic incidents had fallen back to 155. My guess is that they may well start to go back up again after the events of the last couple of weeks.

This whole post is ignorant to the point of imbecility. If you’re talking about the recent attempted terror attack, or 9/11 in fact, the ‘training mosques’ you are referring to were not in the US, so removing them requires military invasions. And the Koran is clearly not filled with “anti-Jesus statements” given that Muslims worship him as a prophet.

OP: When there’s people like this around, are you really surprised that fears of a backlash are not overblown?

That’s just nonsense. There IS no “plan”. Islam isn’t the Catholic Church; there is no central authority who could create and run such a plan.

Der, they indeed do a great PR job of hiding their leaders, so much so it is incredible. You can read about Mohammad, Ali, Abdulah and so on leading in the 700’s and then nothing, as if suddenly no one is in charge.

Do you really believe the Sunni sect with that billion dollars of gold in that golden palace really has no one in charge? As for the donations here going there sure it is easy, each of these so called charities funnels that money, that was even admitted by our own government a few years ago too. All of these groups certainly do have people in charge.

But try to find out the leader of the Sunnis or the Shitites, no one will even ask. Yet the doctrine differences are mainly ABOUT who leads, with one group wanting a blood line like kings and the other whoever is most ruthless, like the old Soviet premiers were chosen, yet then they try to tell us neither has anyone in charge…yeah. sure. Think about it and you will see this has to be nonsense. There are leaders of each sect, believe me.

The Caliphate was effectively terminated in 1258, though even by then it had long since ceased being much more than a minor regional power. It survived in name until 1924, when Mustafa Kemal abolished the shadow title long claimed by the Ottoman sultans.

Yep. It’s a fact.

Many, many, MANY leaders. But no singular LEADER. Sorry - I hate to burst the conspiracy bubble, but uncomfortable truths must occasionally be acknowledged ;).

Who is the leader of the Protestants? That is the same as asking “who is the leader of Islam?” The answer is there is no unified leadership at all.

Some do, some don’t. You might as well argue that every single Christian charity is part of a vast scheme to funnel money to the IRA.

Because there isn’t one. Just a bunch of different leaders who don’t agree with each other on much.

It is incredible people can believe the Sunnis have no leader, it is obviously one of the Saudi royalty in all probability. Of course as I said there are leaders of each sect, I do agree no total leader, just as Christians do not either have a total leader.

I never said islam had only one, but that each sect did, and it does, do you think not just because they say that? Rather unrealistic, for sure. They also say they only want peace, too, you know.

And what evidence do you have for such a leader?

No, completely realistic. A conspiracy consisting of over a billion people is utterly ridiculous.

Some do, some don’t. You pretend that they have a unity that just isn’t there.

To be fair, what you’re implying happened is not actually what happened. The Swiss have banned a certain type of architecture, not “mosques”. Muslims are still allowed to construct places of worship, just not minaret towers. Sure, it has religious bigotry at its heart, but it’s overstating things to say the Switzerland situation is the type of “backlash” predicted in the original post.

On second thought, I should clear my post with a mod first.

Here is a cite relevant to employment discrimination as a form of anti-Muslim backlash:

“In the same period [2001-2005], the EEOC received 2,459 charges of discrimination based on ‘religion-Muslim.’ For a comparable period of time before September 11, 2001 (6/11/1997 to 9/10/2001), the EEOC received 1,227 charges – half as many – in the same category.”

Iraq war is not “Anti-Muslim” it is anti Hussein, and the aftermath.
Torture of prisoner is not ‘Anti-Muslim’ it is anti enemy combatant.
Backlash is much different from war. The results may be the same, but the means are different.
Allah may or may not be another word for the Christian God. There are people with answers, but it is not as clear cut as you seem to imply. If Allah has only one prophet, he cannot be the same as Yahweh/Jehovah.


IIRC, the Saudi royalty is extremely un-Sunni. If I understand aright, they are Wahabis.


What about also, the fact that the kinds of people who would attack Muslims because of 9/11 or terrorism aren’t that bright and also attack people who aren’t even remotely Muslim (but who, gasp, wear turbans and have beards) like the Sikhs? Is violence against Sikhs or other generic brown people counted, too?

Anyway, this is anecdotal but we had about three family members/family friends who experienced unpleasantness after 9/11. I guess you’re more likely to remember it if it happens to you.

Wahhabis are Sunnis, actually. Just a subsect, if you will. But not a very representative one of Sunni Muslims generally, that’s for sure.

Nonsense. Much of the support for the war came from the delusion that Saddam was behind 9-11. And a lot of people treated it as vengeance for 9-11. We clearly just wanted some Muslim blood.

Who conveniently happen to be Muslim, in a war aimed at Muslims, justified by an act perpetrated by ( different ) Muslims.

Which means they aren’t “much different”; you contradict yourself.

They are all speaking of the same mythical being in different ways. The fact that religion A says that Prophet A is wrong and Prophet B right doesn’t mean that both prophets aren’t talking about the same god.