Islamophobia the socially acceptable hatred?

[baron]

Yes it does.

How does your reply explain the absence of these other words?

It also explains Islamophobia's older sibling, anti-Semitism.

This is incorrect. Anti-Semitism is and always was driven primarily by hostility towards ethnic identity, not religious practice, not religion-inspired culture and not as a result of actions linked directly to Judaism. Early in his life Hitler rejected anti-Semitism because he saw no reason to attack Jews on the grounds of religion; it was only later when he became obsessed about the Jews being a divisive and inferior race (as he saw it) that the problems began.

You have still to explain how we have a dedicated word to cover one specific religion, an 'honour' not conferred onto any other religion or ideology. I have already given an example of a Muslim, lauded by some on this thread, who makes a living whining about nasty comments on his Islamic blogs yet is on video stating that atheists are no better than idiot cattle and that non-Muslims are immoral and live their life like animals. Do we have a word for that vile bigotry...? secularphobe... atheiphobe... er... no, we don't. It's only Islam that is worthy this honour.

It's not used to suppress valid debate, and it doesn't cover "well-informed, reasoned criticism of Islam".

Oh yes it is. Maybe not where you live but certainly where I live.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

What's happening in Murfreesboro is not "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Pamela Gellar going into hysterics about Butterball secretly and insidiously attempting to foist halal turkeys on innocent non-Muslims celebrating Thanksgiving in a "stealth turkey jihad" isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Debbie Schlussel warning that Simon Cowell's manufactured pop group One Direction is attempting to seduce young (and white) non-Muslim girls into the clutches of Islam isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia. Robert Spencer attempting to paint a man separated from his wife and in financial trouble who dressed as Santa Claus, went to his wife's house as his wife, son, daughter, and brother and sister in law were opening Christmas presents on Christmas morning (after they had hosted a Christmas party on Christmas Eve the night before), shooting and killing all of them, then attempting to make it look like the brother in law was the shooter before he committed suicide by turning the gun on himself, as an example of a "Muslim honor killing" isn't "criticism of Islam", it's Islamophobia.

I'm not clear what point you're making. We know that Muslims experience bigotry in the same way as does every other minority group the world over (look at the ways Christians are treated in Muslim countries if you want a good example). Nobody is saying that Muslims being targeted for clearly bogus reasons is a good thing, and such attacks are often smoke-screens for racism. Your examples illustrate that true Islamophobia (if we must use that word) is easy to spot by its base in ignorance and its frequent absurdity. This is only nominally associated with criticism of Islam as a whole, much of which is valid and needs to be heard.

I bring you back to the OP which prompted this discussion, who says that Muslims (presumably in the UK) are already experiencing serious repression which will only get worse on account of "Islamophobia", a view backed up by zero evidence despite my repeated requests. This sounds like a serious matter yet is completely fabricated. What we actually find when we examine the evidence is that Muslims experience no more repression and no greater bigotry than any other group. Indeed, I could put forward an argument for it being less. We don't hear of Muslims being denied human rights as asserted in the OP but we do hear of minaret bans, stealth turkeys and conspiracy theories about boy bands. These do not warrant this upsurge of Islamic victimhood that we constantly hear about (and would have heard a lot more of had the UN not last year voted to quash the anti-defamation proposal which would have been a significant step towards making criticism of Islam a criminal offence in all UN member states).

 

[Multivac]

Or 1.6 billion. Which would make it around one in every 800 Muslims.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you meant 1.6 million.

 

[Caper]

I've seen Anders Breivik brought up more then once in this thread.... As to say he is the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. But Breivik has almost ZERO support for his actions. You ask 1000 people in the Western world, "Do you support the actions of Anders Breivik"... you would be lucky to get a single person to say they supported his actions. You ask the same question of Bin Laden in the middle east... you will get 10 to maybe 30% of respondence say they supported his actions. I don't remember spontaneous dancing in the street when Breivik or McVeigh commited acts of terrorism. But that's exactly what I've seen on 9/11.

The only Muslim demonstrations I've ever seen in my home province (Nova Scotia, Canada) was Muslims marching against cartoons in Denmark.

Even this morning. An hour away from where I live a girl is missing. I seen the news story...saw that she looked Middle Eastern, heard that she was missing... and immediately, I think... "honor killing". I don't know if that's true, she hasn't been found yet... but that's where my money is going. We have a few Christian nuts in my province.... they'll come up to you on the street and try to save your soul. But I've spent my entire life here and I have never seen a christian honor killing.

 

[A'isha]

I've seen Anders Breivik brought up more then once in this thread.... As to say he is the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden. But Breivik has almost ZERO support for his actions. You ask 1000 people in the Western world, "Do you support the actions of Anders Breivik"... you would be lucky to get a single person to say they supported his actions.

Lots of people support Breivik. Some of them even took the stand and testified in his defense during his trial, like Arne Tumyr. Strangely, these same people are also part of the same bunch of Islamophobes we're discussing here - Tumyr is the head of "Stop the Islamisation of Norway", which belongs to Pamela Geller's network of bigots.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

 

[A'isha]

How does your reply explain the absence of these other words?

I told you above: because they don't have the same thousand(s)-year-long history of cultural, theological, and physical conflict with Christianity that Islam and Judaism have had.

Apologetic works debating the theological pros and cons of Hinduism vs. Christianity are a relatively recent (and still extremely rare) thing, while written polemics between Christians and Muslims started to become common when the Heptarchy still ruled your country.

This is incorrect. Anti-Semitism is and always was driven primarily by hostility towards ethnic identity, not religious practice, not religion-inspired culture and not as a result of actions linked directly to Judaism.

No, this is absolutely wrong. Anti-Semitism has always had a largely (and usually primarily) religious component. When Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote a letter to the head of Iceland's national radio station about their annual Easter broadcast of a performance of 17th Century Icelandic poet Hallgrímur Pétursson's Passion Hymns being heavily anti-Semitic, it wasn't the "ethnic identity" of the Jews that the good Rabbi thought Pétursson was attacking, but the many references to Jews that "reinforce hateful notions about Jews that laid the theological groundwork for 20 centuries of anti-Semitic hatred and persecution."

Early in his life Hitler rejected anti-Semitism because he saw no reason to attack Jews on the grounds of religion; it was only later when he became obsessed about the Jews being a divisive and inferior race (as he saw it) that the problems began.

Anti-Semitism, especially theological anti-Semitism, began long before Hitler. If you can stomach it, try reading Martin Luther's (yes, that Martin Luther) 1543 book "On the Jews and their Lies".

Ironically, Luther actually hated Jews more than he hated Muslims - he advocated the burning of Jewish prayer books and sanctioned the murder of Jews, but he had a "live and let live" attitude towards Muslims in the hopes that they would eventually be converted to Christianity.

Oh yes it is. Maybe not where you live but certainly where I live.

Do you have anything you would like to point to as an example?

What we actually find when we examine the evidence is that Muslims experience no more repression and no greater bigotry than any other group.

Really? What other religious group has multiple lawsuits and public protests at a number of places across the US to prevent the construction of places of worship, with open support for this from not just talking heads interviewed on news programs, but a number of politicians as well?

What other religious group has had several states not just propose, but pass laws specifically targeting and outlawing aspects of their religion - while allowing other religions with those same aspects to continue to practice them freely?

Why is it that people like Pamela Geller and Raymond Ibrahim panic about President Obama attending a "Muslim madrassa" for one year as a child in Indonesia (which he didn't - it was a state-run elementary school, but accuracy is not these peoples' strong suit), while being entirely unconcerned that he also attended a Catholic school for two years in the same country immediately afterwards?

 

[IDB87]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you meant 1.6 million.

Try try try agaaaain.

 

[IDB87]

Lots of people support Breivik. Some of them even took the stand and testified in his defense during his trial, like Arne Tumyr. Strangely, these same people are also part of the same bunch of Islamophobes we're discussing here - Tumyr is the head of "Stop the Islamisation of Norway", which belongs to Pamela Geller's network of bigots.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

I think he was trying to make a distinction between support from members of the same circles, and support from ordinary Joes who would otherwise not be involved. (I think!)

The implication is that there is more widespread support for Bin Laden than for people like Breivik.

 

[baron]

Lots of people support Breivik. Some of them even took the stand and testified in his defense during his trial, like Arne Tumyr. Strangely, these same people are also part of the same bunch of Islamophobes we're discussing here - Tumyr is the head of "Stop the Islamisation of Norway", which belongs to Pamela Geller's network of bigots.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

I think we're back to 'lots' and 'few' again, possibly because of conflation between aims and method. Aside from a few faceless blog commenters I've not yet heard anybody publically state they support Breivik's method, method being the pertinent point when talking about terrorism. I don't doubt that some do but how many are we talking about? A few dozen, a few hundred, maybe a few thousand? I don't know but the details don't matter; In 2005 Pew found that between 13% and 57% of the population of Muslims in Muslim majority countries support the methodology of terrorism and the resultant attacks. We are not talking about a few cretins on a website here, we're talking hundreds of millions of people. In the UK (Telegraph poll 2005) 6% of UK Muslims openly support the 7/7 bombings (the ICM poll 2002 was 8% for UK attacks and 11% for US ones) - that's between 120,000 and 150,000 Islamic terrorism supporters right here in the UK. Are you really saying if you poll a few thousand random non-Muslims you're going to get a similar support for Breivik? I'd be amazed if you got 0.5%.

 

[baron]

I told you above: because they don't have the same thousand(s)-year-long history of cultural, theological, and physical conflict with Christianity that Islam and Judaism have had.

But we're talking about a recent word, coined in the last century. I see no basis for justifying its usage even if your historical argument held true which I don't believe it does. So thinking contemporarily I'll ask again, how do you account for the lack of words to describe bigotry against any other religion or belief system?

No, this is absolutely wrong. Anti-Semitism has always had a largely (and usually primarily) religious component. When Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, wrote a letter to the head of Iceland's national radio station about their annual Easter broadcast of a performance of 17th Century Icelandic poet Hallgrímur Pétursson's Passion Hymns being heavily anti-Semitic, it wasn't the "ethnic identity" of the Jews that the good Rabbi thought Pétursson was attacking, but the many references to Jews that "reinforce hateful notions about Jews that laid the theological groundwork for 20 centuries of anti-Semitic hatred and persecution."

I think my example trumps yours. The hatred of Jews as an ethnic groups is what most people understand by anti-Semitism and certainly that's where the real damage is done. An anti-Semite talks of the Jews as a race, as a body of people and refers to their politics, their ethnicity, their loyalties and their economic history. More rare is it that someone who criticises some aspect of Judaism is described as an anti-Semite, more likely if they are assigned any label it would be one of anti-Judaism. Ancient history might tell a different story but the usefulness of the anti-Semitism / Islamophobia comparison decreases with time

Anti-Semitism, especially theological anti-Semitism, began long before Hitler. If you can stomach it, try reading Martin Luther's (yes, that Martin Luther) 1543 book "On the Jews and their Lies".

I never disputed that and I actually referred to it in my previous answer that you quoted, when I said Hitler initially rejected anti-Semitism.

If you can stomach it, try reading Martin Luther's (yes, that Martin Luther) 1543 book "On the Jews and their Lies". Ironically, Luther actually hated Jews more than he hated Muslims - he advocated the burning of Jewish prayer books and sanctioned the murder of Jews, but he had a "live and let live" attitude towards Muslims in the hopes that they would eventually be converted to Christianity.

Do you have anything you would like to point to as an example?

Not right now as I'm in the middle of something but later I will post something.

Really? What other religious group has multiple lawsuits and public protests at a number of places across the US to prevent the construction of places of worship, with open support for this from not just talking heads interviewed on news programs, but a number of politicians as well?

Every religious group and every non-religious group, speaking for the UK as that's where I live. Maybe the citizens of my town are Tescophobic because when a proposal was announced to build a new Tesco store on some wasteland in the area there was an outcry that included protests, lobbying of MPs, scuffles with police and hate mail. Of course, because Islam was not involved the disputes were reported for what they were - the usual resistance to change and NIMBY politics rather than an irrational and bigoted hatred of superstore chains.

What other religious group has had several states not just propose, but pass laws specifically targeting and outlawing aspects of their religion - while allowing other religions with those same aspects to continue to practice them freely?

We have no such laws in the UK and the neither do most European countries. Where they do exist they are neither here nor there. What specific laws are there in the US? If you want to see real oppression of religious minorities you need to look to a Muslim country.

Why is it that people like Pamela Geller and Raymond Ibrahim panic about President Obama attending a "Muslim madrassa" for one year as a child in Indonesia (which he didn't - it was a state-run elementary school, but accuracy is not these peoples' strong suit), while being entirely unconcerned that he also attended a Catholic school for two years in the same country immediately afterwards?

I'd imagine that their reasoning involves the blatant and widespread anti-Western attitudes of many Muslims across the world, something not present in the Catholic Church, although this whole Obama / Muslim thing sounds like a nutjob conspiracy theory to me and therefore I don't for a minute believe their arguments have validity.

 

[angrysoba]

This is incorrect. Anti-Semitism is and always was driven primarily by hostility towards ethnic identity, not religious practice, not religion-inspired culture and not as a result of actions linked directly to Judaism. Early in his life Hitler rejected anti-Semitism because he saw no reason to attack Jews on the grounds of religion; it was only later when he became obsessed about the Jews being a divisive and inferior race (as he saw it) that the problems began.

The blood libel, the Wandering Jew, the love-hate relationship with "usury", the "Christ killer" charge and the pogroms had nothing to do with religious practice? I think you have a lot to learn about anti-semitism. And, no, the problems did not begin when Hitler became a racist: theological anti-semitism long predated Hitler and in fact, pre-dated even Christianity.

 

[A'isha]

I think he was trying to make a distinction between support from members of the same circles, and support from ordinary Joes who would otherwise not be involved. (I think!)

The implication is that there is more widespread support for Bin Laden than for people like Breivik.

That's true. But there's more than just religion behind that.

I think we're back to 'lots' and 'few' again, possibly because of conflation between aims and method.

Point taken. I should have said "There's more than 'zero' support for Breivik and his actions."

Aside from a few faceless blog commenters I've not yet heard anybody publically state they support Breivik's method, method being the pertinent point when talking about terrorism. I don't doubt that some do but how many are we talking about? A few dozen, a few hundred, maybe a few thousand? I don't know but the details don't matter; In 2005 Pew found that between 13% and 57% of the population of Muslims in Muslim majority countries support the methodology of terrorism and the resultant attacks.

That would be this study, I'm assuming.

Interestingly, here in America, it's Muslims who are the most against attacks on civilians (whether by the military or by an individual person or a small group of persons) , compared to all other religious groups.

We are not talking about a few cretins on a website here, we're talking hundreds of millions of people. In the UK (Telegraph poll 2005) 6% of UK Muslims openly support the 7/7 bombings (the ICM poll 2002 was 8% for UK attacks and 11% for US ones) - that's between 120,000 and 150,000 Islamic terrorism supporters right here in the UK. Are you really saying if you poll a few thousand random non-Muslims you're going to get a similar support for Breivik? I'd be amazed if you got 0.5%.

The point is not that attitudes are equal, it's that they exist in both places and are affected by a number of other factors. The levels of support among polled Muslims aren't because they're Muslims, but are a response to both the position of Muslim countries in the world, and specifically responsive to current events. That's why the Pew poll noted such a dramatic drop in support for suicide bombings between polls they took, as well as why Muslims living in the US differ so dramatically from Muslims living in Jordan when it comes to attitudes towards terrorism (Jordan, of course, being where a huge proportion of Palestinians live). And why non-Muslims shouldn't be so quick to pat themselves on the back when it comes to support for Breivik, because those embers can be fanned into flames far easier than anyone should really be comfortable with.

 

[Chaos]

Lots of people support Breivik. Some of them even took the stand and testified in his defense during his trial, like Arne Tumyr. Strangely, these same people are also part of the same bunch of Islamophobes we're discussing here - Tumyr is the head of "Stop the Islamisation of Norway", which belongs to Pamela Geller's network of bigots.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

It´s similar here in Germany. Quite a few of the hardcore "we´re only concerned about the violence inherent in Islam" people were primarily upset about the bad publicity this sort of thing is going to bring for their cause; the only thing they blame Breivik for is wasting his time killing leftists rather than Muslims.

 

[angrysoba]

I never disputed that and I actually referred to it in my previous answer that you quoted, when I said Hitler initially rejected anti-Semitism.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one but now I can see that you have contradicted yourself:

Anti-Semitism is and always was driven primarily by hostility towards ethnic identity, not religious practice, not religion-inspired culture and not as a result of actions linked directly to Judaism.

 

[baron]

The blood libel, the Wandering Jew, the love-hate relationship with "usury", the "Christ killer" charge and the pogroms had nothing to do with religious practice? I think you have a lot to learn about anti-semitism. And, no, the problems did not begin when Hitler became a racist: theological anti-semitism long predated Hitler and in fact, pre-dated even Christianity.

I will concede that in distant history there was a more overbearing religious element but today and in recent history this is connection is distinctly secondary. I think you need to read your own link, especially the latter part of the Holocaust section, if you maintain that most of the damage and intolerance against Jews is as a result of religious differences. (It should be noted I'm excluding any Islamic anti-Semitism here, that would make for a hideously circular argument). This is what you need to consider if you want to refute my original point, that anti-Semitism does not share any roots with Islamophobia and the two share more differences than similarities.

 

[angrysoba]

I will concede that in distant history there was a more overbearing religious element but today and in recent history this is connection is distinctly secondary. I think you need to read your own link, especially the latter part of the Holocaust section, if you maintain that most of the damage and intolerance against Jews is as a result of religious differences. (It should be noted I'm excluding any Islamic anti-Semitism here, that would make for a hideously circular argument). This is what you need to consider if you want to refute my original point, that anti-Semitism does not share any roots with Islamophobia and the two share more differences than similarities.

I do not need to refute your new stipulation, "if you maintain that most of the damage and intolerance against Jews is as a result of religious differences" to refute your original point which was utterly wrong and which I will quote again to demonstrate:

Anti-Semitism is and always was driven primarily by hostility towards ethnic identity, not religious practice, not religion-inspired culture and not as a result of actions linked directly to Judaism.

You now seem to be moving the goalposts and asking whether racial or religious motives had more to do with the Holocaust or not as if anti-semitism was synonymous with the Holocaust.

And why should it be noted that Islamic anti-semitism isn't to be included here? Is Islamic anti-semitism religiously or racially inspired, do you think?

 

[A'isha]

But we're talking about a recent word, coined in the last century. I see no basis for justifying its usage even if your historical argument held true which I don't believe it does. So thinking contemporarily I'll ask again, how do you account for the lack of words to describe bigotry against any other religion or belief system?

Again, anti-Semtism (like "Islamophobia", itself a term coined only recently, in the mid-to-late 19th Century, to describe a bigotry that existed long before there was a specific word for it).

I think my example trumps yours.

It doesn't. Anti-Semitism started as religious bigotry, and despite the Nazis attempt to inject race and ethnicity into it, it's still heavily religious in nature.

The hatred of Jews as an ethnic groups is what most people understand by anti-Semitism and certainly that's where the real damage is done. An anti-Semite talks of the Jews as a race, as a body of people and refers to their politics, their ethnicity, their loyalties and their economic history. More rare is it that someone who criticises some aspect of Judaism is described as an anti-Semite, more likely if they are assigned any label it would be one of anti-Judaism. Ancient history might tell a different story but the usefulness of the anti-Semitism / Islamophobia comparison decreases with time

Angrysoba detailed some of the common religious features of anti-Semitism. And this is not "ancient history" - the religious practices of Jews still feature quite prominently among the bigots. The "Kosher Tax" slur, for instance, or the particularly vile way a certain part of the circumcision procedure is compared to pedophilia.

We have no such laws in the UK and the neither do most European countries. Where they do exist they are neither here nor there. What specific laws are there in the US?

Here's how one Islamophobic hate site talked about the law recently passed in Kansas (and mentions similar laws in Louisiana, Arizona, and Tennessee - one in Oklahoma was recently struck down as unconstitutional).

If you want to see real oppression of religious minorities you need to look to a Muslim country.

So, it's okay to reject our principles whenever we feel like it, if we can point to someone else who doesn't follow those principles?

That strikes me as rather...hypocritical.

I'd imagine that their reasoning involves the blatant and widespread anti-Western attitudes of many Muslims across the world, something not present in the Catholic Church,

No, their "reasoning" is not quite so complex.

although this whole Obama / Muslim thing sounds like a nutjob conspiracy theory to me and therefore I don't for a minute believe their arguments have validity.

I agree.

 

[A'isha]

This is what you need to consider if you want to refute my original point, that anti-Semitism does not share any roots with Islamophobia and the two share more differences than similarities.

Someone actually compared the Islamophobic writings of Robert Spencer with the anti-Semitic writings of Julius Streicher, and found some rather remarkable similarities.

 

[Caper]

Lots of people support Breivik. Some of them even took the stand and testified in his defense during his trial, like Arne Tumyr. Strangely, these same people are also part of the same bunch of Islamophobes we're discussing here - Tumyr is the head of "Stop the Islamisation of Norway", which belongs to Pamela Geller's network of bigots.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Like I said. If you call a 1000 people.... you'd be lucky to get a single person that supports what he did.

 

[baron]

I do not need to refute your new stipulation, "if you maintain that most of the damage and intolerance against Jews is as a result of religious differences" to refute your original point which was utterly wrong and which I will quote again to demonstrate:

It wasn't utterly wrong and bearing in mind my admission that religious anti-Semitism did indeed play a larger role in history than I initially suggested I can't see why you're harping on about this other than to derail the thread.

You now seem to be moving the goalposts and asking whether racial or religious motives had more to do with the Holocaust or not as if anti-semitism was synonymous with the Holocaust.

Mention the 'anti-Semitism' to 20 people and tell them to write down the first word that comes to mind. I'll give you £2 for every one that doesn't write something connected to the Holocaust if you give me £1 for every one that does. Meanwhile I'll browse Amazon to see what I can spend my winnings on.

And why should it be noted that Islamic anti-semitism isn't to be included here? Is Islamic anti-semitism religiously or racially inspired, do you think?

Religiously, racially, politically, ignorantly, all of these and more. This is going too far OT.

Again, anti-Semtism (like "Islamophobia", itself a term coined only recently, in the mid-to-late 19th Century, to describe a bigotry that existed long before there was a specific word for it).

It doesn't. Anti-Semitism started as religious bigotry, and despite the Nazis attempt to inject race and ethnicity into it, it's still heavily religious in nature.

Angrysoba detailed some of the common religious features of anti-Semitism. And this is not "ancient history" - the religious practices of Jews still feature quite prominently among the bigots. The "Kosher Tax" slur, for instance, or the particularly vile way a certain part of the circumcision procedure is compared to pedophilia.

Bringing this back on track, what is your point regarding anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Are you saying they are the same thing? How so? The latter refers specifically to Islam, the religion, whilst the former refers to Jews, the people. Islamophobia means an irrational fear or hated whilst anti-Semitism makes no claims as to the truth. Islam is race-independent whereas have you ever heard of an anti-Semite who does not revile Jews? And that's before we even get into the contemporary applications of the word. It's very rare to hear the word 'anti-Semite' being freely tossed around yet criticise Islam and you're lucky if you've not heard the word 'Islamophobe' before you finish your sentence.

Here's how one Islamophobic hate site talked about the law recently passed in Kansas (and mentions similar laws in Louisiana, Arizona, and Tennessee - one in Oklahoma was recently struck down as unconstitutional).

I'm not clear on what I'm commenting on (the first thing that comes to mind is the appalling website text). The reaction? OT but what would you expect? The law? I cannot believe it's not already part of existing law and as stated the worst I can say about it is that it sounds moot. And I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of sharia but aren't we told repeatedly that sharia in the West would not in any way affect the indigenous legal processes? So what's the issue? Muslims can practice their sharia and the law courts can deal with law, just as it always has been.

Again, referring to the OP and to what you stated about repressive law, what examples have we of Western laws oppressing Muslims? We have the minarets in Switzerland, the veil in France, any others?

So, it's okay to reject our principles whenever we feel like it, if we can point to someone else who doesn't follow those principles?

That strikes me as rather...hypocritical.

It is hypocritical and I didn't say it. My point was that every minority experiences bigotry. Muslims in the West, certainly in the UK, experience a low level of intolerance compared to what I would estimate is the worldwide norm. However, if you wish to see extreme examples of minority religious persecution then you should look to Muslim countries. That is a pertinent fact, not something I condone.

Someone actually compared the Islamophobic writings of Robert Spencer with the anti-Semitic writings of Julius Streicher, and found some rather remarkable similarities.

I'm not really a fan of that style of writing, it strikes me as cheap. What matters is whether the claims are true and not whether they resemble other claims. It's debunking by association, it's lazy and I've no time for it.

 

[A'isha]

Bringing this back on track, what is your point regarding anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Are you saying they are the same thing? How so?

They're both terms to describe bigoted actions and speech directed towards members of a particular religion.

The latter refers specifically to Islam, the religion, whilst the former refers to Jews, the people.

No, it also refers to Judaism, the religion. A lot of anti-Semitic hate-speech focuses on Jewish beliefs, religious practices, and scriptures (purported exposes of "what the Talmud really says!" are a staple of anti-Semitic websites and posts).

Islamophobia means an irrational fear or hated whilst anti-Semitism makes no claims as to the truth.

No, there is not a single bit of truth in anything that's anti-Semitic, and everyone fully understands that. Anti-Semitism is just as irrational as Islamopobia, and is used in the exact same fashion.

Islam is race-independent whereas have you ever heard of an anti-Semite who does not revile Jews?

Judaism is more closely linked to ethnicity than Islam is (though Jews are far from ethnically homogenous, something which has caused problems in Israel). But make no mistake - anti-Semitism started as religious bigotry, and religion is still a major factor in anti-Semitism today.

And that's before we even get into the contemporary applications of the word. It's very rare to hear the word 'anti-Semite' being freely tossed around yet criticise Islam and you're lucky if you've not heard the word 'Islamophobe' before you finish your sentence.

Apparently you haven't ventured much into discussions about Israel.

And I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion of sharia but aren't we told repeatedly that sharia in the West would not in any way affect the indigenous legal processes? So what's the issue? Muslims can practice their sharia and the law courts can deal with law, just as it always has been.

No, the issue is that these laws make things like this perfectly legal when Jews do it, but completely illegal when Muslims do it. And for no other reason whatsoever than that they're Muslims.

It is hypocritical and I didn't say it. My point was that every minority experiences bigotry. Muslims in the West, certainly in the UK, experience a low level of intolerance compared to what I would estimate is the worldwide norm. However, if you wish to see extreme examples of minority religious persecution then you should look to Muslim countries. That is a pertinent fact, not something I condone.

I, personally, don't think much of the argument that prejudice and bigotry against any group can be dismissed as not a big deal (or even as nonexistent) just because other minorities have it worse elsewhere.