Islamophobia the socially acceptable hatred?

[Ryokan]

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.

Worse persecution than the attempted genocide of millions and murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans?

And though it's history now, the persecution of the Jews and the holocaust happened not that long ago. Jews might not be treated very well in some Islamic countries (Though in others they thrive, like in Turkey.), but it's nothing compared to how we treated them in Europe within living memory.

I can also point to non-Islamic countries that persecute minorities horribly. Burma is one - where the Muslim minority is the most persecuted of them all.

Persecution seems to be more part of theocracies or dictatorships, than an inherent Islamic trait.

 

[baron]

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



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).



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.



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.



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

I think the anti-Semitism strand is exhausted as to be honest I've forgotten what relevance it ever had, if any. The point regarding the random assignment of Islamophobe as a label still stands.

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.

Which is why I asked what your point was. I could hardly be expected to infer that you were contrasting Muslim privileges with Jewish ones from your original post. So your bone of contention is that there is a discrepancy between Jewish law being allowed in the courtroom when Islamic law is not. From that standpoint - and purely in theory - I concur, if you're going to allow elements from one religion you should be willing to grant others similar privilege.

But, I would say that it was totally wrong to allow Jewish law into the judicial system unless it was fully integrated in the interests of progressiveness and thereafter referred to as "law". Give one religion concession and where do you stop? What do we do when the Mormons call for additional laws, the Hindus, the Satanists, the Scientologists?

The law should be the law. If groups want to conduct civil proceedings according to their own culture and beliefs then they can go ahead as long as they don't conflict with the law. Granting formal concessions to even one religion is a very bad idea.

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.

It isn't 'just because'. In fact, I didn't even suggest it as a mitigating factor. Why I maintain that Islamphobia is not a big deal is that we're several pages into this thread and nobody has presented any evidence whatsoever of so-called Islamophobia having a negative impact on Muslims that exceeds the bigotry against any other minority.

To repeat, the allegation is that Muslims are undergoing societal repression on the grounds of Islamophobia, which is about to get much worse. I have yet to see one iota of evidence for this. If Muslims are targeted on grounds of race (the majority being dark-skinned) then we should call it what it is - racism. If Islam is validly criticised we should call it what it is - criticism. If Islam is discussed we should call it what it is - debate. If Islam is invalidly criticised we should call it what it is - nonsense. So what is it that remains which constitutes this mythical 'Islamophobia'? Boy bands, stealth turkeys and a rebuttal of law which at worst is unfair?

Worse persecution than the attempted genocide of millions and murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans?

I was talking day-to-day rather than in a conflict situation, as the discussion point was the treatment of minorities. It's ironic though, that genuine persecution of Muslims such as your example is never referred to as Islamophobia and the word itself is reserved for a nebulous Western phenomena with no apparent symptoms.

And though it's history now, the persecution of the Jews and the holocaust happened not that long ago. Jews might not be treated very well in some Islamic countries (Though in others they thrive, like in Turkey.), but it's nothing compared to how we treated them in Europe within living memory.

I can also point to non-Islamic countries that persecute minorities horribly. Burma is one - where the Muslim minority is the most persecuted of them all.

Persecution seems to be more part of theocracies or dictatorships, than an inherent Islamic trait.

It's both. Admittedly the former is more damaging than the latter but it's not a black or white choice. Besides, I wasn't making that point, I was simply stating that if an example of persecution of religious minorities is being sought I can suggest more fruitful instances than that of Muslims in the US and the UK and Europe.

 

[tsig]

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

I see you have Godwined the thread.

 

[A'isha]

I see you have Godwined the thread.

It probably was inevitable at some point. I might as well stand in front of that particular truck myself, if it's gonna happen.

EDIT: Have threads like these ever resulted in any poster changing their mind about the subject?

 

[Dcdrac]

I suspect Baron a lot of racism is fueling Islamophobia part of a piece.

 

[baron]

I suspect Baron a lot of racism is fueling Islamophobia part of a piece.

Racism is racism and should be called as such. It's easy to distinguish from valid criticism of Islam so there should be no confusion. Still, I must admit to a certain racist slant myself - I see a disproportionate number of indigenous British Islamic converts as being either unhealthily radical or exhibiting of naivety and intelligence at positively bovine levels.

 

[Dcdrac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/srebrenica-massacre-bosnia-and-herzegovina

Seventeen years ago, on 13 July 1995, there began in the former Yugoslavia what Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general, has called the worst war crime in Europe since 1945 – the shooting by Serb forces of about 8,000 unarmed men and boys at Srebrenica. The victims' only crime was that they were Muslims.

 

[baron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/srebrenica-massacre-bosnia-and-herzegovina

Seventeen years ago, on 13 July 1995, there began in the former Yugoslavia what Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general, has called the worst war crime in Europe since 1945 – the shooting by Serb forces of about 8,000 unarmed men and boys at Srebrenica. The victims' only crime was that they were Muslims.

And the relevance to this thread is..?

 

[A'isha]

And the relevance to this thread is..?

That the leading members of the "anti-jihad" movement, like SIOA, SIOE and SION founder (and EDL partner) Pamela Geller, both deny the genocide at Srebrencia and support the perpetrators of the genocide.

Instead of admitting their terrible mistake, the dhimmi Western powers are digging in their heels and further prosecuting the Serbs in their sisyphean and thankless efforts to stop Islamic imperialism.

Look, there are no heroes in the Bosnian conflict, but the Muslim atrocities were far worse. The Serbs dared to fight. That's what this is all about. As Gorin so succinctly put it, "They are guilty of ..... daring to answer war with war."The question is, why would the Western powers send in troops and pave the way for a militant Islamic state in the heart of Europe? The catastrophic consequences have not yet manifested themselves, but they will impact the geopolitical landscape in what promises to be a bloody 21st century.

 

[baron]

That the leading members of the "anti-jihad" movement, like SIOA, SIOE and SION founder (and EDL partner) Pamela Geller, both deny the genocide at Srebrencia and support the perpetrators of the genocide.

A noble effort to vindicate Dcdrac, who has produced no evidence whatsoever to back up his OP and appears not to understand why such evidence might be required. I'll repeat my request for him to post evidence that in the UK "Islamphobia has become a socially acceptable form of hatred", that we are placing "increasingly stringent restrictions on Muslims" and that we are on the cusp of "excluding them from national life in whatever polities and communiteis [SIC] they happen to reside in."

Back to your post, I ask again, what's the relevance? Does Pamela Geller represent society? Does she repress Muslims and if so, how is this practically manifest? I doubt in the UK that one in 10,000 people have heard of her and even in the US I'll hazard a guess she's not representative of society at large. She's one person with certain views. Now if you want to go down the route of unfavourably comparing Western intolerance of Islam with Islamic tolerance of the West then I would caution you that you're onto a loser, and I would ask again for an explanation of why we don't have words like Westophobia, kuffurphobia and infidelphobia.

Regarding the OP, I'll help out with an example of Muslims being treated unequally in the UK. Muslims (and Jews) are given special dispensation under Section 22 of "The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995" allowing them to kill animals in a manner that, if done for non-religious reasons, would be defined as "causing unnecessary suffering". This is the sort of practical evidence I was talking about. OK, so it's actually in favour of Muslims but that's because I couldn't find any legislation against them, nor any evidence of Islamophobia even existing, let alone being an "acceptable form of hatred."

 

[A'isha]

Back to your post, I ask again, what's the relevance?

That the leaders of the anti-jihad movement aren't just against "radical Islam" as they claim, but are so Islamophobic that they're actually for genocide of Muslims.

Does Pamela Geller represent society?

She represents the anti-Muslim segment of Western society. She even gets to go on news networks like Fox News in her capacity as such.

Does she repress Muslims and if so, how is this practically manifest?

Through the actions of the above-mentioned activist groups.

Now if you want to go down the route of unfavourably comparing Western intolerance of Islam with Islamic tolerance of the West then I would caution you that you're onto a loser

You keep trying to drag this strawman into the conversation. What Saudis do to non-Muslims (or what Burmese do to Muslims) has no bearing whatsoever on what the US, the UK, and the EU are doing or should do to Muslims, any more than political repression and torture of prisoners in, say, China, an be pointed to in an effort to excuse America's own use of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention.

So please try to stick to the topic at hand. Thank you.

I would ask again for an explanation of why we don't have words like Westophobia, kuffurphobia and infidelphobia.

For the same reason that "heterophobia" isn't a word, while "homophobia" is.

 

[baron]

That the leaders of the anti-jihad movement aren't actually just against "radical Islam" as they claim, but are so Islamophobic that they're actually for genocide of Muslims.

Where's your evidence for this? Are you basing your statement on what you just posted about Bosnia? If so, we should introduce some balance: The UK GfK Poll 2006 reported that 45% of Muslims believe that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated by the US government in collusion with Israel. Only 20% of respondents (as a maximum) accepted the standard - correct - version of events. Should we therefore conclude that half of Muslims support genocide against the West? We already know that 8% of UK Muslims are in favour of Islamic suicide attacks (11% against the US) and numerous imams including Anjem Choudray has stated that non-Muslims cannot by definition be innocent and therefore killing them is acceptable. Has Geller ever said anything remotely like this? Has Spencer, Wilders, Robinson? Has anybody you deem Islamophobic made such unequivocal statements calling for the murder of Muslims?

She represents the anti-Muslim segment of Western society. She even gets to go on news networks like Fox News in her capacity as such.

So has Anjem Choudray been on Fox News, and many other UK and US channels, many times. So what?

Through the actions of the above-mentioned activist groups.

So list a few practical examples of how Muslims are being repressed as a result. Otherwise all I see is free speech.

You keep trying to drag this strawman into the conversation. What Saudis do to non-Muslims (or what Burmese do to Muslims
) has no bearing whatsoever on what the US, the UK, and the EU are doing or should do to Muslims, any more than political repression and torture of prisoners in, say, China, an be pointed to in an effort to excuse America's own use of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention.

I was talking about imams in the West and regarding the accusation of dragging this thread OT, I'm the only one who repeatedly brings the topic back on track. It's you who is going OT by citing free speech by individuals as evidence for this mythical Islamophobia.

So please try to stick to the topic at hand. Thank you.

For the same reason that "heterophobia" isn't a word, while "homophobia" is.

What reason would that be? The reason the word "heterophobia" doesn't exist is that heterophobia doesn't exist. So I ask again, why is it that Islam is the only religion or belief system to have a word specifically labelling those who criticise it, and not only that but at the same time deeming such criticism to be unfounded and irrational?

 

[A'isha]

Where's your evidence for this? Are you basing your statement on what you just posted about Bosnia? If so, we should introduce some balance: The UK GfK Poll 2006 reported that 45% of Muslims believe that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated by the US government in collusion with Israel. Only 20% of respondents (as a maximum) accepted the standard - correct - version of events. Should we therefore conclude that half of Muslims support genocide against the West?

No, because I have no idea why you think that a poll about Muslims believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories translates into "support[ing] genocide against the West", while specific named individuals like Geller saying things like "further prosecuting the Serbs in their sisyphean and thankless efforts to stop Islamic imperialism" is a "terrible mistake" because the Serbs were just "daring to answer war with war" is pretty explicitly saying that the genocide of Srebrenica (and atrocities like it) are entirely justified and wholly supported by them.

Has anybody you deem Islamophobic made such unequivocal statements calling for the murder of Muslims?

See above.

So has Anjem Choudray been on Fox News, and many other UK and US channels, many times. So what?

The hosts on the channels are a lot more sympathetic to (and agree with) Geller. Which is kind of a profound difference between her and Choudray.

So list a few practical examples of how Muslims are being repressed as a result. Otherwise all I see is free speech.

Lawsuits to the stop the construction of mosques and hearings in the House of Representatives aren't "free speech".

I was talking about imams in the West and regarding the accusation of dragging this thread OT, I'm the only one who repeatedly brings the topic back on track. It's you who is going OT by citing free speech by individuals as evidence for this mythical Islamophobia.

The denizens of Stormfront and Niggermania are also just exercising their free speech. Doesn't make their words any less anti-Semitic, racist, and vile.

Pamela Geller posting in support of genocide in Serbia is likewise free speech, and is likewise no less Islamophobic and vile.

What reason would that be? The reason the word "heterophobia" doesn't exist is that heterophobia doesn't exist.

Not familiar with the slur "breeder", I see. Right-wing lunatic site World Net Daily even had a whole article whining about slurs used by homosexuals.

So I ask again, why is it that Islam is the only religion or belief system to have a word specifically labelling those who criticise it, and not only that but at the same time deeming such criticism to be unfounded and irrational?

It's not (as I've repeatedly told you in this thread). You just refuse to accept that, apparently in some effort to pretend Islamophobia doesn't exist except as some coordinated effort by Muslims and their apologists to quash any legitimate criticism of Islam, while doing everything in your rhetorical power to minimize things like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy and the influence of people like Pamela Geller and Frank Gaffney in the American political arena.

You probably ought to read this book. It might help you.

 

[baron]

No, because I have no idea why you think that a poll about Muslims believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories translates into "support[ing] genocide against the West",

I didn't, I put it forward as a parallel to illustrate how extreme conclusions can be taken from less than evidential data. Not the 8%, however, that's pretty blatant.

while specific named individuals like Geller saying things like "further prosecuting the Serbs in their sisyphean and thankless efforts to stop Islamic imperialism" is a "terrible mistake" because the Serbs were just "daring to answer war with war" is pretty explicitly saying that the genocide of Srebrenica (and atrocities like it) are entirely justified and wholly supported by them.

I have no urge to justify Geller's stance, not least because I don't know much about Bosnia, but allow me to use the standard Islam apologist argument against it. When someone quotes the Koran as evidence for Muslims supporting the killing of infidels the rebuttal is always no, no, the Koran was referring to a specific situation or a specific battle at a specific time. So is it fair to say Geller favours the genocide of Muslims because she expresses an opinion about a specific situation at a specific time? Would a person who supported the war in Iraq be "for" the genocide of all Iraqi civilians or is it just when the sentiments are anti-Muslim that a person can be said to be in favour of genocide? In any event I must take it that neither Geller nor any of the other "Islamophobes" have ever called for the murder of a single Muslim AFAIK. It's pity that that the reverse is not only true, but has actually been enacted many times.

See above.



The hosts on the channels are a lot more sympathetic to (and agree with) Geller. Which is kind of a profound difference between her and Choudray.

I've seen Choudray debate at length on US TV without any commentary. Choudray has also appeared several times on Britain's BBC Newsnight, arguably the most prestigious of news shows, and has been treated with respect despite stating actually on those shows that it was fine for apostates, homosexuals and British civilians to be murdered and that he supported the actions those that did so. Equally radical Muslims have been given platforms and TV coverage up and down the country to spout their hate. Personally I think that's fine, but let's not use the relatively mild views of one camp to demonise them whilst completely ignoring the vile views of the other.

Lawsuits to the stop the construction of mosques and hearings in the House of Representatives aren't "free speech".

In the US anybody sues everybody for anything that pops into their head but suddenly when there's a Muslim involved it's Islamophobia. I refer you back to my recent post about Tescophobia.

The denizens of Stormfront and Niggermania are also just exercising their free speech. Doesn't make their words any less anti-Semitic, racist, and vile.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's vile speech all round and if you want to joust with me regarding who has the vilest speech, Islamophobes or Islamists, you lose. The OP isn't about vile speech, it's about the alleged repression that Muslims in the UK and the West are apparently living under. I don't believe it exists and I am still awaiting the evidence.

Pamela Geller posting in support of genocide in Serbia is likewise free speech, and is likewise no less Islamophobic and vile.

Not familiar with the slur "breeder", I see. Right-wing lunatic site World Net Daily even had a whole article whining about slurs used by homosexuals.

That term in the UK refers to the females of the benefit classes who squeeze out a kid a year to get money from the state. I've never heard of it in relation to sexuality and I would suggest that if "a whole article" constitutes the worst anti-straight bigotry available we can safely consign heterophobia to the same bin as Islamophobia.

It's not (as I've repeatedly told you in this thread).

So remind me, which are the other words that

a) target criticism of a specific religion (not religion (edited to include - yes, it's part of it) ethnic group / race, etc. as in the case of the Jews), and

b) pre-labels that criticism as misguided and a result of hatred

You just refuse to accept that, apparently in some effort to pretend Islamophobia doesn't exist except as some coordinated effort by Muslims and their apologists to quash any legitimate criticism of Islam, while doing everything in your rhetorical power to minimize things like the Ground Zero Mosque controversy and the influence of people like Pamela Geller and Frank Gaffney in the American political arena.

I wouldn't dream of minimising the Ground Zero Mosque. As to the influence of Geller and her peers, what is it? Bearing in mind I'm trying to keep this thread on topic, what is this bigoted repression that Muslims endure as a result of their religion, and if it does exist (evidence please) how come it so exceeds that of other groups that a special word must be bandied around to do it justice?

You probably ought to read this book. It might help you.

Help me to do what?

 

[A'isha]

I have no urge to justify Geller's stance, not least because I don't know much about Bosnia,

So go learn something about it. I can give you the titles of some good books on the subject, if you like.

but allow me to use the standard Islam apologist argument against it. When someone quotes the Koran as evidence for Muslims supporting the killing of infidels the rebuttal is always no, no, the Koran was referring to a specific situation or a specific battle at a specific time. So is it fair to say Geller favours the genocide of Muslims because she expresses an opinion about a specific situation at a specific time?

No. She, in fact, wants the world to stop pursuing war crimes prosecutions of Serbs because they're "daring to answer war with war" in their efforts to prevent the establishment of a "militant Islamic state in the heart of Europe", and isn't (unlike the thing you're weirdly trying to compare this to) trying to interpret thousand-year-old scriptures to try and determine their relevance to modern adherents.

So, your bizarre tu quoque fails before it even leaves the gate.

Would a person who supported the war in Iraq be "for" the genocide of all Iraqi civilians or is it just when the sentiments are anti-Muslim that a person can be said to be in favour of genocide? In any event I must take it that neither Geller nor any of the other "Islamophobes" have ever called for the murder of a single Muslim AFAIK. It's pity that that the reverse is not only true, but has actually been enacted many times.

And, again, you're completely dismissing prejudice and bigotry against Muslims for the sole reason that some other Muslims somewhere else have done something that you think is worse. It doesn't matter to you that the likes of Geller and Gaffney and Spencer support genocide and the removal of First Amendment protections for Muslims in America, because look! Boko Haram hates Westerners!

I've seen Choudray debate at length on US TV without any commentary. Choudray has also appeared several times on Britain's BBC Newsnight, arguably the most prestigious of news shows, and has been treated with respect despite stating actually on those shows that it was fine for apostates, homosexuals and British civilians to be murdered and that he supported the actions those that did so.

There's a pretty sizable difference between someone being treated with respect on the BBC, and someone having a Fox News host openly agree with them.

You especially, as a resident of the UK, ought to be quite cognizant of the wide journalistic gulf between Auntie Beeb and one of Rupert Murdoch's sleaze factories.

In the US anybody sues everybody for anything that pops into their head but suddenly when there's a Muslim involved it's Islamophobia. I refer you back to my recent post about Tescophobia.

No, that's not what's going on here. See below.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's vile speech all round and if you want to joust with me regarding who has the vilest speech, Islamophobes or Islamists, you lose.

Again, this is not about an issue of whether Islamophobes or Islamists are viler. It's about whether Islamophobia exists, and how prevalent and acceptable it is in political discourse.

I've never heard of it in relation to sexuality and I would suggest that if "a whole article" constitutes the worst anti-straight bigotry available we can safely consign heterophobia to the same bin as Islamophobia.

That was some pretty epic missing of the point. The reason why "homophobia" is a word and "heterophobia" is not a word is not because there is no bigotry and hate speech from gays and lesbians directed at straight people. It's because the huge cultural power imbalance between the two groups makes homophobia much more prevalent and a much bigger issue than "heterophobia" and gets discussed a lot more as a result, which is why homophobia gets a descriptive label that is commonly used while "heterophobia" isn't a real word.

That's also why Islamophobia is a descriptive label that is commonly used while "Westophobia" isn't a real word.

So remind me, which are the other words that

a) target criticism of a specific religion (not religion (edited to include - yes, it's part of it) ethnic group / race, etc. as in the case of the Jews), and

b) pre-labels that criticism as misguided and a result of hatred

Again, anti-Semitism neatly fits into both requirements. You simply refuse to acknowledge that, so you can keep singling out Islam as uniquely protected by its own defensive term.

I wouldn't dream of minimising the Ground Zero Mosque. As to the influence of Geller and her peers, what is it? Bearing in mind I'm trying to keep this thread on topic, what is this bigoted repression that Muslims endure as a result of their religion, and if it does exist (evidence please) how come it so exceeds that of other groups that a special word must be bandied around to do it justice?



Help me to do what?

Help you to understand all of the above - the origins, development, and existence of a thing called "Islamophobia". Especially in your own country (Christopher Allen is a UK writer, and the book is written mostly from that perspective).

 

[Cainkane1]

My personal position on religion is I am am an aethiast however I respect the right of those who are religious to express their beleif on the provisio they do not force it on to me or others.

This runs for Christians, jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, pagans et al.

Now it strikes me that currently islamphobia has become a socially acceptable form of hatred, this troubles me deeply how far are we away from placing increasingly stringent restrictions on Muslims and even possibly excluding them from national life in whatever polities and communiteis they happen to reside in.

I fully expect to get flamed about this but the degradation of one persons freedom leads ultimatly to the degradation of my freedom.

I don't hate muslims but in view of what I've read and seen I'm very leery of Islam and the practioners thereof. Christians can do terrorism but I haven't read about them flying planes into skyscrapers and Buddists don't do it either. We don't shoot a woman to death for so called adultery when she is actually a victim of rape and cheer it on.

Some years ago a Somalian 13 year old we stoned to death because she went outside of her village and got raped. Christians don't do that and neither do Buddists.

Western civilization with its human rights agendas have a right to feel threatened by Muslim immigrants.

 

[baron]

So go learn something about it. I can give you the titles of some good books on the subject, if you like.

No. She, in fact, wants the world to stop pursuing war crimes prosecutions of Serbs because they're "daring to answer war with war" in their efforts to prevent the establishment of a "militant Islamic state in the heart of Europe", and isn't (unlike the thing you're weirdly trying to compare this to) trying to interpret thousand-year-old scriptures to try and determine their relevance to modern adherents.

I was comparing one extrapolation with another and asking how they're different. It's a very apt comparison. Maybe Geller's views on that war are incorrect and even reprehensible but does that mean she's in favour of killing Muslims as you suggested? I think not.

So, your bizarre tu quoque fails before it even leaves the gate.

One's enough for me.

And, again, you're completely dismissing prejudice and bigotry against Muslims for the sole reason that some other Muslims somewhere else have done something that you think is worse. It doesn't matter to you that the likes of Geller and Gaffney and Spencer support genocide and the removal of First Amendment protections for Muslims in America, because look! Boko Haram hates Westerners!

I was comparing the severity of anti-Islamic and Islamic anti-Western speech in the context of assigning labels to one and not the other, and concluding the latter was significantly more hateful than the former. I never dismissed anything, nor mentioned Boko Haram, I simply asked for evidence which still hasn't been presented.

And I'd suggest the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights comes not from Robert Spencer but from the UN and the OIC. Only last year was the introduction of UN-wide law criminalising the criticism of Islam - doh, I mean religion - narrowly avoided after a touch-and-go ten years, and I suspect that isn't the end of the matter.

There's a pretty sizable difference between someone being treated with respect on the BBC, and someone having a Fox News host openly agree with them.

I agree, but not in the way you're suggesting. One is implicit, one is explicit, but I know which one confers more credibility and it isn't Fox News.

You especially, as a resident of the UK, ought to be quite cognizant of the wide journalistic gulf between Auntie Beeb and one of Rupert Murdoch's sleaze factories.

Exactly.

No, that's not what's going on here. See below.

Again, this is not about an issue of whether Islamophobes or Islamists are viler. It's about whether Islamophobia exists, and how prevalent and acceptable it is in political discourse.

That's correct, so does it exist? I'm still waiting for the evidence. In the spirit of research I've been listening to Geller lectures as I've been working and whilst I'd say they're less than evidential I haven't heard anything that I could point to as being fabricated to provoke hatred, and nothing at all that suggests incitement to violence or criminality. Yet it's very rare I can get five minutes into an Islamic lecture before I find all these things and more. So why does one warrant a special label and the other not?

That was some pretty epic missing of the point. The reason why "homophobia" is a word and "heterophobia" is not a word is not because there is no bigotry and hate speech from gays and lesbians directed at straight people. It's because the huge cultural power imbalance between the two groups makes homophobia much more prevalent and a much bigger issue than "heterophobia" and gets discussed a lot more as a result, which is why homophobia gets a descriptive label that is commonly used while "heterophobia" isn't a real word.

I don't know what cultural power imbalance means (it can't mean positions of power or achievement, I know that much, as homosexuals seem if anything to be more successful than heterosexuals). But I suspect what you're saying is only partly true. You seem to be suggesting there's equal bigotry from both sides which is mitigated only by the relatively smaller homosexual population. Clearly that's not the case (due in no small part to religion).

To get back to the point you said that Westophobia doesn't exist for the same reason heterophobia doesn't. Stepping away from linguistics you only need to compare the two similar sized groups - homosexuals and Muslims - to see that the analogy is a poor one. With the mandatory disclaimer about "not all Muslims..." we can say that from one group comes hate speech, anti-Western sentiments, bomb plots and terrorism, and from the other comes... the word "breeder".

It's also worth mentioning that homophobia is an apt word. No reasonable argument can be put forward for disliking homosexuality, hence the 'phobia', yet nobody rational would maintain that is true of Islam.

That's also why Islamophobia is a descriptive label that is commonly used while "Westophobia" isn't a real word.

No, it's not the reason at all. Westophobia, clunkiness aside, could never be used mainstream because the West is not held immune to criticism, as is Islam.

Again, anti-Semitism neatly fits into both requirements. You simply refuse to acknowledge that, so you can keep singling out Islam as uniquely protected by its own defensive term.

This is not true. If I publicly criticise the life of Mohammed then as well as receiving death threats I would be labelled an Islamophobe. Yet if I criticised Moses or Abraham or even God I would not be labelled anti-Semitic. So we're back to precisely the situation you deny in your last sentence, where I'm waiting for a word to keep Islamaphobia company.

Help you to understand all of the above - the origins, development, and existence of a thing called "Islamophobia". Especially in your own country (Christopher Allen is a UK writer, and the book is written mostly from that perspective).

I admit to not being any sort of expert in the history of the word but I'm a dedicated and keen enough observer of contemporary usage to claim some authority when I speak about how it's applied the UK. And the purpose and method of its use is at odds with your arguments.

 

[A'isha]

I was comparing one extrapolation with another and asking how they're different. It's a very apt comparison. Maybe Geller's views on that war are incorrect and even reprehensible but does that mean she's in favour of killing Muslims as you suggested? I think not.

Really? "The Serbians who carried out genocide against Muslims should not be punished or held accountable in any way, because they were fighting a necessary war to prevent the spread of militant Islam into Europe" is the sentiment of someone who's not in favor of killing Muslims? You're completely gulled by her false veneer of plausible deniability because she never said "Hey, you, go out and murder a Muslims right now?" The same false veneer that all those "anti-jihadis" who Breivik found so influential and inspirational are hiding behind?

I was comparing the severity of anti-Islamic and Islamic anti-Western speech in the context of assigning labels to one and not the other, and concluding the latter was significantly more hateful than the former. I never dismissed anything, nor mentioned Boko Haram, I simply asked for evidence which still hasn't been presented.

Actually, it's the core of why you keep bringing that into the discussion, and it's explicitly to dismiss "Islamophobia". But to avoid cutting and pasting bits of your response out of order, more on that below.

And I'd suggest the greatest threat to your First Amendment rights comes not from Robert Spencer but from the UN and the OIC. Only last year was the introduction of UN-wide law criminalising the criticism of Islam - doh, I mean religion - narrowly avoided after a touch-and-go ten years, and I suspect that isn't the end of the matter.

The UN and the OIC have no power or influence on the lawmaking process in the US. People like Rep. Michelle Bachmann (who, just one year ago, was the leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination), Rep. Louis Gohmert, and Rep. Peter King, on the other hand, do. And they in turn are being influenced like Islamophobic lunatics like deranged liar Frank Gaffney.

I agree, but not in the way you're suggesting. One is implicit, one is explicit, but I know which one confers more credibility and it isn't Fox News.

A BBC presenter being polite to you during an interview does not imply that the presenter agrees with you. A Fox News presenter explicitly agreeing with you, on the other hand, means exactly that.

That's correct, so does it exist? I'm still waiting for the evidence. In the spirit of research I've been listening to Geller lectures as I've been working and whilst I'd say they're less than evidential I haven't heard anything that I could point to as being fabricated to provoke hatred, and nothing at all that suggests incitement to violence or criminality. Yet it's very rare I can get five minutes into an Islamic lecture before I find all these things and more. So why does one warrant a special label and the other not?

Here's what I was talking about above - your dismissal of Islamophobia because you can't find where one particular Islamophobe says anything that "suggests incitement to violence or criminality", as if Islamophobia was merely limited to exhortions to commit extrajudicial violence against Muslims.

You seem to be suggesting there's equal bigotry from both sides which is mitigated only by the relatively smaller homosexual population. Clearly that's not the case (due in no small part to religion).

No, I'm saying that the reason bigotry from one group towards another gets a label, while bigotry going the other way does not has to do with which side has the bigger influence on the direction of the discussion by virtue of their social, political, cultural, and normative dominance. This is the central thesis of the first major work to address the problematic way the West considers and describes Islam, Edward Said's Orientalism (Robin Richardson even attributes the first modern English usage of the term Islamophobia to Said himself in his 1985 article Orientalism Revisited).

To get back to the point you said that Westophobia doesn't exist for the same reason heterophobia doesn't. Stepping away from linguistics you only need to compare the two similar sized groups - homosexuals and Muslims - to see that the analogy is a poor one. With the mandatory disclaimer about "not all Muslims..." we can say that from one group comes hate speech, anti-Western sentiments, bomb plots and terrorism, and from the other comes... the word "breeder".

Here you are again using the conflation of Islamophobia with calls for the same terroristic violence used by some Muslim groups to be used on Muslims, then implying that since no such calls exist, neither does Islamophobia.

Just like bigotry and prejudice and blacks is not limited to KKK lynchings and cross-burnings, neither is Islamophobia limited to calls for Breivik-style massacres on Muslims to be carried out posthaste.

No, it's not the reason at all. Westophobia, clunkiness aside, could never be used mainstream because the West is not held immune to criticism, as is Islam.

Islam is criticised plenty in the West. By Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But criticism of Islam is not the same thing as Islamophobia, despite the desperate attempts of Islamophobes like Spencer to claim otherwise in order to defend their bigotry.

I myself, for instance, have, right here on JREF, talked about things like "the essentially misogynistic, patriarchal nature and origin of divorce in general under shariah".

This is not true. If I publicly criticise the life of Mohammed then as well as receiving death threats I would be labelled an Islamophobe.

No you won't. Cook and Crone wrote an entire book saying that Islam was nothing more than a variant of a messianic Jewish religion that didn't take shape until long after Muhammad's time (and that Muhammad himself was the leader of a Syrio-Arabic military expedition to conquer Jerusalem, with the later story of his hijra being a distortion of this event).

Dr. Kecia Ali, in her Sexual Ethics in Islam, has one whole chapter dedicated to Muhammad's marriage to Ai'sha, its problematic implications for Muslim sexual ethics in the modern world, and how contemporary Muslims have dealt and should deal with those implications.

Then there's this charming article, on the other hand, entitled "The Pedophile Pirate" (from a website which has blatantly lied about what certain hadith have said).

Two of those works are legitimate criticism of Islam and Muhammad's life whose authors have not suffered the "death threats" of your imagination. One is a blatantly polemical and insulting screed that is a shining example of Islamophobia, and absolutely correctly labeled as such.

Yet if I criticised Moses or Abraham or even God I would not be labelled anti-Semitic.

If you started a thread here reposting this, though, you'd certainly be labeled anti-Semitic. And absolutely correctly labeled as such.

And please note how carefully that website completely disclaims all forms of actual racism at the top of its article, and is especially angry at the white-supremacist site Stormfront for "stealing" their article. Oh, and I especially liked the section about "Jewish Deception and Dissimulation", which states "The response of the orthodox rabbis to documentation regarding the racism and hatred in their sacred texts is simply to brazenly lie, in keeping with the Talmud's Baba Kamma 113a which states that Jews may use lies ("subterfuge") to circumvent a Gentile." Why does that accusation sound so familiar? And the description of Michael Hoffman as the "foremost scholar of Judaism in the English-speaking world" sounds eerily like Frank Gaffney's description of Robert Spencer as the "acclaimed scholar of Islam".

 

[Robrob]

I might also add, the OP paints a picture of an imaginary (strawman) "monolithic Islam." Islam has no formal leadership, no chain of command, no unity of global purpose. Each nation or cultural group takes Islam and makes what it will of it. Just like Christianity. AAMOF, when reading these kinds of claims, I find it helpful to substitute "Christian/Christianity" for "Muslim/Islam" and see if it makes sense.

Is there a global monolithic Christianity or are there thousands of flavors of creeds with an equal number of goals and directions? Catholic, Protestant, orthodox, reformed, Baptist, Methodist, Mormon, Scientology, 7th Day, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... People would laugh at you if you claimed "Christianity was trying to take over the world."

Same with the Islamophobes.

 

[A'isha]

Actually, Michael Hoffman may be the perfect anti-Semitic counterpart to people like Robert Spencer, since he's such a direct mirror-image of them that in his book Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit that he complains with intense, bitter jealousy that "critics of Islam" sell books like hotcakes and are "the toast of western society", whereas people like him who dare to say the exact same sorts of things about Judaism that they do about Islam are getting shut down as anti-Semites and Jew-haters:

This book may be banned, suppressed and otherwise proscribed and forbidden because of the documentation it brings to light concerning the religion of Orthodox Judaism. The depressingly familiar litany of tedious smears ("bigoted-antisemitic-Jew-hatred") may be set forth as a justification for the suppression. Because we expose Judaism, this work may be regarded as beyond the pale, beyond intellectual consideration, and beyond the normative protections of freedom of speech and press. How many persons will be able to penetrate this charade and discern that it is actually a function of rabbinic cozenage, is anyone's guess. There are hundreds of Muslim-bashing books on the market, in libraries and schools and hawked prominently on display shelves at national chain bookstores: The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals about Extreme Islam and the West by Grant R. Jeffrey (Random House), and Radical Islam's War Against Israel, Christianity, and the West by Richard Booker. Ah, you say, but those books only attack Islamic extremism, not Islam itself. Not so. There is Norman Geisler, Answering Islam; Alvin J. Schmidt, The Great Divide: The Failure of Islam; R.C Sproul, The Dark Side of Islam; Mark A. Gabriel, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches; Don Richardson, Secrets of the Koran: Revealing Insights into Islam's Holy Book; Joel Richardson, Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah; John Ankerberg, The Facts on Islam; Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam; Gregory M. Davis, Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World; there are dozens of titles in this vein. There is nothing approaching this deluge of criticism concerning Judaism. Any respectable priest or pastor who published "The Dark Side of Judaism" or "Secrets of the Talmud: Revealing Insights into Judaism's Holy Book" would soon be seen with a cup in his hand seeking spare change on the sidewalk outside his former church. Any reputable but untenured professor who published "Judaism and Terrorism: What the Talmud Really Teaches" would soon be out of a job and a reputation. The epithet, "Antisemite!" would dog the clergyman and the professor for the rest of their lives, or for as long as they stood by their research; in the event that they repudiated it and recanted, however, there might be some slim hope of salvaging their vocation.

Critics of Islam, however, are the toast of western society. In The Death of the Grown-Up, published by the prestigious St. Martin's Press in 2007, author Diana West's "cultural analysis fits...with Ms. West's grand thesis about the West's failure to confront Islam. Not Islamic fundamentalism, not Islamism, but Islam...the threat to the West comes from tenets inherent in Islam, not from extremists or terrorists distorting that messsage." - Substitute in the preceding sentence the words Judaism and Judaic for Islam and Islamism and Diana West's book wouldn't merit two lines in the New York Times, much less a nearly one-quarter page review, whether critical or fulsome (this particular one was critical), complete with author photo and a box highlighting the book's price and page count.

[...]

It is not that we are opposed to honest Christian or scholarly analysis of Islam, however critical. But we can't help noting the deafening silence of all those "courageous" crusading Christian authors and "politically incorrect" intellectuals when it comes to the "dark side" of what the Talmud "really teaches." When it comes to Judaism they are as pusillanimous and spineless as any candy store schlemiel.

[...]

Do with Judaism as Diana West and dozens of prominent, affluent, and celebrated clergymen, pundits, professors and politicians have done with Islam, and the writer who does so just bought his or her book a one-way ticket to the bottom of the memory hole. Habent sua fata libelli: "The fate of the work illustrates its argument." Even in the matter of comparative religion, Judaism enjoys superior status, privileges, and immunities. In almost every sphere it is on the ascendant, even as it howls ever more and ever again of "persecution".

[...]

We refuse to pander to the turning of the tables at which the rabbis are expert. To tighten their yoke on countless Judaic persons harnessed to the legal codex based on the Mishnah and Gemara, those oppressors turn the tables and accuse researchers such as this writer of hating the very people we would free from the grip of the rabbinic tyranny.

He even throws in his own anti-Semitic version of the Islamophobic canard "I'm against Islam, not Muslims...I want to help free Muslims from the tyranny of Islam!" there at the end (read the threads linked in my sig to see it being used in action).