Are you an Islamophobe?

Not too long ago I would have thought that Lorna Salzman's list of questions were ridiculous and puerile no-brainers that any educated and civilized person would answer affirmatively without giving them a moment's thought. It's sad to know that it is now quite possibly dangerous to hold such views. Well, I answered every one of affirmatively, as I know everyone else here did, as well, so that makes us all vile Islamophobes. I, for one, am proud and honored to be among their ranks.

Many thanks, Robert, for the link to the powerful voice of Lorna Salzman at www.lornasalzman.com . I read all her articles, and they are terrific. She is one of us. I've book marked her to follow in the future.

(sniffle, sob, whimper)

I - I (melt, wailing, into a puddle of bitter tears) . . .

I guess I'm a full-blown ISLAMOPHOBE (lower lip quivering) a - a HORRIBLE, EVIL Islamophobe . . .

I never knew I had sunk so low . . . I could not say "NO" to EVEN ONE QUESTION.

I suppose it is best that I know it for SURE.

Now, I guess I should wait to be "honor-killed."

. . .

NAAAAAWWWWW!

"If you answered most or all of these affirmatively, you are a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the quran instructs."

That's ok though, because of my lack of respect for orginized religions, I am considered by religious groups to be the antichrist. And you can not kill the antichrist xD Or antimuhammed for that matter.

Anyway, in all seriousness. Wanting equal rights for all and oppossing slavery, genital mutilations and subjugation of certain groups of people, should be in the hearts and minds of all humanbeings.

Guilty as charged. I am a proud Islamophobe and have no problems letting anyone know about it, but more importantly, letting them know why.

I can't help it, I'm a yeswoman, I can't say no. And that means, I'm a follower of the worst form of terrorism. Boohoo!

Oh, well, gosh darn, better put me in the full-blown, bull-moose Islamophobe camp, too, coz there was nothing I could answer no to.

These are core Western values, and ought to be recognized as being worthy of preserving in and of themselves.

Sometimes you are not paranoid and they are actually really after you. A rational fear is not a phobia.

nabi ZK (pbum)

A hardy HAHAHA to all! great stuff. would be lmao if it all wern't all so sad.

Brilliant.

If the Green Party ever figures out its true identity and it turns out to be on the side of Ms. Saltzman, then sign me up!

Okay. I'm clearing Islamphobic -- and proud of it, too.

Islam is the antithesis of the Western ideals of freedom and democracy.

Um, "clearing" should be "clearly."

Hurrah! I'm a rampant 'islamophobe' (not that there's anything phobic in despising islam). I'd have been worried if I wasn't.

What happens now? Do I get a certificate or diploma to hang on my office wall? (That'll get right up several PC MC noses I know).

Surely to the surprise of some commenters I have to admit that I am a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the Qu´ran instructs.

But there is still hope for my vile opponents. 2 and a half NO out of 20 is far from perfect. ;-)

(1) Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?

First of all I favor equal moral obligations for everyone. Without submission to moral obligations based upon rationality there could not exists any rights at all. Talking about certain rights without mentioning what specific obligations enable those rights is from a logical standpoint inconsistent.

Obligations must come before rights or the building will not stand.

One of the main obligations we must submit to is political equality (the ethical justification for democracy) and from this and other ethical obligations can be deducted equal obligations and rights and treatment of women and men.

With the mentioned qualifications my answer is YES!

To the next three questions my answer is YES!

(2) Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery? (3) Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere? (4) Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?

(5)Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?

Unlimited freedom equals anarchy. Freedom can never be and should never be unlimited or “complete”.

My freedom ends where it collides with or limits the reciprocical freedom of others.

The freedom of expression should be as extensive as possible. According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".

Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.

The protection of free speech and free press in the US constitution, First Amendment, strikes a good balance and give a better protection than found in the European Human Right Convention.

As the question is formulated my answer must regretably be NO!

(6)Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?

YES! With certain restrictions.: “ … provided that nothing contrary to good morals or public order shall be taught or done” as it is phrased in the Danish Constitution.

To the next two questions my answer is YES!

(7)Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks? (8) Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?

(9)Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?

In (most public places YES! - but not toilets ;-) The freedom of religion (with the limitations mentioned above) could allow segragation of the sexes in houses of worship. So the answer is a split YES/NO!

(10) Do you oppose the death penalty for non-Muslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?

I oppose the death penalty period. So that is a YES!

My answer is YES to the following five questions: (11) Do you oppose “honor” killings? (12) Do you oppose female genital mutilation? (13) Do you oppose forced sexual relations? (14) Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals? (15) Do you support the right to criticize religion?

(16) Do you oppose polygamy?

NO! People should be free to form any type of relationship they want as long as it is build upon equality and free choise. I am however strongly against the male chauvinistic forms of polygamy found in Islam and in the original Mormon Church.

My answer is YES to the last three questions:

(17) Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise? (18) Do you oppose the quranic mandate to kill non-Muslims and apostates? (19) Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country’s legal system? (20) Do you disagree with the quran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?

The title and the list of questions should be posted on several key billboards across the nation as was done several years ago on a billboard on the Sunset Strip near Hollywood,Ca.

The questions are so profound that they reflect the clear and clashing differences between archaic Islam, and civilized Western values.

No doubt it would be a great example of truth to power and force observers to discuss what they see written on those billboards.

Hopefully some groups can take on such a project and watch groups like CAIR scream and try and deny these practices

Now that we have all affirmed our Islamophobic credentials, here is a slightly O/T suggestion.
See this article by Ziauddin (blogging the Koran)
Sardar, remarkable for the deployment of all the usual hype and obfuscation about the Quran:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/27/sebastian-faulks-quran-islam?showallcomments=true

and enjoy some of the unrespectful comments. Maybe add one or two of your own.
I think some of us may have already done so.

Hi! My name is Tempest and I am an Islamophobe and proud of it!

"Lorna Saltzman has been a environmental writer, lecturer and organizer since the early 1970s and was a candidate for the US Green Party’s presidential nomination in 2004."

That should not be overlooked: the identity of the writer. The assmption that everyone who is capable of grasping the main points of the ideology of Islam must, for some reason, be on the "right" -- and that is why the assorted loony loonwatching sites have such difficulty when they have to figure out how to deal with, or more properly how they can continue to ignrore, the growing army of people, non-Muslims or those who were born into Islam have become apostates, and who are, quite sensibly, alarmed about Islam and its steady encroachmentssents.

They like to describe this site as one of crazed "fundamentalists" (Christian), and so must ignore the many atheists who post, and who are even to be counted among the regular contributors. And they must ignore, as well, such people as the libertine Pim Fortuyn, or Theo van Gogh, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or that celebated Italian journalist, famous for her leftist Greek boyfriend and her opposition to the war in Vietnam (not to mention her acts, as a teenager, against the Nazi soldiers in occupied Florence), Oriana Fallaci, and many others. As for Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Irfan Khawaja, Sam Harrris -- ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto. Those who take the Enlightenment most to heart will necessarily end up alarmed about Islam. And unlike the richard-dawkins of this world, who seem to think that "all religions are equally worrisome," these intelligent atheists know that isn't true. Christians, to the extent that they adhere to the teachings and example of Christ, are just fine. Muslims, to the textent that they adhere to the teachings and example of Muhammad, should be of deep worry to all thinking non-Muslims.

And above we have a comical but telling catechism (not to be confused with the Baltimore Catechism) of Lorna Saltzman, who identifies herself as an environmentalist, one active in the Green Party. The more such people step forward, and make themselves known, the harder it is for the absurd ranters about "islamophobia" -- themselves True Believers, apparently, in the innocuousness of the doctrines of Islam, though the day's daily Jihad News, pitting Muslims everywhere against not only "the West" (i.e., Christians and Jews), but against Hindus (in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, even in Muslim-occupied parts of Great Britain), and Buddhists (see the Chittagong Hills massacres in Bangladesh, and the killings by Muslims of Buddhist farmers, schoolteachers, monks, in southern Thailand), and every other conceivable kind of non-Muslim (the 450 Yazidis killed in the deadliest act of Muslim terrorism in Iraq -- the identity of the victims is so often overlooked, as the attack itself appears to have been so quickly forgotten).

There is, in fact, a natural identity of interests, or should be, between Environmentalists and those opposed to Islam, who wish to diminish one of the main instruments of Jihad, the Money Weapon. I have written about this many times at this website. Possibly some will, through intelligent use of the Search Box at the upper left, find and read, or re-read, some of those essays about a natural alliance that must be pushed.

It's always encouraging to see those few people who, while still referring to themselves as politically on the left, still haven't divested themselves of common sense and can acknowledge the threat posed by mahoundianism to Western civilization. Among those few, we have Lorna Saltzman, the one and only Pat Condell and, thanks to Hugh for bringing this to my knowdlege, former Ohio Senator John Glenn (whose actions in the linked article, though not a direct counter-jihad effort per se, would work to the same effect nevertheless.)

I don't count on this becoming a trend on the left at all (I think that more radical support for mahoundians is a more likely course of action for them to follow, at least until mahoundians start biting the ideological hand that now feeds them), but it's still good to see that leftist dogma cannot forever hide one of the most obvious truths from everyone who might believe, or might once have believed, in its tenets.

Here are a couple omissions from the list.

Do you own a dog?

Is your favorite childhood memory the smell of frying bacon when you woke up?

Do you like beer?

JLP

Lorna Salzman seems to be a Leftish sort. We can add her to the list of the other 17 Leftists around the world who have woken up to the injustice and danger of Islam.

Ok, ok. I'm islamophobe

I want one of those muhammod t-shirts from Switzerland with his turban as an ignited bomb. I'll wear it around town (freedom of speech and all that, you know) to let everyone know what a horrible "islamophobe" I am.

Oh wait.... I don't need one! All I have to do is walk around town without a burkha.

I would modify one of the items on the list:

Do you support the right to criticize, condemn and/or mock any one religion, any number of religions, or all religions, with complete impunity for the critic, condemner and/or mocker -- with appropriate legal punishment for anyone who tries to threaten, intimidate or harm the critic, condemner and/or mocker?

Hugh,
On the small point of Richard Dawkins' position on Islam. I see signs that he has shifted his position lately toward the phobic end of the islamo-spectrum.
Quote:
'I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe, I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world, I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world.'
See from 1.01 to 1.10 here:

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/multimedianew/video/conference-2009-trailer-2-video.html

Yep! That's me!An Islamophobe to the core.

I'm guilty too. I'm a terrorist and an islamophobe, or an islamophobic terrorist, and proud of it!

And I must agree with Hesperado again. Salzman is one of a mere handful of liberals to betray the liberal credo, dismiss political correctness momentarily, and acknowledge the obvious. I applaud her for being honest and realistic, rare traits in liberals.

StephenA55:

“On the small point of Richard Dawkins' position on Islam. I see signs that he has shifted his position lately toward the phobic end of the islamo-spectrum.

Quote:

“I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe, I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world, I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world.”

911 was a wake up call for many who thought they got it all figured out. Even for Richard Dawkins, but unfortunately it took this ultra atheistic brilliant scientist more than half a decade to see Islam in a more realistic and rationel light.

Four days after the Islamic terror attack on USA, September 15, 2001, his excellent mind had this to say:

“To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!” Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Those of us who have renounced one or other of the three ‘great’ monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it.

… How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim?

Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, “Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!” Of course I don’t think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people.

They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries. 

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a ‘they’ as opposed to a ‘we’ can be identified at all.

I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There’s also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don’t apply and religion is the only divisive label around.

Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don’t trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler’s sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism. ...”

I really dislike labels.

Ipso Facto,
The distinction still has to be made; simply that Christianity preaches peace and love, while Islam calls for war against the disbelievers.
That is all the difference in the world.
I have no faith in any religion but I resist any urge to denounce them all equally. The IRA pub bombers and their counterparts in the UVF were fighting a war of age-old grievances over territorial rights, dressed up in some tattered religious clothing, not following some scriptural holy orders.

Islofob,

Have you tried Johnny Walker Blue?

I am REALLY PROUD to bear the label of Islamophobe. Further, I ALWAYS take a leak facing Mecca.

ISLAMOPHOBE, suffering from Islamophobia: a cynical, manipulative lie ... induces artificial guilt as one is caused to reassess our values as prejudices.... [Pat Condell, 7Aug09, YouTube essay: Apologists for Evil]

with eyes wide open and mind made up, i'm one. the suffering occurs because TRUTH is overlooked, ignored and cast aside.

I completely deny and reject the invented word "Islamophobe", as a creation of the stealth jihadists in the west, to silence and discredit those who oppose the totalitarian ideology of Islam.

I do not have a phobia about Islam.

I have an educated opinion, based on facts, the Quran, and the behavior of Mohammedans themselves.

If there is a phobia here it is one the Mohammedans have, that would be a phobia of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,equal rights of all people, including women, little girls, and all "unbelievers" being considered equal under the law. As a Neo Pagan I enjoy my right to practice my religion freely.

That said... yes to the questions I love ham and bacon and I have two Pit Bulls and a German Sheppard .

A phobia is an irrational, unjustified, maladaptive, disproportionate fear or hatred of something that is damaging to the physiological or psychological health of the person so afflicted, and where the feared/hated thing does not normally have a significant probability of actually harming that person.

"Islamophobe" is a projected, trumped-up politicized term developed by Islamic activists in the context of their ideological warfare, to be used to stigmatize, punish, and inhibit any non-Muslim who criticizes Islam publicly. "Islamophobic" is not a genuine psychological or psychiatric term arising from the need to classify genuine cases, but is used by Islamic activists partly because it carries psychological or clinical connotations, i.e., that the non-Muslim critic of Islam is not criticizing Islam for any valid reasons but is doing so out of an unjustified fear, hatred, ignorance, or "illness." (This is indeed what the Quran says, that the non-Muslims reject and criticize Islam because they are "sick/ill", ignorant, or evil). What the users of the term "Islamophobe" fail to specify are the ways in which Islam can be criticized legitimately or healthfully. They do not specify those ways because, of course, they believe that Islam per se (i.e., what they take to be true Islam or true varieties of Islam) is perfect and thus cannot be criticized. To them, there are no acceptable ways to criticize Islam. Apologists for Islam who use the term "Islamophobe" should be asked questions such as

"What do you consider to be an acceptable form of criticism of Islam?"

"Can you give me one or two examples of people who make legitimate criticisms of Islam and the Quran?"

The answers, or non-answers, could be informative.

...or, since the Islamophobe label is applied to non-Muslims, more precise would be to ask "Can you give me one or two examples of non-Muslims who make legitimate criticisms of Islam and the Quran?"

Yet more unintended entertainment:

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
Documenting the war against Islam
ISLAMOPHOBIA: Anti Muslim Racism

There are other howlers and misleading tripe, courtesy of editorial@islamophobia-watch.com :

"Islamophobia, as a racist tool of Western Imperialism, is strongly advocated by the political right but has also found an echo in the left, particularly sections of the left in France and the countries that make up the United Kingdom."

"Islamophobia Watch has been founded with a determination not to allow the racist ideology of Western Imperialism to gain common currency in its demonisation of Islam."

Kinana of Khaybar:

"Can you give me one or two examples of non-Muslims who make legitimate criticisms of Islam and the Quran?"

What?!? Are you CRAZY?!? There is no such thing as a "legitimate criticism of Islam and the Quran." and if a Muslim says there is, HE's crazy.

/sarc off

. . . but then, of course, you knew that.

Little emails containing links either to the original quiz over at Phyllis Chesler's, or to its appearances here or at New English Review, should be getting fired off all over the place.

This thing should be going viral.

Islam is the opposite of my belief system.
I guess that makes me guilty of a non-existent condition, "islamophobia"

The website Islamophobia Watch provides a definition of Islamophobia:

"[...] Runnymede Trust: The Runnymede Trust has identified eight components that they say define Islamophobia. This definition, from the 1997 document 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All' is widely accepted, including by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The eight components are: 1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. 2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them. 3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'. 5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage. 6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand. 7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. 8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal. [...]"

It seems to me that items 1 through 5 highlight oversimplifications, though more realistic versions of these arguments are debatable, topics for scholars, politicians, and the general public to investigate and discuss.

Items 7 and 8 point to real instances of bigotry, persecution, and criminal activity, e.g., thugs who attack Muslim women who are wearing the headscarf, criminals who vandalize mosques, etc. Should this be called "Islamophobia" or something else, like "Anti-Muslim bigotry" or "Anti-Muslim hatred" to describe the motivation of the criminals?

The problem with the term Islamophobia (besides its inaccuracy with regard to the meaning of phobia and its bogus psychiatric connotations) as defined above is that it conflates criticism of Islam with criminal activity against Muslims. (Never mind that most Muslims, according to polls, believe that criticism of Islam and Muhammad is itself criminal activity). Indeed, the underlying suggestion is that criticism of Islam necessarily leads causally to criminal actions or persecution of Muslims. If one were to apply this logic too broadly, it would mean that any time any set of beliefs (religious, political, whatever) were criticized, what necessarily follows is violence against the criticized group or person. If the folks at Islamophobia Watch and other similar sites believe this basic premise, then by criticizing mere Islam critics (e.g, Robert Spencer, Christopher Hitchens, et al), they are, by their own logic, inciting violence against Islam critics.

Islam critics, on the contrary, are for the most part not those who choose violence against civilians. Rather, Islam critics, like any other critics in religion or politics, are those who choose debate, discussion of the evidence, the rule of law, and so on, instead of violence.

I despise all tyrannies, Islam being the Ultimate one.