Muslims in the UK are demanding full legal protection from “Islamophobia,” and the definition of “Islamophobia” has finally been articulated:
Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.
There are already hate crime laws in the UK:
A hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property
What exactly are the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim groups seeking that is not already covered by British law?
In Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) faced opposition for a differently worded but similar definition of “Islamophobia” which implied that one must not criticize Muslims and Islam. The group’s definition of “Islamophobia” was presented to the Toronto District School Board in an Islamic resource guide for Islamic Heritage Month. The definition stated that “Islamophobia” was “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”
As with “Islamophobia,” what precisely does “Muslimness” mean?
Demands from Islamic groups are becoming increasingly brazen, and are in line with Sharia blasphemy laws. Such law is regarded as divine and forms the foundation of Islamic politics and culture, so the implications of Muslim demands about “Islamophobia” in Western nations are clear: this is an attempt to criminalize any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Sharia has no place in any democracy, but mainstream Muslim lobbies will relentlessly continue to push for Sharia supremacy, exploiting any possible means, demanding that Muslim misdeeds committed in line with Sharia provisions be hidden or under-reported.
It is wrong that the 15-year-old Muslim Syrian refugee in Huddersfield was bullied. But what about the countless assaults, the Muslim rape gangs, and the jihad attacks that Muslims have perpetrated against infidels?
More on this story. “Muslims demand full legal protection from Islamophobia,” by Dan Sabbagh, Guardian, December 1, 2018:
Muslim organisations are urging Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn and all other party leaders to adopt a newly proposed working definition of Islamophobia in an attempt to put pressure on a reluctant Home Office to follow suit.
The Muslim Council of Britain and other Islamic groups want the Conservatives and Labour to take the lead in the aftermath of a week marked by public outrage over the alleged racist bullying of a 15-year-old Syrian refugee in Huddersfield.
The definition was set out in a report published by a cross-party group of MPs last week and says: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Harun Khan, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his and other groups hoped political leaders would “all understand the importance of listening to communities” and make a “positive response” by adopting the definition.
However, a Home Office minister said earlier that the department had no intention of adopting a definition, in response to a question from one of the chairs of the cross-party group, the Conservative MP Anna Soubry. Victoria Atkins told the Commons in March that there were “many definitions of Islamophobia”, but added: “We do not accept the need for a definitive definition, but we know that Islamophobia is clearly recognised and that we have very effective monitoring systems of all race-hate crimes.”
The inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims held sessions in Manchester, London, Birmingham and Sheffield. Members heard about a wide spectrum of Islamophobic experiences, including multiple incidents of physical and verbal abuse.
A Muslim woman described how a lit firework was posted through her letterbox in her home in Wales; a student in Sheffield was abused on public transport and “no one intervened to stop it”. Victims described the impact on their mental health of their experiences, which often left them feeling isolated.
A newly launched website in support of the definition includes the example of a Muslim mother who was allegedly attacked by three women “for wearing a headscarf” as she walked to a primary school in south London.
The plea for politicians to adopt the definition comes after a bruising summer dominated by rows about antisemitism in the Labour party as well as Islamophobia among the Conservatives, following a particularly controversial newspaper column written by the former foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, in which he compared fully veiled women to letterboxes and bank robbers…..
Ren says
Criticizing islam and muslims is nothing more than exposing the truth about islam and muslims.
Andy says
+1 Ren
Thankfully,
This is a site of different opinions/videos and we should see EVERYONE’S opinion /videos regardless if we agree with them or not. Thankfully Mr.Spencer and JW don’t censor.
I wish I could say the same for some Judeo-Christian Heritage Countries Around The World.
Andy says
Double standard always with Islam.
They want the cake and to eat it too, Or should I say they want to live a land but want to introduce sharia too!
If you are a Judeo-Christian conservative consider yourself on a endangered species list.
Andy says
Government’s historic defeat ahead of Brexit deal debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl_Ns-k15kI
Andy says
BRUTAL ATTACK Man punches his partner in the face and tells cops ‘it’s part of my culture to hit women’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7901575/man-hit-wife-part-of-his-culture-kirklees-brighouse/
Andy says
UKIP Leader Gerard Batten MEP and the UKIP Civil War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvUmEgK3w8g
Andy says
No one should have to go thru what this John Alabi went thru. God Bless Him
Christian landlord LOSES “Islamophobia” case against Muslim tenants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVlv7VR4KI&t=5s
Andy says
LAWLESS BRITAIN Terrifying moment teen runs around residential street brandishing a MACHETE
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7902317/lawless-britain-teens-machete/
PRCS says
Which is precisely why they want criticism of Islam and Allah’s slaves made illegal.
mortimer says
ISLAM COMMITTED THE GREATEST RACIST GENOCIDE IN HISTORY : 120 MILLION BLACK AFRICANS KILLED IN THE 1400-year ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE.
ISLAM COMMITTED THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS GENOCIDE IN HISTORY : 80 MILLION HINDUS KILLED.
ISLAM … TOLERANT? What? WHAT?
mortimer says
ISLAM IS RACIST … IT EMPHASIZES THAT MOHAMMED WAS ‘THE WHITE MAN’…
MOHAMMED WAS A WHITE MAN ACCORDING TO MORE THAN 31 HADITHS:
Legs were white: Sahih Bukhari 4:56:767; Sahih Muslim 8:3325
Thighs were white: Sahih Bukhari 1:8:367, See Also Sahih Muslim 19.4437
Shanks were white: Sahih Bukhari 1:8:367, See Also Sahih Muslim 19.4437
Armpits were white: Sahih Bukhari 8:78:631, See Also Sahih Bukhari 9.086.108:1:1, Sahih Bukhari 9.089.286:1:1, Sahih Bukhari 9.089.305:1:1, Sahih Bukhari 3.047.769:1:1, Sahih Muslim 20.4511:1, Sahih Muslim 20.4509:1; Sahih Bukhari 5:59:612, See Also Sahih Muslim 31:6092, Sahih Muslim 31:6092; Sunan Abu Dawud 3:898
Forearms were white: Sahih Muslim 4:1014
Abdomen was white: Sahih Bukhari 9:90:342, See Also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:90; Sahih Muslim 19:4442
Cheeks were white: Sahih Muslim 4:1208; Sunan Abu Dawud 3:991; Sunan Abu Dawud 3:1002
Complexion was white: Sahih Muslim 30:5777, See Also Sahih Muslim 30:5786
General appearance was white: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:63; Sahih Bukhari 2:17:122; Sahih Bukhari 4:56:744; Sahih Muslim 30:5778, See Also Sahih Muslim 30:5778
Mohammed the WHITE MAN owned Black Slaves
BLACK SLAVES OF MUHAMMAD
Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3901:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) on migration; he (the Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).
It is just and commendable that Muhammad does insist on paying the owner, and that he (possibly even) frees this convert (though this is not mentioned), but what about those other two black slaves?
This hadith reports that Muhammad had two black slaves at his disposal to trade in for the other man. And presumably these two were Muhammad’s own property. If he had to buy them first before he could exchange them, why would he not just give the owner the value in money or whatever else he would have given the man he got the two from? Also, it seems that the black slaves were worth less than this non-black slave, so that is the reason for the 2:1 rate. We do know this from historical documents (cf. Bernhard Lewis) about slavery in Islamic history that white slaves got a much higher price than black slaves.
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.13.25:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili from Abu’l-Ghayth Salim, the mawla of ibn Muti that Abu Hurayra said, “We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the yearof Khaybar. We did not capture any gold or silver except for personal effects, clothes, and baggage. Rifaa ibn Zayd presented a black slave boy to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, whose name was Midam. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, made for Wadi’l-Qura, and when he arrived there, Midam was unsaddling the camel of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when a stray arrow struck and killed him. The people said, ‘Good luck to him! The Garden!’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘No! By He in whose hand my self is! The cloak which he took from the spoils on the Day of Khaybar before they were distributed will blaze with fire on him.’ When the people heard that, a man brought a sandal-strap or two sandal-straps to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘A sandal-strap or two sandal-straps of fire!’ ”
Muhammad got a black slave boy (as a present?) and he starts working for Muhammad. No mention is made that Muhammad freed him.
mortimer says
THE WHITEST PROPHET IN HISTORY … MOHAMMED … who owned ‘RAISIN HEAD’ black slaves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZxH4QYLRQY
gravenimage says
True, Ren.
Logic&Reason says
When we see Stone and Parker’s “The Book of Allah”; or ?Monty Python’s Life of Muhammad” receiving critical acclaim on Broadway and in theatres, with no inkling of violence and limited protest–we’ll know Islam has been reformed.
Not holding my breath.
1400 years….and counting…..
gravenimage says
Good points. dhimmis are too terrified to make fun of Islam.
David says
When you see the baying rabid Muslims in Pakistan looking to murder a Christian over some false blasphemy charge you realize how rediculous these Muslims claims are .. they have it too good most of them live off benefits …
PRCS says
Which raises an important question:
Do U.K. Muslims want criticism of both Islam’s texts–and every Muslim everywhere–made illegal, or just Islam and Muslims in the U.K.?
mortimer says
Response to PRCS: Islam’s primary texts contain more violence and intolerance that the sacred text of 9 other major religions …
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
“What is striking is not in itself that one can find murderous passages in the Islamic texts, as such passages can also be found in other religions. But it is striking how much space these passages take up in the Islamic texts, and how much they focus on an us-and-them logic in which infidels and apostates are characterized as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical and dangerous. It is also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and with the sword. In many passages, Muhammad plays a central role as one who encourages the use of violence, whether it comes to stonings, beheadings, acts of war or execution of critics and poets.”
Tina Magaard finds it particularly objectionable that so many Islamic scholars in her opinion knowingly fail to disclose these facts, and use their positions of power to create specific standards for what you can say.
tony46 says
Islamophobia—–fear of Islam—was created by the Quran itself in the first place:
”Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers”
Surah 8:12
So?
PRCS says
Which is why the term Islamophobia (an IRRATIONAL fear of Islam) is bogus.
To expand on that: given that Islam is a written ideology (merely ink on paper), who among us is actually fearful of Islam?
In truth, given their actions over the past 1400 years, it is rational to fear Islam’s followers.
mortimer says
Response to PRCS: ALLAH WANTS KAFIRS TO BE AFRAID … when KAFIRS are NOT AFRAID, then MUSLIMS LOSE THEIR SUPREMACISM …
“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” – Abu Dawud 4284
Allah wants Muslims to LOVE DEATH and attack the KAFIRS to make them TERRORIZED.
PRCS says
It is irrational to fear Qur’an and sunna, and very rational to be concerned, very concerned and outraged by the actions of Muslims who actually do comply.
Without Muslims to carry out the ideology, Islam is just a collection of fiction.
gravenimage says
Right, PRCS.
infidel says
Shameless creatures playing victims as usual after committing the most DESPICABLE acts of terror and hatred and terror and sexual grooming…
Terry Gain says
I am phobic about everything I can’t criticize. It would be irrational not to be phobic about something that takes away your right of free speech. This is the road to serfdom.
mortimer says
-“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent, we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington
Halal Bacon says
sharia is doctine – not law, by calling it law you give it and the islamist credence FFS
doc·trine
/ˈdäktrən/Submit
noun
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.
“the doctrine of predestination”
Old Fat Bald Socially Inept Ron says
Great point Mr Bacon, thanks.
PRCS says
Not to start a fight, but….
Agree; the Shari’ah is doctrine.
Disagree; not law. The Shari’ah is the embodiment of ISLAMIC law (in accordance with Qur’an and Sunna). IMO, the public needs to be told that—without equivocation—and that it is antithetical to secular, man made law.
My two cents.
mortimer says
Hey, Bacon, did you actually READ even ONE MANUAL OF SHARIA LAW? No? Not even one?
Well, I DID. It is law.
Bacon, buy one, read it and keep it near you so you can quote it.
For instance, BACON, remember this LAW when you are in a Muslim country:
@O11.10 (Dhimmi agreement is violated…blasphemy of a kafir…mentions something impermissible…life and property are unprotected)
The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
Uriah Sheep says
If they want extra protection then so must we. They are not getting the upper hand in this. must
Islamophobia and Non-Islamophobia must come hand in hand. That is the deal.
Westman says
Toronto school board: Islamophobia is, “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”
Fear and dislike directed against Islam or its politics? Obviously, Toronto’s educators are not erudite with repect to Islam or they would know that Islam is an ideology with very ugly intrinsic politics containing an agenda that promotes the death of Jews and declares its own laws to supercede those of Canada.
It seems the West is full of Leftists crying out for the blood of Israel so perhaps that is why it is overlooked by a “gotcha” MSM that wants the same. It’s a tragedy that a MSM, which once promoted civil equality of opportunity, now promotes a one world order and a “new” social order based on equality of outcome – which has always destroyed economies and nations.
I had an occasion to view a film from China which depicted Chinese clashes with ME (Muslim) “Terrorists” wearing PLO keffiyehs. No love or respect for Islam shown. It’s apparent that China will become the world’s most formidable military super-power. It will be interesting to see how they deal with “terrorists” as they create new projects with Pakistan and establish a “safe” corridor. Perhaps they will discover that Islam is, and always has been, a religion of war.
Andy says
Macron Backs Down, but the New French Revolution is Just Beginning!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6a4F_J_fXg
The FALL Of Justin Trudeau & The RISE Of Freedom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpDKiwq7Ke4
PRCS says
I imagine, given their experience with the Xinjiang Uygur (read: Muslim) Autonomous Region, they’re aware.
Clive Delmonte says
There is no such phenomenon as “Islamophobia”. The word is a device to shut up people who want to discuss FGM, forced marriage, “honour killings” in which only women are murdered, the stoning of women (never men) for adultery, and other topics.
People who wish to discuss such topics do not hate Muslims but are exercising their democratic right to talk about such matters.
The demand to make supposed “Islamophobia” unlawful is a total outrage in a democratic society.
Terry Gain says
FGM, Honor Killing etc are despicable crimes but the more serious problem with Islam is that it is a supremacist, totalitarian ideology of conquest. The best way to deal with it is to keep it out.
Someone from across the ocean calling me names cannot do me any harm.
Anjuli Pandavar says
“a [Muslim] student in Sheffield was abused on public transport and “no one intervened to stop it”. Victims described the impact on their mental health of their experiences, which often left them feeling isolated.
—
My God, this is rich! Are these not the very same people from whom the UK Government feared uncontrollable rioting if they offered asylum to a Christian woman whom Muslim mobs were hunting down house-to-house to murder?
So, UK Muslims were “often left feeling isolated.” My heart bleeds!!
FYI says
“stamp out antisemitism” it says on their sign.
What islamic HYPOCRISY!
Nice trick too,a cunning virtue-signalling deflection but…
Do the muslims not know about their own koran?
The Jews are “Apes to be despised and hated” koran 2 v 65{sorry Moses,sorry Jesus!}
The Jews are cursed in koran 9:30 “the Jews say Ezra is the son of allah”{but that isn’t even in Judaism so allah curses Jews on FALSIFIED information!}
The koran is the most antisemitic book you could imagine!
It preaches endless violence and hate-speech,mainly towards Jews, but also towards Christians
{see koran 9:30 allah CURSES Jews and Christians}
Let’s have the muslims explain WHY the vicious antisemitism of the koran should not be BANNED and kindly explain SAHIH MUSLIM # 6985:I’m sure May {perhaps not Corbyn given his attitude to Israel} might be interested in that islamic supremacist ideology that calls for.. a Genocidal war of extinction against the Jews.
What do those protesting about “islamophobia” have to say about
.. SAHIH MUSLIM #6985?
SAHIH MUSLIM #6985 islam’s final solution for the annihilation of the Jews
{“There is Jew behind me…kill him”}
Sure Let’s stamp out anti-semitism.Let’s ban hate-material….let us start with the ‘holy’ koran and its hate-speech.
jayell says
There is already a correct dictionary definiton of ‘islamophobia’ – it’s ‘the irrational fear of islam’. So, if it’s informed criticism or an inlormed opinion, it’s not ‘islamphobia’. In any case, having an ‘irrational fear’ of anything is purely a private, personal matter beyond ones’s conscious control, has no social consequences and has therefore never been a criminal matter. And if we’re talking about holding an informed opinion on any matter, that is everyone’s right in a free democratic society, as is publicly stating that opinion. If the stated opinion is (a) inaccurate and (b) damaging to another party to the extent that it can be proved to be libellous or slanderous, then there is already a remedy in law whereby one can be sued for damages in a court of law, but the libel or slander has to be proved. Muslims are perfectly at liberty to resort to the courts if they feel thay have a case, and they certainly always seem to have the resources to finance an action. What seems to be clear is that (a) muslims do not seem to want go through the courts to have an adverse opinion tested either because they are well aware that they will probably lose or/and their natural conceited supremacist arrogance will not allow them to have their ‘perfect’ beliefs subjected to non-muslim scrutiny, or/and (b) their supremacist totalityarian belief in their right to dominate will not admit any conflicting democratic right of dissent or freedom of opinion where this might prejudice their anti-democratic totalitarian ambitions.
Never in the recent history of the UK has there been any group, minority or otherwise, that has sought to openly trampel on the free democratic rights of the citizen, Muslims must be seen to be the destructive menace that they are and dealt with accordingly.
Georg says
If British “Islamophobia” were rooted in “racism” Hindus would experience identical treatment; yet they do not.
PRCS says
Don’t know, so asking:
Have brown skinned British Hindus, Buddhists, etc. pushed back on the “racist” line?
Georg says
I’ve noticed they’re fairly mum on it. Not surprisingly, they do not act as a monolithic group. Some Sikhs have been vocal in criticizing Islamic belligerence. However, oftentimes they seem to back the Islamic grievance mongering. In America, I know that many non-Muslim Indians carry a strain of (sometimes virulent) anti-Americanism which is generally only spoken of among themselves; I discovered this through an ex-girlfriend of Middle Eastern descent and from feigning a political face not really my own around other Near Easterners friendly with Indians. What it stems from I’m not sure, exactly. I remember Tommy Robinson making perfectly legitimate–in fact highly understated–criticism of Islamic rape gangs and Hindu women jumping down his throat, scandalously backing what presumably they saw as their “sisters;” never mind the gangs selectively targeting ethnically British girls whose ancestors gave these very women a place to flee to.
Basically, I mean to point out that ethnic Brits are relatively non-racist as far as global standards go and they should be recognized as such. My experience is that Near Easterners tend to band together in what is essentially a racial/racist pact. Do not expect non-Muslim Near/Middle Easterners to side with “us” against Islamic poison.
PRCS says
Thank you, Georg.
You write well and I appreciate the information.
Been There Got the Tee Shirt says
In the UK:
So if “A hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property” then calling a bully a bully is therefore a hate crime. Boy, I love that logic.
Georg says
In essence, a “hate crime” is any political opinion or societal preference not promoted by The Guardian.
Joe says
Jesus said, “I am the way, truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” If that is not islamphobic hate speech then what is? When Jesus said, “I am the Resurrection and the Life”, He is clearly taunting Islam.
If the lady can recognize islamphobia when she see it, she should read the New Testament. It is full of Muslim hate. Why doesn’t she ban the Bible. I guess she is waiting for the right timing which might be another year.
Carl Mcgee says
They want to set the rules which will change and become more and more Sharia compliant until muslim blasphemy laws are in force. The goal is to make Britain a muslim colony/caliphate.
Why this push for a definition?
The one who makes the rules wins.
somehistory says
The moslim group, the oic, coied a word for the purpose of shutting the mouths of those who tell the truth about islam. That was about 7 years ago when they talked with hilary clinton behind closed doors.
clinton…having been a lawyer…knew that the U.S. Constitution proclaims the “right to free speech” and told them Americans would have to be “shamed” into not telling the truth about moslims and islam.
Over the course of these years, many countries have made laws, fining and imprisoning people for talking about islam and moslims and telling the truth. The government of the U.K. has made such laws.
moslms want all people who say anything about them or islam, with the slightest hint of criticism, to be silenced, and fined and imprisoned and in countries they rule, to be murdered…for speech.
moslims know they can’t control thoughts and feelings…”fear,’ “dislike,” “hatred,” etc., but they want to control any expression of these toward themselves. Even facial expressions. They actually want to be feared…just not for people to point out the reasons in such a manner as to show they disagree with these.
IMO, their “code” is not “law”…but it is a code for lawless behavior. If their code comes to be enforced…so that no one can criticize…nor even “dislike” what they do…they will be free to murder without any consequences.
Recall how we saw on the news back in the ’90’s, video of moslim “taliban” beating women in the streets of afghanistan, and stoning them to death in an arena….and the women couldn’t be identified as such, because no part of the person was visible….just a black hulk from head to toe, running from the males who brandished large sticks. This is what their code would mean for all countries that make it unlawful to criticize them or islam.
This is what they want. moslims want the rest of us to be under their total control…to be beaten, raped, murdered, tortured…whatever they choose, according to their evil, filthy, godless, **lawless** book.
moslms serve satan the devil. It is their design that all mankind do so.
dunroamin says
There is a handy template available. They can use the “internationally accepted” definition of anti-Semitism and simply replace “Jews” with “Muslims”. Actually the trannies could do the same, and the Vegans.
gravenimage says
UK: Muslims demand criminalization of “Islamophobic” “racism” that targets their “Muslimness”
……………………….
What they *really* want is to criminalize any criticism of the horrors of Islam.
Andrew E Walker says
The law in England, as it stands, reads as follows:
Section 29J:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
So any definition of “islamophobia” would utterly destroy our current law on freedom to criticise the adherents of islam.
BC says
Webster Marriam dictionary definition:
“an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation”
Cambridge Dictionary definition:
“an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that cannot be reasonably explained”
There is nothing inexplicable or unreasonable in a revulsion for Islam, when one considers all its activities, not only in the 21st century but also in the 1400 years of its existence.
both in Muslim dominated countries and also in countries where Muslims settle in large numbers. It is also a basic human right not to like something. Eg. Some people of other ‘races’ do not like white people, that does not bother most white people as it is their right to like or dislike whatever they wish.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism…
No, it’s not. It’s rooted in fear–justified fear–of islam. It’s not a phobia, it’s prudence in the face of terror, rape, and bigotry. Criticizing “religious” doctrines that promote murder and bigotry is not a race thing, it’s about defending humanitarian principles from islam’s barbaric retardedness in the name of god.
…adopt a newly proposed working definition of Islamophobia…,
What muslims want to do here is criminalize our legitimate concerns about the in-built bigotry and hate of their phony religion. A “working definition” would never involve a critical look at WHY people are fearful and perhaps hateful of islam, because that would require admitting the mass murder and terror muslims do for that “religion.” Any definition of “islamophobia” would be a one-sided view that favored the perpetrators of the problem, which we all know is primarily muslims and their aggressive religion. A more productive solution to the problem might be to criminalize religious-based hate and bigotry as an incitement to violence, since nothing inspires people to violence more than the islamic doctrines that teach murder and intolerance as godly virtues.
A Muslim woman described how a lit firework was posted through her letterbox in her home in Wales; a student in Sheffield was abused on public transport and “no one intervened to stop it”.
Oh, you poor babies, you had to deal with real life and now you’re mad. Well guess what, I’m not a muslim and our house was egged on Halloween and we too had a Cherry Bomb exploded in our mail box by some neighborhood delinquents. Do you think you’re the only ones that can be the victims of a prank? of random meanness? Everything that happens to you muslims is interpreted as race hate if you can get away with it, but guess what, life happens to all of us. Even if it truly was because you’re a muslim then I suggest you see it as a learning experience, maybe you’ll understand better how the victims of islamic bigotry feel when they’re raped and murdered and tortured for your fake religion, driven from their homes and treated like second class citizens for their religious beliefs. Doesn’t feel so good when you’re on the receiving end, does it?
And I like how that student was “abused on public transport,” what a laugh. Everyone who takes public transport is likely to be abused, pushed, or robbed, insulted, inconvenienced, or aggravated by foul-mouthed fools who want to insult everyone around them. I wish you had been more specific, we could add it to the long list of “abuse” that people experience on public transport. If you are truly sensitive about unfair treatment you would not resort to unjust accusations of race hate over a bad day on public transport. You aren’t trying to improve things, you are playing the victim to garner sympathy and gain control over the thoughts and feelings of others through manipulation, and most our leaders are enablers for your bad behavior.
————–
The left is trying to make muslims out to be the victims of race hate. But no matter how I look at things it’s clear to me that we are the victims of race hate because they are the ones who have made this a race issue, not us. If I falsely accuse you of being a racist when in fact you’re not then I am acting racist, not you. That’s the growing trend among muslims and their allies, to falsely accuse us of the very thing they are–racist–and to make matters even worse, we’re getting raped and murdered while they do it.