There has been heated debate in Great Britain over the “working definition” of “Islamophobia” that has been presented for the government’s adoption by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims. The Independent describes the opposition of British police chiefs here:
“Police leaders have raised concerns that a proposed definition of Islamophobia will undermine counter-terror operations and threaten freedom of speech.
“In a letter to the prime minister, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said the change could “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies” including port stops, bans on terrorist groups and propaganda, and the legal duty requiring schools, councils, and the NHS to report suspected extremism.
“NPCC chair Martin Hewitt said: “We take all reports of hate crime very seriously and will investigate them thoroughly; however, we have some concerns about the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ made by the All-Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] on British Muslims.
“We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states.
“There is also a risk it could also undermine counterterrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.
“It is important that any definition of anti-Muslim hostility is widely consulted on and has support across the Muslim community.”
“After a six-month inquiry taking evidence from Muslim organisations, legal experts, academics, MPs and other groups, the APPG called on the government to adopt the definition:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
The indispensable word here, the word intended to elicit horror and guilt, and to shut down all criticism of Islam and of Muslims, is “racism.” It does not matter that Islam is not a race but a faith, as has been quietly, insistently, repeatedly pointed out. Muslim groups pay no heed; they don’t think they should be asked to explain exactly what they mean when they invoke that fright-word “racism.” Nor do they explain that bizarre neologism “Muslimness.”
“The definition was proposed in November and has since been adopted by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the London mayor’s office.
“A government spokesperson said it would consider the change last year, but Theresa May is now expected to reject the definition. A minister is to attend a debate on the issue in the House of Commons on Thursday [May 16]..
“Assistant commissioner Neil Base, the head of UK counterterror policing, said police chiefs were not consulted by the APPG and want to see a definition that “satisfies all” while protecting hate crime victims.
“The definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG on British Muslims is simply too broad to be effective and it risks creating confusion, representing what some might see as legitimate criticism of the tenets of Islam – a religion – as a racist hate crime, which cannot be right for a liberal democracy in which free speech is also a core value,” he said.
“As it stands, this definition risks shutting down debate about any interpretation of the tenets of Islam which are at odds with our laws and customs, which in turn would place our police officers and members of the judicial system in an untenable position.
“Despite the fact it would be non-legally binding, it would potentially allow those investigated by police and the security services for promoting extremism, hate and terrorism to legally challenge any investigation and potentially undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies on the basis that they are ‘Islamophobic’. That cannot be allowed to happen.”
“The Independent understands that police chiefs had hoped to discuss concerns over the definition behind closed doors, and intended the letter to the prime minister to be private before it was leaked to The Times.
“The APPG’s report said the lack of an official definition was hampering efforts to counter Islamophobia, harming Muslims and wider British society.
“The aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been motivated by, nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion,” it [the APPG} added.
Comment:
Nonsense. The term “Islamophobia” was invented precisely in order to inhibit free speech. It provides a way to undermine legitimate islamocriticism, which is a different thing from an “irrational hatred of Islam and Muslims,” by tarring it as “islamophobia.”
“No open society can place religion above criticism and we do not subscribe to the view that a working definition of Islamophobia can or should be formulated with the purpose of protecting Islam from free and fair criticism or debate.”
“War is deceit,” said Mohammed, and the very people who are disingenuously insisting that “no open society can place religion above criticism,” by calling that “religion” a “race” in their “working definition of Islamophobia,”are doing just that — attempting to place Islam above criticism.
“But a report by the former head of the Metropolitan Police counter-terror command, Richard Walton, said the definition would “seriously undermine the effectiveness of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, putting the country at greater risk from Islamist terrorism.”
Comment:
A definition of “Islamophobia” as broad and vague — what is “Muslimness”? — as the one presented by the APPG and their collaborators will, if adopted, be used as a weapon, invoked against the police by those being investigated for terrorism.
“Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the definition had ‘left a demonstrably open field for damaging and even absurd conclusions.’”
“Successful and accepted counter-terrorism measures would run the risk of being declared unlawful,” he added. “The APPG definition would lead to judicial review litigation that would hold back the evolution of better counterterrorism law and practice hand in hand with strengthened religious tolerance.”
Comment:
Think of how that working definition could be used to attack the police as harboring “racist” — that is, “islamophobic”– views, supposedly reflected in their choice of people, organizations, and neighborhoods to investigate. How many suits would be brought, charging the police with “islamophobia,” that would complicate and hamper the police in their counter-terror work/
“Baroness Warsi, a Conservative peer and member of the APPG on British Muslims, called the claims “extraordinary and disturbing.”
“The report makes clear that the definition does not seek to protect or stop criticism of Islam – to suggest it would is disingenuous and divisive,” she wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.
“The inability of senior police officers to understand how Islamophobia – the plethora of everyday micro-aggressions impacting British Muslims – is not the same as hate crime shows a worrying lack of understanding of the communities they seek to police.”
Baroness Warsi called claims that authorities would risk being taken to judicial review using the definition “completely untrue and irresponsible scaremongering.”
Comment:
What are those “everyday micro-aggressions” that Baroness Warsi claims British Muslims must endure? Could she describe them, that purported “plethora,” and offer us evidence of their frequency? And while she is on the subject of micro-aggressions, should we not remind her of the dozens of macro-aggressions committed by Muslims? Think of the 7/7 London jihad terror attacks, the murder of Drummer Rigby, the killings on Westminster Bridge, the bombs at the Manchester Arena. Think of the British Muslims who went of to join the IS in its campaign of murder of non-Muslims, and from Iraq and Syria videos were made taunting the British Infidels. And what about the macro-aggressions against thousands of white, non-Muslim English girls, inflicted by the many Muslim rape gangs that operated with impunity for so long in a dozen British cities? How do those stack up compared to the “micro-aggressions” against Muslims which so horrify Baroness Warsi?
“Naz Shah, Labour’s shadow equalities minister, accused the Conservative Party of being “in denial about Islamophobia and other forms of racism in its ranks.”
Naz Shah can describe this putative “Islamophobia” all she wants as a “form of racism,” but repetition is not evidence. Every time this is said, the proper reply is this: “Islamophobia is a word that has been invented to mislabel islamocriticism. Its goal is to shut down such criticism, to stifle free speech whenever that speech includes something negative having to do with Islam or with Muslims.
“If Ms. May refuses to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear,” she added.
The only message that then Prime Minister May would have be sending, and in fact any Western leader, is that the government will not be bullied into submission by Muslims claiming victimhood (that claimed “plethora of micro aggressions”), and will not adopt the “working definition” of Islamophobia if in the opinion of the police that will make their work combatting Muslim extremism and terrorism even more hellishly difficult than it already is.
“[The NPCC letter] shows a worrying trend of seeing British Muslims through the lens of terror and security, and the prime minister must distance herself from this immediately.”
Comment:
It would be strange if the National Police Chiefs Council did not see some British Muslims through “the lens of terror and security,” for that is their business: to identify, investigate, and foil would-be terrorists. Naz Shah’s bullying tone –”if Mrs. May refuses..” and “the prime minister must distance herself from this [the NPCC letter] immediately”– is characteristically offensive.
“Labour’s Khalid Mahmood, who represents Birmingham Perry Barr, said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.” The refusal of the British government to adopt the Muslim-concocted “working definition” of “Islamophobia” has enraged many Muslims. How regrettable. That refusal is, in fact, a welcome sign of political sanity. May it be a harbinger of harder decisions still to come.

Eur says
No kafirphobia. I am proud to be a kafir. I am proud of not recognizing Muhammad as a prophet and not believing in the last day
mortimer says
Islam has a CANONICAL DOCTRINE of hatred and hostility directed by Muslims against the disbelieving KUFAAR. This is an ‘ESSENTIAL’ doctrine of hate that must be BELIEVED and PRACTICED for a devout Muslim to achieve Islamic paradise.
Islam very much needs to be criticized, because it is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of hate and supremacism.
If the growth of Islam is not checked, there will be no democracy anywhere on earth.
mummymovie says
iSLAM IS RACISM (This racism is historically directed by the Koran toward Jews, and at any given time, black people and other races conveniently deemed inferior at any given time by Muslim leaders, and often enslaved)
iSLAM IS HATE (this hatred is directed by the Koran toward Jews, women, gays & all “unbelievers”/non-Muslims)
These are two of the core tenets of islam.
I am afraid of those things (among other key components and practices of the ideology of islam), and therefore I am without a doubt proudly afraid of islam, and proud of my sanity that makes me afraid of it.
mortimer says
Response to MM: there is a good argument that Islam is essentially Arab racism and more than that, it is ARAB TRIBAL-CLAN RACISM, since ‘Allah’ gave the hegemony of the world to ONE TRIBAL CLAN of Arabs. To this day, the Koresh tribe disapproves of exogamy (marrying outside the tribe and clan). This explains why the Arabian peninsula is one of the most inbred places in the world with over 900 illnesses exacerbated by genetic inbreeding. The Peninsula is a GENETIC DISASTER ZONE.
Bazz12 says
The definition of religion that allows it to be racism is a double edged sword.
It would mean that because of references to Christians and Jews in the Koran and Hadiths all copies of the Koran would have to be destroyed because they are full of hate speech and racism. QED !
ninetyninepct says
Islamophobia, a genuine and valid fear of being stabbed with a knife or being run over by a truck.
By the way, the Koran meets the definition of hate literature as defined in Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Herbert Lubitz says
Boy are you so correct. We need to ban the word Islamophobia and replace it with Supremacist Phobia, which is what it is. The world is afraid of supremacists so that would be a better definition. Muhammad was white as any white man ever was. Hitler was a white man as any that ever was, So what does that make Muhammad? A white Supremacists and slave master. He demanded that all should give up their beliefs to take his or be killed for refusing to call a lie the truth. God in the Bible respected all mankind, but the Quran wants the Moslims to kill his creation from that which he created. If you created something in your Image, would you destroy it for another creation that is ugly? To man everything is up for debate, but God has the last word, and the first word and that word was with God. So how can Man destroy the Word of God? After thousands of years the Bible has never been changed except for publishing companies who had to change words so they could claim that version of the Bible. I had an 8th grade education, got my GED at 42, and can still write my words here to attest to Gods word being the first and the last, and some self proclaimed Prophet can not ever change the WORD. Now or 1600 years before the Quran was even a shit stain on Satan’s boxers.
mortimer says
Is ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ merely PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION??? Read the following and be the judge of that.
‘Baraa’ is HATRED directed towards Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love towards Muslims). Baraa is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the dirty kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed (Islamic faith) and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen (i.e. wrong worshippers). So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite (kufr=wrong belief)- any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.” (W-B is ‘Islamic apartheid’)
– Dr. Muhammad Saeed Al-Qahtaani said: “Thus, it is clear that Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara calls on Muslims to “love” their fellow Muslims and hate the non-Muslim (or Kafir).”
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
Conclusion: AL WALAA WAL BARAA (adherence to Islam and estrangement from kafirs) is everything that Muslims falsely claim about ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ but in REVERSE.
bob kelly says
Mortimer is right , its so easily to show the hatred in being a muslim , whats wrong with thees police and politicians are they really that lazy and stupid
mortimer says
The UK police are part of an old boys club making money by dealing with the Arabs. That is why they are cutting slack to the criminal Muslims. Their favoritism makes one believe they are on the take from Arabs.
gravenimage says
I don’t think the rank and file like this pandering to Islam.
mortimer says
QUESTIONS:
1) WHAT CRITICISM OF ISLAM WILL BE PERMISSIBLE ?
2) Will any criticism of Islam be permitted whatsoever?
Beverly says
No.
Mike says
and here’s the issue. You against Muslims. As a race most would say NO. Next question are you against Sharia Law. The answer is without hesitation Yes. Muslims answer then your against Muslims. so you must die as an un-believer
Spiro says
Once again they are required to surrender to sharia
I’m calling for an end of christobia
By the Muslims
mortimer says
How does a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY become a ‘RACE’?
Is COMMUNISM a ‘RACE’ ??? How does a mental or intellectual concept or thought turn into a human, then turn again into a ‘race’ of humans? Can a thought be a ‘race’? No, it remains a ‘thought’.
Islam is a supremacist, world-conquest, thought-controlling, information-controlling POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
Supremacist ideologies are dangerous destroyers of pluralistic democracy and must therefore be vigilantly monitored, critiqued and vigorously opposed by speech.
Islam is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, as is COMMUNISM. Neither are human persons nor are they ‘races’.
Islam claims it is divine, eternal, perfect, complete and above criticism. No such supremacist ideology should ever by above criticism.
Beverly says
I continue to ask Muslims, if Allah created everything to perfection, why did he create people so flawed that they needed to be killed. And which of the 6 ways laid out in the Qur’an did Allah actually create man. And why does it seem like whenever Muhammed wanted something Allah would sanction it for Muhammed but no one else. And don’t get me started on FGM. Again if Allah creates perfection then why is it up to man to maim women. It is a political ideology, it is a totalitarian theocracy with its own laws, govt, and religion. It doesn’t need ours. It controls the indiv 24/7/365 from cradle to grave. And it is an ideology that seeks to control the world through an Islamic caliphate.
mortimer says
Response to Bev: You are on track. ‘Allah’ is absurd and irrational and inscrutable. His ideas are known only to ‘Allah’. He tortures people because he can. He deceives whom he wills. Muslims behave like ‘Allah’ when they can get away with it and feel righteous about their persecution of the kafir. Muslims are more concerned about errors in the text of the Koran than they are in the opportunistic amorality of ‘Allah’ and Mohammed.
Look up K. 4.23-24 if you want a moral argument to use on Muslims. Ask they if they endorse taking sex slaves from married captives as K.4.23-24 decrees. It is a decree of ‘Allah’.
Westman says
“Labour’s Khalid Mahmood, who represents Birmingham Perry Barr, said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities”
And integration was going so well, Shariah courts, patrols, no-go areas, groomings, and all. And that bit in the Quran about not taking unbelievers as friends – that certainly maximizes integration.
Leave it to Khalid and Islam to spit on unbelievers and then tell them it’s raining.
Tom says
Why is such a definition even being discussed?
Has there been a discussion of creating and defining Christianophobia, or Sikhophobia, or Hinduophobia, or some other groupophobia?
Why then is the west so adamant on defining a word that was created specifically by Muslims to silence any criticism of Islam or its proponents.
Islam is claimed to be a “religion” and as such in our western democracies, open to criticism and question. Our democracy is NOT subject to any restrictions that a minority group declares it must be. Our democracy is based on the premise of freedom of thought, expression and speech for all.
Muslims are not a “race”of people, they are a community of a specific culture, as such, and being a minority in most western countries, they must respect and adhere to our cultural norms.
Of course we know that they demand special status, more than other ethnic minority groups have ever done, but why should they be allowed to have special status in our countries?
No, Islam and Muslims should be treated as any other community that makes up our country, no better than any other ethnic or minority group.
No special status for Islam and, just as with any other group, the expectation of integration and adherence to our laws, or leave and go elsewhere.
BVC says
All government officials need to grow a pair and reject the term “islamophobia” and its definition. Call it what it is, a made up word that is intended to quiet all critics on the flaws of a hate filled religion. Make a stand and show the world the term wont be tolerated and the muslims dont have free reign over society!!!
John Allan says
Last I checked, the UK was NOT a Muslim country – despite British Muslims no doubt wishing it so. Let’s keep it like that, and if Muslims don’t like it, well, they can always emigrate to one.
John Allan says
‘”If Ms. May refuses to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear,” she added.’
I do trust it will. And if the Muslim community doesn’t like it, they can bu__er off to a Muslim country.
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
Mortimer- Corporations in America are now people, why not mental or intellectual concepts. Up is down and down is up.
Wellington says
I despise Islam and I despise racism so how is my opposing Islam racist?
Islam is an ideology which whites, blacks, Asians and even some Hispanics adhere to. I am white and were virtually all Muslims ONLY white I would despise it exactly as I do now because of such doctrines as death for apostasy, death or severe bodily harm for any criticism of Islam, the Koran or Mohammed, inequality under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims wherever Islam can enforce this, polygamy (which is an absolute guarantee that women will be subordinate to men), the condoning of the hitting of women (e.g., Sura 4:34), the authorization to make war upon humanity “until all religion is with Allah” (Sura 8:39), and the application of the Golden Rule only to fellow Muslims which goes hand-in-hand with Islamic theology looking upon all non-Muslims as the equivalent of human waste.
Yes, I oppose Islam because of its putrid doctrines. It has NOTHING to do with race. Claiming it does is a lie. Thus, Islamophobia is a lie. A giant one. It’s just a way of shutting up people about expressing the many wicked truths of the worst religion of all time. As I have written before, anyone using the term “Islamophobia” seriously should never be taken seriously. Indeed, they should be laughed at, mocked, criticized and dismissed.
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
Excellent fact-filled analysis, my compliments.
gravenimage says
+1
James Lincoln says
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims – who presented the “working definition” of “Islamophobia” to the government – is funded by the Aziz Foundation.
The focus of the foundation to “nurture confident, articulate public leaders of Muslim background…”
Sounds like they have an agenda…
mortimer says
Confident Muslims are going to be supremacists.
R Russell says
In Scotland, where ALL of the Scottish Political Parties have adopted the Definition of Islamophobia and where it appears Scottish Police are controlled by the Scottish Government, This has happened in a Scottish town.
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/17668492.rosyth-man-in-court-after-painting-islam-is-questionable-on-his-home/?ref=mrb&lp=25
Lydia Church says
Exactly, islam is hate, it is racism.
And the correct term is not islamophobia, it is COMMON SENSE!
gravenimage says
“Islamophobia” is a canard.
owensgate says
The Muselmens are doing to England now as the Nazi’s did in 1942, but the difference is, in 1942 they had the common sense to fight back. They didn’t have a cadre of “no Naziphobia” politicians to stop them.
job says
‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism’. So can anyone tell me what race is being targeted? Asian muslims, African muslims, Arab muslims?
Greg Hamilton says
This so-called “research” into the junk term “Islamophobia” by the All Party Parliamentary Group is completely flawed. They have arrived at a definition of “Islamophobia” without ever asking anyone who allegedly suffers from the condition any questions about why they fear Islam.
I don’t accept the validity of the term but if I did, as these doltish parliamentarians appear to do, then surely the place to start your research is by asking people with the “condition” what their experience is? If you were researching a phobia like claustrophobia you would ask sufferers what they experience and under what circumstances. This bunch of stupid people, in consultation with people from Oxford University, have done nothing of the kind.
All their research amounts to is an opportunity for Muslims to whine and accuse those who are critical of Islam and Muslims of being racists. They have then adopted this as their definition. “Islamophobia is a form of racism rooted in racism…”
They should have asked people why they fear Islam and what they dislike about it. But knowing full well that if they did so they would find people with perfectly reasonable concerns about Islam and those who embody it – Muslims – they avoided doing so.
The whole purpose is to give official sanction to brand criticism of Islam a form of racism and thereby criminalize it – in accordance with Sharia. The British police and justice system can then be employed to enforce this aspect of Sharia.