“England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law. Labour’s Khalid Mahmood… said the move would only divide the country more and lead to increased segregation of Muslim communities.” He further stated: “I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality.”
Jihad Watch covered the rejection of the working definition of ‘Islamophobia’ proposed by an all-party Parliamentary group. The definition, “as put forward by the British Muslims determined that Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The latter term is undefined and downright ludicrous.
The victimology subterfuge is often used by Islamic supremacists to beat down critics of Islam. MP Khalid Mahmood also warned that “‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media'”. But for fellow Muslim Labor MP Naz Shah, the UK government’s rejection of the term was rather upsetting to her as it was to many Muslim groups. She stated:
If it is down to women to define the experience of feminism, the experiences of people of colour to define racism, the experience of Jews to define anti-Semitism, the experience of the LGBTQ+ communities to define homophobia, I ask the minister how dare he tell the British Muslims that our experiences can not define Islamophobia.
Aside from dislike of “Muslimness” which could be interpreted to mean dislike of the sharia, deemed be divine in Islam, the term “Islamophobia” was also defined in Canada by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to be: “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”
So, no, it is not up to Muslims to impose the term “Islamophobia” upon Western societies as Naz Shah would have it. If Muslims want to address their experiences of discrimination, then they have every right to do so, and to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry, but “Islamophobia” is a loaded term that has no place in any free democracy.
While Naz Shah is pushing “Islamophobia”, she cares nothing about Muslims victimizing innocents. She retweeted for the young victims of Muslim rape gangs to shut up for the good of diversity.
“MPs rail against plan to define Islamophobia in law that would ‘divide the country’ after the government rejected it and experts warned it would limit free speech”, by Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, May 16, 2019:
England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that the Government was right to refuse to enshrine a definition of Islamophobia in law.
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.
He told the Commons during a debate on the issue: ‘I am for equality for all – but I oppose this. We as Muslims should be proud of who we are and try to move away from a victim mentality’.
Supporters of the idea including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims.
But Mr Mahmood said: ‘I have been the victim of hate mail and actions from the far right and the Islamist community as well. I am proud to be a British Pakistani Muslim MP – the first Muslim to be elected in this Parliament from England. I will take no lessons from anyone who says I’m an Islamophobe or too much or a Muslim’.
Mr Mahmood also said the proposed definition focussed too much on what a Muslim man or woman would traditionally wear – rather than protecting British Muslims who choose to dress differently.
He said: ‘How do you protect those Muslims who dress normally in society but have the religion in their heart? The definition of ‘Muslimness’ as it is described in this report categorises people who dress a particular way and those who don’t. By defining it in this way you are excluding those who don’t’.
Yesterday he said the term ‘Islamophobia’ had been ‘weaponised’ by hardline groups and could be used to stifle the ‘operation of a free media’.
Downing Street said last night the suggested definition of Islamophobia had not been broadly accepted, adding: ‘This is a matter that will need further careful consideration.’
More than 40 religious leaders and experts including Mr Mahmood wrote to Home Secretary Sajid Javid yesterday, telling him that the definition could be a ‘backdoor blasphemy law’ and limit free speech.
Naz Shah, who represents Bradford West, said Muslims in Britain were being denied the same rights as other races or religions in the UK.
Proposals for an official definition of Islamophobia were rejected by the Government yesterday after advice from anti-terror police and concerns it could be a ‘back door’ blasphemy law.
What is the UK law on Islamophobia?
There is no specific law against Islamophobia in the UK.However, there are numerous laws which might be used to prosecute offenders.
Stirring up religious hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.
It can carry a sentence of up to seven years in prison.
Criminals may also be handed longer sentences for other offences if they are found to have been motivated by racial or religious hostility.
There are separate laws covering online abuse.
In addition, the Equality Act 2010 stops discrimination based on ‘protected characteristics’ including religion.
If a new, official definition is adopted, it could be used to block government actions in the courts.
Terror legislation could be subject to such judicial reviews, it is claimed.
An unofficial 1997 wording defined Islamophobia as ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims’.
The suggested new one says: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’
Supporters of the idea say that formalising the term will help to counter hostility toward Muslims. ….
CFR says
Christians are the most persecuted group on the planet. Where is the Christophoiba legislation? Why the obsession with protecting a group which actively kills non Moslems every week?
The cult named Submission is not rooted in race or ‘being a minority’, but has a clear political-cultural agenda expressed in its foundation documents.
This means it is open to criticism even hate.
There is no such thing as a ‘hate’ crime (is criticising FGM a hate crime or phobia) ? Of course not.
There is no such thing as a phobia of a 1400 year old cult which has slaughtered, killed, raped, pulled down, dismantled, and submerged every other cultural system it has come into contact with.
Culture is King and the Muhammadan culture desires the complete eradication of non Moslem culture. It needs to be opposed.
mortimer says
Agree with CFR. MP Khalid Mahmood is actually opposing the implementation of compulsory Sharia law in the UK. Muslims who DO NOT WANT TO PRACTICE SHARIA will thus not be held down by a legal definition of what ‘MUSLIMNESS’ is. Thus, they will be FREE to develop their own different and unique definitions of ‘MUSLIMNESS’ for themselves without government interference.
That means non-practicing and apostate former Muslims CANNOT BE LEGALLY PERSECUTED by the UK government if they disagree with the OFFICIAL DEFINITION of ‘MUSLIMNESS’.
Very clever, Mr. Mahmood,
Doug schuman says
“islamaphobia” is a neologism, not even a word. Here we have laws regarding “hate speech” ,etc ; and inventing a term, or law, for a specific group is bigotry
mortimer says
Islamophobia is a FRANKENWORD … a severed head placed on a different body … a monster taught to walk, rampage and destroy.
Salome says
It’s what, if it were being used against the left, the lefties would call a ‘snarl word’. It’s a word coined with the deliberate purpose of shutting down debate and particularly the arguments of those it gets attached to. No respectable journal should use it, except in quotations.
Don McKellar says
Well — the word doesn’t even make any sense!
Islamophobia?
Islam = submission to the will of Allah ( ie: sharia law)
phobia = irrational fear of something
It’s not irrational to be afraid of being forced to submit to sharia law!
Also, Islamophobia is being used as a weapon to demonize people as hate mongers who hate muslims. When in almost all cases those people don’t hate individuals at all, but rather the evils enshrined and promoted in sharia law which are counter to the laws and norms of all modern, advanced societies. Those people are against a philosophy. You cannot enshrine into law legislation that prevents people from speaking out against a philosophy — or your free society is no longer free. Which, of course, is the goal of sharia law and Islam.
James Lincoln says
From the feature article:
“The term “Islamophobia” was also defined in Canada by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to be: “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.””
This is, of course, dishonest propaganda.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims is cleverly equating Islam with individual Muslims.
Fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against the ideology of Islam is rooted in correct evidence-based logic. The term “Islamophobia” is an oxymoron extensively evaluated by Jihad Watch – i.e., a phobia is an irrational fear, and thus does not apply to Islam.
Individual Muslims should be judged according to their degree of devotion to Islam. Individual Muslims range anywhere from Muslim in name only all the way to devote Islamic fundamentalists.
mortimer says
Agree. The criticism of Islam is NOT a mental illness, nor is the critical analysis of Islam ‘bigotry’. Rather, a rational, academic and detailed critique of Islam is proof of sanity and a high level of scholarship, rather than of bigotry or derangement.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ has been exposed for what it is: a sly subterfuge used by unscrupulous ideologues to silence discussion of the problems of supremacist Islamism and the discriminatory backwardness of Islam in general.
The goal of Islam is to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and the disbelieving kufaar … beginning FIRST OF ALL with the removal of the freedom of speech.
Jedothek says
“If it is down to women to define the experience of feminism, the experiences of people of colour to define racism, the experience of Jews to define anti-Semitism, the experience of the LGBTQ+ communities to define homophobia….”
I suggest that defining these terms is not the job of any of the groups mentioned , but of lexicographers.
mortimer says
Khalid Mahmood speaks a lot of good sense. It is a surprise that these sensible thoughts come from Labour … I am suspicious, but on the surface, Khalid Mahmood seems to be clear about a number of problems: SEGREGATION, FEAR, APARTHEID, INEQUALITY, RESENTMENT OF SUPREMACISM.
Everyone in the UK has the right to criticize the established Church of England and Church of Scotland, so why should they not have a right to criticize Islam as well?
51% of Islamic source texts are political. Allah charged Arabs with the mission of ruling the world … K.61.9(Muhammad Sarwar version): It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the true religion to STAND SUPREME OVER all religions, even though the pagans may dislike it.”.
This mission of 7th-century ARAB SUPREMACISM is HATED BY FREEDOM-LOVING PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.
We demand the right to criticize an ideology that SPECIFICALLY STATES its goal is to take away our human rights and civil liberties.
Cicero says
Khalid Mahmood was staying at a targetted hotel in Mumbai in 2008 when the Pakistani jihadis mounted a murderous attack at several sites in and around Mumbai.
Britain,s first muslim MP Khalid Mahmood was confronted by the Uzi toting terrorists and he was asked the question ” Are you Muslim ? ” ” Yes I am ” Khalid Mahmood replied. He was then asked to recite the Shahada – which Muslim MP Khalid Mahmood duly recited . Britain ‘s first Muslim MP was allowed to walk away unscathed as the Islamic terrorists proceeded to murder the hapless Hindu guests nearby.
Maybe Khalid Mahmood had an epiphany that day as to the murderous and vicious Islamic ideology.he professes
Shea says
where’s the Christophobia Legislatistion?
mortimer says
Agree with Shea. There should then be legislation to stop Muslims indulging in KAFIR-O-PHOBIA … the canonical, compulsory hatred that Muslims should direct against the disbelieving KAFIRS.
This “ESSENTIAL” teaching of Islam (required for Islamic salvation) MUST be believed and practiced by all Muslims.
The obligatory, hate-filled KAFIR-O-PHOBIA of Muslims is discriminatory BIGOTRY and is thus ALREADY BANNED by human rights codes.
CRUSADER says
Below title seems “ISLAMO-PHOBIC” !! Allah forbid !!
————————————————————————
“Hamas, CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood:
The Plot to Destroy America”
by Ilana Freedman
Hamas in the Middle East has been a practitioner of violent Islamic terrorism for three decades. Its ferocious jihad against Israel has been the cause of thousands of deaths on both sides. The presence of Hamas in the United States, however, has been less open and its mandate has undergone a transformation. Its presence here, and the threat it poses to America, have been debated, disputed, and denied for decades. In the quest for truth, exposing the real and current threat that Hamas poses to America is difficult at best. Even establishing the very existence of Hamas in America is problematic, because in the United States, Hamas is a ghost organization, hiding behind well-guarded veils of secrecy, and protected by those considered ‘respectable’ representatives of the Muslim American community.
The presence of Hamas in the U.S. is therefore generally overlooked by the average American, who would, no doubt, be astonished to know just how deeply the organization has infiltrated the institutions of America’s political, societal, and government infrastructure. Hamas’ active presence in the United States is easy to miss, but it has been so well-documented that it is, by now, beyond question. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza and its presence in the U.S. is no less a threat here than is its counterpart in the Middle East. Only its methods are different; the threat that it poses is just as real.
thebigW says
the article says “England’s first Muslim MP today agreed that …” then later it says “But for fellow Muslim Labor MP Naz Shah,…”
I figured there wasn’t just one Muzzy MP in England. or I guess “first Muslim MP” means that he’s the first scuzzy Muzzy who became MP, followed by other scuzzy Muzzies who crawled in through the cracks later.
An’ NO I ain’t impressed by his taqiyya
Michael Perloff says
Since a phobia is an unwarranted or irrational fear of something, there is no such thing as a phobia about the civilization-destroying ideology of Submission (Islam in Arabic). It’s the only “religion” where the more its followers become observant, the more they tend to become intolerant and prone to violence. Therefore, having a negative attitude about it is entirely warranted.
??????????????
James Lincoln says
Entirely true, Michael.
Beware of the Muslim who strives to become a “better” Muslim.
gravenimage says
UK: Muslim MP rejects “islamophobia” definition, says the term is “weaponized by hardline groups”
………………….
Is Khalid Mahmood actually against this sort of ipso facto enforcing of Shari’ah law, or does he just think this is going to fast?
He has lied before and said that Jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. He has also oppose the banning of veils at Birmingham College.
He seems an equivocal figure at best.