Dear TRTL that was a most progressive post. I'm seeing a dim glimmer of hope here :)

You said:

I'd scrap that one, (the promiscuity one ) but concur with the rest, however you need to also acknowledge that those who do speak out risk the fate of Taha, as mentioned by Philip Tang.

2 majorly important points emerge from the quote I used here.

1/ The public face at least of Islam should be 'pure'. What people do behind closed doors with consenting others is indeed their business.. I'm referring to 'policy' or doctine.

2/ The fate of Taha? AB-SO-BLOODY-LUTELY excuse my french but that little pearl of yours is the epicentre of my opposition to Islam. That 'is' Islam (in the strict technical/theological sense)..but for sure it is not everyone's Islam.

I quite agree there are various 'interpretations' which we can observe here and there, but for us to encourage a version which is acceptable to us, would still involve them willingly declaring as per my list. That kind of Islam would in truth not be 'Islam' historically.. it would be regarded by most Muslims as a cult.

The only way you could verify this would be to research it.

I think the main area we differ is on this issue of "interpretation"...

My view is this. The 'true' Islam is that practiced and taught by:

a) Mohammad
b) Quran
c) Hadith
d) The first 4 'rightly guided' Caliphs as they are referred to.

If you ask around some Muslims... 'Who or what are the 'rightly guided Caliphs'...they will tell you they were

-Abu Bakr
-Othman
-Umar
-Ali

It was they who immediately succeeded Mohammad.

I think you have been infected with Post Modernism :) "Each persons truth is true for them" kind of thing.

We'll continue your therapy until we fix u :) *Poly ducks the flying shoe*

TRTL

I wonder if I have misunderstood,this seems like another call to surrender our liberties in the name of "harmony" and become Kuffars.

So we have to stop criticizing the excesses of Moslems in order to encourage a more moderate Islam, I see, if we offer no resistance to Sharia law in Australia and remain silent when some Moslems are offended this will encourage "moderates", where ever they are, to introduce a reform movement, doesn't seem likely to me.Obviously it will encourage the mischief makers. If the Islamic world isn't capable of producing its own reformers,without outside assistance, it is seriously and dangerously disfunctional. This is just the point many people posting on this blog have said.

So, why isn't fear of extremist Islamic terrorism 'rational', Christopher?

After all, they did fly those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 as you keep insisting and they did blow up those trains and buses in London and Madrid, didn't they?

Now now, James (daggett et al) Sinnamon, as you know "Islamophobia" refers to fear of Islam rather than fear of "Islamic terrorism".

If you were to substitute "Islamist" for "Islamic" in your last bleat, you might be talking about something defensible.

And yes, now that you mention it, on the evidence I've seen (including yours) it does seem most likely that Islamist terrorists were responsible for those atrocities.

TRTL: the article originally concerned semantics of “phobia”, so your point on “semantics” seems redundant. We're discussing whether fear should drive our worldview on the vast topic of Islam (other xeno- and homo- fears could be discussed too, but they slipped past the obsessives here), and whether views of Islam are still “rational” when driven by fear. I maintain that such views are irrational and therefore “phobic”.

TRTL: “The soldier does feel fear...doesn't act upon it”, etc. You're making similar mistakes again by constructing universal, sweeping statements from your own subjective assumptions or inferences. It is well known that some soldiers, at least sometimes, actually feel NO fear, while others DO act upon fear; many witnesses and interviews confirm fearlessness in soldiers like Albert Jacka and Audie Murphy.

Also, who implied fear's not natural, etc.? And if strategic analysts use fear in “threat assessment” they must be sacked; such fear caused those Howard w@nkers to embarass Australians even further with their “kids overboard” and “pre-emptive” strike fantasies.

But cautionary notes to the above definitions (for those anti-Islam bigots still confused about their own paranoia):

“Well-founded” applies here to the term “valid” introduced by TRTL (obviously excluded from the Islamophobes). The term “well-founded” is a quite separate discussion to our more basic one exposing fallacies claiming that “fear is or can be rational”; notice that I merely assert that fears may not necessarily be valid or well-founded.

It would be circular or futile to confine the discussion to “whether Islamophobia is 'well founded'”, though Islamophobes would prefer that in order to keep emoting hateful invective and vilification. However, by comparing the key terms “rational” and “fear”, we clarify “irrational fear” or “phobia”, thereby effectively diagnosing Islamophobes' obsessive condition.

In light of his association with “asylum seeker” research, Haslam now seems like a nasty snake. Perhaps one of those wacko fundy-evangelical “born-again Christian” types I recall from Melb Uni? Those people are still sore about their fundy preacher icon and party clown Peter Costello – ah, now there's another discussion about “cowardice”!

Contextual dictionary definitions diagnose Islam-haters/Islamophobes here. By such definitions, fears cannot be “rational” phenomena. Although not necessarily opposing reason directly, fears are categorized as EMOTIONS/FEELINGS, distinct from faculties of REASON. Verbatim:

FEAR...
wordreference.com: “A1...an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight) A2...a profound emotion inspired by a deity; 'the fear of God B1...regard with feelings of respect and reverence; consider hallowed or exalted or be in awe of; 'Fear God... B2...be afraid or scared of; be frightened of; 'I fear the winters in Moscow'; 'We should not fear the Communists!'...B5...be afraid or feel anxious or apprehensive about a possible or probable situation or event; 'I fear she might get aggressive'"

Merriam-Webster: “transitive verb 1.archaic: frighten 2.archaic: to feel fear in (oneself) 3: to have a reverential awe of <fear God> 4: to be afraid of: expect with alarm <fear the worst> intransitive verb: to be afraid or apprehensive <feared for their lives>”

RATIONAL...
wordreference.com: “1. having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); 'a rational analysis' 2. intellectual, rational, noetic - of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; 'intellectual problems'; 'the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man' 3. consistent with or based on or using reason; 'rational behavior'; 'a process of rational inference'; 'rational thought'.”

Merriam-Webster: “1) a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason.: reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>”

Simple claims “fear of Islam is/can be rational” exposed “Islamophobes” here as did many irrationally condemnatory responses to Haslam's subtle anti-Islam article. Taken together with the claims posted, clear definitions confirm “Islamophobia”. Whether more the “aggressive paranoid” or “cowardly obsessive” variety, good shrinks could assess. Avoid Haslam though: he seems to be in closer company with Islamophobes than he at first seemed.

Islamophobes: good luck dealing with your delusions and/or obsessive fears. Remember not to harm anyone else (including Muslims) during that process.