A few points:

1. The main point of the article is not to shut down debate, surely. There are very few issues that dont have 2+ sides to it (in fact the term 'issue' implies that). Surely most, if not all, issues that appear on Online Forum are debatable.

People who attack others rather than their line of argument, do so in order to shut down debate. They are the genuine phobes. They are also the most prejudiced, according to the author's definition, and I agree with him here: "the emotional signature of prejudice is much more frequently anger, contempt or disgust". Again, this is evidenced in the way some posters debate others. It's all personal and laden with ridicule and invective.

2. Haslam's article initially appeared in the Australian, yes, but under the heading: "Bigots are just sick at heart", not "What's wrong with Islamophobia?" Would be interesting to know whether that was the author's chosen title or The Australian's title.

3. Given that people in the Islamic faith face death for apostacy, this explains why few Muslims critique, speak out against or leave their faith. These people are Islamophobic as well in the true sense of the word, as were the hoards of western journalists who refused to stand up for their freedom of speech values following the Cartoon Controversy, yet routinely poke fun at/show contempt for Christianity (eg the artwork "Piss Christ"). What happened to Theo Van Gogh and the numerous others who have met with or been threatened with a similar fate has cowered many from speaking out against Islam. This reaction is undeniably genuine and justified "Islamophobia". Of course there other instances of prejudice toward groups which are just blind prejudice and not phobic at all.

Mil-observer,

I disagree with some of your earlier comments:-

(1)..."...many irrational (and yes, 'phobic') responses!"

None of those you named are irrational with their response. It's likely they didn't bother to fully read the article. I do that sometimes. I'm not obliged to read articles to debate someone.
A result of prejudice?? No. I have hinted the word Islamophobic was used so often, those wrongly accused naturally and quickly felt offended. So their reaction is not even a prejudice, but understandable.
Rather, those using such misguided terminologies are at fault by prejudicially closing down two-way debate.
CJMorgan, I assert is an obvious individual who has IRRATIONAL FEARS of some sort of "Islamophobic violence", whatever that may be.

(2)..."...such irrational fear, alarm....prejudice, etc...that gets a Brazilian shot dead in London, Haneef detained.

It's only wisdom of hindsight that allows you to uphold that smug "I-told-you-so" "over-reaction" attitude.
You wouldn't be any wiser if that Brazilian and Haneef were indeed terrorists. Or your job is actually a security job that involve looking out for a suicide bomber.
Don't forget the London killing was a DIRECT result of REAL FEAR coming from an earlier terrorist act in LONDON.

(3)..."Haslam....implies that there are rational grounds for a fear of Islam!"

I certainly agree there are rational grounds for a fear of Islam.
If you insist there can be no rational grounds for a fear of Islam, then you are part of what the author described under "Prejudice has more to do with beliefs and values..."

For example, Muslims outght not fear Islam. Otherwise he/she is irrational. ( Hence Islamophobes probably only exist among Muslims). But like KGB mentioned, don't we sympathise with such Islamophobes who want to leave Islam, yet too fearful of apostasy edicts??
Also, extrapolate that, it is likely people who sympathize with Muslims will not fear Islam. You & CJMorgan probably included.

(4)..."I don't need to give examples of Islamophobia": thousands of insecure bigots..."

Come on, some honesty here please.
Name one single "...insecure bigots...".
How about calling me one and I will prove to you that you are wrong??

The article does not differentiate between Muslims as a people and Islam as an ideology and “religion”. A near 100% of Muslims are born into that religion and are not allowed to leave the “religion” without having their lives threatened.

The author uses “phobia” in a very narrow sense as defined in the field of psychiatry. He describes the people who are critical of Islam as prejudiced --“are low on two quite different personality factors: agreeableness and openness”, ”among less rather than more educated people”. The term ‘Islamophobia’ is a misuse of psychiatric language according to him.

The field of psychology and psychiatry is often subjective and controversial.

[quote]
“Psychologist Roger Mills, in his 1980 article, "Psychology Goes Insane, Botches Role as Science," says:

‘The field of psychology today is literally a mess. There are as many techniques, methods and theories around as there are researchers and therapists. I have personally seen therapists convince their clients that all of their problems come from their mothers, the stars, their bio-chemical make-up, their diet, their life-style and even the "kharma" from their past lives."

With over 250 separate systems of psychotherapy, each claiming superiority over the rest, it is hard to view such diverse opinions as scientific or even factual.’

World-renowned research psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey is very blunt when he says:

"The techniques used by Western psychiatrists are, with few exceptions, on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witch doctors." [unquote]

The critical view of Islam by non-Muslims and some Muslim themselves is not based on prejudices but rather what is happening in the Islamic world and Muslim-majority regions of a non-Muslim country, e.g. Kashmir in India, south Thailand in Thailand, Mindanao in the Philippines, Xinjiang in China, Chechnya in Russia, Kosovo in Serbia, pockets of inner cities in the UK.

mil-observer

Had the AFP been more careful in their investigations and the Indian government was more helpful in providing vital information, it is without doubt that ‘Dr.’ Haneef would be found guilty as charged.

The Indian government was unhelpful to providing information regarding Haneef when asked by the Australian authorities. However, after the massacre in Mumbai by Muslim militia, they would willingly cooperate in the future

I find it interesting that the entire topic of “Islamophobia” - the term's origins and usage – elicits opposition largely united around one defence i.e., a defence, or at least justification, for “fear” of Islam. Most absurdly, the defenders of such fear insist that the fear is “rational”. They sometimes refer to others as the actually fearful: Copts, Assyrians, Pakistani Christians, and even Muslims themselves. However, such illustrations merely transfer or project from within, after almost open admissions by those who defend Islamophobia in practice, but who oppose the term because of its pathological connotations. It is the commentators themselves who harbor the fear, however they may variously express it, or insist that theirs is a calm, mature and reasoned position.

Be crystal clear on one essential point: “fear” is itself not a rational phenomenon. Although fear may have perfectly understandable causes, it is instinctual and emotional. To claim that some experience of fear endorses, or justifies, a worldview, is irrational and very dangerous. It would be just as absurd if we constructed worldviews on experiences like envy, hunger, sexual ecstasy, hatred, elation, sadness, etc. In short, the ensuing political effect would be irrationalism, and probably immoral by traditional norms. As phenomenological debate, politics would degenerate into futile contests between competing subjectivities.

The quality of political debate and its surrounding culture seems to have descended to just such levels of degeneracy. When a culture allows fear to become so respectable, it weakens itself profoundly by fostering paranoids and cowards as normal and healthy. Cynical opportunists manipulate fear for their own ambitions, in endless pursuit of inefficient, unproductive, wasteful and disruptive “security” activities against “the fear”.

I used to work in that industry, and I witnessed such decay first hand. The Islamophobes and their minders have largely won their “culture war”, in a sense, and I see little chance of western recovery from this illness. But for the record: I told you so.

As fear-based irrationalism entrenches, the irony looms like a monster: the qualities of the imagined object of fear – oppressiveness and freedom-hating - gradually consume the new polity.

Mil-observer wrote: "Be crystal clear on one essential point: 'fear' is itself not a rational phenomenon"

It's crystal clear to me Mil-observer is wrong here.

Fear is merely an emotional outcome, like "happy" or "angry". They involve at least one input (e.g. object of fear); one process (a.k.a. human mind) and experience (a.k.a. human memory).

If the human mind is faulty (eg. insanity), then whatever emotional outcome is likely to be irrational.
If the human mind is well but there is a lack of knowledge (ie. deficiency in memory), an emotional outcome could be incorrect (eg. not feeling fear when one should). Even so, such a wrong emotion is still rational. What needs to be rectified is the short-coming in knowledge.

What is important is the human mind. That completely determines whether an emotion is rational/irrational.

A robot can be programmed to show "fear" by blinking a red beacon, to show "happiness" by blinking a blue light when different sets of conditions are met. There is nothing much to it.

Suppose an object caused an incident yesterday. If the same object is presented in the same manner today, the same processing coupled with memory of previous event should produce an expected emotional outcome. That'd be a completely rational and predictable outcome.

If you believe there can be no rational fear of Islam, then my natural question to you, (assuming your mental processing is sound) -- Do you REALLY understand Islam and what it is doing??