There is no question in my mind that some people use attacks on Islam as a cover for their racism.

They don’t like dark-skinned people. Most Muslims in Australia are dark-skinned. Attacking people on the grounds of skin-colour is (rightly) seen as beyond the pale. Let's find some other avenue of attack.

Bingo!

We'll attack Islam.

And yet there are people who are not racist and who find Islam objectionable. Just as there are people who find Christianity objectionable.

Is there any OBJECTIVE way we can determine, from people's posts, whether their attacks on Islam are motivated by racism or by a genuine aversion to the Islamic belief system?

Interesting question Steven.

A few points.

1/ SKIN COLOR ?

a) I don't find dark skinned Lebanese Christians 'attacked' as you describe it. The Cronulla 'code' of *f_off lebs* mean't 'Muslim Lebs' more than 'Lebs in general' because most of the complaints I heard, both in Vic and NSW (about Cronulla) derived their reasons from something 'Islamic'.. such as the 'uncovered meat, tarts, sluts' kind of thing.
b) Southern Italians look a lot like Lebanese, but I don't see them attacked like the Lebanese Muslmis are.

2/ REVERSE RACISM The website you linked us to in another post of yours, to the daleel web site portal... there is an image of Australia with the Lebanese flag superimposed over it. Message? hmmm just like the 'under new management' of the infamous video's on youtube. (still there)

3/ LEBANESE STYLE ISLAM. In the popular lebanese muslim mind, I hardly think the deep doctrines of Islam figure prominently. Such would not be the case among those who attend the Haldon St Prayer Hall, where radicalism figures (or did at last count) more openly I understand.

4/ Muslims are many races. So, it's unlikely that picking on Islam is a way of 'getting at' a particular race. If that were so, then a lot of people would be simililarly picking on the RC or the Greek Orthodox churches.

CONCLUSON. An "Islamophobe" is a racist when his arguments make no logical theological sense and not based on Islamic foundation documents, are not based on actual history, and lack robustness when criticized and it would be more accurate to describe him or her as a 'Muslim-a-phobe'

'Islamophobia' is a very correct state of mind for non Muslims. In fact..I totally encourage it. But only when based on a careful study of what Islam truly "is" relative to the non Muslim.

I would think a lifelong racist would be hard to detect.
You could ask a writer, but he mightnt answer truthfully.
Its in most of us older folk you know...the racist thing.
It started in the school yard all those years ago when we first heard that blacks were mostly useless (adult teaching).
So we made jokes about aborigines.
As we grew up we heard that all Italians and Greeks were wogs and they were useless.
Its in the Australian people to be racist.
Ive heard people of some repute curse boat people...and I really believe that was connected to the colour of the boat peoples' skin. Yep...its in the white anglo-saxon to be that way. A relationship with Jesus sure helps get rid of it.

Maybe the linking word you're looking for between Islamophobe and racist is 'prejudice'. I guess when racism crosses to prejudice that's when the individual ignoramus doesn't care who they dislike, so long as they're not 'of them'. The 'sub-hate' could manifest as Islamophobia but be a just part of an overall prejudice. Kinda like an opportunistic bigot.

Maybe.

Prejudice.. an interesting word. Meaning that facts and truth have little bearing on a persons attitude to a situation.

I find a lot of that here:)

A good although not perfect measure of detecting if someone is truely racist is to see how many friends they have of different colour, race, shape etc. People who think tribally will always be racist. People who think biblically we view all people the same (lost in need of a Saviour), people who worship the earth will see Christians of any colour as a stench because they reject their worldview. Thankfully I find in Christ I have friends from almost every nation on earth.

I think that Steven's basic premise is quite correct, i.e. that many people's antipathy towards, and irrational fear of, Islam and Muslims is a 'cover' for their racism towards non-Europeans in general. However, there are many Islamophobes whose prejudice derives from what might be termed ideological grounds - including religion, politics, feminism etc. For others again (probably the majority), their Islamophobia is simply an expression of xenophobia, where the universal sociocultural phenomenon of ethnocentrism (where one's own culture is presumed to be superior to others) is amplified to become a generalised fear of and antipathy towards those of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

While these analytic terms - Islamophobia, racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism - are not interchangeable, they share the common characteristic of being the basis for widespread prejudice against people because of some perceived difference that is thought to be innate, or essential to the object of prejudice.

I think that when Islamophobia is expressed in terms that attribute certain innate and negative characteristics to all Muslims irrespective of the personal qualities and actions of individual Muslims, then the distinction between Islamophobia and racism becomes blurred.

For example, Islamophobia based on an antipathy towards the religion of Islam and certain practices carried out in its name (or more reasonably on the activities of Islamists) is not racism, although it is structured similarly. However, Islamophobia that attributes negative innate qualities to all Muslims (e.g. they are untrustworthy, violent, criminal, prone to gang rape) on the basis of their religion and/or ethnicity, is indeed a form of racism.

Ironically, I think that one reason for the rise of Islamophobia in Australia has been the success of 'political correctness' in suppressing the expression of overtly racist sentiments that still linger in our cultural underbelly. Islamophobia seems to provide a convenient outlet for the expression of mindless hatred that used to be directed against Asians and Aboriginal people, that is no longer socially acceptable.

Of course there are other factors at work, but I think that is a major contributor to the advent in Australia of Islamophobia.

Just to expand briefly on that last sentence, I think that another major factor in the rise of Islamophobia and its conflation with racism and xenophobia in Australia, has to be Australia's participation in the so-called 'War on Terror' over the past 5 years.

Although Western governments who are members of the 'Coalition of the Willing' are at pains to distinguish between terrorism and Islam per se, this distinction is not made by their hoi polloi - who are fed a constant diet by tabloid media of anti-Islamic reports and facile analysis. We're at war with the ragheads, and they're all Muslims aren't they?

It's almost mandatory in warfare to dehumanise the perceived enemy, and racist propaganda has long been a weapon used by governments to whip up support for unpopular wars on the home front. I think that the Howard government cynically manipulated good old Aussie racism into the very ugly Islamophobia we see expressed all too often, and which actually fosters the kind of alienation upon which terrorism thrives.

The use of the word prejudice here is interesting.

Here are some common definitions of prejudice:

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE, THOUGHT, OR REASON."

"any PRECONCEIVED OPINION or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable."

"UNREASONABLE feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group."

IN other words:

A leftie pundit who assumes, without bothering to understand my reasoning, that my antipathy towards Islam is based on "prejudice" is himself guilty of prejudice. Prejudice towards me that is.

No one here has answered the question I posed. In the light of CJ's post I am going to alter it slightly.

Is there any OBJECTIVE way we can determine, from people's posts, whether their attacks on Islam are motivated by racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, etc or by a genuine aversion to the Islamic belief system?

RUNNER,

The worst Jew haters can at some point be relied upon to say "Some of my best friends are Jews."

Let me come clean. I have Muslim colleagues and acquaintances but no Muslim friends. On the other hand those I do count as my friends span the gamut of skin tone, gender, sexual orientation and continental origin. Most of my friends are either secular or wear their religion lightly.

CJ

"Islamophobia that attributes negative innate qualities to all Muslims ….on the basis of their religion …is indeed a form of racism."

You would unhesitatingly attribute negative qualities to someone who professed to be a strong John Howard supporter.

Similarly I have no hesitation in attributing negative qualities to those who profess to believe that the crazed utterances of a psychopathic seventh century Arabian warlord is the last word to humanity of the creator of the universe.

OF COURSE WE ASSESS PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY PROFESS TO BELIEVE.

Note, I am talking about true believers here, not people who are only culturally Muslim.

CJ your last post assumes that the rise of Islamophobia is a bad thing. Why should rising antipathy towards a crazy belief system be bad?

stevenlmeyer:

"OF COURSE WE ASSESS PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY PROFESS TO BELIEVE."

Indeed, but that is quite a different thing to "asessing" people on the basis of what we assume they believe - which is, of course, prejudice.

"Note, I am talking about true believers here, not people who are only culturally Muslim."

The problem arises when prejudiced people conflate the "true believers" minority with the "only culturally Muslim" majority. Exactly the same applies with Christianity or any other religion, of course. Islam will inevitably become more integrated into Australian society and culture with time, as Muslims inevitably become more secular with each generation. Unless of course we manage to alienate further the current generation of Australian-born Muslims, which is what we seem to be doing.

"CJ your last post assumes that the rise of Islamophobia is a bad thing. Why should rising antipathy towards a crazy belief system be bad?"

Of course the rise of Islamophobia is "a bad thing". A rational antipathy to all "crazy belief sytems" is one thing, but it is quite another to become phobic about one in particular. In my opinion those who claim to be Islamophobic on theological grounds are even more problematic than the closet racists, because they know better what they are doing.

I'm interested to know what the Islamophobes think will be the product of their belligerent intolerance of Muslims in Australia? Are they going to pack up and return to their (or their parents') countries of origin? Do we ban the practice of Islam?

Sorry folks - it ain't gonna happen. So what's the only other possible outcome of increased prejudice and intolerance towards Muslim Australians?

STEVEN.....you are asking for an objective assessment of subjective utterances. Most of what people way is based on their prejudices.

Let me use CJ as an example here..

It seems to be most difficult for CJ to see the difference between negative feeling about a religion and negative feelings about the followers of it. But he is getting closer these days :) I see hope in his last post.

EXAMPLE.

<Islamophobia, racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism - are not interchangeable, they share the common characteristic of being the basis for widespread prejudice against people because of some perceived difference that is thought to be innate, or essential to the object of prejudice.>

Now..the first term "Islam-ophobia" is only about 'beliefs/teachings/doctrines' but racism and the others, are only about 'people'.

Now.. the day that CJ learns to keep 'people' separate from 'ideas' is the day when we all rejoice and have some bubbly and sing Kumbaya together holding hands :) In short it will be a great day for OLO.

Steven shows his own biases about the character of Mohammad, and I share those assessments completely, but I believe this 'bias' is in fact more objective than the bias of Muslims who proclaim him the "Best of all Mankind"..

Why so? Simple. all one needs to do is list his behavior, and then compare this to what is considered acceptable even in many pagan societies, and we find he falls not only short, but abysmally short.
Compare Mohammad with Christ, and you are stuck b4 you start.. there IS no comparison. (except possibly to say they are as different as the East is from the West)

CJ wrote

"… but that is quite a different thing to "asessing" people on the basis of what we assume they believe…"

When someone professes Islam, and here I'm talking about the true believers, those who are to, borrow a metaphor, "Allah botherers," then yes I do attribute negative qualities to them. The reason for this is my understanding of what they have to believe to be an adherent of contemporary Islam.

My understanding of contemporary Islam in turn derives from five sources:

--The koran,

--The ahadith

--Various books – see for example The Legacy of Jihad by Andrew Bostom

--Talking to various scholars of Islam

--MOST IMPORTANT – talking to Muslims, asking them about their beliefs. I have been doing that since the year Melbourne last won a grand final.

Based on these sources I find I cannot respect anyone who professes Islam.

The top 5 global religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Chinese "universism" and Buddhism. I know nothing of Chinese universism. Of the rest I find Islam to be the most loathsome of the lot. I would put Hinduism with its caste system second. Christianity I put third. Buddhism I find the most benign of the lot.

CJ Wrote:

"The problem arises when prejudiced people conflate the "true believers" minority with the "only culturally Muslim" majority."

You infer that true believers are a minority.

You know this how? And how much of a minority?

I am not saying you are wrong. I am asking how you know this.

Where will "belligerent intolerance" towards Islam lead?

Depends what you mean. If you mean violent intolerance I want none of that.

If you mean a robust intellectual attack on Islam I hope it will keep Islam on the margins of the public sphere where it belongs. "Belligerent intolerance" helped free us from Christian oppressiveness and will, I hope, keep us free of any vestiges of shariah.

None of this, of course, answers my question CJ.

Do you, for example, think my attacks on Islam as motivated by racism, xenophobia, etc?

If so, why?

PREJUDICE and RACISM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeTqheFnBM0&feature=related

NON PREJUDICE but LOVE in its place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r_FbARIn8

The first one stirs hatred, the 2nd one stirs our hearts to love.

Both are based on "Monotheistic Religions" but they are different religions and the sentiments shown are characteristic of those differences. One God despises Jews, the other Loves ALL mankind. (Including those who are deluding poor Basmallah)

"Ive heard people of some repute curse boat people...and I really believe that was connected to the colour of the boat peoples' skin. Yep...its in the white anglo-saxon to be that way. A relationship with Jesus sure helps get rid of it."
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 15 March 2008 3:46:03 PM

A relationship with Jesus helps get rid of it?? It does no such thing, as you can see!

Absolutely agree with your two posts CJ.

Come back Bader-Meinhof/Red Brigade/Carlos the Jackal;-all is forgiven.

Let us have some variance in who we target.

The so-called 'War On Terror' DID legitimize racism. And racism of the Islamic culture and belief system is running rampant globally.
It has even been given its own name: Islamophobe.

stevenlmeyer: "Do you, for example, think my attacks on Islam as motivated by racism, xenophobia, etc?"

As Steven well knows, there's no way to assess that objectively. However, on the basis of what he's revealed about himself in his posts to this forum, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, I've yet to see someone who identifies as a Jew speaking out against Islamophobia in this forum.

No Jew will ever speak against 'Islam'....apohobia because such 'phobia' is rightly felt in the light of the hostile, anti Jewish, violent, disparaging, insulting, vilifiying declarations in the Quran against them and their beliefs.

Jews, knowing full well how a simple phrase in Mein Kampf such as "They must be disposed of" was translated into real life.... and with the Quran not only making similar and worse pronouncements, it also seeks to apply divine authority on these declarations. "If ALLAH is against them.. who can possibly be 'for' them" type of mindset.

So... CJ.. please don't waste time with such futile red herrings.

Next you will be denying the holocaust and claiming that the mention of it is 'Germanaphobic' and calling on Jews to condemn Germanaphobia.

StevenMeyer

'The worst Jew haters can at some point be relied upon to say "Some of my best friends are Jews." ' Really? Very poor response!

BOAZ, why again with the Holohoax reference?

This thread appears to me to be about establishing the difference of predjudice against race to predjudice against religion.

Yet the old sob-story of supposed events over 60 years ago is dragged up again.

Hi Jack.. well I suppose I could use a different Illustration....

Lets say Geelong missed some goals in a premiership match, and the stupid full forward fumbled 3 marks in row.. CJ would have us 'hating the whole team' just because we ripped into the full foward...

is that a better approach ? :)

CJ, Ginx

I infer from your writing that you both believe Islamophobia is some great evil, like Apartheid in South Africa or the stoning of adulterers in Iran, that all decent people should condemn. CJ for example writes:

"Of course, I've yet to see someone who identifies as a Jew speaking out against Islamophobia in this forum."

As if this represents some deficiency in the Jewish community.

But Islamophobia is NOT some great evil which we should all unite to combat.

Islamophobia is simply an aversion to a belief system called Islam.

Why is an aversion to Islam a terrible evil while an aversion to Christianity, Judaism, Zionism or, for that matter, the policies of the Liberal party, is not?

Please explain why Islamophobia is bad while "Liberal-o-phobia" is not?

If an aversion to Islam is a great evil then are there any other belief systems that we may not publicly disdain?

Would you care to name them and explain why?

Or is it only Islam that merits special protection?

May I, for example, dis Zoroastrianism or is that two verboten in the worlds of CJ and Ginx?

Jack the Lad wrote:

"Yet the old sob-story of supposed events over 60 years ago is dragged up again."

You make a very valid point. I think there should be a rule that after 60 years nobody may bring up a supposed "historical injustice" as an excuse for doing anything.

60 years is an eminently sensible cut off date and I compliment you for mentioning it.

Let bygones be bygones after 60 years.

You also wrote:

"This thread appears to me to be about establishing the difference of predjudice against race to predjudice against religion."

By using the word "prejudice" you are, in fact, displaying prejudice.

See my post of Sunday, 16 March 2008 11:08:45 AM on this thread.

stevenlmeyer: "Islamophobia is simply an aversion to a belief system called Islam."

It's a bit more than an aversion, Steven. I have an aversion to Islam too, but I doubt that anybody would call me Islamophobic. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing exactly.

As a neologism, I use the term 'Islamophobia' pretty much as it's described in Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia ].

If you have a look at that discussion you'll see that Islamophobia is unacceptable for much the same reasons that, say, Antisemitism is. One can have an "aversion" to Judaism too (particularly of the Zionist variety), but that doesn't make one a Holocaust denier.

Would you agree that Antisemitism is to be discouraged in Australian society? I certainly do, for almost exactly the same reasons that I argue against Islamophobia.

Aversion is one thing, phobia is quite another.

Steven: "Let bygones be bygones after 60 years."

I think you'll eating your words when you see the "quality" of Jack's "evidence". Drawn from the furtherest corners of the interwebs, it conclusively demonstrates that the holocaust wasn't so much an extermination of the Jewish people, but a delivery to them of ice creams and kittens.

Anyway, as Jack has pointed out before with startling intellectual cunning, no one can know anything about the holocaust or indeed the past at all because - wait for it - they weren't there.

CJ Morgan : "I have an aversion to Islam too..."

This will not buy you any credit among your so-called Islamophobic crowd.

A fool is a fool, whether the fool happens to have the "right kind of attitude" does not make any difference.

I am not white, so I cannot be a racist.
I have lived in Islamic state and still have friends who are Muslims so I don't qualify as Islamophobic.
I used to be a long-time foreigner in multiple places so I cannot be xenophobic.
I cannot be an idiot judging by your inability to comprehend my logic question, let alone answer it.

To me the overriding consideration is Freedom & Democracy and Islam is a DIRECT threat to that.
My position is something quantifiable, not the type of fuzzy nonsense from your mouth.

Not only you miss out what is likely the MOST IMPORTANT consideration, your talks around "analytic terms - Islamophobia, racism, xenophobia..." are nothing but biased personal opinions obfuscated by assumptions & supposition. Useless cliche typically coming from a pseudo-intellect.

You cannot see the wood for the trees. I doubt you ever will !!

I quite like the term Islamodisdain. I can't be described as Islamophobic, because I'm not afraid of Islam.

I definitely disdain it though, given the history of the last twenty years where Islam is concerned.

On the other hand, why hasn't a term like "occidentophobia" been invented, for those Islamists who hate and fear the culture of the West? (and yet they are quite anxious to come and live here - strange, that) :-)

Of course one could add "homophobia", "Israelophobia", "Hinduphobia", "Buhddophobia" etc. I tried to think of a "ophobia" for the hatred and disdain of women, but such does not spring readily to mind.

I think Islamists have a lot more phobias than we do, which is why I don't fear them.

CJ.... 'aversion' is one thing, phobia is another.....

The problem is... that when people speak against specific identifiable injustices and horrible practices in Islam, they are often described as 'Islamophobic'..by your kind self among others.

All you do is demonstrate how words can be politicized for the acheivement of political agenda's.

Now.. using the "Muslim Students request Uni Lecture times changed to fit in with Muslim prayer times" as an example.. lets see HOW we might respond to this?

FIRST..lets clearly understand the nature of such a request.

-It seeks no less than the 'Islamification' of our Universities.

a) Altered lecture times.
b) Separate dining areas for male and female.

Do you honestly think that Muslim members of parliament would argue AGANST such?

As a non Muslim, I absolutely and intensly resent the idea that this small populational tail, should even 'THINK' that it can wag the national dog.

So.. to oppose such things, to demonstrate against them, to reject in every way possible... is quite justifiable. Whether you or others call it 'Islamophobia' is up to you, but the problem is.. in calling it 'phobia' you are (whether you realize it or not) ascribing NEGATIVE connotations to a most worthy cause.(preserving our cultural identity)

Opposing such cultural intrusion is not 'irrational' but entirely rational. "fearing" it... is also rational, because it is quite apparent that the feelings and culture of Australians is totally ignored by such requests.

Australia’s Islamic experience has been something best “done without”. Most of the western world shares the problem. It is not racism as people of “middle-eastern appearance” are found through the Southern Europeans who are accepted and respected everywhere. Why are people from the Philippines more acceptable than Indonesians or Malays who are racially very similar? People from Turkey are often more European in appearance than many southern Europeans. I submit it is not the race but the creed that sets Muslims apart.

CJ:

"Islamophobia …refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims."

The keywords are "prejudice" and "discrimination."

The word "prejudice" has become meaningless. Is my disdain for Islam a consequence of "pre-judgement" or a carefully considered position? Ditto your position on Zionism?

Believers will label "prejudiced" anybody who expresses a negative opinion about their beliefs.

That leaves discrimination. Nobody should suffer discrimination in the sense of having their civil rights curtailed because of their beliefs.

However this is not the sense in which most Muslims use the term Islamophobia.

Muslims use Islamophobia to mean disrespect for Islam.

They consider the publication of Muhammad cartoons to be a manifestation of Islamophobia?

If you want to know where this could lead consider this:

http://www.pr-inside.com/muslim-nations-mull-taking-legal-measures-r485067.htm

"…leaders of the world's Muslim nations meeting at a summit in Senegal are considering legal action against those who slight their religion or its sacred symbols."

Consider also Victoria's notorious "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" and the persecution of pastors, Scott & Nalliah. Yes Scott & Nalliah are Christian nut cases yet to argue that they affected any Muslim's civil rights is preposterous.

I don't usually agree with David Marr but in this instance he expresses my views well.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/free-speech-or-fighting-words--its-a-fine-line/2005/07/26/1122143844736.html

We need to fend off ideologically inspired attempts to curtail free speech.

So, in the sense that Muslims use the term, I consider Islamophobia to be as legitimate as "Christianophobia," "Zionistophobia" or "Liberal-o-phobia."

Let's test you position CJ.

Do you consider the publication of the Muhammad cartoons a manifestation of Islamophobia?

I'm not asking your opinion on whether the newspapers should, or should not, have published the cartoon.

I'm asking whether you consider it Islamophobia in the Wikipedia sense of the word?

I sense you understand you are losing this one CJ. You are, and I DO respect you for this, a vigorous champion of free speech.

Deep down I think you understand that labelling public expressions of contempt for Islam as "Islamophobia" and attempting to conflate it with racism and anti-Semitism is an attempt to curtail free speech.

Gz

Islam is no threat.

The threat emanates from attempts to accommodate or appease Islam.

Ultimately the issue is preservation of free speech which is the cornerstone of all civil liberties.

That is why it is necessary to keep saying this:

--Public expressions of contempt for Islam are no more "illegitimate" or "evil" than public expressions of contempt for the Liberal party, the ALP, Zionism, Marxism, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, the US, Australia or Cuba.

--Dissing Muhammad is as legitimate as dissing John Howard, Kevin Rudd, George Bush, the Pope, Charles Darwin or the Dalai Lama.

--A belief system is not granted exemption from critique, analysis, satire and scorn because it is labelled a religion or because 20% of humanity profess adherence to it. Nor is it granted such exemption because its adherents are easily offended and threaten mayhem and murder when their sensibilities are hurt.

The attempts on the part of the misguided left to appease Islam are everywhere to be seen. It is noticeable that many of those who were most vociferous in defending the right of the National Gallery of Victoria to display "Piss Christ*" went AWOL when it came to the Muhammad cartoons.

As for the reaction of the self-righteous left to the death sentence imposed on Salman Rushdie – let's not even go there.

*See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Chris

Boazy, I prefer your new analogy.

Vanilla, do you mean that a statement from Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum, does not qualify as 'quality evidence'? Just because it was reported on a site that offends your PC tendencies, you can't dismiss it. If the same site suddenly stated 'Fascists are evil', would you skip around in excitement or would you say 'Fascists are not evil because I don't like the source of that information'?

If my statement is sarcastically labelled as being of 'startling intellectual cunning', how does your silly 'delivery to them of ice creams and kittens' fit in?

As for who was around Osweicim in the 1940's, I haven't seen any forum users own up to it. If Holohoax denial is as stupid as you try to label it, why is it illegal in many countries? Why fear what you see as rubbish believed by a minority?

Here's another link http://americandefenseleague.com/judea_declares_war_on_germany.htm

This is from the Daily Express though, as it is displayed on the ADL site, you will probably disregard it. Note the date of the article. Hitler had been in power for less than two months - not much time to embark on campaigns of violence and suppression . There were no 'camps' then. As he preached anti-semitism, Judea reportedly declared war on Germany. Because of this, Jews would later be regarded as enemy aliens and placed in internment camps. Surely this article and the later quotes that follow the article would be taken off the internet if blatantly untrue.

Stevenlmeyer: "Islam is no threat."

A "threat" is somewhat synonymous to a "force" in physics term.

In physics, an object tends to move in the direction of a force.

The successful force of Islam lies in its ability to quickly breeds believers, in a self-replicating manner.

Women of Islam are breeding machines of baby Muslims. Little Muslims grow up to breed more baby Muslims, and so forth....and the FORCE of Islam inceases with each breeding cycle.

The tiny pearl of Asia, the city-state Singapore is facing similar problem (that she would not talk about). But nonetheless Singapore is trying to boost her non-Muslim population, to counter-balance the force of Islam.

In a society found on Freedom and Democracy, perhaps there is only one way to neutralise such an inevitable powerful Islamic force :---

To Steadfastly, Actively, Bravely and Openly CHALLENGE the Islam religion in every way possible, even resort to humiliation if necessary, to the extent that as many Muslims leave the religion as baby Muslims are born.

Unless the force of Islam can be effectively counter-balanced with an opposing force, Islam will be a big THREAT to Freedom and Democracy.

I shall leave you with this important web-site:-

http://www.faithfreedom.org

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

My work has caught up with me again big time... This is gonna be my shortest visit so far.
No time to study "The origin of modern crocodyliforms" either. (I am sure Bugsy will still be here next time)

So it's time to say GOODBYE - FAREWELL - ZAI JIAN - SO LONG...

Ginx, You may now hurl "abuses" at me, (without which something is just not complete). Don't leave that to CJ, will you ??

Ha.ha..ha... :D

I have no doubt that Islam is a threat to Singapore. It is a tiny secular state in a Muslim sea.

When I said Islam was no threat I meant in Australia.

Here is an interesting link about Singapore.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/18/singapores_mosaic/

I hope we never have to introduce the draconian measures that Singapore uses to ensure "harmony."

Steven has told us that he doesn't have any Muslim friends, and that he can't respect anybody who practises Islam, because their religion is crazy. I think that attitude fits within the meanings of both "prejudice" as he's defined it and "Islamophobia" as I have.

I think all religions are mass delusions, but that doesn't mean I can't respect people just because they believe in them. They only lose my respect in relation to their religion if they attempt to convert me to it.

stevenlmeyer: "Muslims use Islamophobia to mean disrespect for Islam"

Really - how do you know that? The few Muslims who participate in this forum don't. The article you directed us to doesn't.

Saying Islamophobia means disrespect for Islam is the equivalent of saying that anti-Semitism is simply disrespect for Judaism. Clearly, there is a bit more to it than that. Many people "disrespect" various religions without hating and fearing them - like in the case of the Danish cartoons, which weren't Islamophobic, despite the over-reaction of the fanatics.

Incidentally, I also oppose the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, as I oppose laws that prohibit denial of the Holocaust in Europe. People should be able to express their ideas and beliefs (no matter how silly, hateful or obnoxious), and other people should be allowed to question, criticise, lampoon or otherwise comment upon them.

"I sense you understand you are losing this one CJ. You are, and I DO respect you for this, a vigorous champion of free speech. "

I don't think anyone wins or loses these kinds of debates, Steven. Yes, these topics tend to attract the bigots in numbers, but it's the content of comments that count, rather than quantity. I respect Steven too for raising these issues, although I suspect that his convoluted rationalisation might mask sentiments of his with which he is uncomfortable.

I see that gz's scuttled back under his rabidly Islamophobic rock. How fascinating that he could cite Singapore as a bastion of freedom and democracy!

"Ginx, You may now hurl "abuses" at me, (without which something is just not complete). Don't leave that to CJ, will you ??

Ha.ha..ha... :D"
Posted by gz, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:53:55 PM

How's this?

.........bye.

CJ,

Regarding the definition of "Islamophobia."

I have discussed this with numerous Imams and other Muslims. All seem to regard publishing something that "insults" Islam, Muhammad or the koran as being Islamophobic.

However, to settle the matter, I phoned the Islamic Council of Victoria (03 9328 2067) and asked to speak to someone who would give me a definition of Islamophobia. They said they would get back to me.

I've phoned them for information on three previous occasions. They got back to me twice. Thus if past statistics are anything to go by I have a 67% chance of hearing from them. Either way I shall report back.

I also phoned the Islamic Society of Victoria (03 9470 2424). They asked me to phone back. I shall do so.

However CJ, in the mean time, would you answer my question?

In your opinion was the publication of the Muhammad Cartoons Islamophobic?

I am not asking you to speculate on the motives of the publishers or cartoonists. Nor am I asking your opinion on whether the cartoons ought to have been published. For the record had I been the editor of Jyllands Posten I would not have published them.

My question is confined to the act of publication. Do you consider the act of publication Islamophobic?

In your view are the cartoonists who supplied the cartoons Islamophobes?

atevenlmeyer: "In your opinion was the publication of the Muhammad Cartoons Islamophobic?"

As I said quite clearly in my last post, I don't think so: "...like in the case of the Danish cartoons, which weren't Islamophobic, despite the over-reaction of the fanatics".

Interesting that you kind of admit that your claim about the way Muslims use the term 'Islamophobia' was based on mere supposition, given that you're now deploying a very dodgy methodology to confirm it - awaiting a return phone call indeed! I try to maintain my respect for you Steven, but when you claim to have personal knowledge of how Muslims think, based on purported converations with imams whom you acknowledge you don't respect... well I have to say I'm dubious about either your honesty or your sanity.

Frankly, I don't believe you, particularly in light of your admitted prejudice.

CJ

If you don’t believe me you don't believe me. There's nothing I can do about it.

I have in fact widened the scope of my inquiries since my previous posting. For the benefit of others who may be interested I shall report back

As they requested I phoned the Islamic Society of Victoria (03 9470 2424) again yesterday afternoon. The gentleman I spoke to requested time to formulate a reply. I left him with my phone number and email address.

It is significant that despite constant claims of Islamophobia two Muslim Victorian organisations are unable to define it. I understand their dilemma. Make the definition too broad and the whole concept behind "Islamophobia" is revealed for what it is - a ruse to curtail freedom of speech.

On the other hand make the definition too narrow and Islamophobia - as opposed to discrimination against Muslims - is seen to be a red herring.

I intend to pursue this investigation after the Easter break. I shall again phone the two aforementioned Islamic organisations in Victoria. I shall also phone Islamic organisations in other states and abroad. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are both on my list.

It will be interesting to see what comes up. I shall specifically ask whether the organisations I phone consider the Muhammad cartoons to be a manifestation of Islamophobia.

Perhaps I can work this up into an article for a serious publication.

Obviously a persons genetics, skin colour, family heritage is something they cannot change and this is to be respected.

However persons ideas, politics, and religion is something that is flexible and can change. By the use of opposing ideas in political and religious debate people's minds change. We in a society that has freedom of expression can challenge any ideas held. However if we use restriction of expression, threats of violence or intimidation then it is based in phobia. We fear that we may loose control and our held beliefs.

All the above restriction of expresion, threats of violence or intimidation are methods sought or used by Islam and they classify anyone who opposes them on such held beliefs with Islamophobia.

Muslims often compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism. They say both are evils that must be combated.

They hasten to add that attacks on Israel or Zionism are not anti-Semitic.

Of course, just as many people use attacks on Islam as a way of disguising their racism, so many people use attacks on Israel or Zionism as a cover for their hatred for Jews. Nonetheless, being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist is not synonymous with hating Jews anymore than expressing contempt for Islam is racism.

How can we differentiate between someone who objects to Zionism and someone who just hates Jews?

Here are links to three cartoons. Which, if any, of these would posters consider to be anti-Semitic as opposed to simply anti-Israel or anti-Zionist?

The first is the famous Leunig cartoon the Age refused to publish. It was later entered into an Iranian competition on "Holocaust Cartoons" without Leunig's knowledge.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/060502_s5f1_thumb.gif


The second cartoon appeared in La Stampa in Italy. The caption reads "surely they're not going to kill me again."

It appeared at the time Fatah gunmen were hiding in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Israeli forces surrounded the building.

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/vignetta_stampa_small.jpg

The last is a prize-winning cartoon by David Brown of the Independent newspaper in the UK. It depicts a naked Sharon eating Palestinian babies.

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/independent_sharon.jpg

For comparison purposes here is a link to one of the notorious Muhammad cartoons.

http://www.humanevents.com/images/islm_cartoon_6.jpg

Steven, I think that, of your first threes cartoons, only the second (the Italian one) is anti-Semitic. This is because it substitutes a depiction of Jesus for that of the Fatah gunmen, and implies that the Jews are just up to the same murderous tricks they've been engaged in since they crucified Jesus. Much Christian anti-Semitism seems to cite the Jews' responsibility for the Crucifixion as justification for hating Jews.

On the other hand, I wouldn't call the 'Muhammed' cartoon Islamophobic. While I suspect the business about suicide bombers being promised X number of virgins on reaching Paradise is more of Western fantasy than an Islamic one, the cartoon is obviously commenting on terrorism rather than Islam itself.

CJ,

Aaah the old virgin question.

For a modern translation of what the koran has to say about heaven see.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

Go to Sura 56 esp 36-40

See also Sura 55 and Sura 76.

Whether actual virgins are involved or whether, as some Muslim scholars latterly insist, this is a mistranslation, I cannot say. There is no doubt however that Muslims are promised a very sensual paradise.

Even more important than the promise of virgins is the promise in ayah 18 and ayah 19 of Sura 56. That promise alone would be enough to persuade some of my acquaintances to embrace Islam.

For the rest, I agree with you. Only the second cartoon seems to me to be anti-Semitic.

Are the Muhammad cartoons Islamophobic?

Here is a link to an article on the Muslim Council of Britain's website.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/article_detail.php?article=announcement-535

Under the heading "London Rally Voices Anger on Danish Cartoons" we find the following:

"Dr Abdul Bari, Deputy Secretary General of the MCB in his address said that “this peace rally is about solidarity against incitement, against Islamophobia and against the vilification of Prophet Muhammad,…"

So is "vilification of Prophet Muhammad" a manifestation of Islamophobia? Or is it a separate "crime?"

This is one of the questions I intend to ask the MCB when I phone them next week.

Now another question CJ.

We both agree that taken individually the Muhammad cartoons are not Islamophobic.

Suppose a newspaper regularly – say once every two or three weeks - published cartoons that lampooned Muhammad. Would that be Islamophobia?

Is "lampooning" the same as "vilifying" and is vilification, or lampooning, of "Prophet Muhammad" some great evil that all men and women of good will should fight against?

stevenlmeyer: "Suppose a newspaper regularly – say once every two or three weeks - published cartoons that lampooned Muhammad. Would that be Islamophobia?"

That would depend entirely upon the context, Steven. If the cartoons referred to current news items and issues, and the newspaper wasn't in the editorial practice of singling Islam out from other religions for this kind of treatment, then maybe not.

However, if the newspaper routinely presents Islam (as opposed to Islamism) and Muslims negatively, editorialises regularly about the supposed dangers of Islam, and only publishes letters that are highly critical of Islam, then yes, it probably is an example of Islamophobia.

And if it publishes such cartoons egregiously, simply to provoke a reaction from Islam's lunatic fringe', then that is certainly Islamophobia. While 'vilification of Mohammed' is not the same thing as Islamophobia, it seems to be characteristic of Islamophobes.

I hope this helps.