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.