Tellingly, there is no attempt to define ‘Islam’ in the APPG report. What they have done instead is racialise Islam so as to make Islamophobia a form of racism. It does not matter that Islam is not a race, or that many Muslims do not see themselves as anything like a separate race. The authors want Islamophobia to be seen as racist. The report explains:
While those in the American media have long lamented the (alleged) post-9/11 rise in “Islamophobia,” they have ratcheted up the hysteria since the election of Donald J. Trump to the presidency.
That this template is Fake News is understood readily enough when the histrionics over “Islamophobia” are seen against the backdrop of the global reality of the anti-Christian oppression to which countless numbers of men, women, and children are routinely subjected—mostly by Muslims.
This latest attack also demonstrates how inadequately prepared France is to tackle the problem. The murderer was not just any civil servant: his security clearance allowed him to have access to sensitive files such as the personal details of police officers and individuals monitored by the department, including several individuals suspected of terrorism.
Why was the order rescinded? French authorities were likely afraid of charges of “Islamophobia.” The denial and willful ignorance regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and the demonization and marginalization of those who call attention to that threat — it all has consequences.
The chancellor of the exchequer Sajid Javid has said he does not use the word 'Islamophobia' because of its capacity to shut down legitimate criticism of religion. The National Secular Society has said the government should heed Javid's comments, which came in a BBC Radio 4 interview on Monday, as it considers its strategy on anti-Muslim hatred.
What one listener wrote is noteworthy: “How is Krept trying to justify the bar he said? It don’t matter about intention or if you’d don’t mock it or deny it, music is haram so why would using Quran verses in your songs not be?”
Whenever I note that Islamic law forbids music (aside from nasheeds, a cappella songs encouraging jihad), I am excoriated as a greasy Islamophobe, but it’s nonetheless true:
One of the then members of the IIIT who later renounced his Islamic radicalism and left the organization, Abdur Rahman Muhammad, revealed the intent behind the coining of “Islamophobia”:
“This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics…. Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them. This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s deceptive ‘General Strategic Goal for North America.'” [To see that document in Arabic, followed by an English translation, click here.]
“There’s Islamophobia that we sometimes have to deal with within Pride and within LGBTQI communities,” because the LGBT Muslims are sometimes told to “choose between their sexuality and their religion.”
She goes on to explain that she personally “doesn’t find any conflict between the two.” Really? She is perfectly free to proclaim herself as gay and Muslim, but Islamic teaching is clear that homosexual activity is worthy of death. There is plenty of “conflict between the two” identities.
Iran’s state-controlled Press TV here says that Zemmour “was convicted for saying that France has been ‘colonized’ by Muslims, even though colonization is done by a group with power, whereas France’s Muslims are on the bottom of the nation’s social ladder.”
Yes, of course. This is indeed a historically unprecedented type of colonization. But the idea that a group at the bottom of a nation’s social ladder could not possibly take power is, to say the least, unsupported by history.
An Adelaide butcher has been pressured to take down a sign after it was found to be “offensive and demeaning” to muslims. The Advertising Standards Board heard a complaint against Valley Butchers in August over a sign at the store. The sign read, “non halal certified” and features a picture of a kangaroo and an emu.
"We are concerned that the definition... could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states. There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism." — Martin Hewitt, Chair, National Police Chiefs' Council.
Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity. The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas.
Here is what Trump said in March 2016: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
That seems to be the difference between Trump and the Democrats: the latter, in typical head-in-sand fashion—or just to garner votes—reject the “Islamophobic” claim on principle, whereas the president at least acknowledges that there’s a problem, one that “we have to get to the bottom of.”
Would-be censors also advance the seemingly innocuous requirement to publish more than one opinion in any given story. This is an iniquitous imposition. When covering racial attacks on Muslim retailers, it would have had me asking ‘how many opinions, exactly?’ — and whether I would seriously be expected to interview any members of the English Defence League who would seek to justify those attacks.
For months, Ipso has been working on a new project: an ‘informal working group’ to guide journalists on what should and shouldn’t be said about Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance have been leaked to Policy Exchange by someone concerned about where it might lead, and it is examined in a new study by the thinktank called Eroding the Free Press. I can disclose it here for the first time.
The gatekeepers of public debate can’t patronise away anti-Muslim bigotry
United Kingdom (UK)
All-party parliamentary groups do not have any power to change the law or government policy. But this report has been uncritically embraced in much of Westminster and by some local authorities and public bodies. The government has rightly rejected it, but it still seems set to have a significant influence on the rough parameters of acceptable public debate on Islam for years to come.
As many as 25% of 'Islamophobic hate crimes' recorded by the Metropolitan Police are crimes committed against non-Muslims or people of unknown faith. This is the conclusion from Freedom of Information inquiries made by Hardeep Singh of the Network of Sikh Organisations, which has been reported in the Spectator this week (4th Paragraph of the article). The Met recorded 1,227 incidents of Islam
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia has mainly been framed as a free speech issue. The definition adopted by some parties and councils will certainly limit criticism of Islam and Islamism even further than it already is currently. To say it will not is dishonest at best. This has already been the case for a long time now. For those of us who have fled Iran, it has been so since the expropriation of the Iranian revolution by the Islamists; in Britain, at least since the Rushdie affair.
Not all people who worry about a replacement of civilizations are necessarily violent or even incorrect. They appear to be frightened folk, sent over the edge by matters they may feel beyond control. In Europe and the United States, they have witnessed wave upon wave of attacks by individuals and groups openly espousing violence in the name of religion. They seem to fear that their own governments are doing too little to protect them and their families from future attacks.
"What unites these groups ideologically is a belief that Europe is facing a 'great replacement' by Muslim and African immigrants. And they want something done about it." — Marion MacGregor, "The push from Europe's young new right", Infomigrants.net; May 5, 2018.
Political correctness, often an extreme form of denial of reality, has made it increasingly hard for even the most reasonable and careful of thinkers to say anything critical about Islam...efforts to block fair criticism of aspects of Islam can become unjust forms of censorship.
Anne Marie Waters opposes jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. Because of that, the Labour Party, whose leader has close links with the jihad terrorists of Hamas and Hizballah, is demanding the head of Boris Johnson aide Chloe Westley for daring to praise Waters in 2016.
And yet when I look back now, the remarkable thing is not how much fuss they made, but how little, especially if you think what we have come to expect from some Muslims. I have in mind not just the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, but the trembling refusal of a noted Koranic scholar to write an article for The Spectator. "You don't understand," he said. "These people will kill me if I say what I really think. I mean kill me."
Aproposed new definition of Islamophobia could be used as a “bully’s charter” by Muslims to silence critics and promote intolerant views, a former equalities chief has warned. Trevor Phillips, who chaired the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR), also claimed the row over Boris Johnson’s comments on Muslims was “pure dirty politics” and was being used to “get” the Tory leadership frontrunner to scupper his ambitions.
The real problem is the concerted effort to create a one-religion blasphemy law for Islam.
The device campaigners are using is a new definition of Islamophobia, produced by the British Muslims all-party group of MPs. There are many issues with this definition, not least that it has been influenced by MEND, a Muslim campaigning group accused of promoting extremism. According to Sir John Jenkins, who reviewed the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, MEND has “exerted an important intellectual influence” on the definition.
BRITAIN’S war on terror could be crippled if Ministers cave into MPs and accept a new controversial definition of islamophobia, an ex-terror tsar warns. Lord Carlile said the form of words describing Islamophobia as a ‘type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness’ would hamper efforts to stop and search extremists at ports and returning ISIS fighters.
“Revealed: Government adviser on Islamaphobia gave his backing to a Pakistani cleric who called for a Christian mother to be hanged for blasphemy,” by Glen Owen and Abul Taher, The Mail on Sunday, April 7, 2019:
he All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims has produced a well-intentioned but worrisome definition of Islamophobia. It states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.
The National Secular Society has questioned why an organisation that displayed literature calling for the killing of Ahmadi Muslims has obtained and retained registered charity status.A report published by charity regulators on Tuesd
Oxford City Council has agreed on a list of examples that should be deemed 'Islamophobic'. The council passed a motion last night to adopt the APPG (All-Party Parliamentary Group) definition of Islamophobia.
Admin: This is a slow, creeping erosion of fre speech. Since the government rejected this dusbious definition it appears the aim is to introduce it piecemeal by persuading local councils to adopt it.
Two parts to this - firstly, Hitchens warning about 'Islamophobia' used by those in power as an excuse to erode and curtail free speech - includes updated references. Looking at what has recently happened in Canada & announced in the UK, it appears Hitchens was a better prophet than any offered by religious cults. Secondly, Snippets from Hitchens & friends defending free speech & the right to offend.
It is the definition of historical illiteracy to compare Islamophobia to anti-Semitism. And yet that is what is happening. People who feel put out by the discussion of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and possibly even envious of the attention that anti-Jewish prejudice is receiving in comparison with anti-Muslim prejudice, have taken to saying: ‘What about the cancer of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party? When are we talking about that?’ They fail to realise the fundamental difference between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: the former is one of the world’s oldest hatreds and has caused the deaths of millions of people; the latter is a word invented by the Runnymede Trust in 1997 to demonise criticism of Islam.
Who was really marching against fascism in London on Saturday afternoon? The Democratic Football Lads’ Alliance (DFLA), which took to the streets to register its fury with radical Islam? Or the self-styled anti-fascist movement that gathered to block the DFLA, and which even chanted ‘No pasaran!’ as if it was the 1930s again and this was a replay of the Battle of Cable Street that pitted working-class radicals and Jews against Moseley’s fascist brownshirts?
In truth, neither side was. Fascism is a vastly overused word these days. It now means, as Orwell predicted it would, little more than movements or people ‘I disapprove of’. Most people who call themselves ‘anti-fascist’ are really just being vainglorious, fantasising that their uptight agitation against whatever political movement is currently getting their goat puts them on a par with the men and women who fought on Cable St or who trekked to Spain with the International Brigades.
As for Islam – virtually every criticism of Islam is chalked up to racism these days. Witness the fuss over Boris Johnson’s jokes about women who wear the niqab. You’d think he was Goebbels the way people reacted. Basically, if you don’t curtsey every time you pass a woman in a niqab, you’re racist. But when it comes to the Jews, it’s an entirely different story.
Other left-leaning people in the media were most worried that there would be an Islamophobic backlash in response to the deli massacre and the Charlie Hebdo massacre. So even when there is racist violence against Jews, some people think to themselves, ‘Oh no… I hope the Muslims are okay’.
The neologism "Islamophobia" seems to be a quasi-scientific effort to suggest that suspicion of Islam is simultaneously irrational and racist. Even more of a concern is the attempt to employ science in the service of politics.
The Nazis in the last century concocted a scientific theory about the inferiority of the Jews in order to rationalize their plan to annihilate Jewry. Now pseudo-science is used to defend Muslims. The disturbing fact is that in both cases, we deploy social science in the service of a political agenda. While some scholars such as John Denham have drawn parallels between modern Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, their implications are not only illogical, but dangerously deceptive.
Establishment ‘conservatives’ and left-liberal politicians and journalists have rushed to condemn Brexiteer former foreign secretary Boris Johnson for his comments on the “ridiculous” burqa, branding him “Islamophobic” and even “racist” — but have not shied away from criticising the garment themselves in the past.
For an illustration of just how kneejerk accusations of Islamophobia have become, look no further than the row over Boris Johnson’s latest column. Writing in the Telegraph, the former foreign secretary criticised Denmark’s ban on the burqa. A ban runs against Denmark’s ‘spirit of liberty’, he said. He makes clear that he opposes the introduction of a similar ban in the UK.
Yet while Johnson is against banning the burqa, he is nonetheless critical of this garment. It is ‘oppressive… to expect women to cover their faces’, he says. He adds that it looks ridiculous and its wearers sometimes ‘look like letterboxes’ and ‘bank robbers’. For making these remarks, despite his call not to ban the burqa, Johnson stands accused of right-wing, racist demagoguery.
Anyone who doubted that the accusation of Islamophobia is used to silence perfectly legitimate political debate will surely change their minds as a result of the Trump / Sadiq spat. In the rush to brand Trump an Islamophobe and a racist merely because he criticised Sadiq Khan’s response to terror attacks, Labour and its media cheerleaders have exposed how much of a conceit the phobia accusation is, how cynical it is, and that it really serves no other purpose than to shush unpopular opinions by slurring them as bigoted.
A chronicle of a society in its death throes: Lord Pearson asks if “Her Majesty’s Government whether, in pursuit of their anti-terrorism strategy,” will “require preaching in mosques and teaching in madrassas in England and Wales to be monitored for hate speech against non-Muslims.”
More than 95 per cent of deradicalisation programmes are ineffective, according to a study commissioned by the Home Office that raises questions about the government’s Prevent programme. The study revealed failures in the approach to deradicalisation in schools, youth centres, sports clubs and English-language classes. The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), the so-called nudge unit formerly part of the Cabinet Office, examined 33 deradicalisation programmes across the country designed to safeguard vulnerable people from far-right and religious extremist threats. The Times understands
The row between the UK government and the country’s biggest Muslim organization has intensified after the British home secretary said the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) did not represent Muslims in the UK. The MCB last week called for an independent inquiry into alleged Islamophobia within the ruling Conservative Party, claiming that verbal attacks on Muslims were occurring “more than weekly” and listing a number of such attacks by Conservatives from the past two months. But Home Secretary (interior minister) Sajid Javid has hit back, saying the government has no dealings with the MCB bec
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has announced his intention to ban the wearing of the headscarf by children, as it has no religious basis, declaring "We are a land of freedom, not oppression!". In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Islamic veil symbolizes oppression of women under Sharia law. Sharia law is incompatible with Western values.
People who want to live under Sharia law can go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
Liberals and leftists in the West use the made up term "Islamophobia" to portray anyone who criticizes Islam as a "racist". Radical Muslim terrorists all over the world carry out terror attacks "in the name of Allah". They justify their violence by quoting verses from the Quran. Islamophobia is a made up word created by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically to silence debate.
Legitimate criticism of Muslim teaching can’t be compared to antisemitic demonisation and lies.
Unlike the claim of Islamophobia, which was used to silence legitimate criticism of the Muslim world, antisemitism was based entirely on lies and demonisation. On social media, I was accused of seeking to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and the Jewish world. Not at all. Criticism is legitimate because it is rational and grounded in evidence. Antisemitism is not criticism. It is instead a unique form of bigotry.
Irrationally, it holds that both Israel and the Jewish people possess a demonic power to control the world. It accuses both of crimes of which they are not only innocent but are themselves the victims. It treats them in ways which it applies to no other people, nation or cause.
Now consider Islamophobia. Anyone who calls out Islamist extremism as a fanatical or primitive interpretation of Islam currently dominant in the Muslim world is called an Islamophobe. Anyone who says the Muslim Brotherhood is a conspiracy to Islamise the world is called an Islamophobe. Yet evidence abounds to support such observations. Numerous Islamic religious authorities have upheld the uncompromising precepts behind Islamic fundamentalism and holy war.
These links and any other content or links on this website are provided for information only. No warranty is provided regarding their accuracy, and no liability is accepted for reliance on them. Sharia Watch UK is not responsible for the content of external sites. We do not necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed on these external sites.