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:
Any honest and objective appraisal of Islam’s historic jihad on the Christian world must be eye-opening, to say the very least. In the first century of its existence (between 632-732) Islam permanently conquered, Arabized, and Islamized nearly three-quarters of the Christian world, thereby permanently severing it. Europe came to be known as “the West” because it was literally the remaining and westernmost appendage of Christendom not to be swallowed up by Islam.
For roughly a millennium thereafter, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars—all of whom called and saw themselves as Muslims—launched raid after raid, all justified and lauded as jihads, into virtually every corner of Europe. They reached as far as Iceland and provoked the U.S. into its first war as a nation. The devastation was indescribable; some regions in Europe, particularly in Spain and the Balkans, remain uninhabitable due to the incessant raiding. Some 15 million Europeans were enslaved during this perennial jihad and, according to contemporary records, treated horrifically.
How many of these attacks on mosques were presented by the political and media elites as instances of “Islamophobia”? In any case, the Sunni-Shi’ite jihad, having been fought for fourteen centuries in Muslim countries, has now come to diverse Britain.
In the ‘whataboutery’ which now dominates British politics, no mention of Labour anti-Semitism is complete without a counter-accusation of Tory Islamophobia. It swiftly followed the Chief Rabbi’s condemnation of Labour anti-Semitism on Tuesday. There may well be people in the Conservative party who have an irrational hatred of Muslims, but the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be absolutely resisted. Unlike anti-Semitism, this is a concocted concept.
In recent days, we have seen the worst elements of Jeremy Corbyn. Behind the veneer of an affable, bearded chap I see a sinister Marxist who believes in class warfare and also in pitting Britain’s Muslims against Jews.
“The dossier reveals that Cllr Griffiths posted an article on Facebook in 2017 claiming German Muslims had campaigned to end the Oktoberfest beer festival, because it was ‘un-Islamic.'”
Well, did such a campaign occur or did it not? If it did, why is it forbidden to speak about it?
“Cllr Griffiths then liked a comment posted on the post which said: ‘They can go back to where they came from. Try going to a Muslim country and ask them to stop Muslim traditions because it offends incoming Christians. How outrageous is sharia behaviour.’”
“France is the European member state most affected by radical Islamic terrorism according to a study that shows over half of the terror attacks in the EU occurred in the country.” More of the Left’s addiction to fantasy over reality:
“France’s systematic, state-sanctioned abuse of Muslims makes them feel rejected, threatened, and disenfranchised. The brutality of the hostility they encounter, whether physical or ideological, sets a standard for how the French ruling class responds to other groups it sees as a political threat…”
That’s great, except in practice those who dare to criticize the religion, that is, to stand against jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women and others, are vilified and ostracized as “Islamophobes” and falsely accused of hatred of believers. There aren’t really any people who criticize Islam, even if they speak only about jihad violence, who are acceptable to contemporary Leftists and their establishment conservative lapdogs.
Also, many in this march denounced “racism.” Once again, Islam is not a race. This woolly thinking will be the death of us. Quite literally.
new definition of Islamophobia will prevent criticism of the “hateful ideology of theocratic Islam,” say two of Britain’s leading atheists in new book of essays. Richard Dawkins and Peter Tatchell - and other authors including a former member of extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir - say attempts to define Islamophobia risk curtailing freedom of speech and work to expose extremism.
“Under the male ‘guardianship’ system, which Amnesty said is at the centre of a web of discriminatory provisions, men are empowered to control ‘women’s lives and limit their personal freedoms’, while women could be subjected to degrading practices such as ‘virginity tests’, aimed at determining whether they’ve had sex outside marriage.”
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”.
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.