I'm just throwing this out to anyone interested with more time then I have to read, analyse and potentially write about it.
"New report shows why we must reject the silencing propaganda term ‘Islamophobia’"
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/08/24/demos-report-islamophobia/
Perhaps this is an interesting subject to post about in the debate forum?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well, I read the article and whole-heartedly disagree with it. First off, he is disagreeing with a think take survey that painstakingly compiled evidence then published the results. In other words, he doesn't like the outcome. He berates the findings by claiming that the term "islamophobia" is wrong,\ and then goes on to justify how Islam is a bad thing instead of the terrorist. It is subtle in the manner that he does it but it is still the case. Now I don't think he does this simply because he is an atheist. I think he does so because he is a racist. It is one thing to be against the religion, but it is completely different to be against a people.
I have read Michael Nugent's articles in the past and they all have an air of prejudice and racism.
@Mykcob4
I do not understand how you can take a racist bend from this article, if you can explain to me how you got this I would appreciate it.
Now on why we should reject the term 'Islamophobia'. This is for the simple fact that it is, in itself, a meaningless word. Often it is used simply as an accusation, as a means of demeaning the character of the one criticizing Islam, rather than a response to legitimate criticism of Islam as a religion. Not only that, far too often, it is used interchangeably with 'racist' which is itself ignoring that the FACT that Islam is by its own claim a universal religion that does not recognize race in the first place. Most people who use this term ironically hold the belief that to be a Muslim you must be of brown skin and from the middle east. Yet the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world are as diverse culturally and 'racially' in the same way as within the Christian religion. To say that one is an 'Islamophobe' as far as I can tell is to imply that one is irrationality afraid of Islam, and this can certainly be true, but when it is so vague in is definition, so much so that no two people can really agree on what exactly constitutes Islamophobia in the first place, it stands to reason that it is a means of ending any chance of reasonable dialogue. It is a weapon used by Muslim apologists who seek only to propagate their own religion by gaining the illusion of the moral high ground in the face of genuine criticism.
For example, I criticize the killing of apostates, something we see all over the world, not just from those we call 'terrorists', and in response I am labeled an 'islamophobe'. This is not a response to my critique, but it is an effective tactic to switch the conversation from the topic of the killing of apostates, to me defending myself against the denigration of my character. And with most cases of witch hunts, to be charged, is to be guilty, and any act of defense on my part only cements the charge all the more. Because if I do not fall to my knees begging forgiveness, then in their eyes I MUST be what they accuse me of being.
I knew you would respond. Here's the thing. I am taking into consideration the history of the reporter (commentator). Not just the content of the article itself.
I know that you are an exacting stickler for the proper definition of each term and the context that that term is used. We can count on you for perfection in that regard.
And I deserve to be called out considering your vast knowledge of language and definition. However, you have to have experience with this guy to know what his agenda is and why he writes these preparatory articles. Next will come a fully discrimination article that will categorize all muslims as terrorist.
Well to start my intent was not to call you out, but to check if you saw something in the article that I missed, because it is possible that I missed something, that you did not, so before I challenge you on what you said, I would give you the chance to fill me in.
But do you think that it is a fair criticism to interject your interpretation of his agenda, and then conclude that he must be racist, based on your personal assessment, of what you believe his agenda to be? To give an example I could read your post, and interject my interpretation that your agenda is to act the part of Muslim apologist. (I dont think that mind you) Now I believe that would be unfair to you, because it does not fairly represent what you actually said in your post. If my reasoning was, "Myk disagrees with the OP, therefore he supports the use of the term 'Islamophobia', therefore he must be a Muslim apologist" that would be a misrepresentation of your post, because even if you DO support the use of the term, there is no justification on my part to conclude that you are a Muslim apologist. I just connected the dots in my mind to support my assumption, and presented it as a definite conclusion.
Do you see my point?
I do see your point.
I don't agree or like any religion or faith and Islam is just one of them.
I do however recognize that people (many) lump extreme terrorist with all muslims. This justifies, in my opinion, the term "islamophobia."
"Islamophobia" is a misnomer. The word should mean a fear or hatred of the Islamic religion, but what's taken to mean is hatred of or discrimation against Muslim people, and specifically the view that all Muslims are terrorists. Perhaps the correct word for that would "anti-muslimism," which would be a parallel formation with "anti-semitism." However, we seem to be stuck with "Islamophobia" as the word for anti-Muslim sentiment. That's a pity, because the word is being used to stifle legitimate debate about Islam as a relgious doctrine.
As others have pointed out elsewhere, discriminatory treatment of Muslims is the strategic goal of ISIS. Through their barbarous behavior, they are inciting hatred against Muslims in the West in the hope of encouraging more Western Muslims to become radicalized. Donald Trump is possibly the best recruiter for Islamic extremist groups.
I think anti-muslim bigotry is the most accurate term, because it calls out those who simply discriminate against Muslims for nothing more than being Muslim. Which is a very real problem. Like the stupid ban on "burkinies' or whatever it's called. Talk about creating a problem out of nowhere. Forcing women to undress, in any form, is no different than forcing women to cover up.
I like your suggestion, it's a much better term than Islamophobia
"anti-muslim bigotry", it spells out what it means much clearer.
France's supreme court struck down the burkini ban.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479
There's a picture of a woman swimming in a burkini. Looks pretty uncomfortable and maybe a drowning hazard.
Message to French Muslims: If you wear something different and new, idiots may stare and point for a while. Get over it.
Message to French: Stop being idiots.
This was a good idea. I think I will save a lot of time by outsourcing reading and analysis this way... :D
Seriously though, thanks for the feedback and the subsequent debate.
@Prag
Here is a great video about this very subject from Faisal Saeed Mutar that you think should you check out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miJ9IJuk6qI
"Islamophobia-phobia", LoL
He had some really good points. Thanks for the link.