There has been heated debate in Great Britain over the “working definition” of “Islamophobia” that has been presented for the government’s adoption by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims. The Independent describes the opposition of British police chiefs here:
“Police leaders have raised concerns that a proposed definition of Islamophobia will undermine counter-terror operations and threaten freedom of speech.
“In a letter to the prime minister, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said the change could “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies” including port stops, bans on terrorist groups and propaganda, and the legal duty requiring schools, councils, and the NHS to report suspected extremism.
“NPCC chair Martin Hewitt said: “We take all reports of hate crime very seriously and will investigate them thoroughly; however, we have some concerns about the proposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’ made by the All-Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] on British Muslims.
“We are concerned that the definition is too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion for officers enforcing it and 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 counterterrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.
“It is important that any definition of anti-Muslim hostility is widely consulted on and has support across the Muslim community.”
“After a six-month inquiry taking evidence from Muslim organisations, legal experts, academics, MPs and other groups, the APPG called on the government to adopt the definition:
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
The indispensable word here, the word intended to elicit horror and guilt, and to shut down all criticism of Islam and of Muslims, is “racism.” It does not matter that Islam is not a race but a faith, as has been quietly, insistently, repeatedly pointed out. Muslim groups pay no heed; they don’t think they should be asked to explain exactly what they mean when they invoke that fright-word “racism.” Nor do they explain that bizarre neologism “Muslimness.”
“The definition was proposed in November and has since been adopted by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the London mayor’s office.
“A government spokesperson said it would consider the change last year, but Theresa May is now expected to reject the definition. A minister is to attend a debate on the issue in the House of Commons on Thursday [May 16]..
“Assistant commissioner Neil Base, the head of UK counterterror policing, said police chiefs were not consulted by the APPG and want to see a definition that “satisfies all” while protecting hate crime victims.
“The definition of Islamophobia proposed by the APPG on British Muslims is simply too broad to be effective and it risks creating confusion, representing what some might see as legitimate criticism of the tenets of Islam – a religion – as a racist hate crime, which cannot be right for a liberal democracy in which free speech is also a core value,” he said.
“As it stands, this definition risks shutting down debate about any interpretation of the tenets of Islam which are at odds with our laws and customs, which in turn would place our police officers and members of the judicial system in an untenable position.
“Despite the fact it would be non-legally binding, it would potentially allow those investigated by police and the security services for promoting extremism, hate and terrorism to legally challenge any investigation and potentially undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies on the basis that they are ‘Islamophobic’. That cannot be allowed to happen.”
“The Independent understands that police chiefs had hoped to discuss concerns over the definition behind closed doors, and intended the letter to the prime minister to be private before it was leaked to The Times.
“The APPG’s report said the lack of an official definition was hampering efforts to counter Islamophobia, harming Muslims and wider British society.
“The aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been motivated by, nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion,” it [the APPG} added.
Nonsense. The term “Islamophobia” was invented precisely in order to inhibit free speech. It provides a way to undermine legitimate islamocriticism, which is a different thing from an “irrational hatred of Islam and Muslims,” by tarring it as “islamophobia.”
“No open society can place religion above criticism and we do not subscribe to the view that a working definition of Islamophobia can or should be formulated with the purpose of protecting Islam from free and fair criticism or debate.”
“War is deceit,” said Mohammed, and the very people who are disingenuously insisting that “no open society can place religion above criticism,” by calling that “religion” a “race” in their “working definition of Islamophobia,”are doing just that — attempting to place Islam above criticism.
“But a report by the former head of the Metropolitan Police counter-terror command, Richard Walton, said the definition would “seriously undermine the effectiveness of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, putting the country at greater risk from Islamist terrorism.”
A definition of “Islamophobia” as broad and vague — what is “Muslimness”? — as the one presented by the APPG and their collaborators will, if adopted, be used as a weapon, invoked against the police by those being investigated for terrorism.
“Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the definition had ‘left a demonstrably open field for damaging and even absurd conclusions.’”
“Successful and accepted counter-terrorism measures would run the risk of being declared unlawful,” he added. “The APPG definition would lead to judicial review litigation that would hold back the evolution of better counterterrorism law and practice hand in hand with strengthened religious tolerance.”
Think of how that working definition could be used to attack the police as harboring “racist” — that is, “islamophobic”– views, supposedly reflected in their choice of people, organizations, and neighborhoods to investigate. How many suits would be brought, charging the police with “islamophobia,” that would complicate and hamper the police in their counter-terror work/
“Baroness Warsi, a Conservative peer and member of the APPG on British Muslims, called the claims “extraordinary and disturbing.”
“The report makes clear that the definition does not seek to protect or stop criticism of Islam – to suggest it would is disingenuous and divisive,” she wrote on Twitter on Wednesday.
“The inability of senior police officers to understand how Islamophobia – the plethora of everyday micro-aggressions impacting British Muslims – is not the same as hate crime shows a worrying lack of understanding of the communities they seek to police.”
Baroness Warsi called claims that authorities would risk being taken to judicial review using the definition “completely untrue and irresponsible scaremongering.”
What are those “everyday micro-aggressions” that Baroness Warsi claims British Muslims must endure? Could she describe them, that purported “plethora,” and offer us evidence of their frequency? And while she is on the subject of micro-aggressions, should we not remind her of the dozens of macro-aggressions committed by Muslims? Think of the 7/7 terror attacks, the murder of Drummer Rigby, the killings on Westminster Bridge, the bombs at the Manchester Arena. Think of the British Muslims who went of to join ISIS in its campaign of murder of non-Muslims, and from Iraq and Syria made videos taunting the British Infidels. And what about the macro-aggressions against thousands of white, non-Muslim English girls, inflicted by the many Muslim grooming gangs that operated with impunity for so long in a dozen British cities? How do those stack up compared to the “micro-aggressions” against Muslims which so horrify Baroness Warsi?
“Naz Shah, Labour’s shadow equalities minister, accused the Conservative Party of being “in denial about Islamophobia and other forms of racism in its ranks.”
Naz Shah can describe this putative “Islamophobia” all she wants as a “form of racism,” but repetition is not evidence. Every time this is said, the proper reply is this: “Islamophobia is a word that has been invented to mislabel islamocriticism. Its goal is to shut down such criticism, to stifle free speech whenever that speech includes something negative having to do with Islam or with Muslims.
“If Ms May refuses to adopt the definition of Islamophobia, the message she sends to the Muslim community will be heard loud and clear,” she added.
The only message Prime Minister May would be sending is that the government will not be bullied into submission by Muslims claiming victimhood (that claimed “plethora of micro aggressions”), and will not adopt the “working definition” of Islamophobia if in the opinion of the police that will make their work combatting Muslim extremism and terrorism even more hellishly difficult than it already is.
“[The NPCC letter] shows a worrying trend of seeing British Muslims through the lens of terror and security, and the prime minister must distance herself from this immediately.”
It would be strange if the National Police Chiefs Council did not see some British Muslims through “the lens of terror and security,” for that is their business: to identify, investigate, and foil would-be terrorists. Naz Shah’s bullying tone — “if Mrs. May refuses…” and “the prime minister must distance herself from this [the NPCC letter] immediately”– is characteristically offensive.
The refusal of the British government to adopt the Muslim-concocted “working definition” of “Islamophobia” has enraged many Muslims. How regrettable. That refusal is, in fact, a welcome sign of political sanity. May it be a harbinger of harder decisions still to come.
Oren Wysocki says
I wonder if the british police would oppose the same type of legislation directed at protecting white supremacists, in the interest of defending white brits from racism? In G-d I trust.
Westman says
It is rather absurd. If one said the Jim Jones religion was a false religion, no one would be declaring that person to be a racist. If one were to say the same about the Branch Davidian religion, no one would claim racism. This is simply recognition that criticism of a religion’s teachings is not criticism of its members.
Somehow, Islam gets to redefine criticism of Islam as racism in the total absence of underlying evidence. No, there is no special privilege for Islam. It has a bad theology, like other religions out-of-step with Western values, which does not say anything about the personal morality of its core members.
Unfortunately, this attempt to muzzle criticism is already backfiring as the Western polls on Islam show increasing distrust, everywhere the unbelievers are free agents. Learning more about Islam’s theology will only make it worse, because the theology is anti-West, anti-Jew, and includes a mandate to rule the world, even by force.
Frankly, if Islam manages to muzzle the UK it will only further accelerate its image as a jackboot.
Michael Copeland says
It is that “learning more” that is so important.
The Learning Curve needs to be encouraged.
gravenimage says
True, Westman.
CRUSADER says
The term “Islamophobia” was invented precisely in order to inhibit free speech.
Islam and Leftism know about deceit and The Deceiver more than any other ideology,
aside from Satanism itself….
“Jihadist Psychopath” by Jamie Glazov is a book that should be on
every Counter-Jihad-er’s bookshelf or reading table, at the read-y.
keya says
We don’t have Hinduphobia or Asianphobia. Wonder why! . Muslims draw attention to themselves by becoming a pain in the neck for non-muslims. If they were not so damn annoying their unholy Koran would never have been under the microscope. Nor their criminal prophet (the worst man in history) so maligned. So they should shut the f**k up.
CRUSADER says
I didn’t think about those phobias! Thanks a lot!
Now I’m adding to my list of what I’m fearful and trembling over….
abad says
That’s because Moslems are taught from the Quran to attention wh*re Islam 24/7/365.
Then they play the victim card.
It’s a never ending cycle.
This is the primary reason they do not belong in a non-Moslem majority society.
Benedict says
A definition of islamophobia that works: People who are afraid of criticizing Islam suffer from islamophobia. And so do Muslims who are afraid of leaving Islam – and for good reasons.
FYI says
I guess that includes “insulting the prophet”?
If you give muslims their OWN islamic sources back to them then they cannot complain:muhammed,far from being the Perfect Man ,was a Fat{Abu Dawud 40} illiterate,cross-dressing {sahih bukhari 2442}self-confessed fraud{Al Tabari 6:111}.The majority of muslims don’t know any of that and the islamic apologists try to hide it by fiddling the Arabic{as is well known..}
But what exactly constitutes “insulting the prophet”?
Perhaps the “islamophobia” experts will tell us.
“I’m sorry but I just don’t believe the illiterate muhammed would know the difference between a Monet and a Manet”
“Buraq?Here,Buraq,where are you girl..has any one seen muhammed’s magical flying donkey with a woman’s face and peacock tail?You know the one he flew from mecca to Jerusalem on?k17.1 so muhammed flew on a creature that couldn’t possibly have existed to a mosque in Jerusalem which couldn’t possibly have existed{ in the time of mo}..”
“No.That dress definitely wouldn’t fit muhammed..it’s too small.Aisha’s size was small…..”
“So muhammed said women had a “deficiency of the mind” which is why the Testimony of a woman in the koran is HALF that of a man.Yet a small Jewish women managed to poison muhammed and he died in agony..I mean muhammed did not even die a martyr’s death!..he didn’t see that coming did he?A woman .. a Jewish woman.. takes out islam’s great “prophet” as he had killed her husband..poetic justice indeed…..how hilarious is that?”
Benedict says
https://youtu.be/DR29SNVGcbs
Islamophobia manifesting itself in the London police force.
Aussie Infidel says
I suggest that the APPG adopt the definition of Islamophobia given by the late Christopher Hitchens: “Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”
The fact is that the term “Islamophobia” was invented specifically as a way to silence critics of Islam, and shut down debate on the subject. Rumor has it that the mullahs at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) were so impressed by the success of the term “Homophobia” used by the LGBT lobby (who they hate with a vengeance), that they adopted the term “Islamophobia” to protect Islam.
Georg says
Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel, a Saudi, owns a 30% stake in the Independent. Not rocket science.
Islam presents a threat to the West and non-Muslim countries. That’s Islam’s fault, not ours. Muslims ought to be embarrassed about it, not us. Also, not rocket science.
hooligan says
Ccording to the most respected science jounals and fictionaries phobia is an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.
Society has no fear of islam. The word phobia has been bastardized to fit a political goal – that of enforcing one religions blashemy laws on the majority. The behaviour of followers of Islam exhibit the signs of mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.- that is – psychotic religion. A free society has no wish to have any arbitrary religious reality parsed into bounded categories of holy and unholy, good and evil, saved and damned.
Followers of any religion are equal in the eyes of the law to any other religion for the simple reason that we live in a society where the separation of church and state lie at the core of democracy. Islam is a political system that seeks discrimination in its favour and is abhorrent to democratic principles even before you get to more extreme practises of islam like female genital mutilation, treating homosexuality as a sin and the subhugation of women’s rights.
Any religion, including islam, that puts itself above the law and other religions is bigoted and should not be tolerated in a free society.
Hwat’s next? Blasphemy laws that extend into being forbidden to dress up as an ayotollah for a fancy dress party?
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“It is important that any definition of anti-Muslim hostility is widely consulted on and has support across the Muslim community.”
Back in 1970 in the United States, a proposal was made for an organized-crime law called the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
(“the RICO Act”). Let us remember the commentary surrounding the passage of this law, including the caution that
“It is important that any definition of anti-Mafia hostility is widely consulted on and has support across the Mafia community.”
gravenimage says
Ha ha
D J says
Yes, but do you remember the campaign of denial that the Mafia was even real and that this was just a slur on Italian-Americans?
I remember as a child it almost convinced me. People today are no smarter, but eventually free speech allows the evidence to come out. Hence, governments currently trying to block free speech.
mortimer says
It is ironic for British Parliamentarians to promote a vague, ambiguous, theoretical, nebulous ‘Islamophobia’, when Islam actually contains an ‘ESSENTIAL’, DEFINED, LEGALLY BINDING, PRECISE and OFFICIAL doctrine of intolerance, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims.
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ – (Allegiance and Disassociation) is an Islamic doctrine that is very similar to apartheid, but more severe.
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is an ‘essential doctrine’ (usul ud-deen). ‘Essential’ means that all Muslims must believe and practice al Walaa wal Baraa as a condition of being admitted to paradise.
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is a highly developed, well-supported and canonical part of Islam approved by the consensus of Islamic jurists.
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is legally binding and obligatory upon all Muslims.
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is precisely defined by Islamic jurists and is not a nebulous idea
• ‘Al Walaa wal Baraa’ is an official Islamic doctrine and considered the second most important doctrine in Islam.
-Imam AbdulLatif ibn AbdurRahman rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed and act upon it, and yet not be hostile against the mushrikeen. So anyone who isn’t hostile against the mushrikeen, then it can’t be said that he acts upon Tawheed , nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
(meaning: Without practicing hatred towards non-Muslim Kafirs, a Muslim is not practicing official Islamic monotheism).
mortimer says
DEFINITION of Islamophobia: a slanderous claim based on seriously flawed reasoning.
“Islamophobia” is a propaganda term, a ruse, and a subterfuge — misrepresentation is permitted in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya — to mislead and misdirect an enemy of Islam.
“Islamophobia” is thus an intentional SUBTERFUGE TERM meant to paralyze all discussion concerning Islam’s JIHAD-TERROR doctrine; and it has been a successful strategy: the United Nations has already presided over a conference titled “Confronting Islamophobia” and a Council of Europe summit condemned “Islamophobia.”
Moreover, the influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regularly lambastes the specter of Islamophobia, calling it the “worst form of terrorism,” and publishing two reports on the phenomenon.
Yet, in a classic twist of irony, the opening assertion of the OIC’s first report — “Islamophobia has existed SINCE THE TIME OF INCEPTION OF ISLAM” — This admission contradicts OIC’s entire argument, for it begs the following question: OIC wans us to accept that all criticism is of Islam is a result of prejudice, but they then ask us to dismiss all criticism of Islam before we examine whether the critique is valid. This is BEGGING THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS A VALID CRITIQUE OF ISLAM … they did not say what constitutes a ‘valid’ argument … but simply brush this important question under the rug.
To use CAIR’s definition of Islamophobia … if this mental illness ‘Islamophobia’ is a CONSTANT aspect of Islam’s fourteen-hundred year history, how can it still be regarded as “UNFOUNDED” ???
OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood and the British Parliamentarians have not PROVED that it is a MENTAL ILLNESS to criticize Islam.
mortimer says
Islamophobia as the STRAWMAN ARGUMENT:
Namely, substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or MISREPRESENTED VERSION of the position of the argument. Example: John opposes jihad terror. Pete replies: You are a racist. Response to Pete’s illogic: Jihadism is not a race, but an ideology.
Descriptions of Islamophobia’s meaning and purpose:
– an ad hominem fallacy of thought: mud throwing from a 7th century honour-shame culture, ‘poisoning the well’ fallacy, ideological, supremacist warfare
– an ad hominem fallacy of name-calling, rather than creating an intellectual argument. Name-calling is NOT an intellectual argument
– a thought-terminating cliché conceived to bully and beat down critics of Islam, thus preventing anyone from considering Islam’s very obvious problems
– a rehash of Mohammed’s slanders in the Koran, accusing his critics of mental illness or moral depravity or subhuman status as ‘the worst of beasts’
– a facile slander that claims ‘all critics of Islam are sick’, stupid, immoral or subhuman’
– Dirty Pool, cutting off the speech of the critic of Islam before they can finish a sentence. Muslims don’t play fair if they can play Dirty Pool.
– “Islamophobia. A word created by fascists, & used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” – Christopher Hitchens
– Abdur Rahman Muhammad (former member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought) was present when the term ‘Islamophobia’ was coined. “This loathesome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.’
Rufolino says
Mortimer, your analysis is much appreciated.
Joe says
How can England claim to have “free speech” when they ban anyone who is against the current government narrative? The number of banned speakers are over a dozen and maybe several dozens. Do the English think that is free speech?
The English arrest and incarcerate about a couple of thousand each year because the “criminals” said something that the English government dislikes. Surely, that is not free speech.
The facts that they consider Islam to be a race and promote propaganda such as “Islamphobia” is clearly indicative that they do not want free speech for anyone who disagrees with the official government narrative.
patriotliz says
A working definition of “Islamophobia”=another name for Sharia Blasphemy Law.
FREE SPEECH ANTHEM…”SPEECHLESS” from an unlikely source– Disney’s new Alladin movie which is condemned by C.A.I.R. for “racism, Orientalism and Islamophobia” which is a good enough reason to pay money to go see the movie before the Leftists submit to Islam and ban it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10SBTfT9I3s
Peter A says
The word ‘Islamophobia’ is a control word, used by Muslims and the Liberal/Left to try and silence and shout down any criticism of Islam by inferring that there is something wrong with you.
A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational or illegal (in the UK) about fearing or rejecting Islam. It wants complete control over your life, including punishment for challenging or rejecting its authority.
Islam is an intolerant, divisive, supremacist, violent and backward ideology that has a problem with Jews, gays, women and non-believers. It wants to subjugate and dominate, not integrate, and should be open to challenge, criticism, ridicule and rejection just like any ideology.
mortimer says
Peter A. raises an important point: the globalist Leftards and the Jihadists use the slander term ‘Islamophobia’ to stop people from interfering with their AGENDA of taking over the world.
Patriot says
what they mis-define as islamophobia is actualy islam-awareness; speaking the truth and giving facts scares them. they have to face reality one way or the other though; the awareness is better than facing death when they cannot defend their lives.
Reziac says
“…by calling that “religion” a “race” in their “working definition of Islamophobia,”are doing just that — attempting to place Islam above criticism.”
This is a case of “Be careful what you wish for” …. this is the crusade against antisemitism come home to roost. Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion have become socially, legally, and morally conflated, and deserving of special protections; now we’re seeing Muslims as a people and Islam as a religion become socially, legally, and morally conflated, and deserving of special protections.
Special protection of a group because they are that group, rather than because they are people with rights equal to any other, will always result in this confusion. But the big difference is that special protection for any other defined group merely makes for a legal and social quagmire; special protection for Muslims (or for Africans, in part because of the large overlap with Islam) results in the *deaths* of the unprotected groups.
gravenimage says
How are Jewish people “protected”? Actually, they are under increasing threat from invading Muslims.
Warmac9999 says
Islamophobia – Never tell the truth about Islam.
OLD GUY says
Muslims and followers of Islam are afraid to hear the truth and are of such a closed minded group that they can not stand to hear anything that opposes what they have been indoctrinated with. Brain washing by Islamic religious leaders who hold control over their subjects are little different than the NAZI brain washing of youth groups and the German public in the 1940s. Islamophobia is their defense against the truth or any opinion they do not agree with. No government or political group should have the right to silence anyones opinion or freedom of speech, particularly in the western nations.
sidney penny says
“Muslim groups pay no heed; they don’t think they should be asked to explain exactly what they mean when they invoke that fright-word “racism.” Nor do they explain that bizarre neologism “Muslimness.””
Spot on
Yes what is Muslimness?
What does a Muslim mean by racism?
No definition or explanation provided.