Jump to content

Islamophobia


Recommended Posts

Islamophobia

By Elif Shafak

wwww.zaman.com

European intellectuals have the experience to know how to deal with phobias and scare tactics. They can simply analyze the historical background of the old continent in which they live in and its social fabric.

For example, they know only too well from history what a contagious illness anti-Semitism is and during which periods and among whom it appears. Likewise, they are well aware of what hatred toward foreigners is, how racism arises and where it becomes strengthened without becoming too apparent. However, today they are thinking about how to handle a new danger they haven’t previously known and are consequently unprepared for: Islamophobia.

In his 2004 book, which sold more than a million copies, Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who only knows how to write patriotic literature with prejudices and whose hair stands on end when Islam is mentioned, claims that the “European continent should no longer be called Europe, but Eurabia instead.” Then he added that in the past, Muslims sought physical occupation by means of war, but now they were going to occupy the European continent through culture. While not as provocative as Fallaci, famous American historian Bernard Lewis is also an inciter of Islamophobia. Pointing out that while the European birth rate is extremely low, the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is quite high. He said that if the situation continued, at the end of this century the European continent would become a part of Morocco. After that, Francis Fukuyama joined the parade. Implying that Europe had not confronted the “Islamic danger,” he wrote in a long article comparing Europe and America that he was optimistic about America, which had success in melting different cultures in one pot, but was pessimistic about Europe, which was not able to digest ethnic and religious groups. Not a single day passes without someone writing an article or book, some more cautious and some more provocative, about the “imminent Islamic danger” in the European press or the world press. The recent consecutive terrorist attempts are serving the interests of “brokers in fear and patriotism.” Generalizations made contribute to the rejection of Muslim societies in Europe, and their rejection pleases those who believe in the “clash of civilizations” hypothesis, thus benefiting only the production of two-way generalizations.

Today Europe’s total population is 500 million, with about 16 million Muslims. It cannot be said that there is a strength in numbers nor do broad masses approve of terrorist methods and radicalism. On the contrary, a significant number of Muslims in Europe don’t see any fundamental conflict between their religion and the country where they live. The conspirators caught at the last minute who said, “I’m only loyal to Islam, not England,” are in the minutest of the minority. The wishes of Muslims are not along these lines. At every opportunity they indicate that they don’t want to be discriminated against because of their religion, that they don’t want to be treated as “potential terrorists” and that they want to enjoy basic rights and freedoms just like any other European citizen. In addition, there is one point that the theoreticians and journalists, who produce Islamophobia refuse to see. It’s not possible to talk about a single and homogeneous “European Islam.” There are important cultural, historical and philosophical differences and variations between Turks and Pakistanis and between Moroccans and Bangladeshis. Forget about a special European characteristic, even in the British character there are many variations of belief, interpretation and lifestyle. On some subjects, Turks feel closer to Mediterranean immigrants from different religions. Or people from the Far East. When we look at the fabric of immigrant societies there are many criteria that cut through patterns and categories.

OK, in spite of all these variables, why and how is Islamophobia growing? Who benefits from this dialogue? Most importantly, how are European intellectuals and democratic elements going to deal with this danger that they are not familiar with and not prepared for?

August 29, 2006

08.30.2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

It seems that every other topic has gone back to definition of Islamophobe, and a simple motion (M-103) has become the topic de jour everywhere. Maybe we can have a clearinghouse here about Islamophobe, or a better term if you prefer. I will start with the issue, not specifically a definition but at least some context. It might also be helpful to cite what others have defined Islamophobe as.

There continues to be a dramatic increase in recorded Islamophobic hate crimes and attacks targeting Muslim persons and property, and Islamic religious, educational and communal institutions. We are alarmed by the explosion of Islamophobia and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the participation of civil society. The government should collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic crimes, and other hate crimes, committed and report such information periodically to the public.

Edited by Charles Anthony
thread merged; former title "Islamophobe - road to consensus (just joking)"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It seems that every other topic has gone back to definition of Islamophobe, and a simple motion (M-103) has become the topic de jour everywhere. Maybe we can have a clearinghouse here about Islamophobe, or a better term if you prefer. I will start with the issue, not specifically a definition but at least some context. It might also be helpful to cite what others have defined Islamophobe as.

There continues to be a dramatic increase in recorded Islamophobic hate crimes and attacks targeting Muslim persons and property, and Islamic religious, educational and communal institutions. We are alarmed by the explosion of Islamophobia and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the participation of civil society. The government should collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic crimes, and other hate crimes, committed and report such information periodically to the public.

There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech.

Unless it's specific like vandalism and assault (both of which which we already have existing laws), or calling for the killings of all people that belong in a group, how do you define a hate crime ? 

If I say "I hate you!"  would you consider that a hate crime?

 

 

Furthermore, we already have an existing hate speech laws, and hate crime laws:

 

 

Quote

 

The Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

 

 

Quote

 

What is a hate crime?

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.

A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property

So, why do you need another one on top of the other?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-is-a-hate-crime-1.1011612

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, betsy said:

If I say "I hate you!"  would you consider that a hate crime?

No. But there are a lot of hate crimes, and yes most of them are other crimes as well. Scrawling anti-Muslim graffiti on a Mosque, and then lighting it on fire is a good description of a hate crime. What is a terrorism offence, and why do we need it? Are not the acts of terrorism other crimes as well? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No. But there are a lot of hate crimes, and yes most of them are other crimes as well. Scrawling anti-Muslim graffiti on a Mosque, and then lighting it on fire is a good description of a hate crime. What is a terrorism offence, and why do we need it? Are not the acts of terrorism other crimes as well? 

 

That falls under the hate crime laws!  They did that too to Synagogues.  Aren't cops looking for them, and arresting suspects?  I know that they do, and sometimes cops are asking for the public's help.

 

Why do we need to put another law when we already have one that addresses that problem?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

It seems that every other topic has gone back to definition of Islamophobe, and a simple motion (M-103) has become the topic de jour everywhere. Maybe we can have a clearinghouse here about Islamophobe, or a better term if you prefer. I will start with the issue, not specifically a definition but at least some context. It might also be helpful to cite what others have defined Islamophobe as.

There continues to be a dramatic increase in recorded Islamophobic hate crimes and attacks targeting Muslim persons and property, and Islamic religious, educational and communal institutions. We are alarmed by the explosion of Islamophobia and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the participation of civil society. The government should collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic crimes, and other hate crimes, committed and report such information periodically to the public.

Given the thousands of deaths as a result of Islamic beliefs given substance, it's not difficult to understand an "explosion of Islamophobia and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression".  If there is reason to hate, why not express it on the most accessible medium of all?

The question always is, is there reason to hate?

A question for you, asked without malice.  Given all our discussions on here, do you think there is anything about Islam that I hate, that you don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, betsy said:

All Canada has to do, is implement the [hate crime] law!  If someone commits any crime listed above, then punish them according to law.

You seem to be debating M-103 which is worthwhile of debate. In this thread however I was trying just to focus on what Islamophobia is since that seems to crop up everywhere and we might try and reduce duplication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You seem to be debating M-103 which is worthwhile of debate. In this thread however I was trying just to focus on what Islamophobia is since that seems to crop up everywhere and we might try and reduce duplication.

The definition of hate crimes and hate speech are given above in those laws - and they should be the same definition for Islamophobia.

 

But since there is a need to make another motion....obviously, those definitions are not good enough for Islamophobia.  If the definition of hate crimes in our current law isn't good enough, how else can you define hate crimes without infringing on free speech?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

So you are cool with the term Islamophobia, and understand it? Could you clarify for the rest of us?

I understand the hate crime laws.  Not Islamophobia.

I'm not cool with Islamophobia since obviously the current hate crime laws isn't good enough for its definition.  So, what else will be added?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So you are cool with the term Islamophobia, and understand it? Could you clarify for the rest of us?

I'm still waiting for your respond to my last post.

 

If the current hate crime laws isn't good enough - thus they have this motion for Islamophobia - what else will be added?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, betsy said:

I'm still waiting for your respond to my last post.

 

If the current hate crime laws isn't good enough - thus they have this motion for Islamophobia - what else will be added?

 

The topic is defining Islamaphobe, not discussing what would be added to existing laws.    Why should anyone respond to your demand to answer an off-topic question? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It seems that every other topic has gone back to definition of Islamophobe, and a simple motion (M-103) has become the topic de jour everywhere. Maybe we can have a clearinghouse here about Islamophobe, or a better term if you prefer. I will start with the issue, not specifically a definition but at least some context. It might also be helpful to cite what others have defined Islamophobe as.

There continues to be a dramatic increase in recorded Islamophobic hate crimes and attacks targeting Muslim persons and property, and Islamic religious, educational and communal institutions. We are alarmed by the explosion of Islamophobia and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the participation of civil society. The government should collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic crimes, and other hate crimes, committed and report such information periodically to the public.

2
 
 

I think I would start looking for a generally accepted definition of anti-Semitism as a way to begin to define Islamaphobia.   There seems to be no confusion around that term, though I've no doubt different people will have slightly different interpretations.    Both Canada and Britain have attempted to officially define anti-Semitism.

Here is Britain's legal definition of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016:

Quote

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

 
 
 

Canada's Ottawa Protocol contains a much more detailed definition of anti-Semitism:

Quote

 

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively - the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium - let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction - is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

 

 

The Ottawa protocil is not a legal definition, but I think it would work well as a template for a definition of Islamaphobia, particularly since it includes the statement that Criticism isn't anti-Semitic.   And since Canadians have already accepted special consideration for Jews due to anti-Semitism, they would feel comfortable accepting something similar for Muslims due to Islamaphobia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think I would start looking for a generally accepted definition of anti-Semitism as a way to begin to define Islamaphobia.   There seems to be no confusion around that term, though I've no doubt different people will have slightly different interpretations.    Both Canada and Britain have attempted to officially define anti-Semitism.

Here is Britain's legal definition of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016:

Canada's Ottawa Protocol contains a much more detailed definition of anti-Semitism:

The Ottawa protocil is not a legal definition, but I think it would work well as a template for a definition of Islamaphobia, particularly since it includes the statement that Criticism isn't anti-Semitic.   And since Canadians have already accepted special consideration for Jews due to anti-Semitism, they would feel comfortable accepting something similar for Muslims due to Islamaphobia.

As long as neither are made illegal. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that if you talk to Muslims and ask for their definition it is basically anyone who questions Islamic teachings. That's why even Muslims in Canada have been given this title. If you don't like Islamic teachings, as currently accepted by Islamic scholars, you're an Islamophobe. If you mock them you're worthy of death, at least if you do so through cartoons.

What people have to remember is that Islam is not merely a religion, it is a political ideology complete with a complex hierarchy of important governmental duties and behaviours, criminal and family laws. The western conceit is that Muslims don't take these things seriously. Why? Because western conceit arises from a western outlook on life, which sees a distinct separation between church and state, and a secular view of life. And that is taken as normality. What Westerners continually refuse to accept is that this outlook is not shared by the majority of the world's Muslims. There simply IS no separation between Islam and Islamic laws and duties in their minds because both come from God. Therefore, to be a Muslim, one must accept the validity of Muslim laws and duties, including how government should be ordered.

Not ALL Muslims particularly in the West, support this, but the great majority of the world's Muslims do, and as the number of Muslims in the West has risen (not coincidentally along with Muslim religious-based violence) people have become more outspoken about their disagreement with Islam as a political ideology, and with those who practice it. The actual definition for Islamophobia is the 'unreasonable fear of' Muslims, but what fear is reasonable? No one ever says.

Saying it should be illegal to mock or ridicule Islamic teachings or those who follow them is akin to saying it should be illegal to mock Communism, or Democracy, or Capitalism and those who believe in them. It's undemocratic, and an affront to basic freedoms.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Then the answer should be evident.   

It is.  I was just asking for confirmation. 

 

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they don't point out embarrassing typos - Not Blaise Pascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The problem is that if you talk to Muslims and ask for their definition it is basically anyone who questions Islamic teachings.

 

If our 'official' definition of Islamaphobia is similar to the definition of anti-Semitism contained in the Ottawa Protocol than it wouldn't matter what some Muslims think Islamophobia is, any more than it would matter what you and I thought it was.

The fear that M-103, or that a definition of Islamophobia is going to make criticizing Islam illegal is irrational because of all the 'ifs' it contains:  if the motion is passed and if the resultant study results in further action being taken and if that further action is a law and if that law contains wording to make criticizing Islam illegal and if the opposition parties didn't object and if the media didn't report on it, and if  the general public didn't object.   That's a lot of "ifs" to get through to make your scenario remotely possible.   

Especially when you note that in the Ottawa protocol (not a law, btw), criticizing Isreal is specifically not anti-Semitic.    There's much more reason to believe we'd do something similar with defining Islamaphobia than to believe we're suddenly going to lose all sense and make criticism illegal.  

 

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...