Islamophobia in the West

[Mithradates]

...in Western countries there are attacks on Muslims motivated by hatred of them, so there is Islamophobia.

Those are "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam" attacks and not islamophobic attacks. "Islamophobic" should involve irrationality, unless if you think hatred in general is irrational.

[Alwyn]

The wording of you claim implied that it could reasonably be assumed that identity-based attacks against Muslims were the product of an irrational hated of Muslims. I contradicted this implication. If it was not your intention to make such an implication, you should have clarified your position immediately or worded your argument as you did above (or some variation thereof):

As I showed, my original claim had links to evidence that those examples of attacks were motivated by anti-Muslim hatred. You read in an assumption which wasn't there.

While I may be mistaken, you seemed to be trying to change the subject from 'are there some attacks on Muslims motivated by anti-Muslim hatred?' to 'are the majority of attacks on Muslims motivated by anti-Muslim hatred?' which isn't the same question.

You implied that I didn't clarify my position, however I did so in post 64. I said explictly what was implicit in the original claim - that my argument was based on specific examples such as the attack by Darren Osborne (when he drove a van into Muslims leaving a mosque, an attack motivated by "his hatred of Muslims" according to a prosecutor).

Notwithstanding, the further implication that there exists institutional prejudice against Muslims in the West and/or that the attacks you cited were a product of this systemic prejudice (as the term Islamophobia suggests) is yet to be demonstrated.

You know what I mean by Islamophobia. The dictionary definitions I quoted don't mention "institutional" prejudice as part of the definition of Islamophobia, so you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth and change the subject from 'is there Islamophobia in the West?' to 'is Islamophobia institutional?', which isn't the same question.

Those are "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam" attacks and not islamophobic attacks. "Islamophobic" should involve irrationality, unless if you think hatred in general is irrational.

It's good to hear that we agree that there are anti-Muslim attacks happening in the West.

I don't need to show that hatred in general is irrational. If someone is motivated by rational hatred of terrorism by Islamic extremists, there are things they can do. They could join the police, the armed forces or an intelligence agency. They could contact their elected representative(s), asking them persuade the government to increase funding for agencies which investigate and deal with this terrorism. They could support activities by moderate Muslims in their local area, encouraging people to be part of moderate Islamic groups instead of the alternatives. Acts such as driving a van into a group of people leaving a mosque, setting fire to a mosque or shooting people at a mosque, don't sound like rational responses.

[Mithradates]

It's good to hear that we agree that there are anti-Muslim attacks happening in the West.

I don't need to show that hatred in general is irrational. If someone is motivated by rational hatred of terrorism by Islamic extremists, there are things they can do. They could join the police, the armed forces or an intelligence agency. They could contact their elected representative(s), asking them persuade the government to increase funding for agencies which investigate and deal with this terrorism. They could support activities by moderate Muslims in their local area, encouraging people to be part of moderate Islamic groups instead of the alternatives. Acts such as driving a van into a group of people leaving a mosque, setting fire to a mosque or shooting people at a mosque, don't sound like rational responses.

No, we dont agree, actually YOU dont agree with me when you say that those anti-muslim attacks are "islamophobic" attacks.

Calling it islamophobia is just a way to judge and control what people think.

Those who dislike fascism are the anti-fascists, right? Okay, but when they go out to speak against fascism, when they hate fascism, when they protest against it or even fight the fascists in the streets they cross the line, now they become irrational FASCISTPHOBICS!
No, they dont haha because hating fascism is okay ...but hating, or even just disliking islam isnt okay! Its islamophobia right from the start, its irrational, YOU are irrational the problem is with you, and definitely not with them, not with islam NOOO NEVER!!!

kind of funny in a sad way

[Adamat]

No, we dont agree, actually YOU dont agree with me when you say that those anti-muslim attacks are "islamophobic" attacks.

Calling it islamophobia is just a way to judge and control what people think.

Those who dislike fascism are the anti-fascists, right? Okay, but when they go out to speak against fascism, when they hate fascism, when they protest against it or even fight the fascists in the streets they cross the line, now they become irrational FASCISTPHOBICS!
No, they dont haha because hating fascism is okay ...but hating, or even just disliking islam isnt okay! Its islamophobia right from the start, its irrational, YOU are irrational the problem is with you, and definitely not with them, not with islam NOOO NEVER!!!

kind of funny in a sad way

If you think driving a van into a crowd with the intent of killing multiple civilians is rational, then I hope I never meet you.

[Mithradates]

You honestly think that was my point? Oh god...

[Alwyn]

No, we dont agree, actually YOU dont agree with me when you say that those anti-muslim attacks are "islamophobic" attacks.

Didn't you say this?

Those are "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam" attacks and not islamophobic attacks. "Islamophobic" should involve irrationality, unless if you think hatred in general is irrational.

You said that these are anti-Muslim attacks, I agreed with that, so what's the problem? I didn't say that we agree that the attacks are Islamophobic.

Calling it islamophobia is just a way to judge and control what people think.

When I say that these attacks were Islamophobic, I mean that they're motivated by anti-Muslim hatred. How does that control what people think? Is someone forcing you to agree with me, or are you free to disagree?

Those who dislike fascism are the anti-fascists, right? Okay, but when they go out to speak against fascism, when they hate fascism, when they protest against it or even fight the fascists in the streets they cross the line, now they become irrational FASCISTPHOBICS!
No, they dont haha because hating fascism is okay ...but hating, or even just disliking islam isnt okay! Its islamophobia right from the start, its irrational, YOU are irrational the problem is with you, and definitely not with them, not with islam NOOO NEVER!!!

kind of funny in a sad way

When someone drives a van into a crowd leaving a mosque, sets fire to a mosque or shoots people at a mosque, suggesting that these attacks are irrational seems like a fairly mild criticism to me. I didn't say that the problem is "never" with Islam, I said (in post 66) that people should be free to criticise Islam.

[Heathen Hammer]

It sounds like you interpret Islamophobia as only referring to fear of Muslims, not hatred. We don't have to be Yoda to know that fear leads to hatred, or that when people are told that all Muslims are a threat to them, this leads to fear and hatred.

No, I'm just pointing out why term "islamophobia" is an oxymoron, since it is neither phobia and given teachings of islam themselves, as well as their behavior in their own nations and abroad, hardly irrational.

. If people had responded to IRA terrorism by bombing the out of Catholic churches, or by driving vehicles into groups of Catholics leaving church on a Sunday, would you have said that such attacks were motivated by an irrational view of Catholics?

That's literally what Protestant side did. It wasn't motivated by "irrational fear", it was motivated by religion and revenge.

Are you saying that it's rational to hate people because they have a belief which was originally foreign? Christianity didn't start in Western Europe or North America either. You wrote that Islam "only" gained a foothold because of "invasion" or "forced conversion", but we're not living in the 8th century when the occupation of Spain by the Moors began, we live in the 21st century, where a lot of Muslims in Western Europe came to work or to escape violence such as the war in Syria. Tenets of Islam as interpreted by extremists contradict European mentality, but why should terrorists get to define what their religion means for everyone? If we want to know what Catholic Christianity means, we're not likely to prefer the view of an IRA terrorist to the views of other Catholics. Yes, there's intolerance of non-Muslims in Islamic countries, just as there are arson attacks, bombings and attacks with vehicles at mosques in Western countries; neither justifies the other. Yes, there are people who mistreat women and of course that's not okay. The fact that some Muslims mistreat women doesn't justify hatred of Muslims, just as the fact that some white British men mistreat women doesn't justify hatred of white British men.

Again, I was addressing the historically non-factual "Islam was always part of Europe" argument that was made earlier in this thread by pointing out the fact that its presence in Europe was limited to forceful conversion of European populations by invading foreign powers. As for welfare migrants, my negative view of those is based strictly on economics.
Where did I say anything about "hate"? I said Islam is viewed negatively. that doesn't mean hate. It is rational to be cautious of Islam because of how Islamic societies conduct themselves in their own nations and abroad as well as because of the violent and intolerant teachings of Islam itself.
Combination of those factors is why Islam is viewed negatively, viewing it negatively isn't fear nor is it irrational. Which is why phenomena called "islamophobia" simply doesn't exist.

[Cope]

As I showed, my original claim had links to evidence that those examples of attacks were motivated by anti-Muslim hatred. You read in an assumption which wasn't there.

The assumption was there; you evidently did not intend it.

While I may be mistaken, you seemed to be trying to change the subject from 'are there some attacks on Muslims motivated by anti-Muslim hatred?' to 'are the majority of attacks on Muslims motivated by anti-Muslim hatred?' which isn't the same question.

My original comment was designed to refute the assumption which you claim not to have intended. Notwithstanding, the question of whether some attacks against Muslims are motivated by anti-Muslim hatred is so self-evidently true that it isn't worth debating. That doesn't mean that said attacks can rightfully be described as "Islamophobic".

You implied that I didn't clarify my position, however I did so in post 64. I said explictly what was implicit in the original claim - that my argument was based on specific examples such as the attack by Darren Osborne (when he drove a van into Muslims leaving a mosque, an attack motivated by "his hatred of Muslims" according to a prosecutor).

If you had clarified your position with regard to my comment, we wouldn't have needed to exchange 15 posts on the matter.

You know what I mean by Islamophobia. The dictionary definitions I quoted don't mention "institutional" prejudice as part of the definition of Islamophobia, so you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth and change the subject from 'is there Islamophobia in the West?' to 'is Islamophobia institutional?', which isn't the same question.

Scholars and other "experts" almost always state that Islamophobia involves some form of institutional and/or systemic prejudice (which you seem to deny). And as noted above, we wouldn't have parliamentary committees investigating how to define Islamophobia if the dictionary definitions were without dispute and/or a need for further explanation. What you believe "Islamophobia" is, isn't necessarily what it actually is.

Consider, for instance, the Google definition of Islamophobia:

dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

This defines a mere dislike of Islam as being Islamophobic - a position which you appeared to previously reject after I had stated that the term is often used to suffocate criticism or mockery of the religion.

[pacifism]

When Darren Osborne drove a van into Muslims leaving a mosque, his attack was motivated by "his hatred of Muslims" according to a prosecutor. When attacks on mosques, and people leaving mosques, and Muslim cemeteries, and individual Muslims keep happening, it seems clear that some people really want to hurt Muslims. Whether they are motivated by fear or hatred or a bit of both, it seems clear that people are attacking Muslims in Western countries based on irrational views of them.

Wow, I am truly disgusted that subhumans like this man exist. What's worse, is the absolute silence on this tragedy that his kind have. Why didn't they report his dangerous beliefs to the police? Where are the moderates and people against terrorism in his community speaking out? It's certainly possible that they are complicit and approve of his actions. If they've said anything to the contrary, I sure haven't seen it, but I'm not going to bother trying to find out if they had. It's clear to me that they cannot live in our civilized society and do not accept our ways. It's time to ban Wales.

Do you know what they even do with their animals?

pacifism,

Refugees and immigrants are two separate issues. The former are usually people who live under threat whilst the latter have other reasons most likely being a better quality of life. The problem within both is that there are some who come for a religious purpose which can be peaceful or dangerous. The problem with Islam is that we don't know which is which until it happens, why? Because with all the experience we have had with immigrants we have never experienced what has happened and is happening among our Muslim intake.

With all due respect, I think that we have experience in this situation. In my country, a flood of foreign, nonwhite refugees started invading by the millions. There had been immigrants from that area in decades past, but these people were clearly not the same stock. They did not accept our ways or adapt to the new, cheap yet slightly overcrowded housing we graciously allowed them to squat in with their few belongings. What's worse, they swore allegiance to a faith that was violently opposed to our civilized democracy, one that sought to overthrow us and impose a theocracy. Our best scientific knowledge showed that they were clearly less intelligent and more violent than the us. Their presence in city and the gangs they formed made the rule of law and order a thing of the past as they followed their foul religion and did as they pleased.

People did their best to stop or slow the threat. Our political system failed us, so we did what we had to and a new party arose to combat the threat, with impressive results as the third-largest political party in the country. We kept the newcomers out of our neighborhoods and in slums, refused to hire them, and occasionally sacked their places of worship. But they would not leave, and we have been forever changed because of it.

I am, of course, referring to the Irish immigrants and refugees to the U.S. in the 1840s and 50s. People really didn't consider the Irish to be proper white people back then. Their religion that supposedly demanded theocracy was Roman Catholicism, and the new party that arose was called the Know-Nothings. And in the end, they did nothing of the sort, and are completely regular Americans. The Irish even started discriminating against new immigrants by the end of the nineteenth century. The discriminatory treatment of the Irish was much more thorough and much worse than any violence the Irish gangs ever did.

We can act like restricting refugees or even immigration is going to stop terror forever and ever, amen. But it's not realistic. Let's say we totally abolish civil rights given to Muslims and all other suspicious people. Kind of like, say, China with the Uyghurs. Not even a dictatorial response can stop terrorism, because China still has people die in acts of terror.

I responded by noting that such a conclusion was not reasonable because the overwhelming majority of "attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals" are perpetrated by other Muslims. This criticism could be overcome if you were able to substantiate the idea that intrareligious violence could also be classified as "Islamophobic".

How on earth you can even contort into acknowledging that Muslims are the main victims of terror, and yet still try to justify a uniform aversion towards Muslims by criticizing the idea of Islamophobia is beyond me. So, attacks against Muslims are mostly done by other Muslims, and that means Islamophobia isn't real? Criticizing people for having an aversion towards all Muslims isn't legitimate because some Muslims have attacked each other? What are you even talking about?

Let's get away from this stupid whataboutism and get crazy. You know how most Muslims are attacked by other Muslims? What if we instead talk about the cases were the attackers of Muslims weren't Muslim. We could discuss that as being Islamophobia or not. And then we can put on our thinking caps for a second and realize that's probably what Alwyn was talking about all along. Your red herrings are kind of cute, in a slightly pathetic way, but I don't see why you bother defending them so thoroughly.

No, I'm just pointing out why term "islamophobia" is an oxymoron, since it is neither phobia and given teachings of islam themselves, as well as their behavior in their own nations and abroad, hardly irrational.

Aww, you don't like when it people use a word you don't like? Are you getting offended? Maybe the snowflakes should set up a space where they can be safe from hearing the word Islamophobia.

But seriously, get over it. It's not the only etymologically unsatisfactory word in English. But we know what it really means, so who cares? So let's not quibble over the etymology of the name of the idea that we already understand and get down to the business of quibbling over the idea itself.

[Sir Adrian]

Comparing christian immigrants to a christian country with muslim immigrants to a christian country is a self-defeating tactic. They don't think alike and don't act alike in the slightest, and once arrived they do not behave and set long term plans alike either.

[Adamat]

Comparing christian immigrants to a christian country with muslim immigrants to a christian country is a self-defeating tactic. They don't think alike and don't act alike in the slightest, and once arrived they do not behave and set long term plans alike either.

Holy mother of anachronisms. By this logic, it should forever remain a mystery why the reformation wasn't a veritable party of understanding and tolerance (Ireland, anyone?). By this logic, surely there is no imaginable reason for all the sunni-shia politics and violence in the Middle East. You're arbitrarily defining what are and aren't similar cultures when even the example you're responding to shows that you're wrong. By this token, I could wonder why there is intrareligious violence at all, since clearly the overarching and uniting factor between, say, christians and muslims is that they both believe in the Abrahamic god! In this respect, christians and muslims everywhere think alike and act alike, and lo and behold, religious violence has been made logically impossible.

TLDR: retroactively applying your perception of similarity isn't productive.

[Heathen Hammer]

Aww, you don't like when it people use a word you don't like? Are you getting offended? Maybe the snowflakes should set up a space where they can be safe from hearing the word Islamophobia.

But seriously, get over it. It's not the only etymologically unsatisfactory word in English. But we know what it really means, so who cares? So let's not quibble over the etymology of the name of the idea that we already understand and get down to the business of quibbling over the idea itself.

No, I'm just pointing out that "islamophobia" is not really a thing, aside from imaginations of both Muslim fundamentalists and libleft who pander to the former to virtue signal.
Yeah, Muslims are viewed negatively around the world, mainly because of actions of Muslim nations as well as Islam's teachings themselves. Yeah, not liking Islam for saying that Polytheists should be killed or that women aren't people is not a bad thing.
Maybe people that use such terminology should get over the fact that religions that promote intolerance and rape aren't going to be universally loved and get over it.

[Cope]

How on earth you can even contort into acknowledging that Muslims are the main victims of terror, and yet still try to justify a uniform aversion towards Muslims by criticizing the idea of Islamophobia is beyond me. So, attacks against Muslims are mostly done by other Muslims, and that means Islamophobia isn't real? Criticizing people for having an aversion towards all Muslims isn't legitimate because some Muslims have attacked each other? What are you even talking about?

Let's get away from this stupid whataboutism and get crazy. You know how most Muslims are attacked by other Muslims? What if we instead talk about the cases were the attackers of Muslims weren't Muslim. We could discuss that as being Islamophobia or not. And then we can put on our thinking caps for a second and realize that's probably what Alwyn was talking about all along. Your red herrings are kind of cute, in a slightly pathetic way, but I don't see why you bother defending them so thoroughly.

I suggest that you re-read my critique; it did not state that "Islamophobia" was disproved by the existence of intrareligious violence, only that it was not reasonable to assume that all or a majority of attacks against Muslims were a consequence of an irrational hatred of Muslims (as my interlocutor's statement implied).

At the same time, the insistence on focusing on a tiny proportion of extremist attacks against Muslims (ie. those perpetrated by non-Muslims in western countries) is the true red herring (assuming one has a legitimate concern for the effects of extremist violence). The global distribution of terrorist violence skews overwhelmingly toward the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, where ~95% of attacks occur. "Between 2000 and 2017, there were just under 1000 deaths in Western Europe from terrorism", the vast majority of which were caused by Islamist radicals.

[Sir Adrian]

Claiming muslims are the primary victim of terrorism in the west is like claiming that women are the primary victim of war. It's intellectually dishonest.

Holy mother of anachronisms. By this logic, it should forever remain a mystery why the reformation wasn't a veritable party of understanding and tolerance (Ireland, anyone?). By this logic, surely there is no imaginable reason for all the sunni-shia politics and violence in the Middle East. You're arbitrarily defining what are and aren't similar cultures when even the example you're responding to shows that you're wrong. By this token, I could wonder why there is intrareligious violence at all, since clearly the overarching and uniting factor between, say, christians and muslims is that they both believe in the Abrahamic god! In this respect, christians and muslims everywhere think alike and act alike, and lo and behold, religious violence has been made logically impossible.

TLDR: retroactively applying your perception of similarity isn't productive.

Way to completely miss my point entire. Nice speculation though.


When Christians and non-muslim asians migrate they do so because the grass is greener. Period.

Muslims do not migrate because the grass is greener. Muslims believe that Sharia is the perfect system and ordained by God. There is no better system in the entire world and there can never be a better system as everything God does is perfect. The reason they had to migrate is not because of Islam, which is perfect and faultless but because of non-muslims meddling and trying to destroy their slice of heaven so as to prevent people from converting to islam.

When Christians and east-asians migrate they initially congregate with their own but eventually they fully assimilate into whatever society they move in. All well and good.

Muslims who move to a non-muslim country are required to do one of two things: find a group of muslims and stick with it or otherwise strive to build a mosque. They do this because it is the duty of every muslim to perform the Da'Wah - the conversion of "heathen swine" as the Qu'ran so gracefully puts it, to Islam. Failure to perform the Da'Wah means you go to hell. Muslims will not seek to integrate within whatever society they join beyond what is necessary for the Da'Wah. They seek to integrate the society they move to into their own.

Anyway here's a nice pew research that points out those things

Also, if you have any doubt of what I said you are freely invited to take a tour of the Paris suburbs or Stokholm's suburbs. Just be warned if going to Stokholm because the swedish police can no longer handle the muslim gangs that are causing problems in the city.

PS: if you want to talk about Islam or think you have any opinion about it you are invited to read the Koran, then we can talk about it. Word of warning the surahs are not in chronological order and the Medina surahs are no longer valid, only the Mecca surahs are valid following the Doctrine of Abrogation. If a Medina surah is contradicted by a Mecca surah the Mecca surah is correct.

EDIT: clarification for cope.

[Infidel144]

PS: if you want to talk about Islam or think you have any opinion about it you are invited to read the Koran, then we can talk about it. Word of warning the surahs are not in chronological order and the Medina surahs are no longer valid, only the Mecca surahs are valid following the Doctrine of Abrogation. If a Medina surah is contradicted by a Mecca surah the Mecca surah is correct.

Under "the Doctrine of Abrogation", it would be the other way around. The Medinan surahs are chronologically the later revealed and thus would have precedence over the Meccan.

[mishkin]

More than 40 years living in the west and the only religion that has tried to impose its precepts (and in a very aggressive way) to my morality or way of life has been the Christian one.

I've been hearing Islamophobes talk about how Muslims threaten our freedoms and want to impose their religion in Europe for at least ten years. I would be grateful if someone could give me an approximate date of when this will finally happen and, if possible, tell me what their first steps will be (demolition of Catholic cathedrals, teaching Islam in public schools, whatever).

P.S: Do not mention the great replacement bs please, thanks.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as the replacement theory,[1][2] is a white nationalist far-right[3] conspiracy theory[4][5][6] which states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,[a][4][7] the white French population—as well as white European population at large—is being progressively replaced with non-European peoples—specifically Arab, Berber and sub-Saharan Muslim populations from Africa and the Middle East—through mass migration, demographic growth and a European drop in the birth rate.[4][8] Scholars have generally dismissed the claims of a "great replacement" as being rooted in a misreading of immigration statistics and unscientific, racist views.[9][10]

[Sir Adrian]

Under "the Doctrine of Abrogation", it would be the other way around. The Medinan surahs are chronologically the later revealed and thus would have precedence over the Meccan.

I stand corrected.

[pacifism]

Those are "anti-muslim" or "anti-islam" attacks and not islamophobic attacks. "Islamophobic" should involve irrationality, unless if you think hatred in general is irrational.

I think hatred is irrational.

Comparing christian immigrants to a christian country with muslim immigrants to a christian country is a self-defeating tactic. They don't think alike and don't act alike in the slightest, and once arrived they do not behave and set long term plans alike either.

Easy for you to say after about a century of a modern ecumenism. Underestimating the level of anti-Catholicism in the United States at that time is a critical flaw in your argument.

Many American Protestants were suspicious of popery and Romanism to a degree that would impress Martin Luther. And it really was a sentiment reminiscent of the religious wars in Europe during the sixteenth century. Those conflicts lasted until the early 18th century, giving enough time for English colonists to settle in America that viewed the Roman Catholic Church as the Anti-Christ or the Whore of Babylon from the Apocalypse of John.

By the Second Great Awakening, there were Protestants in America who believed a Catholic’s loyalty to the Pope superseded their recognition of civil and religious liberty. Catholics were supposedly totally opposed to American liberty if the Pope gave the word, and that Catholics will vote how the clergy directs in a way unlike Protestant denominations. Lyman Beecher, the father Harriet Beecher Stowe (the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), was famous for preaching this kind of stuff. In his tract called “Plea for the West”, he writes:

"But if, upon examination, it should appear that three-fourths of the foreign emigrants whose accumulating tide is rolling in upon us, are, through the medium of their religion and priesthood, as entirely accessible to the control of the potentates of Europe as if they were an army of soldiers, enlisted and officered, and spreading over the land; then, indeed, should we have just occasion to apprehend danger to our liberties. It would be the union of church and state in the midst of us. The church and the state both in Europe, and the pliant colonial church here. Her priesthood educated under the despotic governments of Catholic Europe, and dependent for their office, support and honors upon a foreign temporal prince, on whose sanction to their laws and doings they are as dependent as the colonies were upon George the Third"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As you can imagine, the simmering sentiment erupted when millions of Roman Catholic Irish and German immigrants arrived in America in unprecedented numbers during the 1840s and 50s. At the end of the Democrat v. Whig party system, nativist Know-Nothings went from a nascent party founded in 1844 to controlling almost a quarter of the House of Representatives in a decade. Its sudden decline was primarily due to slavery becoming the forefront of American political issues.

Speaking of slavery, the anti-Catholicism in the U.S. existed quite strongly in the second KKK. Although it took its name from the original post-Civil War paramilitary group that resisted the emancipation and enfranchisement of blacks, the second KKK founded in the 1910s is the one with bedsheets and burning crosses and that stuff we associate with the Klan. The main platform of their fraternal society was anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, anti-immigrat nativism, and prohibition. It had millions of members during its height in the 1920s. Pro-KKK Pillar of Fire Church engaged in some serious historical revisionism in Klansman: Guardians of Liberty among other books and magazines, and made several cartoons like these ones distributed during the 1920s:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Al Smith’s Catholicism motivated Roman Catholics to politically organize and vote, but the anti-Catholic vote proved to be far more disastrous in the 1928 presidential election. Even JFK had to bat away accusations and suspicions about his ultimate loyalty being to the Roman Catholic Church and not the U.S. Constitution in the 1960 election.

Let’s just stop there for now. My point is that there is evidence that many American Protestants genuinely viewed Roman Catholics as an existential threat to the American way of life up to the early 20th century. Anti-Catholicism was one of the most enduring forms of discrimination and source of conspiracy theories in American history. Catholics were not viewed as fellow Christians; that thinking is a much more recent phenomenon. It mostly happened due to post-WWII Western unity and the theological shift in the 1960s, when American Christians started to identify more strongly with theological conservativism/liberalism/neo-orthodoxy/whatever than with individual denominations. I think that the comparison between 19th-century American Roman Catholic immigrants and contemporary Muslim immigrants is very valid.

Anyway here's a nice pew research that points out those things

Also, if you have any doubt of what I said you are freely invited to take a tour of the Paris suburbs or Stokholm's suburbs. Just be warned if going to Stokholm because the swedish police can no longer handle the muslim gangs that are causing problems in the city.

I think your sources are describing a more nuanced perspective than you are. Their claims are certainly much less bold.

No, I'm just pointing out that "islamophobia" is not really a thing, aside from imaginations of both Muslim fundamentalists and libleft who pander to the former to virtue signal.

“It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you.”

Are you kidding me? Your argument is that Islamophobia doesn’t exist because it’s a misnomer? No one here thinks that Islamophobia is a psychological phobia. Words can have multiple definitions. Phobia in this case refers to hostility towards people on the demographic level. But if you really take umbrage with the word because it’s not a real psychological condition, we can replace “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslimism” or something palpable enough for your exquisite palate, and move on already.

At the same time, the insistence on focusing on a tiny proportion of extremist attacks against Muslims (ie. those perpetrated by non-Muslims in western countries) is the true red herring (assuming one has a legitimate concern for the effects of extremist violence).

Well, that’s the topic of this thread.

And someone doesn’t need to be Anders Breivik or something to have hostility towards all Muslims. Stop Islamization of America and other so-called counter-jihad groups who portray Muslims as a fifth column are a charming example of that. I think there are plenty of people expressing anti-Muslim sentiment in western countries to warrant a discussion about it on a medium-sized vBulletin video game internet forum without these distractions that you’ve tried to bring up.

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you kidding me? Your argument is that Islamophobia doesn’t exist because it’s a misnomer? No one here thinks that Islamophobia is a psychological phobia. Words can have multiple definitions. Phobia in this case refers to hostility towards people on the demographic level. But if you really take umbrage with the word because it’s not a real psychological condition, we can replace “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslimism” or something palpable enough for your exquisite palate, and move on already.

"It is irrational to be cautious of them even if they are openly approve of violence to specific groups"
If it isn't a psychological phobia, then just use "critical of Islam" or "anti-Islam".
"Islamophobia" is simply a nonsensical term. Of course Islamic fundamentalists and those that pander to them want to use the word "Islamophobia" for partisan reasons, to paint criticism of Islam and islamic communities as "irrational" and "hateful", while in reality caution towards ideologies like Islam is entirely justified as far as facts and logic are concerned.
Again, ""islamophobia" isn't a real thing, you just have to get over the fact that it is rational for one to be cautious of religion that promotes violence and intolerance to specific groups.

For example, I'm what Abrahamic cults refer to as "Pagan". According to tenets of Islam I should be forcefully converted or killed. Me being cautious of that isn't irrational, if I got to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or ISIS-held territory they'd kill me just for my esoteric beliefs. Me not wanting to die isn't irrational.

[conon394]

For example, I'm what Abrahamic cults refer to as "Pagan". According to tenets of Islam I should be forcefully converted or killed. Me being cautious of that isn't irrational, if I got to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or ISIS-held territory they'd kill me just for my esoteric beliefs. Me not wanting to die isn't irrational.

Just asking for clarification on this - so you would equally castigate the other 2 or 3 or so Abraham based religions when they walk the same walk?