Islamophobia in the West

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course the same could be said of Christianity from the great white north the bottom of Argentina.

Yes, anyone saying that Christianity is an important part of Native American (both south and north) culture is very wrong.

You will at least admit you need to date those times.

The current year.

[Cope]

When there are attacks on Jewish places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems fair to conclude that the attackers are motivated by irrational hatred of Jewish people. When there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems reasonable to conclude that these are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims. Irrational hatred of Muslims is Islamophobia. These attacks happen in Western countries, so it seems that Islamophobia does exist in the West.

Violence perpetrated against Muslims is overwhelmingly intrareligious; it is not reasonable to conclude that such attacks are motivated by an irrational hatred of Islam.

[pacifism]

You don't say? I'm pretty sure no one is accusing Muslims of being Islamophobic, dude. So let's dig a little deeper into those context clues, and consider the interreligious cases. Or did you just want a quick game of Gotcha!?

pacifism,

Muslim terrorism is a problem all across the world not just in the West, why? The obvious answer lies in what is being preached by certain Muslim holy men which they see as being in accordance with what their holy book tells. That there is serious disagreement in Islam shows this and so whenever we give a home to Muslim immigrants we don't know what side of the fence they are actually in or can be persuaded by until it is usually too late. At very best all we can do is be aware using our intelligence services to monitor as best as they can any threat and deal with it.

I don't really disagree. But I do think that immigrants and refugees are probably leaving their homes because they have problems with it over there. Intelligence services and local police have been able to foil acts of terror attempted by a small number of people (not perfectly, obviously). So why not lend help and support to those on our side of the fence, especially when they need it more than most against terrorists and dictators?

It's not like Syrian refugees overthrew Germany or anything. Just like us, Muslims are not all the same. That's my point.

Well, should not Muslims be held responsible for what they actually profess themselves to? Is it not a personal and deliberate act to profess yourself to a certain movement or ideology? Are we expected to not take responsibility for our own actions? Is that it?

People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others in their in-group. There are so many Muslims in the world that they have subcultures and a wide spectrum of beliefs and practices. It's just silly to act like they're all the same or share responsibility for each other's actions.

I mean, do you walk up to random white Americans and ask why they let segregation happen? Do you ask the "moderate Christians" on the internet to disavow The Lord's Resistance Army or the Klan? Of course not. But apparently, it's acceptable to cast suspicion and doubt on Muslims as a whole? What gives?

After all, the "extremist terrorism" you talk about here are clearly linked to a bunch of Islamic traditional doctrines, and above all its source materials (the korans and hadiths). The very stuff that ultimately defines and makes up Islam as we know it - universally. It trumps any personal re-interpretation made anywhere, by anyone. Now, if we do declare ourselves supposed "Muslims", we then openly declare our allegiance, support and approval for the Koran(s) and the Hadith's. There is no way around that. Muslims are always expected to show unconditional obedience to the ideas and doctrines conveyed in that sourse material. Some of which openly advocates brutality, oppression and war against kafirs (unbelievers/non-muslims). Thus, I find plenty of things to apologise for here... Better still would be to just abandon and reject the movement totally...

Among other things, yes. This isn't happening in a void. Terrorism as we know it is a modern phenomenon. Many terrorist manifestos against the U.S. or U.K. have specific reasons for their actions, often citing that country's hawkish foreign policy as a justification for retaliation. And many more acts of terror are committed by Muslims on Muslims. It's short-sighted to shrug and say "religion of peace" every time an act of terror happens and act like it's just the way Islam is. Of course there is history, sociology, and politics to consider. Most of the Muslim world was on the business end of 19th/20th century European imperialism. They currently face widespread poverty, ethnic tensions, repressive governments, and unsteady economies. Those are ingredients for any sort of extremist movement.

You can't just say that there are terrorist Muslims and accuse Islam of being the problem. There are clearly more motivating factors than just religion. You have to show that it actually is an intrinsic Islam problem to show that overall aversion to Muslims is not Islamophobia.

No offence intended but... In the event that you don't properly understand the fundamentals and mechanics of Islam - it would probably be advisable to stay silent and listen to others that do. Furthermore and just as important... You should always be as reluctant and cautious to defend any movement you don't really know, as you would be to attack it. By the looks of it, you are blindly defending a movement (Islam) you don't really understand (this by your own admission). I wonder, is that ever a good path to follow? And what is supposedly gained by it (in such given circumstances)?

Okay, enlighten me.

[Alwyn]

Those attacks were motivated more by revenge and misdirected retaliation for prior Muslim terrorist attacks, so it wasn't "phobia", as much as anger towards the generalized group from where attacks happened as well as frustration from governments typically doing little to nothing to address the problem of islamic fundamentalism in the West. So in either cases, it isn't "irrational fear" but a completely different thing.

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.

A good example would be time of Troubles in Ireland, where both Protestant and Catholic paramilitaries bombed the out of each other and civilians, which stemmed from a sectarian conflict, rather then "phobias" of each other.

We agree that the Troubles in Ireland are a good example. 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?

Term "islamophobia" is not only an oxymoron, it is often used to justify theocratic Islamist groups and their violence, which is why I would avoid using it, outside of the context of current discussion.
Negative view of Islam in the West stems from several very simple reasons
- Islam is largely foreign to Europe, where it only gained foothold through invasions by foreign non-European powers and forced conversion of the population.
- Tenets of Islam contradict general European mentality, such as Islam's view on women, atheists and other groups
- Islamic societies in general are very intolerant of non-Muslims and above-mentioned groups
- Islamic immigrants rarely assimilate and create "parallel" societies instead where non-European customs like "shariah law" and mistreatment of women are still seen as norm

I notice that your list of reasons for negative views of Islam didn't include occasions when people try to give the impression that Muslims "only" gained a foothold in Western countries because of "invasions" or "forced conversion", or similar attempts to paint all Muslims as a threat.

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.

Violence perpetrated against Muslims is overwhelmingly intrareligious [...]

It's true that there's a lot of violence by some Muslims against Muslims, as pacifism said:

Just like us, Muslims are not all the same. That's my point.

Good point!

[...] it is not reasonable to conclude that such attacks are motivated by an irrational hatred of Islam.

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.

[Cope]

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.

As above, the overwhelming majority of attacks against Muslims are perpetrated by other Muslims. The term "Islamophobia" is not typically criticized out of a denial that Muslims are ever the targets of abuse or violence in the West; it is criticized for being a politicized term designed to privilege a narrow set of victims and for being used as a cudgel to stifle criticism or mockery of Islam.

[Alwyn]

As above, the overwhelming majority of attacks against Muslims are perpetrated by other Muslims.

I'm saying that attacks on Muslims, motivated by irrational fear or hatred, happen in Western countries. Does the fact that there are also attacks on Muslims by other Muslims disprove this?

The term "Islamophobia" is not typically criticized out of a denial that Muslims are ever the targets of abuse or violence in the West; it is criticized for being a politicized term designed to privilege a narrow set of victims for electoral purposes and for being used as a cudgel to stifle criticism or mockery of Islam.

I'm against the stifling of criticism or mockery of Islam, just as I'm against attacks on Muslims based on prejudice. We can be against both, there's no need to choose between them. People should be free to criticise Islam, just as others should be free to criticise those criticisms.

You seem to want to move the argument from whether Islamophobia exists in the West to the motives of people who use this word. Islamophobia seems like a fair description of the motivation for attacks which are happening. Darren Osborne drive a van into a crowd at a mosque, killing Makram Ali and injuring others - how does describing this attack as Islamophobic "privilege" Makram Ali or the other victims?

[basics]

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.

[Cope]

I'm saying that attacks on Muslims, motivated by irrational fear or hatred, happen in Western countries. Does the fact that there are also attacks on Muslims by other Muslims disprove this?

You originally claimed the following:

When there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it seems reasonable to conclude that these are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims.

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".

I'm against the stifling of criticism or mockery of Islam, just as I'm against attacks on Muslims based on prejudice. We can be against both, there's no need to choose between them. People should be free to criticise Islam, just as others should be free to criticise those criticisms.

I offered a critique of the concept of Islamophobia, not your personal beliefs about prejudice.

You seem to want to move the argument from whether Islamophobia exists in the West to the motives of people who use this word. Islamophobia seems like a fair description of the motivation for attacks which are happening. Darren Osborne drive a van into a crowd at a mosque, killing Makram Ali and injuring others - how does describing this attack as Islamophobic "privilege" Makram Ali or the other victims?

The term Islamophobia implies institutional and/or systemic discrimination (the word "institutional" appears almost 50 times in the "Islamophobia Defined" document produced by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims). This suggests it is deserving of more resourcing and/or attention than other forms of prejudice. In this way, the victims of alleged "Islamophobia" become privileged over other victims of prejudice in much the same way that the victims of "terrorism" (another politicized phrase) are privileged over other victims of violent crime.

Let us be clear, Islamophobia is rooted in racism and its victims are not just Muslims but also those who are perceived to be Muslims. Its effects are seen in individual behaviours and institutional processes.

-

Islamophobia has far surpassed the ‘dinner table test’ espoused by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi in 2011. It is now so prevalent in society and dispersed across institutional, social, political and economic life that it deserves to be recognised at Britain’s ‘bigotry blind spot’

-

Again acknowledging the wide breath of manifestations that need to be categorised as Islamophobia, Awan and Zempi define it [Islamophobia] as:

“A fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims or non Muslim individuals that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment,abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world.Motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends into structural and cultural racism which targets the symbols and markers of a being a Muslim.”

-

“It is important that any definition captures the fact that Islamophobia is more than just individual prejudice and includes systemic discrimination against Muslims and the exclusion of Muslims from the public sphere. However, we need versions which are accessible to people who are not academics, or specialists in the field.”

Islamophobia Defined, All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims

[Alwyn]

You originally claimed the following:

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".

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I said that there are attacks on Muslim places of worship, cemetaries and individuals in Western countries and provided examples. My argument doesn't rely on the proportion of such attacks which are carried out by Muslims as opposed to others. The fact that there are also attacks by Muslims makes no difference to the fact that some people, motivated by an irrational hostility to Muslims, attack Muslims in Western countries.

The term Islamophobia implies institutional and/or systemic discrimination (the word "institutional" appears almost 50 times in the "Islamophobia Defined" document produced by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims). This suggests it is deserving of more resourcing and/or attention than other forms of prejudice. In this way, the victims of alleged "Islamophobia" become privileged over other victims of prejudice in much the same way that the victims of "terrorism" (another politicized phrase) are privileged over other victims of violent crime.

You know what I mean by Islamophobia - irrational hatred or fear of Muslims. That's consistent with dictionary definitions of the word Islamophobia.

unreasonable dislike or fear of, and prejudice against, Muslims or Islam - Cambridge English Dictionary

hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture - Collins English Dictionary

It sounds like they're saying that Islamophobia is a serious problem, deserving serious attention. Serious problems should receive serious attention, shouldn't they? You might not agree that this is a serious problem - even though people have died in Islamophobic attacks - but this doesn't mean that there's anything sinister about their use of the word Islamophobia. It simply means that they think this is a serious problem, while it seems that you don't.

[Cope]

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I said that there are attacks on Muslim places of worship, cemetaries and individuals in Western countries and provided examples. My argument doesn't rely on the proportion of such attacks which are carried out by Muslims as opposed to others. The fact that there are also attacks by Muslims makes no difference to the fact that some people, motivated by an irrational hostility to Muslims, attack Muslims in Western countries.

The initial statement made an incorrect - and therefore unreasonable - assumption about the nature of attacks against Muslims. Even setting that aside, the hand-wringing over a minuscule number of attacks committed in specific regions ("western countries"), by specific people ("non-Muslims), against a specific group (Muslims) for specific reasons (an irrational hatred of Islam) speaks for itself.

You know what I mean by Islamophobia - irrational hatred or fear of Muslims. That's consistent with dictionary definitions of the word Islamophobia.

If the term "Islamophobia" had universal clarity, there would be no need for state committees to write 70-page reports attempting to define it. At the same time, I have not argued that Muslims are free from prejudice, only that the term Islamophobia ought to be recognized for the politicized term that it is.

It sounds like they're saying that Islamophobia is a serious problem, deserving serious attention. Serious problems should receive serious attention, shouldn't they? You might not agree that this is a serious problem - even though people have died in Islamophobic attacks - but this doesn't mean that there's anything sinister about their use of the word Islamophobia. It simply means that they think this is a serious problem, while it seems that you don't.

It is not an institutional problem deserving of its own lexicon (a point which is evidenced by the lack of popularly recognized, specific terminology for most other prejudices, many of which are far more prevelant). That is my critique.

[Alwyn]

The initial statement made an incorrect - and therefore unreasonable - assumption about the nature of attacks against Muslims.

What assumption?

[Cope]

What assumption?

That when there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it is reasonable to conclude that these attacks are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims.

[Alwyn]

That when there are attacks on Islamic places of worship, cemeteries and individuals, it is reasonable to conclude that these attacks are motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims.

Thanks. In each of the cases I linked to in that post, the news story contained evidence that the attack was motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims. In the case of Darren Osborne's attack on a mosque, a prosecutor said that "Darren Osborne planned and carried out this attack because of his hatred of Muslims." In the case of the attack on the Muslim cemetery, insults to Islam were daubed on the graves. In the case of the stabbing in Surrey, a witness said that the attacker was shouting "kill a Muslim".

[Cope]

Thanks. In each of the cases I linked to in that post, the news story contained evidence that the attack was motivated by irrational hatred of Muslims. In the case of Darren Osborne's attack on a mosque, a prosecutor said that "Darren Osborne planned and carried out this attack because of his hatred of Muslims." In the case of the attack on the Muslim cemetery, insults to Islam were daubed on the graves. In the case of the stabbing in Surrey, a witness said that the attacker was shouting "kill a Muslim".

As stated, I have not claimed that prejudicial attacks against Muslims by non-Muslims do not exist. Nor did I challenge the instances listed. I instead criticized the general argument that "when there are attacks against Islamic places of worship, ceremonies or individuals, it is reasonable to conclude" that they are the consequence of "irrational hatred of Muslims".

[Alwyn]

I instead criticized the general argument that "when there are attacks against Islamic places of worship, ceremonies or individuals, it is reasonable to conclude" that they are the consequence of "irrational hatred of Muslims".

Yes, you did. As you know, when I made that general argument, I included links to examples. As I have shown, in the news stories I linked to, there was evidence about the motivation of the attackers.

[Cope]

Yes, you did. As you know, when I made that general argument, I included links to examples. As I have shown, in the news stories I linked to, there was evidence about the motivation of the attackers.

The inclusion of material demonstrating the existence of prejudice against Muslims (which I have not denied) neither supports, nor justifies, the general suggestion that identity-based attacks against Muslims are necessarily, much less typically, a consequence of an "irrational hatred of Muslims".

[Alwyn]

The inclusion of material demonstrating the existence of prejudice against Muslims (which I have not denied) neither supports, nor justifies, the general suggestion that identity-based attacks against Muslims are necessarily, much less typically, a consequence of an "irrational hatred of Muslims".

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I didn't say that such attacks are "necessarily" a consequence of irrational hatred of Muslims.

[Cope]

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I didn't say that such attacks are "necessarily" a consequence of irrational hatred of Muslims.

Please don't misrepresent your own argument. If you didn't mean to imply that all or a majority of identity-based attacks against Muslims were "Islamophobic" in nature, you could have clarified that immediately. The rest of your position is still subject to the critique offered above.

[Alwyn]

The question was: is there Islamophobia in the West? My answer was: in Western countries there are attacks on Muslims motivated by hatred of them, so there is Islamophobia. To make that argument, I didn't need to show that attacks on Muslims are "necessarily" motivated by Islamophobia or that a "majority" of attacks on Muslims are motivated by this - those ideas came from your posts, not mine. You read something into my post which I didn't say. To make my argument, I simply needed to show that there are attacks with this motivation - which I did, when I made the original claim.

[Cope]

The question was: is there Islamophobia in the West? My answer was: in Western countries there are attacks on Muslims motivated by hatred of them, so there is Islamophobia. To make that argument, I didn't need to show that attacks on Muslims are "necessarily" motivated by Islamophobia or that a "majority" of attacks on Muslims are motivated by this - those ideas came from your posts, not mine. You read something into my post which I didn't say. To make my argument, I simply needed to show that there are attacks with this motivation - which I did, when I made the original claim.

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):

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

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.