Bee's Note: Whew! What a week! On Tuesday, I had posted an article about the 3-day meetings being held "Behind Closed Doors", where "The State Department on Monday launched three days of closed-door talks with representatives of international organizations and several dozen countries with the stated aim of promoting religious freedom and tolerance while ensuring that freedom of expression is not harmed in the process." A few days later, posted an update of these secret meetings: "Update on State Department-OIC Conference in DC: "The Istanbul Process". And earlier today, another post: "Obama Administration Giving Islamists a Say Over Our Right to Free Speech" It is noted that members of the OIC include "The Jeddah-based OIC includes as its members such "champions" of human rights and religious freedom and tolerance as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran."
The Obama administration and Hillary apparently don't want to upset the apple cart, or inform Americans publicly of their "closed" door meeting with the Islamist leaders - leaders representing and practicing Sharia law, and all continuing their daily be-headings, stonings, cutting off of limbs, beatings and public whippings under the guise of their "religion of peace", Does our State Department expect America, under the U.S. Constitution, to become "tolerant" to the teachings of Islam?! One article speaks of "tolerance" towards "miniorities" ... Islam, with its billions of followers throughout the world, is NOT a minority religion! America is a nation that could be considered a "minority" in a sea of Islamic nations!
And, while these meetings are not covered by the MSM, there is no lack of mocking and intimidation towards those who speak out against the teachings of Islam. So much so, that anyone who disagrees with Islam's generous offers to wipe Israel off the map; or, to pressure Americans to appease Islam; is called an "Islamophobic". They apparently haven't heard that old child's saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me".
I have a good friend and Director of "Apostates and Infidels". He suggested that I post and link the true definition of "Islamophia" here, for my readers. Please share, (linking to Apostates and Infidels) and the next time someone thinks they can silence you from speaking out against those who wish us harm, by calling you an "Islamophobic", wear that title as a badge of honor! The last time I looked, Americans were still free to speak the truth. Unlike this Administration, Americans do recognize the enemies to not only our nation, but to civilization outside Islam.
"I educate and inform myself
That's why, now, I am ....
ISLAMOPHOBIC
Friday, December 16, 22011
"Islamophobia describes prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims. The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States"
In 1997 the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. (Wikipedia)
Clear definition.....Right? WRONG!
. "Islamophobia: a challenge for all of us"
Since the early 90s the word “Islamophobia” appears in numerous statements of Muslims throughout the world as a term for “anti-Islamic” attitudes and “anti-Islamic behavior”
“Islamophobia” has long since replaced the older notation of the “Islamic Threat” In the political discourse of the West.
"Islamophobia" finds itself at the latest since 1997. In this year the prestigious Runnymede Trust published its infamous magazine "Islamophobia: a challenge for all of us."
The authors of the Runnymede Trust intended to introduce "Islamophobia" as a separate category of xenophobia.
(An unreasonable fear of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange).
Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as "unfounded hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims" and divided it into the following categories:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a “Clash of Civilizations”.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of “the West” by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.
The term "Islamophobia" becomes official political term
With UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan's statement in December 2004, the term “Islamophobia” became the offical political term.
"When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry -- that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with "Islamophobia". The world seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety."
The term "Islamophobia" however, is older than its use by the Runnymede Trust in 1997 and it has also evolved in a different context!
From "Islamophobia" in 1979, the Iranian Mullahs spoke in explicitly misogynist intent. "Islamophobia" was used for the defamation of women not veiled as "bad Muslims" and should indicate the rejection of the dress regulations of Islam.
Currently the concept of “Islamophobia” is being abused by leftist politicians to show that it perfectly serves Islamophobic attitudes and actions.
"Islamophobia" is the perfect word in the mouth of leftist politicians, trying to stifle in the bud unpopular, legitimate criticism of Islam as a religious system..
The criteria of the Runnymede Trust on Islamophobia however, are too general and heterogeneous and include such a wide range of perceived humiliation, insults and discrimination that one gets the impression that everything Muslims experience about something negative on their non-Muslim environment, is "Islamophobic ".
A closer look
Let's have a closer look at the criteria of the Runnymede Trust:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive for change.
It's entirely correct to describe Islam this way.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "other". It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
It would be very surprisingly if we in the West, with our long history of Judeo-Christian traditions, wouldn't see
Islam as "separate" and "other".
What is so "Islamophobic" when you compare your own identity at a critical distance from another?
Muslims just demand that recognition and respect for their "identity"
Denying influences of Islam on the West and the opportunity to develop value beliefs would be unfair and in
rational discourse because it simply doesn't happen.
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
Without insinuating a general “inferiority” of Islam, it is entirely correct, to characterize parts of Islam (especially the hadd punishments of the Shariah) as "primitive" and "barbaric”.
Sexism is a dominant attitude in Islamic countries and completely supported by the dominant interpretations
of the Quran.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a “Clash of Civilizations”.
You don't have to be educated to understand that many Surahs in the Quran preach that Muslims have to
make violence against unbelievers as their duty.
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by
Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book,
until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29, Yusuf Ali)
To thematize this and urge Muslims to a critical confrontation with their Quran for justifying their violent
traditions is not "Islamophobia".
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Islamism undoubtedly is the perfect political ideology that calls for political supremacy of Islam by force.
Islamism finds its justification in Islam. Islam used by Islamists as political ideology, is a correct statement and
not “Islamophobia”.
6. Criticisms made of “the West” by Islam are rejected out of hand.
Where this is practiced without self-criticism, undoubtedly an Islamophobic trend is discernible. But this kind of criticism is limited to a few groups of ultra-conservative and right political spectrum.
The right corner where leftist politicians want to put everybody who is critical about Islam.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Where discrimination takes place detectable, it is first to check whether it actually happens only on grounds of
religion or whether ethnic and cultural factors also play a role. If evidence of discrimination is performed for
religious reasons, there are numerous efforts in the West to put a hold on it.
8. Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.
This is a very curious phrase. I do not know any serious rational political discourse, where this is happening.
These very brief comments on the criteria of the Runnymede Trust have shown that only three of these criteria can nominate Islamophobic tendencies, the others are in the mildest case very ambivalent, some entirely false and ideologically.
Runnymede Trust and our leftist politicians want to tell us that the Muslim culture perfectly fits in our Western world.
If I would say they're wrong, I would be called an “Islamophobe”.
If I would agree, I would agree with forced marriages, honor killings and female genital mutilation.