conservative party accused of 'fundamental' failure" over islamaphobia

[The Emperor of Mankind]

islamophobia is bigger than britain and i repeat, it is not a flawed definition, but there are abuses.

You've not given us any reason to think it isn't flawed beyond your repeated assertion that it is not. You've also given us no reason to just accept reasonable concerns and fears of Islam & Islamism being lumped in with attitudes & instances rooted in xenophobia and actual racism.

 

[ChristineM]

You've not given us any reason to think it isn't flawed beyond your repeated assertion that it is not. You've also given us no reason to just accept reasonable concerns and fears of Islam & Islamism being lumped in with attitudes & instances rooted in xenophobia and actual racism.

So are you saying that fear of islam does not exist?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So are you saying that fear of islam does not exist?

I'm honestly not sure how you reached that conclusion considering I specifically said "You've also given us no reason to just accept reasonable concerns and fears of Islam & Islamism being lumped in with attitudes & instances rooted in xenophobia and actual racism."

Quite obviously I believe there are good reasons to fear Islam. I mean I've given you a whole list of them and people who will be (and are) affected by Islam & its spreading influence.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm honestly not sure how you reached that conclusion considering I specifically said "You've also given us no reason to just accept reasonable concerns and fears of Islam & Islamism being lumped in with attitudes & instances rooted in xenophobia and actual racism."

Quite obviously I believe there are good reasons to fear Islam. I mean I've given you a whole list of them and people who will be (and are) affected by Islam & its spreading influence.

How i reached that conclusion is you several times stating the definition is flawed without actually giving reasons why.

On the contrary you just admit you are islamophobic

 

[Shad]

The guy is so full of himself he is blind to reality

Hilarious. All over rejecting a definition that includes politics that makes secularist Islamophobic by definition. Heck you changed definition in this thread from irrational fear to dislike. You merely parrot what you are told, no consideration of what you post. Try again.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How i reached that conclusion is you several times stating the definition is flawed without actually giving reasons why.

I gave you a list of reasons. It's not my fault if you cannot see them through your blinkers. You dismissed them merely because you don't like them.

On the contrary you just admit you are islamophobic

I have no irrational fear so I've not admitted to being Islamophobic. My fears & concerns about Islam are grounded in the fact that I, people I know and care about, and people I have sympathy for are at risk of being negatively affected by its spreading influence.

These 'minority cases of abusing the word' you spoke of earlier aren't abusing the word. They're using the word the way it was intended to be used - with its vague definition - to quash rational discourse and paint people with reasonable objections with the same brush as the likes of the far-right.

A summary of how Islamophobia is being used in discourse now that the deliberately-vague and generalised definition has been formalised

Anderton Park parents: "We demand you stop teaching our kids about gay people. Those lessons go against our religious beliefs!"

Anderton Park headteacher: "No. You cannot use your protected characteristic to undermine another person's protected characteristic. Teaching your children that gay people exist does not undermine your faith."

Anderton Park parents: "You're Islamophobic! You're an Islam-hating paedophile who's trying to groom our children!"

Birmingham City Council: "Okay, you people have been standing outside the school gates screaming abuse at staff, and being generally disruptive for weeks. You can continue protesting but you'll have to do it a street away from the school at least so you're not disrupting classes any more. Oh, and no more derogatory statements about school staff on social media either."

Anderton Park parents: "You're silencing us! That's Islamophobic!"

Straight allies: "This is ridiculous. LGBT people are not a threat to your faith merely by existing, nor is your children being taught this fact. You're all for equality when it suits you but when it's for someone you dislike you act like this. You say you're not homophobes but you're engaging in attempted erasure while using homophobic tropes like 'gay indoctrination'. You're bringing your entire religious community into further disrepute. It's no wonder people sometimes think Muslims are intolerant."

Islamophiles: "You can't say that! You're Islamophobic!"

 

[Shad]

I gave you a list of reasons. It's not my fault if you cannot see them through your blinkers. You dismissed them merely because you don't like them.




I have no irrational fear so I've not admitted to being Islamophobic. My fears & concerns about Islam are grounded in the fact that I, people I know and care about, and people I have sympathy for are at risk of being negatively affected by its spreading influence.

These 'minority cases of abusing the word' you spoke of earlier aren't abusing the word. They're using the word the way it was intended to be used - with its vague definition - to quash rational discourse and paint people with reasonable objections with the same brush as the likes of the far-right.

A summary of how Islamophobia is being used in discourse now that the deliberately-vague and generalised definition has been formalised

Anderton Park parents: "We demand you stop teaching our kids about gay people. Those lessons go against our religious beliefs!"

Anderton Park headteacher: "No. You cannot use your protected characteristic to undermine another person's protected characteristic. Teaching your children that gay people exist does not undermine your faith."

Anderton Park parents: "You're Islamophobic! You're an Islam-hating paedophile who's trying to groom our children!"

Birmingham City Council: "Okay, you people have been standing outside the school gates screaming abuse at staff, and being generally disruptive for weeks. You can continue protesting but you'll have to do it a street away from the school at least so you're not disrupting classes any more. Oh, and no more derogatory statements about school staff on social media either."

Anderton Park parents: "You're silencing us! That's Islamophobic!"

Straight allies: "This is ridiculous. LGBT people are not a threat to your faith merely by existing, nor is your children being taught this fact. You're all for equality when it suits you but when it's for someone you dislike you act like this. You say you're not homophobes but you're engaging in attempted erasure while using homophobic tropes like 'gay indoctrination'. You're bringing your entire religious community into further disrepute. It's no wonder people sometimes think Muslims are intolerant."

Islamophiles: "You can't say that! You're Islamophobic!"

Did the parents, or someone, actually claim Islamophobia? I am just wondering if that part of the above is based on acts rather than paraphrased hyperbole.

 

[ChristineM]

I gave you a list of reasons. It's not my fault if you cannot see them through your blinkers. You dismissed them merely because you don't like them.




I have no irrational fear so I've not admitted to being Islamophobic. My fears & concerns about Islam are grounded in the fact that I, people I know and care about, and people I have sympathy for are at risk of being negatively affected by its spreading influence.

These 'minority cases of abusing the word' you spoke of earlier aren't abusing the word. They're using the word the way it was intended to be used - with its vague definition - to quash rational discourse and paint people with reasonable objections with the same brush as the likes of the far-right.

A summary of how Islamophobia is being used in discourse now that the deliberately-vague and generalised definition has been formalised

Anderton Park parents: "We demand you stop teaching our kids about gay people. Those lessons go against our religious beliefs!"

Anderton Park headteacher: "No. You cannot use your protected characteristic to undermine another person's protected characteristic. Teaching your children that gay people exist does not undermine your faith."

Anderton Park parents: "You're Islamophobic! You're an Islam-hating paedophile who's trying to groom our children!"

Birmingham City Council: "Okay, you people have been standing outside the school gates screaming abuse at staff, and being generally disruptive for weeks. You can continue protesting but you'll have to do it a street away from the school at least so you're not disrupting classes any more. Oh, and no more derogatory statements about school staff on social media either."

Anderton Park parents: "You're silencing us! That's Islamophobic!"

Straight allies: "This is ridiculous. LGBT people are not a threat to your faith merely by existing, nor is your children being taught this fact. You're all for equality when it suits you but when it's for someone you dislike you act like this. You say you're not homophobes but you're engaging in attempted erasure while using homophobic tropes like 'gay indoctrination'. You're bringing your entire religious community into further disrepute. It's no wonder people sometimes think Muslims are intolerant."

Islamophiles: "You can't say that! You're Islamophobic!"

And i have provided a wiki page and a definition of islamophobia. Woopidooo we can both provide evidence

As i said, the word is abused, it makes no difference the the fact that islamophobic attacks on muslims occur

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Did the parents, or someone, actually claim Islamophobia? I am just wondering if that part of the above is based on acts rather than paraphrased hyperbole.

Yes. The nominal leader/organiser of these protests, Shakeel Afsar, has used the term 'Islamophobic' to describe people who disagree with him. He has supporters on social media who are rather generous in applying the term to anybody who disagrees too, as you'll see from one of the links I've provided.

Here is a video of him applying the term to Birmingham City Council because they sought an injunction banning his followers posting abusive messages about school staff on social media, and told them they could keep protesting, but they have to do it a street away from the school gates so as to not be disruptive.

Unfortunately that injunction has been disbarred and the matter is now going to trial. I'm disappointed. Mitigating this is a waste of taxpayers' money and the arguments do not even hold on an equivalent amount of weight. The only thing I hope comes out of this is the judges throw the book at these homophobes and remind them that Human Rights are qualified rights in our legal system - you cannot use your protected characteristic to undermine or remove another's rights.

While I was looking at his Twitter I found a couple of other videos that might be of interest; though not pertaining to your query above.

Here's another video I found posted in response to one of Shakeel's tweets. It shows footage of him introducing a man who tells the protesters the school staff are paedophiles and endorses the 'gay indoctrination' trope.

Here's yet another video containing another speaker endorsing the same trope. One of the protesters even carries a sign saying "No more tolerance. Let parents decide..". Clearly they're sick of LGBTs being tolerated and want to impose their own beliefs on others - starting with the kids - through the vehicle of public education.

 

[Notanumber]

This is what happens in a dualistic society.

Mrs May tried to please everyone with her Brexit negotiations and it does not work.

A country needs one set of laws that apply to everyone equally without fear or favour.

 

[Altfish]

This is what happens in a dualistic society.

Mrs May tried to please everyone with her Brexit negotiations and it does not work.

A country needs one set of laws that apply to everyone equally without fear or favour.

What we need is a dictator.

 

[Shad]

Yes. The nominal leader/organiser of these protests, Shakeel Afsar, has used the term 'Islamophobic' to describe people who disagree with him. He has supporters on social media who are rather generous in applying the term to anybody who disagrees too, as you'll see from one of the links I've provided.

Here is a video of him applying the term to Birmingham City Council because they sought an injunction banning his followers posting abusive messages about school staff on social media, and told them they could keep protesting, but they have to do it a street away from the school gates so as to not be disruptive.

Unfortunately that injunction has been disbarred and the matter is now going to trial. I'm disappointed. Mitigating this is a waste of taxpayers' money and the arguments do not even hold on an equivalent amount of weight. The only thing I hope comes out of this is the judges throw the book at these homophobes and remind them that Human Rights are qualified rights in our legal system - you cannot use your protected characteristic to undermine or remove another's rights.

While I was looking at his Twitter I found a couple of other videos that might be of interest; though not pertaining to your query above.

Here's another video I found posted in response to one of Shakeel's tweets. It shows footage of him introducing a man who tells the protesters the school staff are paedophiles and endorses the 'gay indoctrination' trope.

Here's yet another video containing another speaker endorsing the same trope. One of the protesters even carries a sign saying "No more tolerance. Let parents decide..". Clearly they're sick of LGBTs being tolerated and want to impose their own beliefs on others - starting with the kids - through the vehicle of public education.

Thanks. This is just furthers my conviction that Islamophobia is a nonsensical term used to shut people up.

 

[Notanumber]

What we need is a dictator.

The UK is trying to leave one of those.

 

[Firemorphic]

misogyny

Aka that men and women are a complimentary union, both there to help each other out and contribute to the world.

supremacism

Aka that all humanity comes from the same source, making racism antithetical to Islamic values. "All people are a single nation" (2:213)

theocracy

Aka that in your arbitrary personal opinion, Western liberal secularism is the answer and that somehow communities living in accord to their religious principles somehow automatically means that they won't get along with other religious communities all minding their own business.

homophobia

Aka, vague enough to plop this in as emotional ploy, yet not clear enough in the religion itself. There are actually communities of LBGT Muslims, however Islam is about family, as have many religions throughout history. You can spin that many ways depending off if it suits you or not, you act like it's so black and white.

and anti-semitism.

Now THIS is an interesting one because it's utterly false (it can only fall onto the individual's personal views, our religion is friendly with both Jews and Christians while remaining separate) and your other peers like to paint Muslims and Jews as both 'in on it' in a grand conspiracy to take over the world. However your emotion ploy with antisemitism is intriguing because that exists just as much as Isamopbobia, which you deny.
Now either we're both really sucking up to each other, both against each other, or you're selectively choosing what you want each respective group to be. But for the record, Jews and Muslims have generally gotten on very well (as do I personally with my Jewish friends).

 

[icehorse]

Aka that men and women are a complimentary union, both there to help each other out and contribute to the world.

Muslims tell us the Quran is perfect. Therefore it cannot be cherry-picked. All the versus must be accepted. It's the verses with the problems I listed above that I'm worried about.

Aka that in your arbitrary personal opinion, Western liberal secularism is the answer and that somehow communities living in accord to their religious principles somehow automatically means that they won't get along with other religious communities all minding their own business.

Well I'm not sure I'd say arbitrary... my values align with universal human rights. One of those rights is freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and secularism does that better than any other system so far invented.

 

[Firemorphic]

Therefore it cannot be cherry-picked.

The clause being that if icehorse cherry picks and interprets however hetrodoxly he wants, then he is correct.

Well I'm not sure I'd say arbitrary... my values align with universal human rights.

And who doesn't? just saying the phrase "human rights" doesn't mean anything of itself other than a trying to prop your sentence up with some kind of moral-enhancer. "I believe in human rights but you don't because I say so". What you're really saying is that your system of beliefs is different from your arbitrary interpretations of another system of beliefs, therefore you think you are superior and now the other system of beliefs has to bow down to your mighty system of beliefs because you say so. Reality isn't like that.

 

[icehorse]

The clause being that if icehorse cherry picks and interprets however hetrodoxly he wants, then he is correct.

My claiming the book's perfection, the apologist has - by definition - a much harder argument to win. All the critic has to do is find even minor faults to disprove the claims of perfection. It has nothing to do with me, it's simple logic.

And who doesn't? just saying the phrase "human rights" doesn't mean anything of itself other than a trying to prop your sentence up with some kind of moral-enhancer. "I believe in human rights but you don't because I say so". What you're really saying is that your system of beliefs is different from your arbitrary interpretations of another system of beliefs, therefore you think you are superior and now the other system of beliefs has to bow down to your mighty system of beliefs because you say so. Reality isn't like that.

You sure do a bad job of guessing what I believe. In order to save time, since your powers of guessing are not supernatural, let me fill you in on a bit of my logic.

The UN created the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Muslim majority countries rejected the UDHR and created their own, Sharia-friendly version, called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. So much of my understanding of Islam is based on what Muslims tell me about the foundations of their faith, and by the majority of them demonstrating a preference for theocracy. Nothing arbitrary about it, I'm simply taking Muslims at their word.

 

[Firemorphic]

My claiming the book's perfection, the apologist has - by definition - a much harder argument to win. All the critic has to do is find even minor faults to disprove the claims of perfection. It has nothing to do with me, it's simple logic.

That just isn't the case. You can insert your own dogmas and heretical interpretations all you want, and just pass it off as apologetics, rather than your own incompetence. Perhaps you have your expectations too much on one side than the other. This is just the typical mentality of your types, Islam is not about relativism but you are, therefore your relativist reinterpretation of Islam through your own dogmatic lens becomes your yardstick. It's just not viable.
So-called "apologists" (who ever the **** you're referring to) don't have a harder argument to win, quite the contrary, you're the judge, jury and executioner aren't you? so it doesn't matter how heretical your arbitrary interpretations are, because you're by default 'correct' in your head, which is very....interesting... isn't it? coming from someone who self-admits (in prior posts) to not really caring to actually study Islam itself and learn the religion.

You sure do a bad job of guessing what I believe. In order to save time, since your powers of guessing are not supernatural, let me fill you in on a bit of my logic.

Well either you do or don't believe in so-called "human rights", maybe you meant to use a different term?

The UN created the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Muslim majority countries rejected the UDHR and created their own, Sharia-friendly version, called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. So much of my understanding of Islam is based on what Muslims tell me about the foundations of their faith, and by the majority of them demonstrating a preference for theocracy.

Oh yes, you have beaten that bush many times, I do remember. Do you remember that you've beaten this bush?

Nothing arbitrary about it, I'm simply taking Muslims at their word.

Oh, sure you are

 

[Notanumber]

Muslims are people and Islam is a doctrine.

Islamophobia is whatever Muslims say it is.

The plan is to make Dhimmies of the British population.

 

[icehorse]

That just isn't the case. You can insert your own dogmas and heretical interpretations all you want, and just pass it off as apologetics, rather than your own incompetence. Perhaps you have your expectations too much on one side than the other. This is just the typical mentality of your types, Islam is not about relativism but you are, therefore your relativist reinterpretation of Islam through your own dogmatic lens becomes your yardstick. It's just not viable.
So-called "apologists" (who ever the **** you're referring to) don't have a harder argument to win, quite the contrary, you're the judge, jury and executioner aren't you? so it doesn't matter how heretical your arbitrary interpretations are, because you're by default 'correct' in your head, which is very....interesting... isn't it? coming from someone who self-admits (in prior posts) to not really caring to actually study Islam itself and learn the religion.

This seems like word salad, can you rephrase this? Until then, I'll take another whack at this:

Muslims started the debate. They started the debate the moment they claimed that the Quran and Muhammad are perfect. I didn't start this debate, I'm merely responding to those people (Muslims), who VOLUNTARILY choose to accept the claims enshrined in Islam. If you want to back off saying that the Quran and Muhammad are perfect, that would change everything.

As for me being a relativist, we must have different definitions of the word? I've been quite clear that I value the rights defined in the UDHR. If you prefer the values defined by the Cairo Declaration, then we simply have incompatible values. All I ever claimed was that Islamic values are different than UDHR values, and for that reason, I don't like Islamic values. I was asked why I don't like Islam, that's my answer.

Oh yes, you have beaten that bush many times, I do remember. Do you remember that you've beaten this bush?

Of course I remember. It's still true.

Oh, sure you are

(In reference to me taking Muslims at their word): I base my criticisms on three claims made by a large percentage of Muslims:

1 - The Quran is perfect
2 - Muhammad was perfect
3 - The Cairo Declaration is superior to the UN declaration

How am I not listening?