Can someone explain Islamophobia to me?

[BaMamma]

I don't think I have an irrational fear of Muslims, but I think I have a reasonable concern about radical Islam, does that make me Islamophobic?

I think maybe one motivation for having a specific term Islamaphobia is that Muslims may be have some resentment Jews can consider themselves a race or an ethnoreligous grouping based on shared aǹcestry but Islam is simply a religion like any other, Christianity, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jedi.....

Again Islam is a religion , you can convert to it or leave it in a very short time of you so wish. Like any religion it should be a personal decision whether you follow God or gods or not. A hijab is not welded to your head and a lightning bolt is not going to strike you down if it is removed.

Muslims want all the societal protections of race for a relgion. This is because they believe Islam is something that is passed down to their children and they are inescapably wedded to it (akin to DNA). Maybe we need to move on from this view of relgion? (Jews are may be an exception as they can truly demonstrate a shared ancestry which has featured of race and of course during the holocaust the Nazis didn't really care if you want to a synagogue).

I’ve asked mumsnet to remove my 2 posts above. I don’t think they are fair. Apologies

@mids2019

Do you honestly believe that Islamophobia is a term devised by Muslims because they are jealous of Jews?

Imagine if you swopped the terms around:

Islamophobia - Anti - semitism
Muslims- Jews
Islam - Judaism

Then read your statement again:

‘I think maybe one motivation for having a specific term Islamaphobia ( anti-semitism) is that Muslims (Jews) may be have some resentment Jews (Muslims) can consider themselves a race or an ethnoreligous grouping based on shared aǹcestry but Islam (Judaism) is simply a religion…..’

Can you see how offensive this is?

Of course there is no Islamophobia on this thread ….

The point was not a jealousy of Jews per se but a desire of Muslims to afford their religion the rights is a race. We quite rightly have laws that prevent insult on ethnicity but we cannot have the same race hate laws apply exactly to religion as again we are edging towards blasphemy through the back door, something in reality a lot of Muslims want.

We can for instance discuss parts of Islamic theology that demand non Muslims submit or else be subject to war openly but if we replaced Islam by an with ethnicity we would be getting towards a point where you would be breaching the site guidelines of this thread. Of course you could say the same the about any religion and the point stands religions should be able to be scrutinised without shielding by the law.

Of course you could say the same the about any religion and the point stands religions should be able to be scrutinised without shielding by the law.

Very true and while I'm not a Christian, I do notice how the Christian religion is heavily scrutinised and criticised and people feel comfortable to do that knowing there will be no negative repercussions.

I think a lot of it is about differentiating offence and hatred and its a tricky subject admittedly. As a Christian I am fully aware of the mockery of my religion and I think it is quite fair in a country with free speech which I fully support..So do I feel some offence at a statement like 'Jesus is gay'.....well.a.little bit also my devious belief I hope would be strong enough to rise above this statement. The risk is that, and I think many Muslims want this, if you were to produce a similar comment about the prophet there would be laws or guidance to prevent under the banner of Islamaphobia i.e. giving protection of religious sensibilities more rights at the detriment of free speech.

We see how two-hour laws are applied in Muslim majority countries and how blasphemy can literally cost you your life and I think the ability to freely blasphemy is a welcome hallmark of western democracy and one which needs protecting.

Blasphemy above....this device produces many typos...:(

I think people who would happily criticise Christianity but think criticism of the Muslim religion is out of bounds are hypocrites.

Either mockery/criticism of religion is considered fair in a country with free speech or it isn't ... like you I think that it is fair.

(easy for me to say as an atheist but I also think people should be able to criticise atheism - which they do - as long as it's not done in a way to discriminate against someone for being atheist/Christian/Muslim/Jewish).

Draw pictures of he who shouldn't be drawn, why not.

Mock him who shouldn't be mocked. Why not.

What's with forcing others to consider holy, something not believed in. Religion can be so intolerant of people who don't believe.

There are comedians who consider religion fair game because logically thinking many teachings are bizarre to modern life or science knowledge now.

Worship whom you want be that Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Jedi, Buddhist, Sikh or sny other just stop pushing others into holding something higher than . People should be allowed to say, not for me thanks.

Isn't this how Islam started in the first place when Mohammed went to Medina from Mecca, forcible conversion of people to Islam? After the death of Mohammed the next two caliphs basically produced an Islamic empire through North Africa and the middle East though colonialism and forced conversion. Jews and Christians were allowed to not convert but had to pay their Muslim overlords tax. Many Christian communities were destroyed, many churches raised and slaves taken during this time.

The Quran was the word of a warlord and promoted jihad so if this is true Islam can safely say it has changed?

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

Would teaching this alongside the transatlantic diabetes trade be Islamaphobic? Discuss.

That picture of the man examining the young boy before buying him is grim.

All slavery is awful. It feels like some believe only white men in the west had slaves, they need to have a proper look.

I’d agree slavery has existed as long as agriculture. Pretty much as soon as someone decides they own something they’d like to own somebody to work it for them.

I think in wMauritania slavery was only abolished by presidential decree in 1981, criminal punishments were only brought into law in 2007.

Even today , I think that legal slavery still exists we just call it something else. Across the Arab states there’s a system of sponsorship thst ties you to one employer, you have to give up your passport and are liable for thousands in costs if you want to leave early. Workers are often routinely abused and exploited. In China Uyghur Muslims are in “re-education” camps forced to labour. It seems a lot like slavery to me.

If it’s not being carried out by “Western” governments it’s ok for our government just to look a bit squirrellyand not say snything in an effort not to offend.

I would check your facts a little more carefully:

Holding a physical passport long-term is strictly prohibited by labor and interior laws across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

If you paid your visa fees to work for a company, and they then take this off your salary, that is also illegal. Unfortunately there are a lot of companies who exploit people from the third world. I wouldn’t imagine that this is just the same around the world. South America and the States springs to mind.