As per instructions I am posting the first part of the article here, the link above will tell the whole tale

Rape and torture empties the villages

John Vidal
Monday July 21, 2003
The Guardian

I believe that we have linked to that story (which dates from 2003), or several very like it, in the past. We have had discussions on babble before about what might be happening in southern and SE Asia as a result of the rise of radical groups of several kinds, but as with our discussions of what is happening in Central Asia or Chechnya, eg, most of us are working from limited knowledge and high levels of caution.

It is, as you will recognize, very much in the interests of propagandists (like George Bush or Vladimir Putin) to conflate all rebel groups everywhere into one scary category, which of course never helps anyone to understand what might be done in practical political terms.

http://www.thepersecution.org/world/bangladesh/2005/01/nyt050123.html

The Next Islamist Revolution?
By ELIZA GRISWOLD
Published: January 23, 2005
Before dawn one morning this past November in Bagmara, a village in northwestern Bangladesh, six puffy-eyed men gathered beneath a cracked-mud stairwell to describe a man they consider their leader, a former schoolteacher called Bangla Bhai. The quiet was broken now and then by donkey carts clattering past, as village women, seated on the backs of the carts, were taken to the market. The women wore makeshift burkas — black, white, canary yellow — and kept their heads down, and this, the men explained, was Bangla Bhai’s doing.

Here in the West, Islamic fundamentalists try and often succeed in preventing all talk of genocide perpetrated by Muslim countries: apparently it is racist and 'Islamophobic'. So nothing gets done.

Whenever anyone tries to raise these issues, the conversation is turned away to 'George Bush, invasion of Iraq, Gujurat riots, Israeli occupation of Palestine', and all manner of unrelated topics.

quote:

---

Or, the leftist apologists will confidently state that Islam is the victim of Western imperialism, white colonialism, and is economically poorer than the West, so Islamic nations should be free to rape & torture as they please.

---

Several years ago Alternatives held a large conference "Against Fundamentalism" - targeting fundamentalist currents in all the major religions - and the "fundamentalism of the marketplace". You may find some information through the website www.alternatives.ca (linked to on rabble), although I don't believe Alternatives had a website back then (about 10 years ago).

Islamophobia can be used as a catch phrase to lump all critics of fundamentalist Islam - and its social influence and claims - in with racists and ethnocentrists (I.S. certainly is not above doing that...) but there is a "phobia" - fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims in general that does not make distinctions between Islamist networks and the majority of people in Muslim lands - such confusion was fostered most wilfully in the buildup to the war on Iraq.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

As a matter of fact, 100 Hindus and a few Muslims were shot dead by Gujurat police (reporting to BJP administration) in attempts to control the riots.

Narendra Modi did a superhuman job in preventing the riots from continuing further. Muslims were so badly outnumbered that 1000 Muslim dead (and 400 Hindu deaths) were very low numbers, considering the rage provoked by the Islamic incineration of women and children.

It is ridiculous to make a blanket statement that leftists so love : "well, all religions have their fundamentalists so they're all the same!"

Nonsense, this is the type of fuzzy wooly-headed reasoning that literally drives all those with an iota of common sense up the wall. Yes, all religions have their crazies, but Islam has a LOT MORE OF IT, so it cannot be equated with any others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Well, stargazer, you don't have to go very far to find leftists who are prepared to march in the streets against "Islamophobia", which is the epithet that critics of the Muslim religion usually get thrown at them in some leftist circles.

I agree with rban. There is a certain "political correctness" about the crimes of Islam that is anything but politically correct.

---

You make it sound as if some people aren't just simply bigoted against Muslims. If not Islamaphobia, what is it to be called?

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Or, the leftist apologists will confidently state that Islam is the victim of Western imperialism, white colonialism, and is economically poorer than the West, so Islamic nations should be free to rape & torture as they please.

---

it's funny (though certainly not unprecedented) how they're junior coalition members in the government of the very country whose formation they opposed.

notice how the Guardian article states that they were "supporters" and not "members" of the Jamaat. i suppose that when the Jamaat comes under fire for this, they'll just say, "hey, wasn't us." sounds a lot like what's been going on in India.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You make it sound as if some people aren't just simply bigoted against Muslims.

---

quote:

---

The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball: If not Islamaphobia, what is it to be called?

---

quote:

---

'Islamophobia' has become not just a description of anti-Muslim prejudice but also a prescription for what may or may not be said about Islam. Every year, the Islamic Human Rights Commission organises a mock awards ceremony for its 'Islamophobe of the Year'. Last year there were two British winners. One was the BNP's Nick Griffin. The other? Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. Toynbee’s defence of secularism and women’s rights, and criticism of Islam, was, it declared, unacceptable. Isn't it absurd, I asked the IHRC's Massoud Shadjareh, to equate a liberal anti-racist like Polly Toynbee with the leader of a neo-fascist party. Not at all, he suggested. 'There is a difference between disagreeing and actually dismissing certain ideologies and certain principles. We need to engage and discuss. But there’s a limit to that.' It is difficult to know what engagement and discussion could mean when leading Muslim figures seem unable to distinguish between liberal criticism and neo-fascist attacks.

---

The term Islamaphobia means, uwarranted, or excessive fear of Islam, to the point of bigotry. Not all words can be reduced to their basic Latin or Greek roots. For instance, antisemetism would have a completely different defintion than it does, if broken down to its constituent etymology. I am afraid of being locked in small rooms, this does not mean I am claustrophobic, which means an uwarranted or excessive fear of small spaces, not reasonable concern.

I have no doubt that the term is used for the pruposes you describe by some. The problem is that terms like antisemetism are used often in a like manner to shield Israel from criticism. This does not mean that the term "antisemetism" is "a catch-all term that is designed to shield" Judaism "from any criticism at all," just because it is abused by some.

Antisemetism exists. Would you suggest that any and all events, or calls for action against antisemetism be condemned because some wayward politcos insist on using the term antisemtism as cover for less savory political agendas?

There are people whose criticism of Islam steps over the boundary of legitimate analysis of core religious values and enters into the realm of pure bigotry. These bigots are to be called what?

Is there some reason not to specifically assign a title to bigotry against one specific belief or cultural group. Some people are specifically bigoted against Muslims alone, but not Jews or Budhists or Hindus.

I am sure you are not suggesting that the Qu'ran is uniquely regressive, in comparison say to the Bagavaghita. Myself, having read both, I find it hardly suprising that when Robert Openhiemer set off his firct Nuclear device in Nevada, he chose to quote from the latter.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

What you are saying about anti-semitism (note the spelling) simply shows that one has to be careful when using the term because it means different things to different people.

I would certainly not heed a "call for action against anti-semitism" if the object thereof was to stifle legitimate criticism of the Zionist Israeli state. Note I didn't say "any and all... calls for action"; the ambiguity of the word anti-semitism requires a case-by-case inquiry. Do you have a problem with that?

Similarly, I will not march in a protest carrying a sign saying "Down with Islamophobia". I happen to believe that clarity of message is important, and that one doesn't make the grade.

Words ending in -phobia connote a psychological state of mind. I have no interest in protesting against people's state of mind, though I am willing to debate them. Islamophobia is not an appropriate term to describe aggressive or discriminatory behaviour or hatred towards Muslims.

I am, by my own definition of the term, an Islamophobe. I am not, by my own definition of the term, an anti-semite. See the difference?

"These bigots are to be called what?" you ask. You clearly didn't read my last post, where I said, "Call it legitimate criticism; call it racism; call it racial profiling; call it what it is."

What's wrong with "bigots"? Why make up an inaccurate and misleading brand name like Islamophobia to describe something that is not merely "fear" of Islam but is in fact a policy of aggression against all Muslims?

And no, I don't buy the idea that one can eschew the generally understood meaning of words in favour of personal views, or etymologically purist views on coloquial usage, such would seem to defeat the purpose of language.

quote:

---

Islamophobia

n : prejudice against Muslims; "Muslim intellectuals are afraid of growing Islamophobia in the West" [syn: Islamophobia]

---

Dictionary.com

quote:

---

"These bigots are to be called what?" you ask. You clearly didn't read my last post, where I said, "Call it legitimate criticism; call it racism; call it racial profiling; call it what it is."

---

I did read your post, my point was perhaps not clear. Note I added:

quote:

---

Is there some reason not to specifically assign a title to bigotry against one specific belief or cultural group. Some people are specifically bigoted against Muslims alone, but not Jews or Budhists or Hindus.

---

I was asking more why there should not be a term, given that their are specific terms for all kinds of bigotry.

And it is true that there is a growing paranoia about Muslims, that is specific to Muslims alone, and not simply the general and traditional racism against persons from other culture generally. Islam is being targetted specifically. I think we agree on that, so I can't see why you reject the term out of hand.

But I do agree the ambiguities require case-by-case inquiry.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Every thread on this site which explores Islamic genocide against non-Islamic people degenerates into long conversations about so-called 'racism against Islam'... to such an extent that the original thread title is rendered irrelevant.

Look at this thread as an example. Cueball has successfully ensured that no one at this point (except perhaps M Spector)is discussing or giving a damn about the genocide against Hindus in Bangladesh. He is, of course, doing this quite deliberately: I know people like him quite well and am familiar with their methodology. It's quite a simple modus operandi, really: simply divert the discussion away from the main point, ie: on this thread, genocide against Hindus. The strategy of turning conversations into unrelated directions ensures that the morally indefensible and intellectually vacuous positions adopted by hatemongers like Cueball go unchallenged.

Of course it helps enormously that the Moderators of the forum, who normally should be enforcing this sort of thing, do not take the necessary step of telling disruptors and trolls like Cueball: "this thread is not about Islamophobia, if you want start a separate thread with that title, do so"...but of course that never happens.

Hateful ideologues like Cueball work very hard to ensure that systematic Islamic genocide against Hindus and others continues without intervention. They are deviously clever and fanatically devoted to their evil goals.

quote:

---

Hateful ideologues like Cueball work very hard to ensure that systematic Islamic genocide against Hindus and others continues without intervention.

---

*Sigh*

You prove yourself to be a hateful ideologue. It is you who is injecting into this debate the left/right divide, not cueball nor anyone else.

I am sorry, but from my reading you want others to adopt your own sectarianism and fear/hatred of a religion.

If we examine Northern Ireland, we could easily conclude, depending on where you stand, the problem is with Catholicism or Protestantism. It is not. While the belligerents might claim to be Catholics or Protestants, they could just as easily claim to be Nationalists and Unionists. And if the true nature of the power struggle is examined, we might find that it all comes down to colonialism and the exploitation of tribal instincts.

Islam does not exhort its followers to go out and rape and kill innocent Bangladeshis. Rather, people who purport to be followers of Islam might do so in the name of Islam. But then the crime is committed by individuals and groups not Islam.

Bush might claim to be Christian and he might have killed 100,000 Iraqis, but Iraqis would be as wrong to blame Christianity for Bush's war as you are to blame Islam for the upheaval in Bangladesh.

In fact, to blame Islam is to reinforce and bolster the ranks of the murderers. You make guilty, by association, even those who are Islam who refused to participate in any crime and perhaps even speak against it in their community.

By saying Islam is the problem, you give them nowhere to go but along side those who commit the crimes and then even the innocent is your enemy. And then you are on the cusp of advocating a crime no different than theirs: Hate them because they are Islam.

Sorry, but that sounds like an typical, knee jerk, irrational right wing sort of argument.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

Is that so bloody unreasonable?

Nobody has answered successfully the simple question: why is this thread getting pulled away from genocide against Hindus in BD? Every single post should be addressing this issue, and every sentence should be suggesting ways that we can work together to stop this horrific human rights abuse.

quote:

---

Is that so bloody unreasonable?

---

quote:

---

Nobody has answered successfully the simple question: why is this thread getting pulled away from genocide against Hindus in BD? Every single post should be addressing this issue, and every sentence should be suggesting ways that we can work together to stop this horrific human rights abuse.

---

First you said "Here in the West, Islamic fundamentalists try and often succeed in preventing all talk of genocide perpetrated by Muslim countries: apparently it is racist and 'Islamophobic'" changing the topic of your own discussion from the massactre of Hindus to Islam. And then you said "or, the leftist apologists will confidently state that Islam is the victim of Western imperialism, white colonialism, and is economically poorer than the West, so Islamic nations should be free to rape & torture as they please," misrepresenting, insuting and alienating your audience with your own ideological bullshit and baggage.

You derailed your own thread. And only after you had number of "leftist apologists" support you on the initial posting.

quote:

---

I can only conclude that some people are deliberately pulling the conversation away from this issue because they want the genocide to continue

---

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

My hope was that by warning against the danger of 'topic diversion', people would understand the evil of diverting away from the topic at hand. Usually, when you tell people that something has evil consequences, they get the hint and avoid that action. In this case, I tell people that nothing is being done re BD because of 'topic diversion'...people then immediately divert the topic on the thread!! Who on earth could have predicted such an irrational response?

Nothing is as simple as a word like "Islamaphobia."

What exactly is your concern, specifically, and how did my edit change the essential content of my post? My point has been consitent all the way through. I am not interested in winning an stupid argument with you, by slieght of hand.

If you want to continue, we can continue, but I'd like you to keep that kind of snotty allegation where it belongs.

In my view, disucssion about racism are not about winning by points as in a U of T debating match. Maybe that is what it is to you.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:
Islam does not exhort its followers to go out and rape and kill innocent Bangladeshis. Rather, people who purport to be followers of Islam might do so in the name of Islam. But then the crime is committed by individuals and groups not Islam.

Bush might claim to be Christian and he might have killed 100,000 Iraqis, but Iraqis would be as wrong to blame Christianity for Bush's war as you are to blame Islam for the upheaval in Bangladesh.

---

We have a thread going now, wherein Mr. Rban, has yet to say much more than about the slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat, other than it was all the fault of the Muslims, themselves. He can't even bring himself to say raping and killing Muslims is wrong.

quote:

---

Yes, go ahead and make your ignorant value judgements. Narendra Modi is a heroic and great leader who has done great things for humanity. Most normal and reasonable people acknowledge this. His contribution to peace and stability is unparalleled.

---

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Narendra Damodardas Modi:

quote:

---

The true conflagration was inflamed as protestors and officials carried the charred remains of the 59 dead across the streets on their way to the hospital for a post-mortem, angering onlookers and providing a media spark that set the state on fire via television and radio. Following this Hindu mobs attacked Muslims across the state, which according to an Indian central government report resulted in the death of 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims, with an additional 223 people listed missing. The true extent of violence is considered to have claimed a thousand more lives, including tens of thousands displaced in refugee camps, and hundreds missing.

The Modi government is considered to have protected the rioters by actually instructing police officers not to interfere in their bloody work. In the first month of the riot, shops and homes were set ablaze and men and women killed in broad daylight. When mobs destroyed shops, an accompanying mob of men and women looted the goods, while the police simply watched on. By the end of the first month, bloodthirsty mobs paraded outside the state commissioner of police's office. Several MLAs and Ministers were said to have actively guided and organized BJP and VHP activists to murder, loot and torch men and property. Local businessmen attacked the property and shops of rivals, and had them murdered.

---

Fine new friend you have there.

[ 03 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Every thread on this site which explores Islamic genocide against non-Islamic people degenerates into long conversations about so-called 'racism against Islam'... to such an extent that the original thread title is rendered irrelevant.

---

mere bhai, suniye zaraa.

if you've in fact read "every thread on this site which explores Islamic genocide against non-Islamic people," then you have a great deal of time on your hands. i hope you can corroborate this.

but let's look first of all at the degeneration of this thread away from the main topic.

you posted a story that was very interesting and very important, and i commend you for doing so. we need to know about things like this.

following your first post, Anchoress, skdadl, solarpower and a citizen of winnipeg all posted supportive articles.

if you would have told us about constructive ways to help combat state terrorism carried out by Islamist groups in Bangladesh, i'm sure we would all have been thankful to you. instead, after your post providing us with an update, you:

1. claimed that Islamic fundamentalists often successfully pressure "the West" into shutting up about mass killings perpetrated by Muslim states by claiming that speaking out about is racist and Islamophobic. however, you didn't provide any examples of such cases for us to discuss. you're on the net, so use hyperlinks. it's fun and easy.

2. seemed to make a blanket statement about "the leftist apologists," knowing full well that this is a message board run and frequented by people whose political views are on the left of the political spectrum. you did not specify who "the leftist apologists" are, making it seem as though you using the term to characterize all people on the left. if that is not what you meant, then you should have clarified yourself. write more clearly and use more specific language. if that is what you meant, then i would ask you whether you include Pakistani Socialists in that group.

Here is the "basis of unity" statement.

quote:

---

Recent revelations about the desecration of the Qur'an in Guantanamo Bay have confirmed what human rights organisations have been claiming since the start of the so-called "war on terror:" that U.S. troops are engaged in widespread and systematic abuse of detainees from Abu Ghraib to Bagram to Camp X-Ray, including the use of torture, rape, assault and ritual humiliation.

Join us this Sunday to protest the ill-treatment and abuse of detainees at U.S.-run prison camps around the world and to condemn the Islamophobic ideas that attempt to 'justify' such behaviour. Let's make sure that our voices are heard and that we stand in solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters. This is an issue that affects all of us, not just Muslims.

Organised by Muslim organisations across the GTA Endorsed by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War.

---

No where in that statement is the suggestion that "criticism of Islam is out of bounds." Do you have a problem with anything that it does say? Because for the life of me, I can't really see what is wrong with it on face value.

Perhaps you know something that I don't.

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Yes. Religions don't kill people. People kill people. And the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were Islamic fundamentalist nutjobs is a complete coincidence.

And of course George W. Bush's war in Iraq has nothing to do with his belief that he has been chosen by God to lead the USA in a holy jihad.

---

And do we persecute all Christians because George W. Bush is bent and claims to be one? And then do we persecute all Texans? All Americans? All whites?

Where does it end with you?

Just religion? When we have wiped all religious faith of the face of the earth there will peace and harmony and we all sing together and buy the world a coke?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What's also obvious from this thread, and from the links I posted, is that there are plenty of "leftist apologists" who seem to think than any kind of criticism of Islam is out of bounds - hence the "Islamophobia" catch-all smear.

---

M. Spector, if you can write that immediately following Mohamad Khan's thoughtful and careful analysis of discussion on this thread, then you are little more than a propagandist at best, and possibly just a troll.

IMHO, it is shocking to read anyone on babble who is acting as an apologist for any kind of genocide, as lagatta so clearly says.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
M. Spector, if you can write that immediately following Mohamad Khan's thoughtful and careful analysis of discussion on this thread, then you are little more than a propagandist at best, and possibly just a troll.

IMHO, it is shocking to read anyone on babble who is acting as an apologist for any kind of genocide, as lagatta so clearly says.

It is equally shocking, to me, to read anyone who is arguing that smug, arrogant, imperialist panic is a useful response to any of the world's problems.

---

I have not defended any kind of genocide.

I have not defended any kind of "imperialist panic".

quote:

---

Go take a remedial reading course.

---

quote:

---

Which means that innocent women are suffering in BD, but Cueball of course doesn;t give a hoot about that.

---

Obviously the only real way for a callous cad like him to show he cares would be to totally agree with you. And since he obstinately refuses to totally agree with you I think you're right to alert us to the monster in our midst.

Cueball, howzabout agreeing unconditionally with our brand new babbler here so those women can be helped? Is that too much to ask, when the stakes are this high?

ed'd to add:

quote:

---

I only attack bigotry, hypocrisy, and deceit.

---

What about dry sarcasm?

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

I've already explained in excruciating detail why I think the term Islamophobia is inappropriate for what its defenders say it means, and how it is used as a "politically correct" club to beat people over the head with when they dare to criticize Islam.

To show that this is not just some crazy idea of mine, I have linked to a respected British humanist writer who says the same thing, only better, and even gives specific concrete ( i.e. not abstract) examples to bolster his case.

Is it possible that any of the men here could address that issue?

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Cueball:

I've already explained in excruciating detail why I think the term Islamophobia is inappropriate for what its defenders say it means, and how it is used as a "politically correct" club to beat people over the head with when they dare to criticize Islam.

To show that this is not just some crazy idea of mine, I have linked to a respected British humanist writer who says the same thing, only better, and even gives specific concrete ( i.e. not abstract) examples to bolster his case.

If you really still don't understand, send me a PM and I'll explain it again as best I can. Don't try to interview me in front of all these bored people.

---

We are clear on that. I did not ask you about the issue of Islamphobia. I asked you about the statement of unity of the event you attacked.

I am totally clear on your view of the term Islamaphobia. I even offered a common dictionary defintion in regard to what the term Islamophobia. No doubt, as with most people, the organizers of the event you trashed, accept the dictionary definition of the term, (bigotry against Muslims) as opposed to the your personal defintion of it.

Rather more civily I asked you specifically why you took ecception to an event whose terms of and statement are quite reasonable, since it seems to intent is to oppose bigotry, whatever term the organizaer choose to use to define it.

In other words I asked you to specifically detail, how this event can be catergorized, as you have as cover for militant Islamic facism specifically. I have asked for something more than a theoretical up-in-the-air conspiracy theory, based on some ideas that some "humanist" people in Great Britain have about the specific problems of the militant left in Great Britain.

I asked about your problems with this specific event as it describes itself in its statment of unity. In other words how does this event exemplify what you are talking about other than the fact that it uses the word Islamaphobia, given that it is quite possible that the organizer are using the term as it is strictly defined in the dictionary.

Or is it that you have some more specific information to indicate that this event is a front for the Islamic militant facists. Because if you do I will ask that the board take it down. You have made a very specific and potentiall legall damaging charge about an event advertized on this board, and I see no reason to PM about your so far slanderous comments. Since the accusation was made quite publicaly.

[ 04 July 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You're off your meds again. For gods sake get a grip.

I didn't "attack" the event in question. I criticized the use of the ambiguous word "Islamophobia" in connection with the event. Regardless of what the organizers mean it to say, it is not a word that the ordinary person on the street understands. It is therefore not a smart way to educate the public about American crimes in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (which is what the demonstration was really about).

Is that a "pretty serious charge", "slander", or "accusation" (your words)? Did I accuse the organizers of being a "cover for militant Islamic facism (sic - your words)"?

This is what Rban said:

quote:

---

Here in the West, Islamic fundamentalists try and often succeed in preventing all talk of genocide perpetrated by Muslim countries: apparently it is racist and 'Islamophobic'. So nothing gets done.

[and]

Or, the leftist apologists will confidently state that Islam is the victim of Western imperialism, white colonialism, and is economically poorer than the West, so Islamic nations should be free to rape & torture as they please.

---

You a stated quite clearly that you agreed with RBan and referenced the event in question, as an example of what he was talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rban:
I think what he meant was that these 'type' of events are usually led by apologists for the crimes of Islam. He did not explicitly state that particular event, but he sniffed the air and thought 'I think I recognize that reek!'.

Just like, I am not 100% certain who or what some of the posters here are, but I have my suspicions. And my educated guesses are usually spot on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rban:
I think what he meant was that these 'type' of events are usually led by apologists for the crimes of Islam. He did not explicitly state that particular event, but he sniffed the air and thought 'I think I recognize that reek!'.

---

I certainly don't think the leaders of that particular demonstration were apologists for the crimes of Islam. They may have been, but I have no evidence of that. I took their aims at face value.

I agreed, however, with your original general comment about using "Islamophobia" to shush legitimate criticism of Islam. There is no doubt in my mind and the minds of many others that this is so. I thought that, while the organizers of this demonstration may well have had no such intention, their rallying cry around that word was at best ambiguous, without getting into a long explanation (which one should never have to do in relation to agitational slogans), and at worst could be taken to be calling for a criticism-free zone around Islam. I think the latter would be very destructive of the aim of building a mass movement against racism, torture, racial profiling, and the phony war on terrorism and Iraq.

And yet, racism, fanatical Hindu nationalism, and ethnic hatreds of all kinds have existed for centuries.

How, oh, how, did the English language ever manage to struggle along all that time without having this ambiguous etymological monstrosity around to use as a catch-all epithet? It's so goddam handy to use, because it can mean whatever you want, and you don't ever again have to strain your brain to saying what you really mean.

Torturing people in Abu Ghraib? Oh, that's Islamophobia. Bombing mosques? Oh, that's Islamophobia. Killing Iraqis? That's Islamophobia, too. Calling a Muslim a fascist? A clear case of Islamophobia (how could a Muslim possibly be a fascist, I ask you?). Criticizing Islamic mullahs for having adulterers stoned to death? Yeah, that's Islamophobia as well.

The very word itself creates an opposition between those who are deemed Islamophobic and - what? What's the "other side"? Why, Islam, of course. So you're either an Islamophobe or an Islamophile (see, I can make up these words, too).

Second, circumstances have indeed changed, rapidly, in the last few years. The concept of Islamophobia is not new; it is an echo of Edward Said's notion of "orientalism".

Third, no one has objected to legitimate criticism of Islam or Islamic thought. Check this board. The majority reject out-right the notion of sharia tribunals being established in Canada, for instance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
First, spelling flames are L-A-M-E.

Second, circumstances have indeed changed, rapidly, in the last few years. The concept of Islamophobia is not new; it is an echo of Edward Said's notion of "orientalism".

Third, no one has objected to legitimate criticism of Islam or Islamic thought. Check this board. The majority reject out-right the notion of sharia tribunals being established in Canada, for instance.

You are setting up straw men and torching them all by your lonesome. Have fun.

---

I'll post the link again, so you don't have to find it by actually reading my previous posts:
Yes, believe it or not, some people have used Islamophobia to describe and denounce legitimate criticism of Islam, specifically, in defence of secularism and women's rights. Meet "straw man" Massoud Shadjareh.

And I have seen Canadian Muslims denounce opposition to sharia tribunals here as - you guessed it - Islamophobia. I guess the majority of us on this board are tarred with the brush of the I-word.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I certainly don't think the leaders of that particular demonstration were apologists for the crimes of Islam. They may have been, but I have no evidence of that. I took their aims at face value.

---