“ISLAMAPHOBIA” (sic) is a manufactured left wing concept. Literally. It was made up in 1997 by a British left wing think tank called the Runnymede Trust.
Well, its a step forward for the Courier Mail. But it is wrong on two counts: “Islamophobia” was not cooked up by the Runnymede Trust, but by the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, it is a fake phobia, but it doesn’t stand in the way of Islamic reform. Islam can’t be reformed. It is ‘perfect’, and criticism of it is deadly. At least that’s what Muslims believe.
Although the word had appeared in theological texts earlier with a far more limited meaning, the Runnymede definition created a phony problem and in doing so built a fraudulent victimhood industry.
The new term was then exploited by Britain’s Labour Party to stifle any criticism of its disastrous policies towards immigration in general and Muslims in particular.
Much like Australia’s Labor Party, Britain’s Labour Party has benefited mightily over the years from harnessing the Muslim vote.
Here, leading lights of Labor such as Bob Carr and Tony Burke happily attack Israel in order to curry favour with Sydney’s Muslim electorates.
In Britain, the proverbial Martian landing in parts of the major cities would think he’d got his intergalactic co-ordinates wrong and beamed down to Beirut or Baghdad instead. So what is “Islamophobia”? And why is it such a fraudulent term?
Obviously, the meaning of the word should be similar to “arachnophobia”, “homophobia”, “claustrophobia” and all other phobias: an innate, possibly irrational, fear that such-and-such a thing will harm you.
If that were the case, then an innate fear of Islam would be perfectly understandable, given that more people are murdered each day throughout the world in the name of Islam than in the name of any other cause; certainly far more than are killed by spiders, homosexuals or by being locked in confined spaces.
But the Runnymede “thinkers” created a far broader definition, and with a sinister sleight of hand declared Islamophobia to be “dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, [the] fear and dislike of all Muslims.”
Note the cunning use of “therefore”.
With one seemingly innocuous word, the Left made criticism of Islam tantamount to racism towards all Muslims. This is the same as saying that criticising the Christian church over, say, pedophilia, equates to hatred of all Christians. “Christophobia”, perhaps?
Worse, Runnymede then gave a whole bunch of what they call examples of Islamophobia, such as when “(Islam) is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist”, or when “It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilisations” or even when “It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage”. Hang on.
Aren’t all of the above — even partly — true? Or at least, it can be argued that elements of Islam are.
Yet thanks to Runnymede, the truth cannot be stated without the person who holds those opinions being denounced as an “Islamophobe”. This is outright Orwellian.
Last week, the ABC’s Q&A provided a textbook example of how the term is abused. A polite young Muslim man, self-described as “a high school teacher who lives and teaches in a low socio-economic and diverse cultural suburb”, came up with the following question, in reference to the terror raids the previous week in Melbourne: “Does the panel think there is a direct correlation with the rise of Islamophobia on social media and radicalisation of young Muslim Australians?”
What the question appeared to be suggesting is that the radicalisation of certain young Australians, who go on to either attempt to commit murder here or trot off to Syria to chop off people’s heads, is directly a result of “Islamophobia”.
This is as close to absurdist nonsense as it is possible to get with a straight face.
Yet Labor’s Anna Burke, also on the panel, bought into it lock, stock and barrel. In fact, she went further: “You know, I did Harmony Day and a beautiful Muslim girl said that she now fears going in the street with a headscarf … surely we should be an accepting society and if we’re not going to have acceptance then we are going to create extremism, aren’t we?”
So there you have it. According to a senior Labor MP the lunatic who killed two people in a Sydney coffee shop and terrorised 15 others, the bloke who teaches his little kid to hold up decapitated heads, the teenager who tries to stab two police officers, and the well-educated man who urges followers to randomly behead Aussies, these individuals are the result of a few boofheads in Westfield muttering about head-scarves or a few idiots at the beach rolling their eyes.
Obviously, harassing individuals based on their clothes or religion is unacceptable. But criticising or questioning the cultural values and teachings being espoused by the religion of choice of a vast immigrant group within the community is — or should be — perfectly legitimate.
Harassing individuals based on their clothes or religion is unacceptable? In the Islamic state, or all over the Islamic world, harassing people for their religion or their clothing is not only common, it gets people killed. So does critique of Islam. (SY)
Worse, the “Islamophobia” tag prevents Muslims from having the discussions necessary to reform their often sexist and homophobic religion. Suggesting that disagreeing with the values
of Islam fuels terrorism is, to use another invented term, pure codswallop.
Again: Islam can’t be reformed.