The Definition of Islamophobia
Robert Houghton
the European Union, has issued its definition of Islamophobia as follows:
"1.Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. 2.
Islam is seen as separate and "other." 3. Islam is seen as inferior to the
West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 4. Islam is seen as
violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of
civilizations. 5. Islam is seen as a political ideology. 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. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural
or normal."
This account of 'Islamophobia' is evidently intended as the basis for member
states of the EU to use in the development of legal sanctions, in education,
and in legislation.
The term "Islamophobia" is tendentious, having been invented to make any
reasoned criticism of Islam seem as vicious as anti-Semitism, and anyway
does not fall within the remit of the Centre since it is not racism (Muslims
do not form a race), and it is not a matter of xenophobia.
The opinion that Islam forms a monolithic block may be mistaken, but it is
unobjectionable. Muslims do show a high degree of solidarity irrespective of
the sects they belong to. This solidarity even extends to terrorists, as we
can see from the statements of Muslim 'leaders' criticizing the police when
they investigate terrorist crime.
The opinion that Islam is "separate and 'other' is reasonable, being found
as an article of Muslim belief: they are the best of people according to the
Koran; non-Muslims are regarded as unclean (see al-Sistani's website);
Muslims are advised not to befriend Christians; Jews are descended from apes
and pigs.
Many aspects of Islamic culture ARE primitive: the punishment for apostasy
is death; there is no free discussion of the Koran in Islamic countries;
women cannot divorce their husbands without the husband's permission; women
are oppressed both domestically and legally.
Islam has a long history of political violence beginning with the example of
Muhammad himself, who was responsible for 80 political assassinations. The
Muslim empire, across three continents, was converted by the sword; for a
thousand years the Muslim rulers of India conducted jihad against the Hindus
with appalling consequences; the Koran teaches that infidels should be
offered the alternative of Islam or death.
As regards the clash of civilizations, it is an article of Islamic faith
that Muslims must struggle for world domination.
Muslims acknowledge that Islam IS politics: there is no division between
religion and the state.
Item 8): in view of the above points it is both natural and necessary to be
opposed to Muslim influence.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c7535f$b8c05740$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which is funded
> by
> the European Union,
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This is true. What is obviously missing is the EUMC mandate which is
simply:-
http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=2
Extract:-
The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) is "to provide the Community and its Member States (.) with
objective, reliable and comparable information and data at European level on
racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in order to help them when they take
measures or formulate courses of actions within the spheres of competence".
On the basis of the data collected, the EUMC studies the extent and
development of the phenomena and manifestations of racism, xenophobia,
anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and related intolerance. The EUMC analyses their
causes, consequences and effects. It is also the task of the EUMC to work
out strategies to combat racism and to highlight examples of good practice
regarding the integration of migrants and ethnic and religious minority
groups in the EU Member States.
End extract.
Which raises the unanswered question: Why is such an agency necessary in
Europe? Does the EUMC not provide a reliable reporting framework for
combating far-right extremism and fascism? Don't you in principle object to
racism, xenophobia, anti-Roma and anti-Semitism and its natural corollary
anti-Muslimism (intense dislike for and prejudice against Muslim people)?
Sigh! Putting aside your opportunistic anti-Muslimism rhetorical invective
(what you euphemistically term as politically correct "criticism" - a
mealy-mouthed extreme right-wing mantra, I should add). It's as though you
want us to artfully believe that 'vituperative discrimination' is really
'criticism'.
What does the recent EUMC "Muslims in European Union" report actually say?
Did you bother to read it? Here's the official full report link:-
http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf
Extract:-
The disadvantaged position of Muslim minorities, evidence of a rise in
Islamophobia
and concern over processes of alienation and radicalisation have triggered
an intense
debate in the European Union regarding the need for re-examining community
cohesion and integration policies. A series of events such as the September
11
terrorist attacks against the US, the murder of Theo van Gogh in the
Netherlands, the
Madrid and London bombings and the debate on the Prophet Mohammed cartoons
have given further prominence to the situation of Muslim communities. The
central
question is how to avoid stereotypical generalisations, how to reduce fear
and how
to strengthen cohesion in our diverse European societies while countering
marginalisation and discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion
or belief.
European Muslims are a highly diverse mix of ethnicities, religious
affiliation,
philosophical beliefs, political persuasion, secular tendencies, languages
and cultural
traditions, constituting the second largest religious group of Europe's
multi-faith
society. In fact Muslim communities are no different from other communities
in
their complexity. Discrimination against Muslims can be attributed to
Islamophobic
attitudes, as much as to racist and xenophobic resentments, as these
elements are in
many cases inextricably intertwined.
The first part of the report provides contextual information on the
situation of
Muslims in key areas of social life, such as employment, education and
housing, as
well as a discussion of key issues and debates. The second part contains a
comprehensive overview of the available information and data on
manifestations of
Islamophobia in all EU Member States. It also examines the quality of data
and
identifies problem areas and gaps. Finally, the report takes stock of
existing
government and civil society initiatives targeting Muslims and concludes
with a
number of opinions for policy action by EU Member State governments and the
European institutions to combat Islamophobia and to foster integration and
community cohesion.
This report is complemented by a qualitative study into "Perceptions of
discrimination and Islamophobia", based on in-depth interviews with members
of
Muslim Communities in ten Member States. The interviews indicate that
Islamophobia, discrimination, and socio-economic marginalisation have a
primary
role in generating disaffection and alienation. Muslims feel that acceptance
by
society is increasingly premised on 'assimilation' and the assumption that
they
should lose their Muslim identity. This sense of exclusion is of particular
relevance
in the face of the challenges posed by terrorism. Muslims feel that since
9/11 they
have been put under a general suspicion of terrorism.
Terrorism puts our democracy and fundamental principles to a test. Muslims
in
general want to be seen as partners who have much at stake in ensuring
community
safety. Security measures are needed, but they must be weighed against their
impact
on all communities and their human rights implications.
End extract.
Now, in addition, why don't you study this EUMC report "The Annual Report on
the Situation regarding Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the
EU" on the descriptive behaviour of say European right-wing extremism and
hate crimes (ie. fascism), at this official link:-
http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/ar06/AR06-P2-EN.pdf
--
Peace
--
When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific
advance or a diverting fad. But 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. [Kofi Annan]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Saqib Virk
> reasoned criticism of Islam seem as vicious as anti-Semitism
SV
Here we have a perfect example of Robert's hypocrisy.
> The opinion that Islam forms a monolithic block may be mistaken, but it is
> unobjectionable. Muslims do show a high degree of solidarity irrespective
> of
> the sects they belong to. This solidarity even extends to terrorists, as
> we
> can see from the statements of Muslim 'leaders' criticizing the police
> when
> they investigate terrorist crime.
SV
Here we see a perfect example of how far gone Robert is in his hatred of
Islam and all things Muslims. A child could see the gaping holes in his
thought process. What do you call someone who hates Islam so much and spends
every waking minute of his life thinking about it? An obsession with what
one hates leads to the sort of fanaticism which deafens and blinds; which
makes wrong actions seem not only apporpriate but absolutely necessary.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c7535f$b8c05740$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> The term "Islamophobia" is tendentious, having been invented to make any
> reasoned criticism of Islam seem as vicious as anti-Semitism, and anyway
> does not fall within the remit of the Centre since it is not racism
> (Muslims
> do not form a race), and it is not a matter of xenophobia.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Of course this "Islamophobia or anti-Muslimism" argument has been discussed
previously, see this recent archived link indicates:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/a1b3aa054d233093
Extract:-
What would subscribers prefer as a term to describe non-Muslim criticism,
"Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslimism"? As Professor Fred Halliday, the
well-known and authoritative scholar on Middle Eastern affairs and a
professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, puts
it, "The attack now is not against Islam as a faith but against Muslims as a
people ... accounting for the (racist) exclusion of Muslims"?
Digest:-
Thus, Halliday's objection is centred on the use of the neologism
'Islamophobia' when describing and/or accounting for the (racist) exclusion
of Muslims, feeling that the term 'anti-Muslimism' should be used in
preference (also see Halliday 1996). Four criticisms of the concept are
offered: first, that 'Islamophobia' is somewhat of a misnomer, and that it:
'misses the point about what it is that is being attacked: "Islam" as a
religion was the enemy in the past: in the crusades or the reconquista. It
is not the enemy now [.] The attack now is not against Islam as a faith but
against Muslims as a people, the latter grouping together all, especially
immigrants, who might be covered by the term' (Halliday, 1999: 898).
This point is echoed by Reisigl and Wodak's (2001: 6) more general criticism
of 'phobias': that they 'neglect the active and aggressive part of
discrimination' by focusing on racism as a collection of (pathological,
pseudo-logical or illogical) beliefs. In contrast to the thrust of the
'Islamophobia' concept, Halliday (1999) argues that the stereotypical enemy
'is not a faith or a culture, but a people' (ibid: 898) and therefore its
use is misleading, shifting analysis away from the 'real' targets of
prejudice: Muslims. ...
End digest.
Shouldn't we plumb for the "anti-Muslimism" neologism with all its explicit
'racial' overtones, rather than the bland, ersatz, "Islamophobia" with its
ties to euphemistic western politically correctness? Would the moderators
automatically deem, Halliday's substitute neologism, "anti-Muslimism" (i.e..
'racist bigot') objectionable in rejoinders posted to this forum?
End extract.
The deep irony is that in your own Islamophobe posts you have used
frequently used racial terminology to revile, for example, ethnic or racial
groupings, such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians and Pakistani's. Did you bother to
check your own racially inspired and toned transcripts?
In addition, what about your several xenophobic appeals under the "my
country" banner? For instance, this transcript link of yours:-
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/359515f343b72b73?hl=en
In summary, doesn't this common behaviour, demonstrated repeatedly in this
forum, exactly describe what the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia was critically reporting on in their damning evidence of
Islamophobe behaviour in Europe? How can you say this Islamophobe object is
tendentious, without being intellectually duplicitous, when the transcript
testimony proves otherwise?
John Smith
> frequently used racial terminology to revile, for example, ethnic or
racial
> groupings, such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians and Pakistani's. Did you bother
to
> check your own racially inspired and toned transcripts?
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Arab%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22turks%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Iranians%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Pakistani%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
Are these Google searches supposed to mean anything Zuiko?
If I said, "The Germans started World War 2 in Europe by invading Poland",
would a Google search on "John Smith" and "German" then mean I am reviling
Germans?
Because they _DID_ start World War 2 in Europe.
That is factual.
So are these superficial Google searches on "Robert" and a race supposed to
mean anything Zuiko?
Muslims are always claiming that non-Muslims take them out of context; did
you bother to examine the context of Robert was saying? Thought not.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/359515f343b72b73?hl=en
>
> In summary, doesn't this common behaviour, demonstrated repeatedly in this
> forum, exactly describe what the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
> Xenophobia was critically reporting on in their damning evidence of
> Islamophobe behaviour in Europe?
>
>How can you say this Islamophobe object is
> tendentious, without being intellectually duplicitous, when the transcript
> testimony proves otherwise?
It proves nothing.
Your analysis of Roberts posts is so superficial, so lacking in context of
what he said that it is worthless.
Nothing but bin fodder.
And elsewhere, I have taken apart the false tacking of "anti-Muslimism" onto
other ethnic groups.
On above, it would not surprise me if Muslim lobby groups bullied EMCRX to
the addition of "Islamophobia"
Cordially
John Smith
John Smith
anti-Semitism and its natural corollary
> anti-Muslimism (intense dislike for and prejudice against Muslim people)?
It is not a natural corollary. In fact it is false.
You might as well say the natural corollary is objecting to anti-Shintoism,
anti-Confucism, anti-Jainism.
Notice that the 4 terms (racism, xenophobia, anti-Roma and anti-Semitism)
above refer to ethnic origin in some way.
"anti-Muslimism" is not the same.
Skin colour and appearance, within limits, is something you generally cannot
change.
Belief systems are something you _CAN_ change.
And while most Western societies are tolerant of multiple belief systems, if
the introduction of one belief system leads to the wiping out of people who
hold another, there is no reason why Western societies should tolerate it.
Islam is a belief system.
Islam is NOT a race.
As such, its beliefs can be examined and if discovered to incompatible to
the welfare of any given country and would lead to the destruction of the
people of that country then there is no obligation to accept Muslims.
It is no different to rejecting Communists because the belief system would
lead to the ill-treatment of other citizens.
A society has the rights to protect itself.
As it stands, one of my colleagues in my office is Arab. But not Muslim.
Nice try Zuiko to muddy waters.
Cordially
John Smith
Zuiko Azumazi
news:po2dnetcZpD...@pipex.net...
<snip> ...
>> Don't you in principle object to racism, xenophobia, anti-Roma and
> anti-Semitism and its natural corollary
>> anti-Muslimism (intense dislike for and prejudice against Muslim people)?
> It is not a natural corollary. In fact it is false.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Do these undoubted experts consider that anti-Muslimism is false and the
corollary incorrect or should we hostilely follow your own prejudicious
opinion? :-
http://www.intercultureleexpertise.com/download/image.pdf
Extract:-
The Negative Image of Islam and Muslims in the West:
Causes and Solutions by W. Shadid & P.S. van Koningsveld
In: Shadid, W. & P.S.van Koningsveld (Eds.): (2002): Religious Freedom and
the Neutrality of the State: The Position of Islam in the European Union.
Leuven, Peeters, pp.174-196.
Shadid and Van Koningsveld (1995: 4-5) argue that the so-called Islamic
threat should be considered a myth for a number of reasons. First of all,
Muslims have never carried out any significant militant action in the West.
On the contrary, Muslims in Europe have more frequently fallen victim to
terrorist actions carried out by right-extremist groups, rejecting them and
wanting to expel them from their countries. Besides this, the allegations
that Islamic and Western culture as not compatible and that Muslims cannot
fit into European societies are generated by an unfounded prejudice towards
this religion and its followers. The heated debates which have taken place
in a number of countries of the European Union on such issues as for example
polygamy, veiling school girls, the circumcision of girls, and on the
negative influence of Islamic religious education, can be traced back to a
number of cases which were exaggerated by politicians and the press. Another
argument which is adduced by the aforementioned authors to illustrate the
mythical character of the Islamic threat to the West concerns the false
assumption of Western authorities that Muslim minorities are more loyal to
the governments of their countries of origin and to the Muslim World in
general than to their host societies. This assumption came to the surface
clearly during the Gulf War and the Rushdie Affair.
Other experts, for instance Halliday (1995), consider the Islamic threat to
the West to be an illusion. Not only does a unified Islamic World not exist,
even were such a World to exist, it would fall for short of the economic and
military power to compete with, let alone risk confrontation with the West.
The hostility of the West towards Islam and Muslims therefore encompasses
racist, xenophobic, and stereotypical elements, a phenomenon which Halliday
calls anti-Muslimism. This terminology is based on the thesis that the
hostility voiced against Muslims is directed mainly against Muslims as a
group of people and not against Islam as such, and that the anti-propaganda
does not consist of strictly religious elements, but is mixed with spurious
rhetoric and other murky ideologies (see Halliday, 1995: 113, 160)
Halliday distinguishes two types van anti-Muslimism: a 'strategic' and a
'populist' variant. The first mentioned originates in the United States and
is related to and fed by issues such as oil supplies, nuclear weapons, and
terrorism. It dates from the 1970s and is primarily the result of the OPEC
price rises, the Iranian revolution and the hostages crises of the US
diplomatic personnel in Tehran, the bombing of the World Trade Centre in
1993, and the subsequent prejudiced analysis of these events by the press.
Although this type of anti-Muslimism can also be found in Western Europe,
the populist anti-Muslimism is the predominant type in this part of the
world. It has emerged as a reaction to and is concerned with issues related
to the presence of Muslims in Western societies such as assimilation,
integration, race, veiling and so forth. Halliday stresses the assumption
that since the 1980s, this populist anti-Muslimism has become a part of the
general anti-immigrant attitude in Western Europe. These negative sentiments
have been directed towards the rejection of veiling, the foundation of
Islamic schools and mosques, most conspicuously in programmes of right-wing
and racist political parties.
End extract.
AND
Extract:-
Muzammil Quraishi, senior lecturer in Criminology at the University of
Salford, writes that "whether we refer to behaviour as 'anti-Muslimism' or
'Islamophobia' seems a moot point. If we are agreed that either term refers
to behaviour encapsulating hatred, and/or dislike to the extent of social
and economic exclusion of Muslims, we must move to discover the extent of
such behaviour and to evaluate how this influences crime and victimization
..." (Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate
Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60).
End extract.
AND
http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/search/label/anti-Muslimism
Extract:-
In an op-ed in USA Today Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) continues his
anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic rants. Though he denies calling for religious
tests (which is contrary to the Constitution) his anti-Islamic statements do
the same thing. He calls for limits on immigration as a way of protecting
Judeo-Christian values. I might remind him that the largest group of
immigrants, especially the illegal ones, come from Latin America, which last
I knew was predominantly Christian.
Anyway, here's the concluding paragraph so you can see it for yourself. We
must limit Muslims, in fact I think he'd like to eliminate Muslims from
immigration, to protect ourselves against another 9-11. Now we must be
vigilant against allowing terrorists into the country, but that's not the
same thing. Besides, Mr. Goode, Keith Ellison isn't an immigrant!
"Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were
attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I
believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal
immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to
infiltration by those who want to mould the United States into the image of
their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles
that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world."
...
Virgil Goode's news conference reveals he has no clue what it means to be
anti-Muslim. I find it difficult to wipe away the critics as being
politically correct because the question his reasons for reducing legal
immigration. If your purpose in reducing legal immigration is to keep out
Muslims, how can that not be discriminatory. In the news conference he
repeatedly asked people to read the letter. I've read the letter and it's
anti-Muslim. There is no other way to take it. I'm just glad that my
congressional representative is smarter!
End extract.
AND
Extract:-
Why the 'rules' of racism are different for Arabs
Brian Whitaker
Guardian Unlimited
Nobody seems quite sure why anti-Arab racism is considered acceptable when
other forms of racism aren't. Some suggest that the political role played by
the west in the Middle East helps to legitimise the stereotypes of popular
culture, which in turn reinforce government policies.
But I think attitudes to Islam may also be part of the problem. People in
the west often assume that Arabs are Muslims (and sometimes vice versa).
Hostility towards Islam - mostly based on ignorance - can mean hostility
towards Arabs. So perhaps anti-Arabism is not rooted in racial prejudice but
religious prejudice. Either way, it's still prejudice.
AND
http://mediamatters.org/items/200411290003
Extract:-
MSNBC apologized for racist commentary on Imus
On November 23, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced
that MSNBC had apologized for racist commentary delivered on radio host Don
Imus's Imus in the Morning. In its apology, MSNBC stated: "The views
expressed on the program are not those of MSNBC. Having said that, it was
unfortunate that these remarks were telecast on MSNBC. We sincerely
apologize to anyone who was offended by these remarks."
CAIR's press release highlighted a November 19 Media Matters for America
item that documented the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments. These included
a guest on the November 19 edition of Imus -- parodying General George S.
Patton, Jr. -- referring to a deceased Iraqi insurgent as a "booby-trapped
raghead cadaver," and regular guest and sports anchor Sid Rosenberg
describing Palestinians on November 12 as "stinking animals."
End extract.
Isn't all of this a question for discerning subscribers need to decide for
themselves? Eclectically, I'm sure they will put your puerile gibes and
canards aside when making their mature and informed decision based on the
facts rather than mimicking anti-Muslimism demagogues off the malevolent US
Apocalyptic Blogosphere! Reference this informative Spectator link to find
out what this means <G>:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/printer-friendly/26719/apocalypse-on-the-us-blogosphere.thtml
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
>> The deep irony is that in your own Islamophobe posts you have used
>> frequently used racial terminology to revile, for example, ethnic or
>> racial
>> groupings, such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians and Pakistani's. Did you bother
>> to check your own racially inspired and toned transcripts?
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Arab%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22turks%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Iranians%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Arobert45%40f2s.com+%22Pakistani%22&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en
>
>
> Are these Google searches supposed to mean anything Zuiko?
Comment:-
Are you seriously trying to argue that fear, hatred, or prejudice towards
Muslims doesn't exist?
Muslims and I presume discerning subscribers ought to judge Islam's
"critics" by their written testimony that's been posted to this Islamic
forum. Their credibility, as a so-called Islamic "critics", is bound up with
their posting record is it not?
When these Islamic "critics" further morally attest to things which appear
to directly contradict their earlier testimony, or ideological polemic, it's
sensible to review their posting history to check whether they are being
inconsistent (i.e. intellectually honest) or not. Hence the need to conduct
a Google archive search of the transcripts in this forum. Do you have a
better or more honest method of holding commentator's accountably other than
by diligently reviewing their transcript evidence in the archives?
Pointing out glaring inconsistencies from previous transcripts to other
subscribers, who may not have the time or inclination to check these facts
for themselves. In addition. it ought to allow casual readers to easily
discern whether these Islamic "critics" concerned is being morally ethical,
truthful and sincere. In other words credible. How else, for example, can
the casual reader avoid and protect themselves from intellectual
exploitation by these unscrupulous commentators?
You seem to object to this level of scrutiny and critical analysis when it's
being applied to Islam's "critics" in this forum, why is that? Aren't
Muslims and other vehement opponents of Islamophobia or anti-Muslimism
allowed to berate these "critics" when they aren't being morally
inconsistent and demonstrably duplicitous in their fallacious testimony?
Are you seriously trying to argue that anti-Muslimism (i.e. "attacks against
Muslims as a people ... accounting for the (racist) exclusion": Halliday, et
al) isn't being underpinned by utterances and derogatory observations about
"ethnic or racial groupings, such as Arabs, Turks, Iranians and
Pakistani's", made by some hostile Islamic "critics in this forum?
Bearing in mind of course, that by definition any zealot who recommends that
subscribers should actually derive their primary understanding of Islam and
Muslims by visiting notoriously unreliable "Apocalyptic Blogosphere"
websites, must be considered as being fanatically partisan in these hotly
contested circumstances.
Defending the indefensible eerily springs to mind under your "If I said"
rubric.
I was always led to believe it was racially bigoted Aryan Nazi's in Germany
who started WWII. Weren't the Aryan Nazi's universally reviled for so doing?
Are you going to mistakenly defend them as well, which some extreme
right-wing commentators in this forum might well do, I might add?