“Whilst We Debate Whether Islamophobia or Anti-Muslim Bigotry Is Most Appropriate – Racists And Bigots Continue Their Campaign Of Hate”, by Wasiq @wasiquk

The Jewish Chronicle published an article by the journalist and public commentator Melanie Phillips titled; Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia’. In the article, Phillips claims “Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism.” Furthermore, she advances her position in that “Islamophobia” was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to mimic antisemitism” and then finally adds the following “The concept of “Islamophobia” is thus profoundly anti-Jew.”

The article naturally gained a lot of publicity. Miqdaad Versi Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain in response to the article stated in a tweet “The Jewish Chronicle’s editors know Muslims are fearful, as many in the Islamophobic far right [SIC] feel emboldened. Yet they choose now to publish this vile piece from the awful Melanie Phillips – as Islamophobia is on the rise. Shameful.”

David Toube Director of Policy at Quilliam in his critique of the article points out that “If we pretend that, because the term Islamophobia is sometimes misused by rotters, it doesn’t exist at all – as Melanie Phillips appears to have done – [then] we are indistinguishable from the likes of the Labour Against the Witch-hunt mob”.

There is little the MCB and Quilliam see eye to eye, but what appears to be the case here is that they’re both in agreement, in that, if anything, the article emboldens the very people we are all meant to be fighting against which are racists and bigots.

Phillips has form in this area, but it is not an argument that I wish to rehearse here. My concern is, that whilst we debate which term, be it Islamophobia or anti-Muslim bigotry, is most appropriate, the racists and bigots will continue their campaign of hate and prejudice nonetheless. The primary victims of hate and bigotry will always be the human victims, in this case, Muslims. It matters little whether one considers Muslims as a race or not, or a cultural community tied by the bonds of their faith. What matters is, how we ensure that we protect them against this hate?

In an article I wrote for Barfi Culture on the issue of the Saatchi Gallery covering up an art piece because some of its Muslim visitors felt offended; I argued the point that “Islam doesn’t need protection, it doesn’t feel pain, it does not share the human emotions we have, so let’s stop treating it like it is a living being.” I consider this to be an important and correct position to hold, one which few would disagree with, because the more we feel offended by those attacking Islam, the more we appear to be concerned about it, than Muslims as a whole.

The fact that Islamophobia has the word, Islam and phobia just invites racists and bigots to shift the debate to their side. Scour any racist or bigots social media and you will see the same arguments from them: “Islam is an ideology, it should be criticised” and then they attribute anti-Muslim tropes as a cover for their “right to free speech.” This is what Muslim communities are dealing with whilst we debate amongst ourselves.

My position on the which term is most appropriate lies in what takes ammunition away from racists and bigots. With this in mind,  I prefer the term anti-Muslim bigotry. I prefer it because it firmly places the emphasis on the individual. It provides the human element that is much needed and denies racists and bigots the opportunity to disguise their hatred of Muslims through criticism of Islam.

Using the term anti-Muslim bigotry exposes racists and bigots in a way racism does also, for example, “I’m not racist, I have a black friend” and so, in the same way, “I’m not anti-Muslim, I just hate Islam”. To be clear, I am not arguing that Muslims are a race, they are not, and they are not like Jews who are. What I am arguing is, if we focus on Muslims and not Islam, then we focus our attention on what really matters and that is Muslims as people, particularly in Law. If we do the reverse and add in the Islamic element, then by default, either consciously or unconsciously, we are creating a blasphemy taboo. This is where we shoot ourselves in the foot and keep shooting.

To conclude, yes Melanie Phillips appears to be on the wrong side of the debate on this issue and her contribution is not helpful, but unless we challenge her nonsense as well as others in an intelligent way, then the racists and bigots need to do little in their campaign of hate and bigotry when we are arguing between ourselves.

These views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Faith Matters.

“Love for All, Hatred for None“, is the motto of the Ahmaddiya community globally. It is a community that is openly persecuted in Pakistan where the State structures are built to discriminate against them after the dictator Zia Ul Haque introduced stringent laws into the country as a way of building up support with militant groups who regarded themselves as moral guardians of Islam.

Just last night, we were included into a range of discussions that pointed to a page on the Muslim Council of Britain’s web-site. The feelings of some individuals were inflamed by a post on the Muslim Council of Britain’s web-site which we have listed below. Coincidently the post on the MCB web-site listed the Morden mosque, (then being built), as not being a mosque on the basis of theological differences.

However, today, through what looks like an accident, the Morden mosque caught fire and what ensued on social media was intra-Muslim hatred and bigotry which is socially unacceptable. If you are targeted with what you believe are anti-Muslim comments in nature, you can and should report them into us. Hateful and spiteful language because of your faith identity should not be taking place and we urge communities to report it in.

Lastly, whilst we know that there are many good people working in the Muslim Council of Britain trying to make a difference, we would ask them to reflect on the following page which has attracted so much attention. Whilst the page is opinion based on theological decisions, we request that the Muslim Council be more vocal in its stance when Ahmaddiya communities are targeted with hateful messages that seek to demonise them and which threaten and promote hate. We also acknowledge that the Muslim Council of Britain has a role to play, which it does, in interfaith and cohesion activities. Now is the time for us to come together to tackle hate, intolerance and bigotry.

Islamophobia rampant in UK but @MuslimCouncil is long focused on pushing anti-Ahmadi bigotry https://t.co/Ek50MAjlJm @mehdirhasan @TellMamaUK

— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@MuslimIQ) September 25, 2015

@MuslimIQ What bigotry by @MuslimCouncil Shameful! @TellMamaUK @AdamWalkerGB @AJUpFront @HuffPostLive @CatrinNye @BashaNazir

— Kashif N Chaudhry (@KashifMD) September 25, 2015

The post As Baitul Futuh Burns, the Bigotry of Some Muslims Towards Ahmaddiyas Comes Out appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The Mail on Sunday apologised for and corrected a story that blamed “Muslim gangs” for an attack on immigration enforcement vans in east London after a complaint to press regulator Ipso.

Miqdaad Versi, who is assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, complained in a personal capacity to Ipso after receiving a non-satisfactory response from the newspaper.

In July, the newspaper published the story with the headline “Welcome to east London: Muslim gang slashes tyres of immigration-raid van before officers showered with eggs from high rise”.

It linked Muslims with criminality in the same week David Cameron had called on the Muslim communities to support the “British way of life” and combat extremism.

The evidence? In the original story, it quoted an unnamed witness who claimed that, “I think they were local Muslim hoodies just doing a prank, but it’s not funny. It’s the sort of thing that will cause this area problems now”.

Following a complaint to Ipso, the Mail on Sunday agreed to rewrite the story to remove the references to Muslims and publish a correction both in print and online.

The correction said: “An article on July 26 said a gang of Muslim youths was responsible for damaging Home Office Immigration Enforcement vehicles in Shadwell, East London, in the week the Prime Minister appealed to Muslims to help combat extremism. Muslim readers have asked to point out that the youths’ religion was unclear and, in any case, irrelevant to the story. We apologise for any offence caused”.

One removed reference included that ‘more than half the population of Shadwell is Muslim, according to the 2011 census’. An irrelevant statistic that plays on deeper anxieties towards Muslim communities.

The original story proved a viral hit – achieving more than 15,000 online shares. Anti-Muslim hate sites, including Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugged were quick to republish it. Spencer did acknowledge the Mail on Sunday’s correction with a single sentence.

‘Counter-jihadists’ and the far-right insulate their echo chambers with such stories. In spite of the corrections, these groups already believe the worst about Muslims and lazy journalism acts as confirmation bias.

Take, for example, how supporters of the English Defence League reacted, ‘Fickin dirty Muslim nonses should all be shot at birth and fed to the pigs!’ ‘Just kick the muslim scumbags out , they will NEVER live in peace in this country EVER !’ ‘One word. HITLER. None of this would of happened. If we had stayed as an island’. If anything, the extreme nature of the comments are the blunt end of insecurities around Muslims.

The comments raises an interesting question: why would an individual post them? It could reflect how people navigate the internet. John Suler’s influential ‘Online Disinhibition Effect’ breaks down internet behaviour into six factors.

One factors details how an individual compartmentalises their identities into ‘online’ and ‘real world’ personas. Online behaviour therefore feels inconsequential. Some may never act on these comments offline. Others blur the lines of incitement.

Nor will the corrected reality of the story achieve the same viral success online – and that remains a bigger problem as the total online shares total just 29.

The post Mail on Sunday apologies for and corrects ‘Muslim gangs’ story appeared first on TELL MAMA.