Part II: Phobias, “Islamophobia” and the suffix “-phobia”

I thought that the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be the source for a working definition of “islamophobia”. From their .pdf Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, page 136:

[Islamophobic rhetoric is defined on another page here as: “Hate speech that is directed at Islam or Muslims in general.”]

(There are about 237 references using the several forms of the subject suffix prior to the definitions.)

We should be convinced that CAIR’s use of “-phobia” in all cases is devoid of the criterion “irrational”. If your reaction to that is, “But I already knew that!”, then I presume you agree that we need to move past our objections to their term “islamophobia”. Do you disagree that we appear stuck in the spinning squirrel-cage?

Jumping out of the cage, on page 135, I discovered that CAIR objects to our use of the term “Islamist”.

On page 135 under the heading Drop or modify the term Islamist:

Many Muslims who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith. Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just. If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan. But when the source is the Quran, the person is an “Islamist.”

I presume the reader recognizes the problems with this reasoning and use of “Islamist”. I decided to continue reading to get “clarification”. Here is what follows the above quote:

Unfortunately, the term “Islamist” has become shorthand for “Muslims we don’t like.” It is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term “extremist,” giving it an even more negative slant. There are few, if any, positive references to “Islamist” in news articles. There are also no — nor should there be — references to “Christianists,” “Judaists” or “Hinduists” for those who would similarly seek governments “in accord with the laws” of their respective faiths. No journalist would think of referring to the “Judaist government of Israel,” the “Christianist leader Rick Santorum” or “Hinduist Indian politician Narendra Modi,” while use of “Islamist” has become ubiquitous. It might be an interesting exercise to hold a contest, the winner of which would be the first to find a positive mainstream media reference to “Islamist.”
The frequent linkage of the term “Islamist” to violence and denial of religious and human rights is also strongly promoted by Islamophobic groups and individuals who seek to launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims, without the public censure that would normally accompany such bigoted attacks on any other faith.
Islam-bashers routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate “political” Islam, not the faith itself. Yet they fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political arena without attracting the label “Islamist.” By not dropping or modifying use of the term, the media are making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used.

Focusing on the reasoning in the above—to refute it—would be to step back into the spinning cage. I will note that the author objects to the use of “Islamist” as we object to the use of “Islamophobia” and will move past that observation.

There are people who have been killed today and those whom I call the walking dead—those who will be the next victims—and if you think they are selected at “random”, then you don’t know the proper definition of that word.

Guess what happens if CAIR—or any other entity—is successful in getting mainstream media journalists to drop the use of “Islamist” in the content of news? (Modification is impossible.) If the connection between Islam and murder in it’s name is broken on that level, then there is no hope of preventing the exact result feared by those who believe that “[t]he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” They call it “backlash”; But I get ahead of myself.

Let’s be clear: The highest and most authoritative levels of government are devoid of references that make the proper connection between Islam and the murders committed in it’s name, except for FBI Director Comey; and if Hillary Clinton (or Sanders) are elected, then the first sane act would be to get your affairs in order. Prior to that, a national conflagration may still occur without the banning of “Islamist” from mainstream media.

I will be more direct: The line or distinction between “backlash” and self-defense disappears when we the people believe—in truth, perception or both—that we will not be protected adequately by those charged with that responsibility—starting with the head of the Executive Branch.

Some labor over the cause or motivation of the Current Executive: incompetence, brilliant nihilism or narcissism? We are long past such luxury: At this stage, you—yes you—are either in the problem or in the solution. If you are not seeking the solution, any solution, then you become part of the problem for those who are seeking the solution.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s