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:
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:
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.