I have lamented many a time on what I perceive to be a subconscious and somewhat intentional misuse of terminology from various special interest groups trying their best to convey a weak argument. When they have found themselves losing ground they tend to initiate the only tactic they have left in their arsenal. "Let's call them names that will guilt them into silence and hopefully they will feel shameful over their intolerant views that should dam well agree with ours!"
It has clearly become a world full of "ism's" and "phobia's". Many often not applicable under their circumstances. Someone disagrees with a particular ethnic policy and they are accused of racism clearly where none has been exercised or even remotely demonstrated. Another disagrees with a sexual orientation and are accused of having a "phobia" where no "fear" has been demonstrated. Many of these terms are absorbed and sucked up by the mainstream and gullible of society with the repetitive use thru media. Like these "terms" are somehow actually applicable in the circumstances when , when one takes the time to look up the actual definition of the word, you would soon discover that the use of the word was completely misappropriated.
However there is one word I have not yet addressed in my past rants that I find is quite an appropriate word for the times. That is Islamaphobia. Phobia, by definition, is to "have a fear of" and Islam is self explanatory. The word then defined means to have a fear of Islam. Or Muslims, those who practice the religion of Islam. Quite often when more conservative media exposes Islam in a bad light it is liberal media and many Muslims themselves that will often cry foul and before one knows it the term "Islamaphobia" is being thrown about.
I have pondered the word and asked myself the same question I ask when I hear similar "ism's" and "phobia's" thrown about. That is, "Is it applicable under the circumstances?" It is a fair question. After all, if one is going to engage in a name calling match I would think they should also be obligated to display a level of intellect that demonstrates they are using terminology that defines and even justifies the "accusation" and not just mudslinging by sloppily throwing out non applicable terminology in hopes of beating their opponent into the proverbial guilt submission hold.
The typical scenario that often lends itself to the accusation of one demonstrating Islamaphobia comes about when someone or group points out a refute or negative about the Muslim religion. It often begins when those practicing the "Religion of Peace" are demonstrating it by blowing themselves up along with innocent women and children. Naturally condemnation from those outside Islam follows yet we are often told not too "judge" all Muslims because of the actions of a few. The "few" is easily arguable. Just follow the news on a daily basis and you will quickly see the reality is actually the "many".
But there are two distinct trends here that have me thinking otherwise. First would be the lack of response by the "moderate" Muslim. That would be those who have come to North America to escape, as they claim, the brutality of their homelands where Islam is quite often more violent then peaceful. The "Moderates" are supposedly in disagreement with the actions of their brothers and sisters overseas by proclaiming that they are in fact a "peaceful religion" yet they are strangely silent when it comes to the continuous onslaught of violence. Not just in concentrated areas but what is becoming worldwide.
When 9/11 happened this was an opportunity for "peaceful" Muslims to demonstrate to the rest of western civilisation just how "offended" they were by the actions of those claiming to be practicing Muslims.
Yet there was an eerie silence and a more defensive attitude coming from the "moderate". Devout muslim and news columinist Salim Mansur took notice of this "condoning silence" and noted:
"Those involved in the planning and execution of such terror are immigrants or born of immigrant parents belonging to the rapidly growing Muslim population in the West over the past 40 years. I happen to be a part of this wave of immigration to the West.
This western Muslim population, with its ethnic diversity reflecting the vastness of the Arab-Muslim world -- stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa -- could have given some timely ballast to multiculturalism by unambiguously and unapologetically defending the West against barbarity.
This was the minimum Muslims in the West owed to the civilization where they sought refuge, and where they found security, prosperity, freedom and self-fulfillment of the like denied them in their native lands. Instead Muslim-based organizations, at first having offered denial, followed with an unending volume of polemics condemning the West for past sins. By exploiting the West's post-colonial guilt they held it responsible for the conditions in the Arab-Muslim world that breeds the politics of terrorism."
This western Muslim population, with its ethnic diversity reflecting the vastness of the Arab-Muslim world -- stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa -- could have given some timely ballast to multiculturalism by unambiguously and unapologetically defending the West against barbarity.
This was the minimum Muslims in the West owed to the civilization where they sought refuge, and where they found security, prosperity, freedom and self-fulfillment of the like denied them in their native lands. Instead Muslim-based organizations, at first having offered denial, followed with an unending volume of polemics condemning the West for past sins. By exploiting the West's post-colonial guilt they held it responsible for the conditions in the Arab-Muslim world that breeds the politics of terrorism."
Oddly enough they are silent on the other issue's as well. While they want to introduce Sharia law in the Canadian Province of Ontario (sorry folks, go back to the homeland if you don't like it here) they were silent on the moral issue's such as abortion, adultery, and same sex marriage. While their own religious liberties that they had come to enjoy were at stake over here and would be cause for an "honor" killing in the homeland they had nothing moderate to say about it in North America. The silence left an impression of condolence. Moderate Muslims are no more then liberal mainstream church goers (Not Christians BTW) who embrace and bless all kinds of sin.
Yet I am not convinced that is the reason for their silence. If Sharia law was to be enacted, the very moral issue's would be dealt with. With the same ferocity of the timeless homeland form of justice. This could explain their silence on such matters thus far.
If this is the case then I would suggest there is much to fear. With good reason I might add. That would, under the true definition of the word, qualify me as an Islamaphobe.
Until next time...
(I will address the 2nd trend in my following post)
