The Forge Press is reporting that the debate "This House believes Islamophobia is justified", held by Sheffield Debating, has been condemned by Sheffield’s Islamic Circle as “racist”.

The society's Chairman has defended the decision to hold the debate, saying: “We chose a debate that was relevant to society. It was definitely one that people wanted to see. We do pick controversial subjects, but that is the whole nature of a debate."

But the Vice President of the Islamic Circle has said: “The Debating Society would probably not have a title such as ‘this house believes anti-Semitism, or homophobia or racism or any other form of prejudice is justified’, so why Islamophobia?”

Please have your say in the poll above.

 

The vice chair of the Islamic Circle is entirely right to point out a meeting entitled "THB antisemitism is justified", or "THB believes homophobia is justified" would be greeted with outrage. The fact that Islam is seen as a legitimate target, even in our supposedly "enlightened" student community, says quite a lot about how Islam and Muslims are depicted in the media and political discourse.

Let's be clear, Islamophobia is not some abstract theological difference of opinion, it's the irrational hatred of a group of people. This irrational hatred frequently translates into physical violence. Most tellingly, people who aren't Muslim have suffered attacks motivated by Islamophobia. I think this suggests, quite plainly, that Islamophobia is not about religion - it's about the colour of people's skin. Suggesting this is justified in any way is, I think, quite clearly racist.

Even if Islamophobia were about sections of the Koran with a dubious message, you only have to read Leviticus or Deuteronomy to see that the Bible's got some pretty dubious sections too (or any other holy book). The point here is that Christians aren't subjected to consistently negative portrayal in the media, so why are Muslims? Why are Muslims and not Jewish people, say, the subject of debates like "THB believes Islamophobia is justified"? It's because Islamophobia has become the last "acceptable" form of racism.

Our Union shouldn't be condoning racism, or trying to understand irrational racist arguments. In light of the recent gains of the BNP (who thrive on Islamophobia), it should be celebrating and defending our multicultural campuses.               

I'm glad Sam makes the point he does in respect to Islam being the "last acceptable form of racism." I'm sure he will be good enough to clarify this point (as it was raised on the day) and tell us all which race he is referring to? The Koran claims to be universal; indeed, he or I could ourselves convert; hence it seems strange to claim this as a point of 'origin'. Regarding his 'point' about non-muslims being attacked; surely this simply shows us that racist people do racist things. Nobody advocated (indeed both sides of the house condemned) violence against Muslims, so I cannot see how he thinks this debate will lead to people being assaulted, who would not have been anyway (by violent, racist thugs-who should be brought to justice). Maybe 'Brownophobia' (pardon the crass turn of phrase) would have been an entirely inappropriate debate, but nothing follows from that per se about Islamophobia.

Secondly; the implication of his first paragraph is that Islam should not be seen as a legitimate target. Surely he sees that this is absurd. It makes certain claims (both metaphysical and ethical) which have implications for other people in the world. This serves to separate criticism of Islam from justifying homophobia as qua homosexuality no claims are made. Nothing follows from a person being homosexual that has the slightest bearing upon anyone else in the world. Unlike say Islam which has certain view about sexual relations; the role of women (though I'm aware this is often exaggerated-however, if he would stifle the debate, how are we to learn our error) and the rights we should (or should not) enjoy.

Finally; if Sam listened to the debate, it was clearly stated that all arguments from faith are bad. Accordingly, no part of criticising Islam precludes criticism of Christianity. In other words just because something else is bad, it doesn't make Islam good, or even a whit less bad. In the interest of fairness (and if Sam won't consider it racist against white-European people) a debate on Christianity would be fine; I for one would welcome it.

One thing I would say though, is that the title Islamophobia is a little ambiguous. In my opinion this wasn't a problem as the proposition defined the motion and set the frame for debate. However, for those not familiar with debates, this format might be strange and potentially lead to the sort of misunderstandings which I think Sam has expressed. I am curious whether he would have objected to a motion of the form "THB it is perfectly fine to both criticise and ridicule Islam"?

Hi everybody!!

This is Hafsah from the Islamic Circle, I am quoted quite a lot in the article!

I think forge press sort of made our sentiments towards the debate sound harsher and more reactionary then they were. Forge has reported 'the debate has been condemned by Sheffield's Islamic Circle as "racist"'! I was quite surprised by this line because we never made such a strong statement and 'condemned' is such a strong word! I don't think the debate in itself was racist!! Nor do i dream of  judging any of the dabate soc committee as being racist for holding the debate. We merely made the comment to the forge press that we think Islamophobia, in the way it is manifested in society, can be an excuse for racism and were thus concerned by the outcome of the debate, for we don't want this dislike of Muslims to rise! We therefore thought it would be a good context for us to write to forge press and talk about some common misconceptions about Muslims that can lead to Muslims being disliked, for if people feel threatened by Islam because of the actions of a misguided minority of Muslims, then the onus is on us to reassure people that Muslims are nothing to fear!  My actual letter that I wrote to forge (in the letter section) is not really about the debate as such at all, just about the concept of islamophobia and what Islam is really about. And my original letter was more about the misconceptions about Islam! If anyone has any concerns with Islam and Muslims then I sincerely invite you to contact the islamic circle directly: islam.circle@sheffield.ac.uk. we are more than happy to engage in dialogue! This is why we thought it would be more productive to participate in the debate rather than protest against! We didn't want to come across as moaners and just feel sorry for ourselves, rather we thought, lets write to forge and actually attempt to deal with the issues!!! So just to be clear our concern was not so much the debate itself taking place (although for us it obviously wasn't an ideal title) but more the outcome of the debate and this is why i wrote to forge. I had no intention at all of attacking the debating society.

Here is my original letter in its entirety (only part of it was published in the letter section of forge):

Article for Forge Press –
Is Islamophobia Justified on Campus?
By Hafsah Qureshi

On Monday 19th October, the Debating Society held a debate entitled, ‘This house believes Islamophobia is justified’.
As Muslim students at this university, our initial reaction was indignation that the debating society would have such a controversial title, one that they must have known had the potential to offend many Muslims. Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike that I spoke to were taken aback by the notion of such a title, arguing that the debating society would probably not have a title such as ‘this house believes anti-Semitism, or homophobia or racism or any other form of prejudice is justified’ so why Islamophobia? Why are Muslims being targeted? Many people suggested to the Islamic Circle that we should complain to the Debating Society and make sure that this debate did not go ahead.
However, we felt that this would not be a productive course of action. Instead we decided to participate in the debate and attempt to show why Islamophobia is not justified, rather than just allowing ourselves to feel victimised. By stopping the debate from happening, we did not want to fuel further prejudice. At the end of the day, we as Muslims at this university, and as members of this society cannot ignore the fact Islamophobia does exist as clearly reflected by the fact that a third of people who attended the debate 27/79 voted in favour of the motion, and 10 people absented from voting, meaning that in effect almost half the people in the room did not outrightly oppose Islamophobia!
This makes me feel that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about Islam and what Islamophobia actually is, so in this article I would like to explain why I feel these arguments are not valid and why I feel Islamophobia can never be justified.

In the debate, the proposition argued that Islamophobia is justified because to criticise Islam is like criticising any other ideology like communism that one may choose to adopt. However,  if this were the case we would have had no objection, for we as Muslims welcome people questioning us about our faith and asking us about areas of Islam they do not understand or disagree with. We believe that people should have the freedom of speech to challenge any belief system and engage in discussion with people of other faiths, as long as respect for other faiths is maintained. 

However, Islamophobia is not a scholarly criticism of Islam. Islamophobia is ‘a hatred of Islam and a fear and dislike of all Muslims’.  This is the widely accepted definition given by the Runnymede Trust, a British think-tank on diversity. It does not make sense to define Islamophobia as a rational criticism of Islam when a phobia by definition is an ‘irrational fear’!

Islamophobia is when I am verbally abused and called names like, ’Bin Laden’s daughter’ because I wear a headscarf. Islamophobia is when people throw bricks at a Muslim person’s house or when mosques are burnt down is arson attacks. Islamophobia is when Sikhs are attacked and murdered because of a hatred of Muslims held by people who don’t even know who Muslims are – attacked purely because of the colour of their skin and their appearance – not because of an educated criticism of the religion! Hence, Islamophobia is nothing but a disguise for racism that stems from ignorance. People are discriminated against, attacked, even killed because of Islamophobia – how can this ever be justified?? 

However, some people may argue that it is justified to dislike Islam because they may think it has unjust teachings. So to understand why it is irrational to have a fear of Islam and prejudice against Muslims, I think it is vital to explain what Islam actually is and what it teaches.

Here is a brief summary:
At Islam’s very core is the belief that there is One God, his name is Allah, which literally means ‘the one’.  One Creator of the universe, without any partner, who is independant and unlimited, unlike any other being. One is encouraged to use ones mind and intelligence to rationally deduce the existence of this Creator.

Muslims believe that since The Creator created intelligence, wisdom and justice in the world, he must be intelligent and wise, thus creating us with a purpose, and since he is Merciful and Just, he must have communicated to us the purpose for our creation, rather than leaving us to live chaotically and unguided. We believe he communicated to us through the Prophets, all human, and the revalations revealed to them, Adam (peace be upon him) being the first prophet and Muhammad (peace be upon him) being the final messenger. The Quran, we believe, is the final communication from God to mankind, reknewing and refreshing the message of previous scriptures such as the Bible, its words composed by Allah himself, and dictated to Muhammad (pbuh). It teaches us that we must use our free will to freely choose to submit our wills to our Creator, by living our life the way he wants us to live, as recorded in the Quran and the example of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who showed us how to practically implement the teachings of the Quran into our daily life. Life is a short test to see whether or not we will fulfil the purpose for which we were created and submit our wills to Allah,  the reward for passing this test of a few years being an everlasting life in Heaven, where one can attain everything one desires.

The Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) teach us to establish prayers so that we may pause to remember God and our purpose in our daily routine,  to give atleast 2.5% of our savings to charity atleast once a year, to fast in the month of ramadan so that we may learn self discipline and empathise with the starving, to honour our parents and respect the elderly, to be good to orphans, to  always speak the truth, to be firm in justice, to love for our fellow humans what we love for ourself, to never gossip and backbite, to speak good or remain silent, to seek knowledge of both worldly matters aswell as religious, to educate our children, to give rights to women, to stay away from intoxicants so we dont lose self control, to dress modestly, guard our chastitiy and always be faithful to our spouses, and to basically be good, kind, well balanced people. 

Now tell me, is this anything to fear? Is this anything to dislike? Is this anything nonsensical?

Islam in my opinion is a very simple and logical religion but unfortunately Islamophobia exists because of misunderstandings about Islam. For example, because of the action of a small minority of misguided muslims, people associate Islam with terrorism. However, the Quran teaches in chapter 5 v 32, that to kill one person is like killing the whole of humanity and to save one life is like saving the whole of humanity, thats how much importance is given to every human life, no matter what their religion. If  misguided individuals commit atrocities, it is because they have strayed from the religion, not because they are sticking to it.

A gravely misunderstood concept of Islam is that of Jihad, but Jihad literally means ‘to struggle’ for the cause of Allah. Thus, ‘the greatest Jihad’ according to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), is the inner struggle of fighting temptation and trying to be a person of virtue and submission to God in all aspects of life. However, Jihad also refers to a struggle against injustice. Islam, like many other religions, allows for armed self-defence, or retribution against tyranny, exploitation, and oppression. The Qur’an says in chapter 4 verse 75: “And why should you not fight in the cause of God and for those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" So although Islam seeks to establish peace, Islam teaches the way we may have to do this is by actively fighting oppresion and injustice.  But even in a case of war the Prophet clearly told us ‘Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman’. Hence, Jihad clearly does not equal terrorism!

Another misunderstanding – does Islam oppress women and treat them as second class citezens as BNP leader Nick Griffin claims? The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught ‘the most perfect of the believers in faith are the best of them in morals. And the best among them are those who are best to their wives’ and that ‘the most precious thing in the world is a virtuous woman.’ How is this corresponding with oppression of women? Yes, women are told to dress modestly but how is that oppression? Women are instructed to cover all their bodies except their face and hands, in  chapter 59 v 33 ‘so that they may be recognised and not harassed’ so this is something many Muslim women choose to do with our own free will. In terms of polygamy, The Quran says to men in chapter 4 v 3 ‘...marry women of your choice 2,3 or 4 but if you fear you shall not be able to treat them equally then marry only one’. So monogamy is the rule and polygamy the exception, and infact the Quran is the only religious scripture that places a limitation on the number of wives a man can have! Practices like  female genital mutilation are abhored by most Muslims and have no basis at all in the Quran and teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And infact Islam gave women clear rights, such as right of inheritance, right to education, over 1400 years ago!

Does Islam teach that Muslims should segregate themselves from non-Muslims? Not at all, we are to live in harmony with all people who do not show aggression and injustice. The Quran teaches in chapter 60 v 8 that ‘Allah does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers’.

Do Muslims have a hidden agenda to overule democracy and establish Shariah law in the UK? Not at all, that would be foolish, for the UK is not a predominantly Muslim country. In fact, many practicing Muslims appreciate living in Britain, for the UK political system upholds many principles dear to Islam such as justice, honesty and freedom of expression, and is therefore arguably more ‘Islamic’  than many so called ‘Islamic countries’ today, that are nothing but corrupt dictatorships.

In summary, Islamophobia creates an environment of suspicion and hostility, threatening to create divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims for absolutely no justified reason. Sure, Muslims and non-Muslims may have different priorities and beliefs but that does not justify us hating and fearing each other. It does not mean we cannot be friends and work together! So please challenge Islamophobia and the ignorant myths associated with Islam. Lets be clear in our understanding of the threats that would be posed, should Islamophobia be allowed to be acceptable in our society.  People may try to equate the right to disagree with the teachings of Islam, which is more than justified, to Islamophobia, which is most definitely not justified, thereby making the demonisation of Muslims more and more tolerable. However, if intelligent students at this university will fall for this deception, then what hope do we have of keeping the BNP at bay!

I will simply point out that the VP's (and Mr. Browse's) claim that the Debating Society would not consider a debate on anti-semitism/homophobia/etc is false. As far as I am aware (having been to several of the society's debates, including this particular one that has generated controversy), the society would treat such a question as it would treat any other, and not simply dismiss it because it's potentially inflamatory as seems to be being suggested. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that Islam was being "singled out". In fact, it seems to be that quite the opposite is true, because to not debate Islamophobia would afford the issue special protection that it does not deserve.

I fail to see how having an open debate on a faith- any faith, because I do not think Islam is special in this regard- constitutes "condoning racism". If "celebrating and defending our multicultural campuses" means that we accept everyone's beliefs as equally valid without being allowed to debate the cases for them, then I have no trouble rejecting such a statement.

"I am curious whether he would have objected to a motion of the form "THB it is perfectly fine to both criticise and ridicule Islam"?"

What a bizarre argument. The motion you describe in the quote above is not Islamophobia. As I said, Islamophobia is the irrational hatred of a section of society purely for being Muslim and is manifested in racist attacks on people who are perceived to be Muslim. Your definition of Islamophobia is peculiar in this sense - in fact you define it in such a way that makes it impossible to criticise. I've got no problem with Islam being criticised at all, but that's not what Islamophobia is. In fact, your whole understanding commits the basic mistake I outlined in my first post - Islamophobia is not some abstract theological criticism, it's rather the hatred of Muslims manifested concretely in the form of discrimination (e.g Muslims not being allowed on planes) or racist attacks (e.g. women having their hijabs torn from them, or Muslims being beaten or even killed). To define it otherwise is to live in cloud-cuckoo land (and to misuse the word!).

The argument that all the proposition proved is that "racist people do racist things" is vacuous. Why do racist people do racist things? What motivates them? What makes them think it's acceptable? Your arguments separate the word form the deed, as though the latter weren't the product of the former. As to the "condemnation" of violence from the proposition - violence is encoded in the very word Islamophobia! I'll return to my previous point - the proposition's (and your) definition of Islamophobia are idiosyncratic to say the least. When people see leaflets, or posters saying "THB believes that Islamophobia is justified" I doubt they have your definition in mind.

If, by your own admission ("all arguments from faith are bad"), the proposition's argument were not related to Islam specifically, why make the debate about Islam? To say that I, and not the debating society, single out Islam is perverse for that reason.       

...and I was in the front row of the debate.

Hi again 

Just to clarify some points, on my stance

Alas unfortunately Forge quoted me out of context. If you read my actual article you will see that i have written that other people said to me that debate soc would probably not have a debate entitled ‘this house believes anti-Semitism, or homophobia or racism or any other form of prejudice is justified’ so why Islamophobia? those words wern't actually my own, i was quoting what others had expressed to me.

But anyway thankyou for making clear that you weren't singling out Islam.

I also go onto say in my letter that the Islamic Circle thought it would be better to 'participate in the debate and attempt to show why Islamophobia is not justified, rather than just allowing ourselves to feel victimised. By stopping the debate from happening, we did not want to fuel further prejudice.'

Just to be clear again I don't think the debate in itself was racist. (please see my previous comment)

As to the comment what would be the reaction to the debate 'THB it is justified to criticise and ridicule Islam' - to criticise and ridicule are 2 different things. My answer - ok to criticise - yes - people should have the freedom of speech and thought to challenge any belief system in an attempt to seek the truth.
Ok to ridicule - no - its not ok to ridicule anyone!! Even a psychotic patient who may have the craziest delusional beliefs, its never ok to ridicule anyone to their face thats just not nice nor productive!!

Also i would agree that you can't just equate racism to islamophobia, the 2 are definitely different things. All I originally said was that Islamophobia can be a form of racism because sometimes people who arent even muslim are attacked becuse of islamophobic sentiment.

But i agree, muslims aren't a race. One of the beautiful things about Islam is that it unites people from all races and cultural backgrounds, united on the common belief that there is only one God and our purpose is to be good human beings in order to please him. If you go for Hajj to Makkah you see people from all over the world, all colours, rich and poor, stood shoulder to shoulder in simple attire united in their worshipping of God.  In the Islamic circle we have people that ethnically originate from all over the world! People from africa, south asia, far asia, the arab world and also people who are ethnically white british!

Nevertheless Muslims are identified as a group of people and I think it is wrong to dislike and have a prejudice against any group of people that choose to adopt an ideology, unless that ideology is inherently evil. But i hope in my letter i try to demonstrate that Islam is not inherently evil, in fact, i would argue it is the exact opposite. it teaches us to establish nothing but good, the Quran says 'enjoin the good, and forbid the evil'

Any group of people that follow a particular ideology eg communism - sure you are free to criticise the ideology but i believe that does not justify you hating and fearing the ideology unless the ideology is something that itself incites hatred,fear  oppression or agression! (which i believe we as human beings should always speak out against, we should always denounce injustice!)

So just to be clear with debate soc - no hard feelings about the actual debate! it was just a little uni debate, not a big deal. The big deal for us as muslims is the more widespread demonisation of muslims in society which is why i thought to write to forge press off the back of the debate about concerns people have with Islam. It was never meant to be a stab at the debate soc. Hope that's clear and sorry for any misunderstanding. 

I don't necessarily favour the title of the debate, indeed I have been put off this year by going to debating after going 7 or 8 times last year. The titles may well be "attention grabbing" and "controversial" but they aren't necessarily ones that stifle pure proper debate, and instead condescend into a yabber of point scoring. Is the debate more popular than it once was?

I must take with caution though with the idea that the debating society would single out islamophobia, that exposes a clear emphasis on presumption rather than reality, for which a decent description from Debating is needed for us to understand the background to creating a title specifically around Islamophobia. Hafsa has now clarified her words were taken out of context. If debating come back with a vague response, then there is greater background to be angry.

It does seem that in setting up such a debate in the first place the society has shot itself in the foot, reeling in the criticism that creates brief anxieties for those concerned. Leading me to ask...was it really worth organising this one?

In response to Sam. The only thing "bizarre" about the question I asked, was that he thought it was an argument. The statement has no conclusion (actual or implied) hence could only be read as a point of clarity. I was genuinely interested in whether he would have regarded ridiculing Islam as being racist.

Secondly; Islamophobia is not a word that has an easy definition. Unlike Sam, I do not claim it to be uncontroversial, but I do think that anybody who attended that debate could not draw the conclusions that he did. The reason for this is that the proposition explicitly defined the terms such as to rule out violence and discrimination of Muslims. If you think that is not what Islamophobia means; then you vote against them on competence (because they haven't addressed the issue). Given that the proposition won the debate on competence, it would seem plenty of people there (ie. more than the number who agreed on conscience) disagree that the proposition missed the point. This translates to a lot of people living on "cloud-cuckoo land."

Finally, given that Sam didn't say a word to defend his most substantive claim; namely that Islamophobia=racism, may we conclude that he has withdrawn that claim? It would seem prudent in light of Ms. Qureshi's clarification of her stance qua this issue (for which I thank her). If not, then I repeat my call for him to make his case explicit and tell us exactly which race we discriminate against when we use the phrase 'Islamophobia'.

One last point. I would like to thank Ms. Qureshi for clarifying the position of the Islamic Circle, especially concerning the Forge story. I think that the Islamic Circle has as much right to feel aggrieved as anybody from the debate society at how that story was presented. Finally, though I disagree with a lot of what she wrote concerning the moral value of Islam (and especially concerning the limits of criticism), her willingness to engage with debate is absolutely laudable. I genuinely hope that she (and other Muslims/members of the Islamic Circle) have not been deterred from further engagement as a result of this debate.

"The proposition explicitly defined the terms such as to rule out violence and discrimination of Muslims"

I'd go one further and suggest the proposition did not delimit their criticism of religion enough so as to make their argument specifically about Islam. The proposition they argued was "THB criticism of religion is justified", not "THB Islamophobia is justified". My principle question is why, then, single out Islam? What's so special that it deserves to be included in the title of the debate, but not given specific treatment in the arguments of the proposition?

This is where my more "substantive" claim comes in (and I'm glad you dignify it with substance...). I'm suggesting that in civil society, as it stands, "criticism" of Islam is used as nothing more than a smoke-screen for racism. This is the only thing that explains why Islam is singled out for special cross-examination. Take the marches of the English Defence League (EDL), for example. The EDL claim that they're protesting against Sharia law and the hijab. In actual fact, their demonstrations contain people sieg heiling and shouting racially offensive slogans. In staging such a provocatively titled debate and singling out Islam, the debating society joins the chorus of voices which says "you people with your backward views, you're not welcome here".

The question, "which race?", is a triviality. I think the answer is, "anyone who's not white" . I also think you're a bit naive in your assumption that racists know what race they're discriminating against! The question is about Self vs Other, not which Other! You'd do well to read an academic in Barcelona called Tuen Van Dijk. He argues that the new racism is a cultural racism. Instead of talking about the backwardness of a specific racial category, the new racism talks about the backwardness of their culture instead. Of course, the end result is the same - discrimination which is, indirectly, about skin-colour. Interestingly, van Dijk suggests that this racism is propagated by cultural elites like journalists and politicians (or University students!), who use their symbolic power to define in-groups and out-groups. 

I agree that Islamophobia could, one day, not be about race. But that will be the day that all religions are equally attacked and vilified in newspapers, television shows and Westminster. For now, however, lets look at the world as it exists and not how it might do one day!

Maybe the proposition did not explicitly target their case at Muslims, maybe they did. That is a point of competence and they won that vote with some ease. I will say that arguments of the form: All X's are bad hence to criticise an individual instance of X is wrong (because of the innumerable other X's you could have opted for) are bad arguments. If all dictators are bad; one shouldn't not take action against one, simply because to do so is unfair (on him?) due to the fact that other bad dictators exist.

Qua racism; it seems unwise for somebody who is protesting against what he regards as a none standard definition of a word, to use a none standard definition himself. Attempts to prosecute violence/abuse against Islam on racial grounds have been thrown out of the courts (including one defeat at the High Court) on the grounds that Islam is obviously not a question of origin, more a question of destination. This fact lead to the hysterical introduction of laws banning the incitement of religious hatred (a stupid law which anybody with a basic grasp of English can see must mean banning hatred that is religious in nature-like some Muslim's thoughts on gays). However he spins the issue, he is left answering the question that I could convert (and I am *mostly* white) and thus any 'irrational fear' that I am subject to will not have anything to do with my race.

Finally, in response to the thought that racists (EDL) use Islamophobia as a smokescreen ie. they claim to be attacking Islam, when in fact they attack Asian people etc. I agree with Sam that this is pernicious, however, from there I don't know what follows. If he believes that it is a slippery slope (ie. criticism of Islam leads to X, leads to Y, leads to violence/racial abuse) then legislate against the part that actually causes the harm. Surely he can't believe that ALL criticism of Islam (even all ridicule or mockery-and by the way, I reserve the right to think certain societal practices are "backward") leads to this conclusion. If that is true and he doesn't think that those of us-myself included-in the 25% of people who agreed on conscience, are racist thugs. Then the question must be, why not simply work to prevent the thuggery?

A last thought; I claim my right to decide exactly what I should fear; and the word phobia derives from the Greek phobos-meaning simply fear.

I apologise if my reply is a little too short to do the question justice; essay deadlines and all. I'll respond more comprehensively on Wed.

Hi Ben,

I don't think we're going to agree. The problem with the deductive argument you present (X is bad and should be criticized, Y is an example of X, therefore Y should be criticized) is that it neglects the pragmatic reasons for choosing Y in the first place. As I said at the beginning of this exchange, you're arguing in abstraction.

I think I've said all I have to say. Any further debate we might have, I think, would come down to a basic difference in worldview (I gather yours is a sort of liberal/libertarian idealism, whilst I think I'm much more of a materialist).

Hi I'm a member of the debating society committee and I just thought I'd say something about the question of whether we would hold a similar debate on Christianity or Judaism. We would certainly have no general objection to doing so, but there would seem (to me) little point beyond some vague notion of fairness: we do try in part to reflect wider society in our choice of debates, and there are simply far fewer people specifically concerned by these other religions at the moment. We chose Islam because it is currently controversial and we wanted to provide a forum for people to express their views on this debate.

Also as far as the issue of racism goes to say that Islamophobia is in certain cases 'racist' or used as a cover for racism is not to say that all who hate and fear an idea can necessarily be considered as racist; in which case it is not reasonable to use the fact that racism exists to stifle the whole debate.