Why is The Guardian in bed with Islam?

There's a difference between being anti violence and pro Muslim Brotherhood. The Beotherhood is a facist organisation which has supported terrorist groups. They are anything but non violent.

I agree with the first sentence. I really don't know much about the Brotherhood if truth to be told so can't comment much after that.

I only support them in this situation because they weren't doing anything wrong by protesting at their sit ins.
I do condemn them for the church burnings I've seen tho however I've not sure whether their leadership would agree with members who carried out the attacks.

Hmm, I have only ever seen the Guardian criticising actual islamophobia and not just any opposition to the religion. Have you got any examples of them rebuking a thoughtful criticism of islam? To be fair, I wouldn't put it past them as they do seem to have a habit of contrarily going against every public opinion.

You don't have to be pro islam to be against islamophobia.

Actually you do. There is a reason why it is "Islamohpobia" and not "Muslimophobia".

Islamophobia is a dangerous word designed to rebuke critcism not of a people but of an abstract concept.

You can argue the intricacies of the word all you like, but in common usage people take it to mean prejudice against Muslims. Actually, that is the definition given by wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia. So when someone is talking about Islamophobia it would be safe to assume that's what they mean.

Well from all the media hate towards muslims. It decided to give us a break and actually say whats real .. not crap we see everyday. My opinion.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's not though is it, it's a word designed to describe the hatred Muslim people get as a result the actions of a few members of their religion. It's a word that's been popularised because of the amount of discrimination they receive. The focus in the media isn't on criticising an abstract concept, it's on the actions of extremist muslims. If only people could approach the religion with a critical mind that isn't polluted by media influence. We should be able to criticise religion in a rational and unbiased way, but that's seemingly too much for some people.

I see no end of Comment is Free and other articles which take a distinctively pro-Islam stance and rebuke criticism or ridicule of Islam as an ideology as racist or Islamophobic. You never see the same articles in respect of criticism or ridicule of Christianity. More recently, they appear to be very pro-the Muslim Brotherhood in the recent drama in Egypt.

I don't want this thread to be a debate about Islam and I do believe attacking Muslims as individuals is unacceptable; however, I would be interested to know why a paper like the Guardian (pro-homosexual rights, pro-feminism, pro-rehabilitation, pro-secularism, antithetical to Sharia, and so on) is so eager to act as an apologist and defender of Islam?

I can only assume it has something to do with the phrase: 'the enemy of my enemy (right wing groups) is my friend'. Still makes the Guardian a sell out, though. What do you think?

I recognise the power of the Media. However it is strange that people denounce the media when it directs hatred towards Islam but not when it directs that same hatred towards Christianity or Judaism. Hypocrisy and cowardice is the cause of this. It is the same with Comedians they will satirise. Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism but never Islam because of cowardice. I do not have anything against Muslims but I find the differential treatment accorded to Islam ridiculous and frankly Orwellian.

Be honest hatred towards jew is rare,no? Regardless treatment towards all religions should be the same.

I see no end of Comment is Free and other articles which take a distinctively pro-Islam stance and rebuke criticism or ridicule of Islam as an ideology as racist or Islamophobic. You never see the same articles in respect of criticism or ridicule of Christianity. More recently, they appear to be very pro-the Muslim Brotherhood in the recent drama in Egypt.

I don't want this thread to be a debate about Islam and I do believe attacking Muslims as individuals is unacceptable; however, I would be interested to know why a paper like the Guardian (pro-homosexual rights, pro-feminism, pro-rehabilitation, pro-secularism, antithetical to Sharia, and so on) is so eager to act as an apologist and defender of Islam?

I can only assume it has something to do with the phrase: 'the enemy of my enemy (right wing groups) is my friend'. Still makes the Guardian a sell out, though. What do you think?

Certainly not. In some countries such as Iran its probably sickly considered a popular activity. I agree that treatment towards religions should be the same, which is why I condemned the hypocritical appeasing of Islam at the same time that Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism are satirised. For instance look at the Big Bang theory both Judaism and Hinduism are satirised, they would not dare to it to Islam, thus hypocrisy.

By the big bang theory do you mean the scientific paradigm? I don't really know how Judaism and Hinduism are satirised

I think recent pro-Islam media has emerged as a result of the Islamaphobia, that many Muslims experienced in the post 9-11 world. As a user highlighted earlier this type of media tends to be liberal. Actually I think media bias toward's religious groups depends on whether they are a majority in that country. In the UK,Islam's a dominant group but in America after Israel the Jews are dominant. So you could also say that the media in the US are literally exempt from being critical of Judaism thus are pro-Jewish. In the western world especially America criticizing Israeli policies/government is very controversial and immediately labels you anti-Semitic which I think is wrong, because your not outwardly discriminating a Jew based on their religious beliefs or ethnicity. Stephen Hawking's boycotted a Israeli conference and he was judged harshly by the mainstream media. Does the man have every right to take an ethical stance and act on his belief's.