反穆斯林情绪（或者伊斯兰恐惧症 ）是种族歧视吗？联合国怎么定义的？学术界怎么看？

[葫芦金刚]

穆斯林回教必须要铲除，希望习大大先从新疆开始做起，给世界开个好头。

 

[oldbei]

穆斯林回教必须要铲除，希望习大大先从新疆开始做起，给世界开个好头。

穆斯林没法儿被铲除，还是和平演变吧。

那只鸟说的是主流的观点啊，大伙儿咋这么气愤呢？

 

[oldbei]

穆斯林与恐怖主义已经已经慢慢地从“≈”变成“=”再到“≡”。难道自己还不应反思然后行动吗？还是那句话，要么转化，要么被铲除。

这么完全画等号才是可怕，是专制的思维。

 

[爱尔兰咖啡豆]

我是极端反对ISIS，因为它们是完全反人类的。。

但ISIS这么嚣张和张扬的险恶用心很简单，让全世界再兴起对整个穆斯林（约有15亿人）系统性的歧视和攻击。。从而为ISIS提供源源不断的兵源。

为今当务之急，是西方出动地面联军迅速铲除ISIS， 让极端恐怖分子势力大减。 而不是像某些华人鼓吹的那样，忙着对整个穆斯林进行攻击。

杜鲁多以前的演讲里称，他们要我们在加拿大相互仇恨，我们偏要以爱来回应。 就像那个社会实验里，普通加拿大所身体力行一样的。

理论上确实应该把两件事分开来。但是现实是我们很难分清到底哪个穆斯林会发动下次袭击。而且对于西方社会的攻击都不是以军队武装的形式，而是扮成平民进行恐怖袭击。从某种意义上ISIS从道义上绑架了整个穆斯林。所以在穆斯林社会证明自己清白前，大家还是会把两件事混为一谈，因为目前没办法区分。

 

[外汇专家]

包头神教教义要把咖啡乐(不信教的异端)统统烧死, 这是政治正确
但是无辜的咖啡乐要反抗就是种族歧视就是宗教歧视.
楼主的确是心理变态无疑

 

[外汇专家]

理论上确实应该把两件事分开来。但是现实是我们很难分清到底哪个穆斯林会发动下次袭击。而且对于西方社会的攻击都不是以军队武装的形式，而是扮成平民进行恐怖袭击。从某种意义上ISIS从道义上绑架了整个穆斯林。所以在穆斯林社会证明自己清白前，大家还是会把两件事混为一谈，因为目前没办法区分。

每一个"温和派"的神教徒其实都是极端分子的潜在支持者.

 

[trwetwetwet]

站着说话不腰疼颠倒是非黑白的文章，现在不是谁歧视穆斯林，是穆斯林恐吓大家知道吗？看把民众都吓成什么样了，怎么反倒罪魁祸首就成了被歧视的了？穆斯林到出搞恐怖活动你见过他们反省过吗？你见过他们站出来忏悔过吗？你见过他们批判过吗？他们一个个心里大都拥护is，不然也不会对恐怖袭击装聋作哑，反过来倒打一耙说自己被歧视了，不说恐怖分子，说生活中的MSL，看看哪个不是霸道不守规矩？一个个要求别人这样那样全都是为自己考虑为自己谋利，丝毫不考虑他人感受，对他人的生活习惯机器不尊重，却反过来要求你要尊重她让着他，这样的民族和群体，基本都适合生活在茹毛饮血的原始社会，偏偏他们又想生活在文明先进的国家靠拿福利不劳而获，却反过来处处对养育自己的纳税人指点江山，试问这样的民族如何能受欢迎？？

 

[oldbei]

站着说话不腰疼颠倒是非黑白的文章，现在不是谁歧视穆斯林，是穆斯林恐吓大家知道吗？看把民众都吓成什么样了，怎么反倒罪魁祸首就成了被歧视的了？穆斯林到出搞恐怖活动你见过他们反省过吗？你见过他们站出来忏悔过吗？你见过他们批判过吗？他们一个个心里大都拥护is，不然也不会对恐怖袭击装聋作哑，反过来倒打一耙说自己被歧视了，不说恐怖分子，说生活中的MSL，看看哪个不是霸道不守规矩？一个个要求别人这样那样全都是为自己考虑为自己谋利，丝毫不考虑他人感受，对他人的生活习惯机器不尊重，却反过来要求你要尊重她让着他，这样的民族和群体，基本都适合生活在茹毛饮血的原始社会，偏偏他们又想生活在文明先进的国家靠拿福利不劳而获，却反过来处处对养育自己的纳税人指点江山，试问这样的民族如何能受欢迎？？

这是从何说起呢？我没有发现我现在居住的城市穆斯林霸道和不守规矩啊。以前在北京接触到不少回民，也都是规规矩矩的，没觉得他们不顾及他人的感受啊。主流社会反复讲恐怖主义和穆斯林不是一回事儿，可偏偏就有这么多国移一点儿都听不进去。穆斯林怎么没有反对恐怖主义了？巴黎血案之后，很多穆斯林宗教领袖都出来谴责了，包括像伊朗这样被西方看成是邪恶的国家。

 

[ruby88]

楼上有几个没文化，只知道纯人身攻击的保粉，居然没文化到把攻击整体穆斯林声称为普世价值。。

没看到联合国通过的决议吗？

联合国通过了一项打击种族灭绝、种族清洗、种族主义、反犹太主义、伊斯兰恐惧症和仇外心理，并打击一切形式的种族歧视和相关的不容忍的宣言。
联合国（主流世界）把种族灭绝、反犹太主义、伊斯兰恐惧症，仇外心理（华人在加拿大曾深受此害）这几类，统称为 一切形式的种族歧视和相关的不容忍。。

LZ介绍联合国决议就请介绍全面点，这个决议是在2010年瑞士全民公投统一禁止木木在瑞士修建新的清真寺的宣礼塔之后，由木木国家组织在联合国提议，并由20个国家（估计都是木木国家了）支持勉强通过的一项富有争议性的决议。很多代表表示这个和言论自由相左，侵犯了人们的言论自由。
大家一定都要多读新闻和历史，才不被别人忽悠。
附相关新闻链接：http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/03/25/104041.html
UN rights body passes Islamophobia resolution
By GENEVA (AFP)

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Thursday narrowly passed a resolution condemning Islamaphobic behavior, including Switzerland's minaret building ban, despite some states' major reservations.

The resolution, which was criticized by the United States as "an instrument of division," "strongly condemns... the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures."

In a November referendum Swiss citizens voted to ban the construction of new minarets, a move that drew criticisms worldwide.


These measures "are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations concerning freedoms of religions," said the resolution.

Such acts would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences," it charged.

Some 20 countries voted in favor of the resolution entitled "combating defamation of religions," 17 voted against and eight abstained.

The resolution also "expresses deep concern ... that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It "regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience."

Freedom of expression

This initiative that breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to

Babacar Ba, Organization of the Islamic Conference
Putting forward the resolution on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said that the specific references to Islam, the only religion mentioned in the text, "reflect the existing regrettable situation in some parts of the world where Muslims are being targeted."

Babacar Ba, who represents the Organization of the Islamic Conference, also told reporters that the resolution was a "way to reaffirm once again our condemnation of the decision to ban construction of minarets in Switzerland."

"This initiative that breaches religious freedom and rights of Muslims to build their places of worship as they wish to," he added.

However, the European Union pointed out that the concept of defamation should not fall under the remit of human rights because it conflicted with the right to freedom of expression, while the United States said free speech could be hindered by the resolution.

"The European Union believes that reconciling the notion of defamation with discrimination is a problematic endeavor," French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said on behalf of the bloc.

Eileen Donahoe, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. also slammed the resolution as an "ineffective way to address" concerns about discrimination.

"We cannot agree that prohibiting speech is the way to promote tolerance, and because we continue to see the 'defamation of religions' concept used to justify censorship, criminalization, and in some cases violent assaults and deaths of political, racial, and religious minorities around the world," she said.

"Contrary to the intentions of most member states, governments are likely to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of this resolution, and in the name of the Human Rights Council," added the U.S. envoy.

 

[ruby88]

Defamation of religion and the United Nations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation,[1] sought to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences". Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West condemned the resolutions arguing they amounted to an international blasphemy law.[2] Critics of the resolutions including human rights groups argue that they are used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.[3][4]

From 2001 to 2010 there was a clear split, with the Islamic bloc and much of the developing world supporting the resolutions, and mostly Western democracies opposing. Support waned in more recent years, due to increased opposition from the West, along with lobbying by religious, free-speech, and human rights advocacy groups. Some countries in Africa, the Pacific, and Latin America switched from supporting to abstaining, or from abstaining to opposing.[1] The final "defamation of religions" resolution in 2010, which also condemned "the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques"[5] four months after a Swiss referendum introduced such a ban, passed with only 20 supporting, 17 opposing, and 8 abstaining.[6]

In 2011, with falling support for the defamation of religion approach, the OIC introduced a resolution on "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief" that received unanimous support.