> A story that accurately reported a noteworthy incident of Muslim violence, without being inflammatory or misrepresenting material facts, and which had the res

> A story that accurately reported a noteworthy incident of Muslim violence, without being inflammatory or misrepresenting material facts, and which had the respectful cooperation of Muslims, would still be caught up under this definition. So, they're not separating factual reporting from fake news about islam? How does this not entirely invalidate the study? Yes, islam gets discussed a lot... but islamist extremism is a global problem. Calling criticism of islam "islamophobia" is incredibly counterproductive. The more we try to clamp down on criticism of islam, the more we stoke anti-islamist fears and hatreds. This pisses me off as much as seeing people still defending convicted pedophiles like George Pell because they're catholic clergy. I get that people like their religions. That doesn't mean those religions should be placed above reproach. We need to make a clear distinction between criticism of islam and islamophobia. As far as I can see (since I refuse to disable my anti-tracking and anti-ad plugins on a strange site) the study the article is talking about doesn't do that.