-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I give up fighting Islamophobia
- Thread starter nazz
- Start date
Of course I am. The way I see people defining it is more akin to the definition of xenophobia. It's a political smear word that is being used to shut down conversation when there are good reasons to dislike Islam and to critique the practice of Western nations importing large numbers of people from Islamic countries while not demanding that they, in turn, assimilate or integrate into the culture of their new home.
dust1n
Zindīq
I'msa scared of Islam, but the fear generally falls below fear of Americans with guns, fear of random people who have violent tendencies, falling completely of the economic system into impoverishment, any of the number of conditions which will inevitably onset and some point and kill everyone who ever lived, choking on a piece of processed food, having a bad set, dealing with nicotine addiction, accidental pregnancy, STD's, morning traffic, Jack-in-the-Box, any policeman who doesn't take no guff, or losing my keys, to name a few of a potential number of things that are so far more worthy of my concern in my best estimation.
Augustus
…
Islamophobia is one of my least favourite words in the entire world (actually any word that uses -phobia regarding categories of humans). You could say I am Islamophobiaphobic.
It is so imprecise and misleading that it makes talking about an important topic much more complex and problematic. The world would be actually better if people were forced to use slightly less concise, but more accurate, language like 'anti-Muslim bigotry', 'misrepresentation of common Islamic values', 'inaccurate cultural stereotype', 'criticising Muslims for things you do yourself' etc. depending on the context.
This would force people to justify their accusations of 'Islamophobia' against others and make the distinctions between legitimate criticisms of certain aspects of Islam, and unfair criticism of individual Muslims for views they don't hold.
As 'Islamophobia' is systematically used to stifle debate (like anti-Semitism is), many legitimate criticisms are branded 'Islamophobic'. The real bigots, then can use this to obscure and gain credibility for their attitudes. The fair minded critics are bundled into the same camp as the fanatics, with the the purpose of discrediting the fair critics, but people using this strategy either don't know or don't care that it also gives the bigots the opportunity to pretend that theirs is part of the fair minded criticism. A dangerous strategy.
I think we should all fight (the word) Islamophobia.
It is so imprecise and misleading that it makes talking about an important topic much more complex and problematic. The world would be actually better if people were forced to use slightly less concise, but more accurate, language like 'anti-Muslim bigotry', 'misrepresentation of common Islamic values', 'inaccurate cultural stereotype', 'criticising Muslims for things you do yourself' etc. depending on the context.
This would force people to justify their accusations of 'Islamophobia' against others and make the distinctions between legitimate criticisms of certain aspects of Islam, and unfair criticism of individual Muslims for views they don't hold.
As 'Islamophobia' is systematically used to stifle debate (like anti-Semitism is), many legitimate criticisms are branded 'Islamophobic'. The real bigots, then can use this to obscure and gain credibility for their attitudes. The fair minded critics are bundled into the same camp as the fanatics, with the the purpose of discrediting the fair critics, but people using this strategy either don't know or don't care that it also gives the bigots the opportunity to pretend that theirs is part of the fair minded criticism. A dangerous strategy.
I think we should all fight (the word) Islamophobia.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Well if we kill off all the Muslims there will be no problem, right?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Wow, okay then. I guess when a fundie Christian I know talks about the need to drop nuclear bombs on Mecca that is just rational thinking!
Hey, maybe there is no such thing as homophobia either! It's just a made up term to stifle debate!
Augustus
…
Wow! Now providing a balanced and nuanced critique of the word Islamophobia is actually violently Islamophobic. I award you the 1st edition of the King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud memorial prize for monumental oversensitivity in discussion related to the Islamic faith.
No wonder you are tired of fighting Islamophobia, cos you appear to see it everywhere you look. Would imagine many people who know you are tired of you fighting Islamophobia too.
Hopefully most here wouldn't see me as anti-Islamic. I've never considered myself anti-theistic, despite my obvious difference of opinions with theists on some issues.
And we've had plenty of decent discussions on things, nazz. But honestly, I saw nothing Islamaphobic about Augustus' last post at all.
On the contrary, he was at pains to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Islam, and unfair bigotry. Do you really think Islam is beyond reproach? Shouldn't the nature and the justification of criticism determine whether it's unfair bigotry (Islamaphobia if you will) or evidenced criticism worthy of discussion? That would be the same distinction I would put on discussion of atheism, for example.
(Quite deliberate in my use of Islam. Obviously Muslims run the full gamut from insane psychopaths to peaceful altruists, which is also true of atheists, Christians, and men named 'Greg')
Augustus
…
Islamophobia has become one of what Orwell described as meaningless words. This does not mean Muslims are not unfairly discriminated against at times, it means the word no longer serves a productive purpose and must, therefore, be replaced with something that serves the purpose it is intended to do.
From Politics and the English Language:
Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
From Politics and the English Language:
Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Yes, of course they are. People resist overcoming hate, ignorance, and prejudice.
It's not everywhere but it is growing.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I've already made it clear I distinguish between critique and irrational fear. I'm critical of Islam itself.
Augustus
…
Then what problem do you have with my critique of the word Islamophobia? (and why was it the equivalent of advocating genocide)
Last edited:
When you say "irrational fear" you seem to assume that fear could be rationalized or such thing as "rational fear" exists. Fear seems to be a survival instinct rather than a process of cognitive reasoning. One does not have to justify his fear.
In the case of Islamophobia I could even tighten my approach. Many colleagues that posted here already made a good point about differentiating between fair criticism and prejudice. But I do not need this in making my following point:
From what I've seen most of the arguments made against Islamophobia boil down to: "Do not generalize! Not all Islamists do/believe the same as those that fed your fear in the first place". IMO this is an unsatisfactory response to battle fear/prejudice and it should be avoided.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument that fear of Islam/Islamic people is irrational.
1. Provide an argument that sustains the idea the fear of Islam/Islamic people is irrational. Can it be boiled down to the: "Let's not generalize!" argument?
2. Name me a rational fear in which the same argument you just made could not be used to establish the rational fear was irrational in the first place (according to your acceptance of the term "irrational").
One is forced to accept the argument you use against the irrational fear of Islam but can not use it to extinguish >99% of his fears related to other matters.
Are you afraid of snakes? Why?! Not all of them bite! Are you afraid of the dark? Why?! Not every time it is dark something bad happens! Are you afraid of a suspect looking guy that follows you? Why?! Not all suspect looking guys that seem to follow you want to harm you!
...Fear does not work with certainties.
You force one to ingest the idea that almost all of his fears are "irrational" and the human mind refuses to do that (as it should).
What makes the fear of Islam/Islamic people essentially different from the rest of human fears? If you have the seemingly impossible answer to that question, concentrate on that. ...The bad news:that does not guarantee you success.
If you failed in your quest, doesn't it make you wonder if you had the wrong approach or if the fear isn't "irrational" after all?
In the case of Islamophobia I could even tighten my approach. Many colleagues that posted here already made a good point about differentiating between fair criticism and prejudice. But I do not need this in making my following point:
From what I've seen most of the arguments made against Islamophobia boil down to: "Do not generalize! Not all Islamists do/believe the same as those that fed your fear in the first place". IMO this is an unsatisfactory response to battle fear/prejudice and it should be avoided.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument that fear of Islam/Islamic people is irrational.
1. Provide an argument that sustains the idea the fear of Islam/Islamic people is irrational. Can it be boiled down to the: "Let's not generalize!" argument?
2. Name me a rational fear in which the same argument you just made could not be used to establish the rational fear was irrational in the first place (according to your acceptance of the term "irrational").
One is forced to accept the argument you use against the irrational fear of Islam but can not use it to extinguish >99% of his fears related to other matters.
Are you afraid of snakes? Why?! Not all of them bite! Are you afraid of the dark? Why?! Not every time it is dark something bad happens! Are you afraid of a suspect looking guy that follows you? Why?! Not all suspect looking guys that seem to follow you want to harm you!
...Fear does not work with certainties.
You force one to ingest the idea that almost all of his fears are "irrational" and the human mind refuses to do that (as it should).
What makes the fear of Islam/Islamic people essentially different from the rest of human fears? If you have the seemingly impossible answer to that question, concentrate on that. ...The bad news:that does not guarantee you success.
If you failed in your quest, doesn't it make you wonder if you had the wrong approach or if the fear isn't "irrational" after all?
Last edited:
Not I ...
I think that Islamophobia has become one of the most misused terms thrown around in discussions concerning the influence of ideologies and dogmatic beliefs on people's actions. Insofar as the term describes hatred of Muslims (rather than Islam), it is semantically inaccurate: after all, the term is not Muslimophobia; it specifically refers to the religion from a purely linguistic perspective. And insofar as it describes irrational fear or criticism of Islam, it is redundant at best and misleading at worst.
For how many other belief systems or ideologies do we have a term with phobia affixed to it to describe irrational fear or criticism? We don't, for instance, have atheismophobia as a term in any broadly recognized English dictionary, even though there exist a lot of irrational fear and hatred both toward atheists and atheism in many parts of the world—most ironically, such fear and hatred are particularly noticeable throughout most of the Muslim world. The term Buddhismophobia doesn't exist either, even though Tibetan Buddhists are one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world and have retained that status for many years, in addition to the fact that Buddhists have been severely persecuted in Pakistan for many years as well.
I personally don't use the term to describe hatred or irrational fear of Muslims, nor do I use it when referring to irrational hatred and fear of Islam. I think that there are very legitimate reasons to fear certain relatively popular forms of Islam, and when talking about irrational hatred or fear of Muslims, I prefer to use more accurate and less misleading terms than Islamophobia, such as "intolerance" or "bigotry."
For how many other belief systems or ideologies do we have a term with phobia affixed to it to describe irrational fear or criticism? We don't, for instance, have atheismophobia as a term in any broadly recognized English dictionary, even though there exist a lot of irrational fear and hatred both toward atheists and atheism in many parts of the world—most ironically, such fear and hatred are particularly noticeable throughout most of the Muslim world. The term Buddhismophobia doesn't exist either, even though Tibetan Buddhists are one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world and have retained that status for many years, in addition to the fact that Buddhists have been severely persecuted in Pakistan for many years as well.
I personally don't use the term to describe hatred or irrational fear of Muslims, nor do I use it when referring to irrational hatred and fear of Islam. I think that there are very legitimate reasons to fear certain relatively popular forms of Islam, and when talking about irrational hatred or fear of Muslims, I prefer to use more accurate and less misleading terms than Islamophobia, such as "intolerance" or "bigotry."
My
You can't fix the world but you can certainly work on fixing yourself.
I plan to live a life I can be proud of. Part of that is to treat other folks decently. How they choose to treat each other, that's their problem.
My philosophy,
You can't fix the world but you can certainly work on fixing yourself.
I plan to live a life I can be proud of. Part of that is to treat other folks decently. How they choose to treat each other, that's their problem.
gsa
Well-Known Member
What Augustus said is simply true. It makes no sense to run away from the misuse of this term, because no one who is rationally evaluating the ways it is used to stifle debate will buy into it.
You know what else I don’t believe? That opposing the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is anti-Semitic, that Arabs are Semites and therefore cannot be anti-Semitic, or that Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel’s occupation never has anything to do with anti-Semitism.
I don’t believe that the murder of the Charlie Hebdo journalists is unrelated to Islamic fundamentalism. I don’t believe that the anti-Islamist demonstrations are wholly composed of rational critics of Islam, and I do believe that they include anti-Muslim bigots. For that matter, I don’t think that those murders are completely unrelated to the situation of Muslims in France; I think that Islamist terrorism is designed in no small part to create a more cohesive group identity by inspiring backlash and solidarity, as well as creating sympathy for Islamic extremism.
I also believe that there are leftists who run away from liberal principles because they don’t want to be perceived as "Islamophobic" or because they want to stand in solidarity with Muslims and don’t want to be bothered with the illiberal tendencies within the tradition.
By all means, fight bigotry and irrationality when it emerges. But the best way to do that is to toss out misleading and politicized buzz words.
You know what else I don’t believe? That opposing the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is anti-Semitic, that Arabs are Semites and therefore cannot be anti-Semitic, or that Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel’s occupation never has anything to do with anti-Semitism.
I don’t believe that the murder of the Charlie Hebdo journalists is unrelated to Islamic fundamentalism. I don’t believe that the anti-Islamist demonstrations are wholly composed of rational critics of Islam, and I do believe that they include anti-Muslim bigots. For that matter, I don’t think that those murders are completely unrelated to the situation of Muslims in France; I think that Islamist terrorism is designed in no small part to create a more cohesive group identity by inspiring backlash and solidarity, as well as creating sympathy for Islamic extremism.
I also believe that there are leftists who run away from liberal principles because they don’t want to be perceived as "Islamophobic" or because they want to stand in solidarity with Muslims and don’t want to be bothered with the illiberal tendencies within the tradition.
By all means, fight bigotry and irrationality when it emerges. But the best way to do that is to toss out misleading and politicized buzz words.
Speaking of some of the reactions to satirical cartoons...
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I did not equate it with advocating genocide. But your denial that it even exists won't stop the world from moving closer to war because of it.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Can you address his substantive criticism of the term? What is wrong with anti-Muslim bias, as a way of describing irrational fear and hatred of Muslims?