What is Islamophobia?

[Augustus]

Of course it doesn't include rational concerns about Islam.

Defining it at the level of the belief rather than the person is the first error. The second is this enormous grey area of what constitutes rational concerns when you have chosen to define it in relation to a highly diverse belief system.

There are 2 parts to the word and both are poor choices. Focusing on Islam not Muslims and calling it a phobia rather than bigotry brings zero benefits and many problems to people interested in honest discourse.

Yes, they are all unequivocally false.

This is just intellectually dishonest.

Islamic norms and the sharia are always evolving, of course, but even the most moderate scholars will not deny that, at least most, of these things actually exist in theory. To do so would be apostasy in the eyes of many. If the Quran permits crucifixion in certain circumstances, it is hard to say that crucifixion is unequivocally prohibited under Islam.

What more liberal scholars will do is say these things exist, but give a big list of qualifications for their enforcement making them almost impossible to actually implement, or redefining them in accordance with more modern norms. Many will also be said not to apply outside of a proper Caliphate. Very few will deny their existence though.

For example, apostasy will be redefined as akin to treason. Apostasy alone is not enough, you actually have to rebel against the state also.

Or that Slavery is not haram but it is disliked, and slaves can, in theory, only be taken during a legitimate jihad and that legitimate jihad could only be declared by the Prophet himself. So while it is not prohibited, the situation in which slavery can be revived can not exist.

Or that the Jizya, which was originally just war tribute from conquered peoples, is now the equivalent of income tax or the likes, or that amount of Jizya should be symbolic, such as 1 cent for the entire population, which is paid by the ruler himself.

Why would that make me want to not use the term? People will debate all kinds of terms. Islamophobia is the irrational criticism of Islam or Muslims, so it includes fear and hatred too. It's a pretty simple term. Some people try to make it more complicated because they don't like being called Islamophobes.

So a main reason people don't like the word is because they are Islamophobes who don't like being called Islamophobes?

Any bigot should love to be called an Islamophobe rather than be challenged in a more effective way. Without being more precise, it is almost possible to get a charge of Islamophobia to stick even to clear bigots like Pamela Geller. Just wheel out the list of standard responses.

1. Islam is a set of ideas not a person. It is legitimate to be hostile to an ideology, we are all hostile to Naziism for example.
2. Why is my fear irrational? For example all of these are legitimate Islamic teachings...
3. Why should I be tolerant of an ideology that is intolerant to me? Let's see what Islam teaches about unbelievers...
4. Im not talking about Muslims, I'm talking about Islam.
5. Islamophobia is a politicised term just used to prevent legitimate criticism.
etc.

So why would that make you not want to use the term? Because the point of communication is not to use a word because you personally think it is a nice word that you understand, but to use a word that helps to achieve your purpose.

Choosing to use a word that simply gives people every excuse to debate your terminology rather deal with your larger point is ridiculous. I can't think of a less effective way to call someone out for anti-Muslim bigotry than call them Islamophobic. From a communication perspective, it really is a terrible word for so many reasons. Saying it is a simple and clear term does not make it thus. There are not long term public debates about the legitimacy of simple and effective terms

But maybe thinking that makes me Islamophobic...

 

[nazz]

Of course not. Nor do those who oppose them.

Agreed

So we all have to look into what actually happens, don't we?

Yes

 

[nazz]

This is just intellectually dishonest.

Islamic norms and the sharia are always evolving, of course, but even the most moderate scholars will not deny that, at least most, of these things actually exist in theory. To do so would be apostasy in the eyes of many. If the Quran permits crucifixion in certain circumstances, it is hard to say that crucifixion is unequivocally prohibited under Islam.

What more liberal scholars will do is say these things exist, but give a big list of qualifications for their enforcement making them almost impossible to actually implement, or redefining them in accordance with more modern norms. Many will also be said not to apply outside of a proper Caliphate. Very few will deny their existence though.

For example, apostasy will be redefined as akin to treason. Apostasy alone is not enough, you actually have to rebel against the state also.

Or that Slavery is not haram but it is disliked, and slaves can, in theory, only be taken during a legitimate jihad and that legitimate jihad could only be declared by the Prophet himself. So while it is not prohibited, the situation in which slavery can be revived can not exist.

Or that the Jizya, which was originally just war tribute from conquered peoples, is now the equivalent of income tax or the likes, or that amount of Jizya should be symbolic, such as 1 cent for the entire population, which is paid by the ruler himself.

Do you realize you just confirmed the point that both MM and I have been making? That Islam is a diverse set of ideas?

Islam is a set of ideas not a person. It is legitimate to be hostile to an ideology, we are all hostile to Naziism for example.

What a ridiculous comparison. Was there ever such a thing as "moderate Nazism"?

 

[Augustus]

Do you realize you just confirmed the point that both MM and I have been making? That Islam is a diverse set of ideas?

Err, if you actually read my posts, instead of jumping to the assumption that they are all anti-Islam screeds to be attacked, you would be realise that I am fully aware of that and that I see it as one main reason why Islamophobia is a stupid word.

Almost all of the people on this whole forum are equally aware of that as it hardly requires analytical subtlety to identify that it is true.

What a ridiculous comparison. Was there ever such a thing as "moderate Nazism"?

Again, I advise you to read my posts. And look for the context of that comment.

I am arguing that the word Islamophobia gives bigots multiple 'get out of jail free' cards to play.

It would be very hard to defend someone like Pamela Geller from a charge of anti-Muslim bigotry in a debate. It would be pretty easy to make at least a reasonable defence of a charge of Islamophobia though.

I have a fair deal of experience in the field of 'professional communication'. For someone who is not an Islamic apologist, but wants to call out unfair discrimination against Muslims and appeal to fair minded people, believe me, the one word you would be advised never to use is Islamophobia (apologists and anti-Muslims would be advised to highlight the term though). I know 'internet credentials' are worth precisely zero, but in my posts, I have provided plentiful reasoning why I believe this to be true.

You may choose not to believe me, but you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by defending it to the hilt.

A challenge for you:

It is better to call someone an Islamophobe than an anti-Muslim bigot because...

 

[nazz]

A challenge for you:

It is better to call someone an Islamophobe than an anti-Muslim bigot because...

It's not necessarily better to use one or the other although the word bigot does not capture the idea of irrational fear.

 

[Augustus]

It's not necessarily better to use one or the other although the word bigot does not capture the idea of irrational fear.

Your senseless focus on 'irrational fear' is precisely why you are going to fail in getting your point across effectively (if you absolutely must focus on irrational fear, then use the phrase 'irrational fear of Muslims' btw ).

Up to you though, if you don't get it by now you never will. Never mind.

Keep on trucking...

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, Magic Man, but you are simply not being true to what one can learn from, say, the Islam DIRs.

I would be shocked if the Islam DIRs say any of those things, aside from some Muslims saying that is their opinion.

 

[Magic Man]

So let's test this:

1. Islam holds the Qur'an to be the infallible, inerrant word of Allah.

2. The Qur'an calls for the hands of thieves to be amputated.

3. Islam calls for the hands of thieves to be amputated.

Now I've seen Muslims argue about this, whether or not the amputation is metaphorical for example, but to suggest that it has no basis in Islam, that teaching that Islam calls for amputation is, as you have said, "unequivocally false," is itself unequivocally false, and deceptive. And the same with your remaining examples.

You're still not getting the point that your interpretation of the Koran isn't Islam. It may be one version of Islam, and it may be shared by some Muslims, but unless it's shared by the vast majority of Muslims, at the least, it's not Islam. That's why the statements you posted are false.

 

[Augustus]

You're still not getting the point that your interpretation of the Koran isn't Islam.

No single interpretation is 'Islam'. All are Islam.

 

[gsa]

You're still not getting the point that your interpretation of the Koran isn't Islam. It may be one version of Islam, and it may be shared by some Muslims, but unless it's shared by the vast majority of Muslims, at the least, it's not Islam. That's why the statements you posted are false.

The birthplace of Islam and trustee of its holiest sites, Saudi Arabia, just announced they were killing a man today for denouncing Islam, his crime being apostasy (and blasphemy). According to you, this "isn't Islam," notwithstanding Saudi Arabia's stature and widespread support for this punishment within Islam, unless I can establish that it is shared by the "vast majority of Muslims." An absurd standard that would, applied to even less monolithic religions, render them nonexistent. The doctrine of transubstantiation? Not Christian. The doctrine of kamma/karma? Not Buddhist. And so on.

You just don't like the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to apply these draconian punishments within Islam. Your disagreement with reality does not justify repeated use of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would be shocked if the Islam DIRs say any of those things, aside from some Muslims saying that is their opinion.

Then brace yourself.

 

[YmirGF]

I would be shocked if the Islam DIRs say any of those things, aside from some Muslims saying that is their opinion.

Read it and weep.... it's all there. How could so many of these fine Muslims that we have on RF misunderstand Islam so badly?


If you want to be rocked rigid, check out some of the numerous "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" threads. They are truly eye openers that there is something terribly wrong with this theology.

 

[Magic Man]

The birthplace of Islam and trustee of its holiest sites, Saudi Arabia, just announced they were killing a man today for denouncing Islam, his crime being apostasy (and blasphemy). According to you, this "isn't Islam," notwithstanding Saudi Arabia's stature and widespread support for this punishment within Islam, unless I can establish that it is shared by the "vast majority of Muslims." An absurd standard that would, applied to even less monolithic religions, render them nonexistent. The doctrine of transubstantiation? Not Christian. The doctrine of kamma/karma? Not Buddhist. And so on.

You just don't like the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to apply these draconian punishments within Islam. Your disagreement with reality does not justify repeated use of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

I understand your emotional reaction here, but step back and look at it again. In what other context would you say something that covers so much ground is one particular way? Would you agree with "Movies are all about stupid humor"? How about "Europe is homophobic"?

I've been very clear to no avail, so I don't know how else to say it.

One country doesn't speak for all Islam. Two countries, even three, don't either. Just because some Muslims or one or a few Muslims states support one interpretation of the Koran doesn't mean "Islam" supports that. It means some Muslims support that. The bolded part is a strawman. Just because "Islam supports killing infidels" isn't correct doesn't mean certain tenets are not Muslim or Christian, etc. It only means that claiming something supported by some part of a large group isn't representative of the whole group. And yes, claiming "Islam" supports something is claiming that.

So, please spare me your ridiculous attempts to paint your silliness as reality. Take them to someone who is as blinded as you.

 

[Magic Man]

Read it and weep.... it's all there. How could so many of these fine Muslims that we have on RF misunderstand Islam so badly?


If you want to be rocked rigid, check out some of the numerous "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" threads. They are truly eye openers that there is something terribly wrong with this theology.

In other words, you missed the part about how I don't doubt some Muslims claim their version of Islam is "Islam". The Westboro Baptists Church claims its version of Christianity is "Christianity". That doesn't make it so. You'll have to do better than this.

 

[gsa]

I understand your emotional reaction here, but step back and look at it again. In what other context would you say something that covers so much ground is one particular way? Would you agree with "Movies are all about stupid humor"? How about "Europe is homophobic"?

I've been very clear to no avail, so I don't know how else to say it.

One country doesn't speak for all Islam. Two countries, even three, don't either. Just because some Muslims or one or a few Muslims states support one interpretation of the Koran doesn't mean "Islam" supports that. It means some Muslims support that. The bolded part is a strawman. Just because "Islam supports killing infidels" isn't correct doesn't mean certain tenets are not Muslim or Christian, etc. It only means that claiming something supported by some part of a large group isn't representative of the whole group. And yes, claiming "Islam" supports something is claiming that.

So, please spare me your ridiculous attempts to paint your silliness as reality. Take them to someone who is as blinded as you.

You apply this as well to "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Islam doesn't support X, Y or Z" claims, I assume?

Except you can't possibly, because you said "Islam doesn't support X" repeatedly. But this is simply the inverse of claiming "Islam supports X." It posits another monolith. Based on your construction of "Islam," it doesn't exist.

And no, claiming that apostasy is punishable by death in Islam is not claiming that punishment for apostasy is representative, in the sense of enjoying majority support (although it enjoys substantial support), any more than child marriage, execution of homosexuals, or any other morally abhorrent behaviors enjoy majority support.

 

[Magic Man]

You apply this as well to "Islam is a religion of peace" and "Islam doesn't support X, Y or Z" claims, I assume?

Of course.

Except you can't possibly, because you said "Islam doesn't support X" repeatedly.

No, I haven't.

And no, claiming that apostasy is punishable by death in Islam is not claiming that punishment for apostasy is representative, in the sense of enjoying majority support (although it enjoys substantial support), any more than child marriage, execution of homosexuals, or any other morally abhorrent behaviors enjoy majority support.

Yes, saying "Islam supports X" is saying exactly that: that that act or belief is representative of at least the majority of Muslims, if not the vast majority or all of them. I'm not sure how someone could even argue the opposite. It would be like arguing that "Grass is green" doesn't mean most or almost all grass is green.

 

[gsa]

Of course.



No, I haven't.

You said it was "unequivocally false to claim Islam supports" X, Y, Z, etc.
Unequivocally false means that it is clear and unambiguous, without any hint of doubt, that there is no support for killing apostates, to cite just one example. Yet millions of Muslims (hundreds of millions) disagree. A minority? Perhaps, but a substantial one. It certainly undermines any claim that this position is unambiguous.

Yes, saying "Islam supports X" is saying exactly that: that that act or belief is representative of at least the majority of Muslims, if not the vast majority or all of them. I'm not sure how someone could even argue the opposite. It would be like arguing that "Grass is green" doesn't mean most or almost all grass is green.

Islam is a religion. Religions have doctrines, teachings, and traditions. Abrahamic religions in particular have scriptures, which are deemed inerrant and infallible.

No one in this thread is claiming that "all Muslims support death for apostasy, the execution of homosexuals, the use of amputation and crucifixion" or anything else. What they are saying is that there is clear and unambiguous support for these things within the religion of Islam. There is no such clarity for the opposite claims, that there is no support for these positions within Islam.

 

[nazz]

You said it was "unequivocally false to claim Islam supports" X, Y, Z, etc.
Unequivocally false means that it is clear and unambiguous, without any hint of doubt, that there is no support for killing apostates, to cite just one example. Yet millions of Muslims (hundreds of millions) disagree. A minority? Perhaps, but a substantial one. It certainly undermines any claim that this position is unambiguous.





Islam is a religion. Religions have doctrines, teachings, and traditions. Abrahamic religions in particular have scriptures, which are deemed inerrant and infallible.

No one in this thread is claiming that "all Muslims support death for apostasy, the execution of homosexuals, the use of amputation and crucifixion" or anything else. What they are saying is that there is clear and unambiguous support for these things within the religion of Islam. There is no such clarity for the opposite claims, that there is no support for these positions within Islam.

you just don't get what we are even saying gsaseeker. Perhaps deliberately, I can't tell. Both MM and I have been very clear yet you keep throwing up strawman versions of what we are (not) saying.

 

[YmirGF]

In other words, you missed the part about how I don't doubt some Muslims claim their version of Islam is "Islam". The Westboro Baptists Church claims its version of Christianity is "Christianity". That doesn't make it so. You'll have to do better than this.

So, when are you going to break the news to these poor unfortunates that their vision of Islam collides with what you, a non-Muslim, thinks Islam is. You do realize that you are running smack into the no true scotsman fallacy, right? (No, you must realize that.) The point is that a common idea among Muslims is that only Allah can say who is a Muslim and who is not. Far be it for non-Muslims to be passing judgment on who is and who is not a true Muslim.

 

[YmirGF]

you just don't get what we are even saying gsaseeker. Perhaps deliberately, I can't tell. Both MM and I have been very clear yet you keep throwing up strawman versions of what we are (not) saying.

It seems that what you are saying is that as long as people are patting Muslims and Islam on their blessed little heads, extolling their virtues, however few, then all is well and good and one can generalize until the cows come home, but if one is being critical of Islam you better be very clear and very specific about who and what you are criticizing.