What is Islamophobia?

[Magic Man]

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.

OK, you're confusing the issue here. Saying "Islam supports X" is false doesn't mean no Muslims support X, and it doesn't mean "Islam doesn't support this". What it means is simply that the original statement isn't true. Islam neither supports nor opposes some things. Saying "Islam supports killing apostates" is false, but that doesn't make "Islam doesn't support killing apostates" true either. The best way to say it is that some Muslims support killing apostates, while others don't.

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.

Then say "There is support for death to apostates in Islam". There's nothing wrong with that. It's only when you state it as "Islam supports death to apostates" that you run into trouble.

 

[Magic Man]

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.)

Nope, you're not paying attention. I'm not saying they're not Muslims, and I'm not saying what they believe isn't Islam. I'm not trying to claim what "Islam is" either. That's what you and others are doing. I'm just pointing out that you can't do 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.

Indeed. Luckily I'm not doing that. All I'm doing is saying, regardless of what they say, they don't speak for all or most Muslims or Islam.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

That's actually not completely inaccurate (although a huge exaggeration). Ideally people will be accurate no matter what they're saying, but it's much more important to do it in this case when you're criticizing than when you're complimenting, since criticism here leads to bad things.

 

[YmirGF]

OK, you're confusing the issue here. Saying "Islam supports X" is false doesn't mean no Muslims support X, and it doesn't mean "Islam doesn't support this". What it means is simply that the original statement isn't true. Islam neither supports nor opposes some things. Saying "Islam supports killing apostates" is false, but that doesn't make "Islam doesn't support killing apostates" true either. The best way to say it is that some Muslims support killing apostates, while others don't.

And I would agree with this. Part of the difficulty in digging into the nether regions of Islam over the years has been in encountering a wide variety of opinions on almost everything. It's almost as if Muslims themselves don't really have clear ideas on many things which has led me to saying, "Don't like what one scholar says, shop around until you find own whose opinions are closer to your thinking." I suppose this is one of the pitfalls of not having an authorized clergy apparatus.

Then say "There is support for death to apostates in Islam". There's nothing wrong with that. It's only when you state it as "Islam supports death to apostates" that you run into trouble.

Again, I do agree with this as it really depends on who you are asking that will determine the answer you receive. For example, to say all four major Sunni schools of thought agree about death for apostasy is accurate, but one of the peculiarities in Islam is that the believer is under no compunction to abide by the rulings of these schools of thought. In light of that it is easy to see where people get confused.

 

[YmirGF]

That's actually not completely inaccurate (although a huge exaggeration). Ideally people will be accurate no matter what they're saying, but it's much more important to do it in this case when you're criticizing than when you're complimenting, since criticism here leads to bad things.

I do hear what you are saying... I think, and perhaps in some ways we do not really disagree. Islam is infinitely more complex than it appears at first glance. For me, one of the reasons I see it as a dangerous theocratic ideology is because so much in the source materials can be interpreted pretty well any way one wants to. That is a huge Achilles heel.

 

[Magic Man]

Islam is infinitely more complex than it appears at first glance.

Finally an "Islam is..." statement I can fully agree with.

For me, one of the reasons I see it as a dangerous theocratic ideology is because so much in the source materials can be interpreted pretty well any way one wants to. That is a huge Achilles heel.

This is the problem with most major organized religions. When you think of a text as holy or inerrant or a perfect guide for your life, especially one that's hundreds of years old, you run into this problem.

 

[YmirGF]

Finally an "Islam is..." statement I can fully agree with.

Well, at least we have come to some consensus.

This is the problem with most major organized religions. When you think of a text as holy or inerrant or a perfect guide for your life, especially one that's hundreds of years old, you run into this problem.

What exasperates this problem even more is when a given text is believed to be the word of god. Full stop. For example, think of how we judge Christians who tell us the Bible is the word of god. We see them as being a bit strange as the vast majority of Christians see the Bible as, written by men, who were inspired by god. There is a rather significant difference.

 

[nazz]

Well, at least we have come to some consensus.

Include me in the consensus.

What exasperates this problem even more is when a given text is believed to be the word of god. Full stop. For example, think of how we judge Christians who tell us the Bible is the word of god. We see them as being a bit strange as the vast majority of Christians see the Bible as, written by men, who were inspired by god. There is a rather significant difference.

Not to get off track but I don't know anyone who claims the Bible was literally written by God. The divide is between those who think it is the Word of God recorded by people and those who don't.

 

[YmirGF]

Include me in the consensus.


Not to get off track but I don't know anyone who claims the Bible was literally written by God. The divide is between those who think it is the Word of God recorded by people and those who don't.

Juxtapose that with the myriad of people who believe that Allah wrote the Qur'an. You won't have to go too far to find them. Hence the inherent difficulty.

 

[nazz]

Juxtapose that with the myriad of people who believe that Allah wrote the Qur'an. You won't have to go too far to find them. Hence the inherent difficulty.

Yes, it's an idea that creates a host of problems. Something I think all religions need to let go of.

 

[gsa]

Yes, it's an idea that creates a host of problems. Something I think all religions need to let go of.

That would be nice. Not on the horizon for Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Augustus]

The latest example that proves that 'Islamophobia' definitely isn't a politicised term used to stifle freedom of speech and legitimate concerns :

"Muslim Action Forum (MAF) has devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him. This strategy and campaign will have taken its first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100 000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world.
MAF intends to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system to establish that such depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of ‘Hate Crime’ that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide...

We would like for you to lobby your MP and all Political Party candidates standing for general election on 7th May 2015 and ask the following three questions:

1. Do you think that the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended to include under ‘hate crime’ any malicious depiction of images and use of malevolent language against revered personalities of all religions?
   
   
2. Do you think that Islamophobia should be a culpable offence?..."
   
   
   http://www.muslimactionforum.com/Press_Release_8thFeb.pdf
   
   Remember Muslims are already protected under the same hate speech/hate crime laws as everybody else in society, yet some wish 'Islamophobia' (i.e. people saying stuff we don't really like or want to deal with) should be a special crime and are carrying out an organised campaign to try to make it so.
   
   Yet some people will still insist that it is a valuable addition to our lexicon...