The expression "Islamophobia" to describe anti-Muslim hostility in Europe and North America is becoming increasingly common. Even though the use of this expression is still not quite as trendy as a Lady Gaga song, one can already find numerous books, articles and websites that expound on the phenomenon of "Islamophobia". The views on "Islamophobia" are quite diverse, ranging from people on one end of the spectrum who do not believe that there is any significant anti-Muslim hostility in Europe and North America and no need for the term "Islamophobia", to those on the other end of the spectrum who frequently invoke the term "Islamophobia" to describe perceived hostility towards Muslims or Islam.
During the last few months at least three books on the topic of "Islamophobia" have been published by academics and scholars: Islamophobia: The Ideological Campaign Against Muslims by Stephen Sheehi, Islamophobia by Chris Allen and Islamophobia: The Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century edited by John L. Esposito and Ibrahim Kalin. These books discuss a variety of topics related to the phenomenon of "Islamophobia", such as its various manifestations in politics and the mass media, its historical roots and development, the overlap of "Islamophobia" with racism and how "Islamophobia" relates to colonialism and imperialism. The actual definition of "Islamophobia" is not discussed in much detail. Most of these books use the term "Islamophobia" to describe various types of fear, prejudice, discrimination or hostility directed against Islam and Muslims, in part basing this vague definition of "Islamophobia" on the 1997 report of the Runnymede Trust in the U.K., which was one of the first documents to use the actual expression "Islamophobia". Chris Allen's book devotes one whole chapter to develop a new definition for "Islamophobia", but even the proposed new definition of "Islamophobia" remains understandably vague, since the numerous manifestations of prejudice cannot be easily captured in a short definition.
While so many examples of what constitutes "Islamophobia" are presented, little effort is devoted to clarifying what does not constitute "Islamophobia". As the widespread usage of the expression "Islamophobia" is increasing, the danger of a vague and broad definition becomes apparent. Without a reasonable effort to delineate what is and what is not "Islamophobia", this term could be easily used to stigmatize or suppress legitimate criticisms of Muslim society, culture or theology. Not every rejected mosque building permit is necessarily a form of anti-Muslim discrimination, not every criticism of Muslim society, culture or religion is necessarily a manifestation of an "Islamophobic agenda". Academic scholars that use the expression "Islamophobia" are likely aware of the need to use this term in a narrow sense, so that it refers to true prejudice or hostility towards Muslims and is not abused to suppress legitimate critical views of Muslim society, culture or theology. However, for the expression "Islamophobia" (or any other expression that describes anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility) to be used in a meaningful manner by the wider public, there is a need to clearly formulate what does not constitute "Islamophobia".
In addition to the vagueness of the "Islamophobia" expression, another troubling aspect of this neologism is the fact that it invokes the psychiatric concept of "phobia". Phobias fall under the category of anxiety disorders and describe pathological fears; while many know the term from the infamous expression "arachnophobia" (pathological fear of spiders), many different types of phobias have been observed in patients. The standard manual of the American Psychiatric Association is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-TR) and refers to "Specific Phobia" as a,
"Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood)."
There are additional criteria that characterize a phobia, but I find the following one extremely interesting: "The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable for discussing the term."
This is quite important since not every fear is automatically a "phobia"; the psychiatric term "phobia" is reserved for cases when the fear is excessive or unreasonable. If the patient does not recognize the fear as excessive or unreasonable, it becomes very difficult to actually prove that the fear is indeed excessive and unreasonable and thus the term "phobia" is not applicable. When neologisms with the word "phobia" are formed, this requirement should be considered. I myself use the term "porkophobia" to describe my own ridiculous and unreasonable dislike of pig products that by far exceeds any religious prescriptions. My understanding is that most people who are accused of having "Islamophobia" do not really think that their fears are excessive and unreasonable. Therefore, anti-Muslim fears, hostility or prejudice do not really constitute a "phobia" in the psychiatric sense and thus the use of the neologism "Islamophobia" may need to be re-evaluated.
Lastly, I have encountered multiple Muslims who have likened present-day "Islamophobia" in Europe and North America to Anti-Semitism. My obvious response is that this is an absurd comparison since European Anti-Semitism resulted in the murder of millions of Jews in concentration camps and death camps during the Holocaust while no such camps were ever built to murder Muslims. The counter-response I have then gotten is that present-day "Islamophobia" may be similar to the pre-Holocaust Anti-Semitism in Europe. However, even this comparison contains a number of key flaws. A thoughtful analysis of this comparison can be found in Matti Bunzl's book "Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe", which points out that there are some parallels between "Islamophobia" and Anti-Semitism in Europe, such as the fact that the far-right political parties have traditionally used Anti-Semitism as a means of creating a unified base of voters, but that these far-right parties are now replacing Anti-Semitism with anti-Muslim hostility to achieve that same goal. However, Bunzl goes on to show how different the roots and development of Anti-Semitism and "Islamophobia" are. Importantly, he suggests that Anti-Semitism developed as a form of racial hatred of Jews in the 19th century, but that it had been preceded by centuries of Jewish persecution by Christians on religious grounds. On the other hand, Bunzl proposes that present-day "Islamophobia" is neither a true theological hostility nor a racial hatred like Anti-Semitism, but instead represents a perceived clash of civilizations.
In conclusion, the increasingly common usage of the expression "Islamophobia" requires a thoughtful and clear definition of what does and does not constitute anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility, a re-evaluation of whether "Islamophobia" is truly the most appropriate term to describe such perceived anti-Muslim prejudice and hostility and an avoidance of inappropriate blanket comparisons between anti-Muslim hostility and Anti-Semitism.
Islamophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem? - TIME
TheReligionofPeace.com - Islamophobia: Exposing the Islamophobes
Islamophobia has several roots; anti-immigrant, racism, and religious bigotry. Many people tend to view Muslims as a race although it's not. Many view Muslims as the "other," as if Muslim and American don't overlap on a Venn diagram. Lastly, some (hopefully small) number of people just view Islam as somehow competing with or offensive to their religion; once a Christian yelled at me for "lowering" Jesus to being "only a prophet," although I disagreed with her.
-As towercrane so aptly put it ""Islamophobia", this term could be easily used to stigmatize or suppress legitimate criticisms of Muslim society, culture or theology."
From all I read, it appears that this is exactly what Islam wishes to to all other religions. Here is a religion that decries any criticism of its mores, doctrines, and leaders as a capital offense claiming they are being unjustly criticized by those who believe they are wrong. It is the sheer intolerance endemic to that religion and its immutable absolutism that engenders such virulent opposition to it."
From all I read, it appears that this is exactly what Islam wishes to to all other religions. Here is a religion that decries any criticism of its mores, doctrines, and leaders as a capital offense claiming they are being unjustly criticized by those who believe they are wrong. It is the sheer intolerance endemic to that religion and its immutable absolutism that engenders such virulent opposition to it.
@ Avirahim,
ADDITIONAL LINKS
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghayasuddin_Siddiqui
"The Satanic Verses controversy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
--------------------------------
British Muslims for Secular Democracy (group)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Muslims_for_Secular_Democracy
british mulsims for secular democracy (website)
http://www.bmsd.org.uk/
-----------------------------------
"Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia"
( a group that Dr. Siddiqui is involved with)
http://www.aauk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=38
-------------------------------------
Islamic Sharia Council, UK
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/
-----------------------------------------
Anjem Choudary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary
Islam4UK
Islam4UKhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam4UK
Islam4UK website could not be found.
See this link:
http://www.webcitation.org/5mjjwYVAA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Avirahim......
Sorry it took two (2) comment posts but it's a big topic. --BB
@ Avirahim
re: your prior post on 3/24 about Dr. Siddiqui and other questions:
Hi Avirahim.........
Dr. Siddiqui is a trustee of "British Muslims for a Secular Democracy" However he has never publically renounced his support of Ayatollah R. Khomeini's fatwa against Salam Rushdie (author of the "Satanic Verses")
In the UK, in addition to Muslims and Muslim groups that might be acceptable to "the West" there are other groups that appear to be very dangerous to a free society. Among these are Islam4UK and it's founder Anjem Choudray.
"Anjem Choudary talks of 7.7"
(7.7 = a terrorist attack in the UK)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2KVw
It's not as if people can dismiss Choudary or his ilk as being "harmless nutters". After all they also have gone against (declared a fatwa on) Geert Wilders.
I'm sure that Choudray and people like Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed are not in agreement with Dr. Siddiqui regarding Islam and secular democracies.
Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, (president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Great Britain)
FATWA: "'Rape' is impossible in marriage. Because...."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320815/Sheikh-Maulana-Abu-Sayeed-UK-sharia-law-leader-says-theres-thing-rape-marriage.html
How do you square an Islamic marriage contract with the above fatwa?
Fatwa is an opinion and if it is wrong it can be, ignored or, even debated and changed.
The article clearly states that other Muslim leaders disagreed with him.
"A senior Muslim cleric has been condemned by police and other Muslim leaders for claiming that there is no such thing as rape within marriage."
And, the there is this part, Sharia is superseded by British civil and criminal laws.
"IN March 2007, Schlafly said in a speech at Bates College, "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."[23]" Wikipedia - Phyliss Schlafly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly
Islam suffers from its inability to receive criticism. Islam not only requires criticism over legitimate concerns, but it requires criticism for the sake of receiving criticism—to acclimatize itself to conversational pressure. This requires the effort of both Muslims and Non-Muslims. Indeed, many Liberal Islamic scholars are at the forefront of this, attempting to show the world that Islam can receive the necessary conversational pressure to enable its acceptance in the ‘Western World’. Unfortunately, this is often countered by ultra-conservative Muslims throwing their toys out the pram, or the PC Brigade screaming “Islamophobia!!!”– neither of which is particularly helpful.
This should not be confused—but commonly is—with those who exhibit hostility towards Muslims, and believe a Taliban-style Sharia is imminent in America. These halfwits are a problem, and we need to deal with them. But prohibiting criticism of Islam is not the answer, nor is hurling “Islamophobia” in the wrong direction. We need to be careful with this word.
I would also agree that the word itself is rather inept; it doesn’t describe the real problem we face with anti-Muslim sentiment inflaming across America, and, worse, it inadvertently spreads to legitimate areas of concern.
"Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, has said that principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system. But how does the sharia system work and fit into society?
What is Sharia?
Sharia law is Islam's legal system. It is derived from both the Koran, as the word of God, the example of the life of the prophet Muhammad, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars.
But Sharia differs in one very important and significant way to the legal traditions of the Western world: it governs, or at least informs, every aspect of the life of a Muslim.
What does it cover?
Western law confines itself largely to matters relating to crime, contract, civil relationships and individual rights.
Sharia is however concerned with more. Sharia rulings have been developed to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to God's wishes. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7234870.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
The concluding paragraphs are particularly noteworthy:
"The demand for the abolition of sharia courts in Britain, as elsewhere, is not an attack on people's right to religion; it is a defence of human rights, especially since the imposition of sharia courts is a demand of Islamism to restrict citizens' rights.
"Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and parallel legal systems. To safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts."”
Well it would seem, since the Archbishop of Cantebury and the Lord Chief Justice have tried to help integrate Sharia, they are trying to integrate it more into the U.K.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was criticised earlier this year when he called for greater recognition of Sharia in British civil legislature, a view that was echoed recently by the Lord Chief Justice Phillips.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/22006/muslim-marriage-contract-shariah
"I resist the spread in America of the brand of Islam defined by present Sharia law. My father resisted the spread of Communism and German Fascism."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jan_Allen_McDaniel/islamophobia-is-not-a-pho_b_839165_81860031.html
Sharia law poses no challange or alternative to our freedoms, but, it seems to bring out the fearful and ignorant Islamophobic bigots.
It has already started, it started long ago, it started with one of the more bizarre pairs of bedfellows ever: the European and American Left lying together with the amazingly illiberal social/political/religious phenomenon known as 'Islam'.
Perhaps now liberals can now stop using the term as a knee-jerk response to the calls to end the moral and cultural relativism in the discourse on Islam.
Being a liberal does not mean accepting anything for fear of hurting someone's feelings or criticizing someone's culture. The attitude that we must simply accept everything is as harmful as bigotry.
This is the reason I, as a former Catholic, reject all religions and their extremist views, because they go hand in hand and the members of those religions seem content to criticize the others while circling the wagons when they feel their religion is under attack.
The only question open is whether the people who use the gimmick are hyper-sensitive to the point of irrationality, or just devious.