Sunday, April 13, 2008

Why NOT Islamaphobia?


I have lamented many a time on what I perceive to be a subconscious and somewhat intentional misuse of terminology from various special interest groups trying their best to convey a weak argument. When they have found themselves losing ground they tend to initiate the only tactic they have left in their arsenal. "Let's call them names that will guilt them into silence and hopefully they will feel shameful over their intolerant views that should dam well agree with ours!"

It has clearly become a world full of "ism's" and "phobia's". Many often not applicable under their circumstances. Someone disagrees with a particular ethnic policy and they are accused of racism clearly where none has been exercised or even remotely demonstrated. Another disagrees with a sexual orientation and are accused of having a "phobia" where no "fear" has been demonstrated. Many of these terms are absorbed and sucked up by the mainstream and gullible of society with the repetitive use thru media. Like these "terms" are somehow actually applicable in the circumstances when , when one takes the time to look up the actual definition of the word, you would soon discover that the use of the word was completely misappropriated.

However there is one word I have not yet addressed in my past rants that I find is quite an appropriate word for the times. That is Islamaphobia. Phobia, by definition, is to "have a fear of" and Islam is self explanatory. The word then defined means to have a fear of Islam. Or Muslims, those who practice the religion of Islam. Quite often when more conservative media exposes Islam in a bad light it is liberal media and many Muslims themselves that will often cry foul and before one knows it the term "Islamaphobia" is being thrown about.

I have pondered the word and asked myself the same question I ask when I hear similar "ism's" and "phobia's" thrown about. That is, "Is it applicable under the circumstances?" It is a fair question. After all, if one is going to engage in a name calling match I would think they should also be obligated to display a level of intellect that demonstrates they are using terminology that defines and even justifies the "accusation" and not just mudslinging by sloppily throwing out non applicable terminology in hopes of beating their opponent into the proverbial guilt submission hold.

The typical scenario that often lends itself to the accusation of one demonstrating Islamaphobia comes about when someone or group points out a refute or negative about the Muslim religion. It often begins when those practicing the "Religion of Peace" are demonstrating it by blowing themselves up along with innocent women and children. Naturally condemnation from those outside Islam follows yet we are often told not too "judge" all Muslims because of the actions of a few. The "few" is easily arguable. Just follow the news on a daily basis and you will quickly see the reality is actually the "many".

But there are two distinct trends here that have me thinking otherwise. First would be the lack of response by the "moderate" Muslim. That would be those who have come to North America to escape, as they claim, the brutality of their homelands where Islam is quite often more violent then peaceful. The "Moderates" are supposedly in disagreement with the actions of their brothers and sisters overseas by proclaiming that they are in fact a "peaceful religion" yet they are strangely silent when it comes to the continuous onslaught of violence. Not just in concentrated areas but what is becoming worldwide.

When 9/11 happened this was an opportunity for "peaceful" Muslims to demonstrate to the rest of western civilisation just how "offended" they were by the actions of those claiming to be practicing Muslims.

Yet there was an eerie silence and a more defensive attitude coming from the "moderate". Devout muslim and news columinist Salim Mansur took notice of this "condoning silence" and noted:



"Those involved in the planning and execution of such terror are immigrants or born of immigrant parents belonging to the rapidly growing Muslim population in the West over the past 40 years. I happen to be a part of this wave of immigration to the West.
This western Muslim population, with its ethnic diversity reflecting the vastness of the Arab-Muslim world -- stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa -- could have given some timely ballast to multiculturalism by unambiguously and unapologetically defending the West against barbarity.

This was the minimum Muslims in the West owed to the civilization where they sought refuge, and where they found security, prosperity, freedom and self-fulfillment of the like denied them in their native lands. Instead Muslim-based organizations, at first having offered denial, followed with an unending volume of polemics condemning the West for past sins. By exploiting the West's post-colonial guilt they held it responsible for the conditions in the Arab-Muslim world that breeds the politics of terrorism."

Oddly enough they are silent on the other issue's as well. While they want to introduce Sharia law in the Canadian Province of Ontario (sorry folks, go back to the homeland if you don't like it here) they were silent on the moral issue's such as abortion, adultery, and same sex marriage. While their own religious liberties that they had come to enjoy were at stake over here and would be cause for an "honor" killing in the homeland they had nothing moderate to say about it in North America. The silence left an impression of condolence. Moderate Muslims are no more then liberal mainstream church goers (Not Christians BTW) who embrace and bless all kinds of sin.

Yet I am not convinced that is the reason for their silence. If Sharia law was to be enacted, the very moral issue's would be dealt with. With the same ferocity of the timeless homeland form of justice. This could explain their silence on such matters thus far.

If this is the case then I would suggest there is much to fear. With good reason I might add. That would, under the true definition of the word, qualify me as an Islamaphobe.

Until next time...

(I will address the 2nd trend in my following post)






14 comments:

Anonymous said...

TIO,

Welcome back ;-)

I do not fear Islam. I do think I need to keep an eye out for some of the nuts that come from the world of Islam that are highly motivated to cause as much indiscriminant pain, suffering, and death as possible. To attribute the nuts that come from the world of Islam to the religion is as inappropriate as attributing the nuts that come from the world of Christians to Christianity.

Atheists are always attributing war to religion, but in reality they should be attributing the wars to people. Religion, like economics, racism, historic events, scarcity of resources, etc. are just the mechanisms used by leaders to motivate people to action. Desperate people will do desperate things. Leaders throughout history have known this.

Many people do carelessly and inappropriately throw around slurs suffixed with ism or phobia. But it is not intended to shame one into proper behaviour.
- On a personal level it is to strike out in anger to relieve one's frustration caused by their inability to convert the thoughts of others using reason and logic. In other words, they are using force. It is a last ditch effort in the blogosphere.
- On the economic level it is the primary mechanism used by the entertainment industry (ESPECIALLY INCLUDING THE PRESS) to motivate viewers / readers (which generates advertizing revenue).

Concerning what battles they (Islamic peoples) decide to pursue, it is strictly an individual decision. Perhaps one wants them to fight certain battles like abortion or women's rights, but they must each make their own choices. Perhaps they are influenced by fellow Islamists and their religious leaders, but it comes down to personal choice.

Fear does not abound. It is only in the minds of humans. Do you remember being scared in the dark? It was only in your mind...

Don't go phobic TIO...

Q

Falling on a bruise said...

It is lazy to just label someone as having some kind of phobia if they disagree with a point of view but it happens all the time. Most of the time it is to force the other person onto the defensive but that really is for people with weak arguments to start with.
I can't speak for Canadian Muslims but i know the British Muslims came out very strongly straight away against the 9/11 attackers, probably to try and limit the expected resentment against them.

The Intolerant One said...

Q,

Welcome back ;-)

Thanks bro. Good to be back. I had a hundred things I wanted to blog about in March and absolutely no time. I am finding I have less and less time for this thing but I enjoy connecting with you folks every now and again.

I do not fear Islam.

Nor do I. I hope you understand the point of this post is more a cause for concern. The killing going on in the name of Islam is widespread and when the moderates have nothing to say on the matter it is only natural that it would begin to arouse suspicions. Some would say that is a form of racial profiling. However, like Christians, it is no secret that not all Muslims are from the same ethinic background.

To attribute the nuts that come from the world of Islam to the religion is as inappropriate as attributing the nuts that come from the world of Christians to Christianity.

I agree to a certain extent but not entirely. Christian “wing nut’s” have a tendency to be concentrated within their own commune/cult and often end up hurting (and sometimes killing) themselves and those who followed their deceptive teachings. The radical militant Muslims are quite the opposite extreme. Killing everyone who will not submit to allah. They are fierce, wicked, and cruel. Their violence is widespread.

Not to mention that they are cowardly. No one can attribute other sects and cults of walking into mini malls or school buses full of innocent women and children and blowing themselves and everyone else up. Their motivation? The promise of 20 to 50 to 72 virgins? Are they doing it for allah? Seems they re motivated by their penises as opposed to their faith.

Atheists are always attributing war to religion, but in reality they should be attributing the wars to people.

just like people kill people not the guns themselves :) Atheist’s also conveniently forget that Stalin was an atheist.

But it is not intended to shame one into proper behaviour.

I would respectfully disagree. I have seen these terms consistently over used and abused in the calmest of demeanors. It is a form of one side saying “Your entitled to your opinion your just not allowed to express it because it interferes with our agenda” If you choose to speak out, well, you know where it leads.

It is a last ditch effort in the blogosphere.

Try living in Canada where it is a daily ritual in just about every media outlet.

Don't go phobic TIO...

LOL, Don’t worry Q. I have a legitimate concern regarding today’s world involving Islam and more then anything am messing around with the lingo and stirring it up it a bit.

Christ is King and I know how it is all going to end.

The Intolerant One said...

Lucy,

It is lazy to just label someone as having some kind of phobia if they disagree with a point of view but it happens all the time.

Amen to that sister :)

Most of the time it is to force the other person onto the defensive but that really is for people with weak arguments to start with.

Yikes! Two “Amen’s” in a row! Did you become a “Righty” while I was away?

probably to try and limit the expected resentment against them.

Was that their sole motivation or did they actually share a legitimate disdain for the actions of those killing in the name of their god? I admit I am questioning the not just the silence on this side but the response on your side of the planet. If there is a serious cause for concern regarding the future of Islam in the world then Islamaphobia might be healthy attitude to adopt. What I mean by that is a healthy “fear” in the sense of a precautionary measure. Not an attitude of “hate” everyone and anyone who is muslim. That is not my understanding of any “Phobia”.

If someone literally hates someone then they are “hateful” not “phobic”.

iMuslim said...

Hey TIO!

You are back, and with a vengeance it seems... ;)

I have little opinion about the accuracy of the word 'Islamophobia' - but whether you like it or not, prejudice against Muslims does exist, though how widespread it is depends on where you live exactly (and how much TV you watch). It is understandable considering current World events, but not acceptable.

Some statements which I found completely inaccurate:

"Naturally condemnation from those outside Islam follows yet we are often told not too "judge" all Muslims because of the actions of a few. The "few" is easily arguable. Just follow the news on a daily basis and you will quickly see the reality is actually the "many"."

There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the World TIO; one.point.five. Are you telling me that most of us are terrorists or linked to terrorist activity? Please! Exaggeration, much? A recent Gallop poll reveals that the vast majority of the world's Muslims are "moderate".

"First would be the lack of response by the "moderate" Muslim."

Now how exactly are we meant to respond? Oh right, we should transmit regular announcements on all those major newspapers and TV stations we own in the West, y'know, like Fox News... c'mon man! Muslims (whatever label you want to give them, and personally, I hate the term "moderate") do their fair share of condemnation. But why should we have to answer for a minority that did not consult us on their immoral actions in the first place? We are not collectively responsible in terms of guilt.

But if you want a response, then how about 20,000 Indian Muslim scholars denouncing terrorism at a recent conference?

Or a well respected scholar reading out a letter to Osama bin Laden on NBC news last year.

Or a whole bunch of other condemnations made by important figures in the Muslim community that can be found listed here, and here.

And funnily enough, these people aren't even "moderates" as some would interpret the word to mean (which I find usually translates as "secular", which is why I don't favour it). These are well educated, practising Muslim scholars. Now if the scholars of Islam are condemning terrorism, then how can anyone call terrorism "Islamic"? No such thing, mate.

While they want to introduce Sharia law in the Canadian Province of Ontario

If this is referring to the case I think you mean, then again, a complete exaggeration. As far as I remember, it was to do with allowing Islamic courts to arbitrate in family law cases on a voluntary basis. In the UK, we have the Beth Din, which is a Jewish court that does the same thing. Please stop making out that Sharia is coming to attack us all, like some kind of second rate, B-movie monster! :)

they were silent on the moral issue's such as abortion, adultery, and same sex marriage

I know these things are spoken out against within the Muslim community, but I do agree that we rarely preach to the non-Muslim majority on such matters. Though I am aware of Muslim and multi-faith initiatives that work to improve local communities, such as by feeding the homeless, etc.

To be honest, most Muslim "preachers", concentrate first on educating people on the core message of Islam, which is the oneness of God Almighty. This is because morality in Islam is based upon God's guidance - if someone doesn't believe in God, or Islam, then why would they accept our sense of morality?

Some crimes such as murder, rape, theft, etc., are considered wrong on a universal basis. But other subjects, such as homosexuality and abortion are not considered incorrect in today's society, except by certain religionists. In addition, abortion in Islam is not strictly prohibited (though it is not encouraged either). It is allowed in certain extreme circumstances, such as if the mother's life is in danger.

That would be those who have come to North America to escape, as they claim, the brutality of their homelands where Islam is quite often more violent then peaceful.

Some may be political refugees, but most Muslim immigrants to the West came here for one reason: to earn money, to support their families. And why not, if they are doing it honestly?
Plus many of today's Western Muslims are born in the West; if you are born in the West, the West is your home, and you have a right to speak out against it if you see it is doing something wrong - whatever your religious persuasion - and of course, to support it when it is doing something right. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim majority countries often mentioned in the news are not our responsibility, except perhaps in the sense of charity, and emergency disaster relief. We have to clean up our own back yard first, before we start criticising those abroad. Y'know, people in glass houses, etc.

Anyway, I better stop writing before I turn this into a blog post! I haven't even written this much on my own blog in the last few weeks. :D

Take care,

iM

P.S., Lucy "i know the British Muslims came out very strongly straight away against the 9/11 attackers, probably to try and limit the expected resentment against them." - or perhaps because we were just as disgusted by the events as the rest of the country?

Nog said...

-1st. I might be one of 20 folks on the planet to openly say that the religions (or more often the lack thereof) of candidates are a prime factor in my voting. I won't vote for a divorced man on principle.

The religion of a man reflects his reason. I don't pretend to know what anyone does believe but I can generally get a good idea of what they don't. I don't know if John McCain or Rudi Giuliani are a Satan worshipers but I do know that they aren't Christians (Mat 5:31-32 & 19:3-9, John 4:16-21).

I disapprove of Islam as a religion (obviously, I'm not a Muslim). I don't know what Mohamed did believe but I know (because he participated in armed conflict) that he didn't have a great appreciation for peace. His biography is filled with too many battles for me to buy any story about the fellow founding a religion of peace. If the man preached peace it certainly seems as though he never bothered to practice it.

But we musn't make the flaws in others an excuse to ignore our own faults. If I may defer to a work of the "Western Canon", On Cannibals by Michel de Montaigne:

I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; more barbarity lacerating by rack and torture a body still fully able to feel things, in roasting him little by little and having him bruised and bitten by pigs and dogs (as we have not only read about but seen in recent memory, not among enemies in antiquity but among our fellow-citizens and neighbors - and what is worst, in the name of duty and religion) than in roasting and eating him after his death.

Perhaps this is a bit dated. We haven't had an inquisition in a while. And I'd definitely rate the West better and more noble than whatever other civilizations (or lack thereof) one might care to mention.

Though I disapprove of Islam, I'm of the understanding (from my very limited knowledge of the issue) that Sharia in many contexts can function as more or less secular legal code in some contexts in the same way that Roman or Common Law does.

In this respect, I might not object to the binding use of this legal system in civil cases where the relevant parties agree to its usage.

-2nd. Anyone who thinks he can nail Christians or Texans for the Crusades or the massacres in Western colonies or the War in Iraq or Abu Graib or Guantanamo is an ignorant bigot. I'm a Texan, I'm proud of it, and I'm damned well never going to apologize to anyone for anything any Bush has ever done (even though most Texans have voted for him on several occasions). Those Bushes are Yanks anyways, not real Texans.

I have no intention of ever apologizing to anyone for the massacres of the Crusaders. These Christians massacred innocent women and children but I'll definitely accuse you of Christianophobia if you judge all Christians because of the actions of a few even though The "few" is easily arguable.

-Okay, so I'm exaggerating in great excess and being quite sarcastic and tongue-and-cheek. My points still stand. Sometimes, though it might not be the most substantive response, it's alright to toss out an "ism" or "phobia". And perhaps alternative legal systems might not be so appalling after all.

Falling on a bruise said...

The Muslims were as disgusted as everyone else imuslim but we both know that the reaction had to be swift and strong because there was an almighty and ugly backlash looming on the horizon.

The Intolerant One said...

Hi iM,

I admit that I was anticipating your response. Your contribution to this particular post is good to have.

You are back, and with a vengeance it seems... ;)

LOL I will take that as a compliment???

Yes, I can see how the post comes across as "generalized" but I am actually digging at something deeper here and I could not put it all into words.

I have little opinion about the accuracy of the word 'Islamophobia'

You are entitled to it of course. However opinions do not and should not redefine the word. Your opinion does not change the true definition of it's meaning. This is what I often address in some of posts when it comes to "phobias".

but whether you like it or not, prejudice against Muslims does exist

Agreed but that does not make it "Islamaphobia". The prejudice is either racist or religious intolerance or both. But not a "phobia". I have a very deep concern regarding what appears to be the world wide direction your religion is heading. A cause for concern. Although I am not "fearful" in the sense of the word I am cautious. This can be interpreted as fear to some and thereby under the definition that would qualify as an Islamaphobe.

It is not due to racial or even religious intolerance. Which, as I just explained, is how the word is often misused. I say call it what it is.

though how widespread it is depends on where you live exactly (and how much TV you watch).

I will be addressing that portion in my second part. BTW, by choice I have no cable/satellite so Aside from local news and the internet the only TV I watch is DVD's.

It is understandable considering current World events, but not acceptable.

The racism and religious intolerance I will give you. But Islamic terrorists worldwide, with their constant non stop threats, have worked hard at instilling the fear into the populace on behalf of allah. Islamaphobia (again under the appropriate definition) is well justified.

There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the World TIO; one.point.five. Are you telling me that most of us are terrorists or linked to terrorist activity?

Are you telling me more of you cannot speak out? If these wack jobs are truly misrepresenting your god then where is the passion and the zeal that the rest of the world witness's over the publications of some cartoons? Does allah condone their gutless actions? If not how come no one from the Muslim community has outright condemned them. Not their actions, THEM?

Oh right, we should transmit regular announcements on all those major newspapers and TV stations we own in the West, y'know, like Fox News...

Actually Muslims are well entrenched over here so that should not be much of a problem. AND I can guarantee you that Fox would be all over having a Muslim or ten otr twenty on their programming publicly denouncing not just the activities of the terrorists (any body can do that) but publicly rebuking their them as an insult to allah. This I have yet to see or hear. By that I mean a Muslim group that will go public and expose them as false followers of Islam.

We are not collectively responsible in terms of guilt.

Good and fair point. I concede that one.

Or a well respected scholar reading out a letter to Osama bin Laden on NBC news last year.

I read this and going by Osama's continuous defiance and bloodshed over the years I really had a problem with Salman al-Oadah's reference to him as "brother". Tell me, by calling him brother is Osama still recognized as a fellow Muslim? Salaman also asks him "Are you happy to meet Allah with this heavy burden on your shoulders?". "Happy to meet..." infers he will still be welcomed??? Is it presumed Osama is still somehow a Muslim, even though he disgraces the name of his god? Or does he disgrace him at all. After all, he is eradicating the land of the infidel. He will still face allah only with a heavy burden while the "infidel's" will burn? I beg to differ but I think Osama has guaranteed himself a one way ticket directly into the arms of Satan and the fires of Hell.

I just do not understand how he can call this man "brother". Again, it has me questioning true intentions. In the Christians world if a man calls himself a follower of Christ yet continues in unremorseful wickedness such as killing innocents, he is publicly rebuked and cut off from the church, certainly not recognized as a brother. His actions declare otherwise. To accept him as a brother is too insult God.


You also keep pointing to what scholars are saying but what about your clerics and Imams? My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that most have declared a holy jihad against the infidels of the world. Is this true? Is it true also that when this particular command is given that Muslims who then kill an infidel secure themselves a place in Heaven? (I mean no insult I am being inquisitive and open to learning)

If it is indeed true what then, or who, exactly is the "infidel"? What is the definition?

If this is referring to the case I think you mean, then again, a complete exaggeration. As far as I remember, it was to do with allowing Islamic courts to arbitrate in family law cases on a voluntary basis.

My opinions are strong on this one and to be fair they would go with any other cultural/religious arbitration. You are free to live in my country and practice your faith with what should be zero discrimination. However, if you do not like the laws of our land and how we deal with things then go back to where you came from. Our country should not have to accommodate your home land traditions, or laws for that matter, the immigrant should have to get used to ours. We are all expected to adhere to the laws of the land in what ever country we visit and it should be no different here.

I send you sincere blessings

Your ever intolerant infidel TIO ;)

Anonymous said...

TIo,

Double bingo on the gun :)

Q

Anonymous said...

A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own (see bigotry). Such is written in stone in wikipedia (Sarcasm off).

I first learned of bigotry the same time everyone else did, when I was a child. It's true that children often emulate bigoted adult "role models", but to the greater extent, they come up with bigotry on their own. To this day I can still hear the ignorant, hateful, simplistic taunting of my childhood, and I shudder.

As we all learned when we were young, the halmark of bigotry is name-calling. The goal is to dehumanize and devalue the PERSON OR GROUP rather than rationally address and cope with differences that irritates said bigot. Labeling the opposition as inferior (by way of "diagnosing" someone with a mental illness)is a classic example of name-calling. Screw addressing the issue ("I might not win that way"), I'll try to take the @$$ #0!# out instead!

Labeling maybe seen as a form of ad hominum attack and there for a sign of a weak argument, but I really think it's a sign of an immature mind. The inaccurate use of labels as TIO has addressed is therefore not just a sign of weakness in debate, but is actually a sign of bigotry and immaturity.

People tend to grow up when they honestly look at their own behavior and see room for improvement and learn to honor others. The resulting maturity and civility staves off bigotry. But of course, only conservatives can be bigots. There for the board remains firmly implanted in the liberal's eye.

Long Rider

PS I just reread the definition above and realized it might seem as though I'm calling The Intolerant One a bigot. Rest assured I'm not. The man obviously has a mature mind!

The Intolerant One said...

Long Rider,

Thank you for your well thought out input.

I did in fact read your comment the way you intended.

Nog said...

Ye,
Perhaps I try to deal with a simpler subject with an overcomplex ethereal means.

The one real question I always ask on these things is: "If X is true, how would that affect actual choices?"

In this case I see it having two major effects: 1) the members of those groups claiming discrimination or levying charges of racism will, quite ironically, be (insofar as dealing with them involves increased liability) rationally prejudiced in individual interactions at a much higher rate. 2) (this one is also ironic) if a certain positive status (i.e. the greater ability to sue others for discrimination) is attached to being in an "oppressed" group, individuals of that group will tend to emphasize their cultural, religious, and other differences in order to maintain that group status (ironically furthering the isolation of that group and continuing the problem).

Otherwise I don't see how aggregating all of any group together is meaningful from the perspective of actual action.

The Intolerant One said...

Nog,

Regarding point #2. I am going off on a bunny trail here with your point but as I read it I thought:

"Isn't multiculturalism great? The more we emphasize and sue each other over our difference's the more we segerate ourselves from one another. What a wonderful way to address racism" :)

Nog said...

TIO,
The examples I give of this phenomenon are usually the Jews, the Asians, Hispanic groups, and blacks.

Jews are considered "white" in more or less everything and they're doing remarkably well. I've, funny enough, seen the Arabs and Jews (all those Semite folks) do very well quite possibly because the whole system is against them. Asians perform so well that there's nearly negative affirmative action for them here in the States but the individuals in that group still do well at remarkably high rates.

The cases are very interesting with Hispanics and blacks. In many cases endless aid seems to do next to nothing for the individuals in these groups. They become dependent. Where members of these groups do not receive aid they tend to do better at much higher rates. Folks born starving and getting murdered in Angola do very well while tenth generation stateside blacks don't fair nearly as well with government aid. There are similar trends with Hispanics where groups that get aid (Puerto Ricans) are often outachieved by groups with decks stacked against them (Mexican immigrants).

I suspect if the government started giving aid to Italian ancestry whites the French ancestry whites would start doing better.


Furthermore, the free market is an excellent destroyer of bigotry. If I open a store and refuse to hire Arabs, you could open a store across the street but allow Arab employees and you'd make a fortune and drive me (in this case a bigot) out of business. Other businessmen, seeing your success and my failure will tend to adopt your business practices over mine. Bigotry just doesn't make money.

Bigotry's only hope is government intervention. Otherwise, in the long run it cannot survive.

-Nog