Invalidity

Revisions from Wikipedia article

Debate on the term and its limitations

Robin Richardson, an original member of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, at a 2009 symposium on "Islamophobia and Religious Discrimination", said that "the disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are significant" on seven different grounds, including that it implies it is merely a "severe mental illness" affecting "only a tiny minority of people"; that use of the term makes those to whom it is applied "defensive and defiant" and absolves the user of "the responsibility of trying to understand them" or trying to change their views; that it implies that hostility to Muslims is divorced from factors such as skin color, immigrant status, fear of fundamentalism, or political or economic conflicts; that it conflates prejudice against Muslims in one's own country with dislike of Muslims in countries with which the West is in conflict; that it fails to distinguish between people who are against all religion from people who dislike Islam specifically; and that the actual issue being described is hostility to Muslims, "an ethno-religious identity within European countries", rather than hostility to Islam. Nonetheless, he argued that the term is here to stay, and that it is important to define it precisely.^[1]

Johannes Kandel, in a 2006 comment wrote that Islamophobia "is a vague term which encompasses every conceivable actual and imagined act of hostility against Muslims", and proceeds to argue that 5 of the criteria put forward by The Runnymede trust are invalid.^[2] Still, he recognises the term and phenomenon.

In an article published in the June 2013 edition of Standpoint, Douglas Murray argued that "the term 'Islamophobia' is so inexact that - in so far as there is a definition - it includes insult of and even inquiry into any aspect of Islam, including Muslim scripture."^[3]

Criticism of concept and use

Although the term is widely recognized and used,^[4] the use of the term, its construction and the concept itself have been widely criticized. Roland Imhoff and Julia Recker write that "... few concepts have been debated as heatedly over the last ten years as the term Islamophobia."^[5] Other studies report similar widespread challenges in the use and meaning of the term.^[6][7]

Salman Rushdie criticized the coinage of the word 'Islamophobia' saying that it "was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head".^[8]

Academic debate

Paul Jackson, in a critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League, argues that the term Islamophobia creates a stereotype where “any criticism of Muslim societies [can be] dismissed ...” The term feeds “a language of polarised polemics ... to close down discussion on genuine areas of criticism ...” Consequently, the term is “losing much [of its] analytical value".^[9]

A book by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer (author) titled Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian future tries to analyze the concept of Islamophobia. The book states that in 2009 the Obama Administration departed from other western nations to support Egypt in UN's Human Rights Council Resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech for any negative "racial and religious stereotyping." The Egyptian ambassador to the UN said that he observed that the freedom of expression and speech has been misused sometimes and laws are required to understand the true nature of this right. The US ambassador praised this idea of a "Joint Project with Egypt" as an attempt to respect dignity of all human beings. The authors add that this attitude was troublesome as the US ambassador praised the attack on free speech. Hillary Clinton also reaffirmed this attitude considered troublesome by the authors when she commented on the "false divide that pits religious sensitivities against religious freedom". Authors add that from view of muslims and islamic states this is not about "religious sensitivities" but about "religious obligations". In a column to the above statements from Obama Administration Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University wrote "Just Say No To Blasphemy Laws". Jonathan Turley adds “Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions.” Turley concluded: “Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech – the literal sacred institution of society.” The above statements by Jonathan Turley are recorded in the book. The authors of the book also state that "Islamophobia" is dedicated to the secular left and its campaign to impose stigma on to its opponents by assigning "repugnant terms" to them like racist. Thus the left has sponsored the creation of the thought crime "Islamophobia". The authors also hold the view that "Islamophobia is the perfect totalitarian doctrine. It is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech and then freedom itself in name of religious tolerance"^[10]

^[11]

Political polemics

Other critics argue that the term conflates criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism" with hatred of Muslims.

In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, a group of 12 writers, including novelist Salman Rushdie, signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism".^[12][13] Writing in the New Humanist, philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who fear the rise of Islamophobia foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy", to the point that what he calls "Islamophobia-phobia" can undermine "critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature."^[14]

Alan Posener and Alan Johnson have written that, while the idea of Islamophobia is sometimes misused, those who claim that hatred of Muslims is justified as opposition to Islamism actually undermine the struggle against Islamism.^[15] Roger Kimball argues that the word “Islamophobia” is inherently a prohibition or fear of criticizing of radical Islam.^[16] According to Pascal Bruckner, the term was invented by Iranian fundamentalists in the late 1970s analogous to "xenophobia" in order to denounce what he feels is legitimate criticism of Islam as racism.^[17] The author Sam Harris has called islamophobia an invented psychological disorder.^[18]

The Associated Press

In December of 2012, media sources reported that the term Islamophobia would no longer be included in the AP Stylebook, and Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn expressed concern about the usage of the phrase in news articles.^[19] Minthorn stated that AP decided that the term should not be used in articles with political or social contexts because it implies an understanding of the mental state of another individual. The term no longer appears on the online stylebook, and Minthorn believes journalists should employ more precise phrases to avoid "acribing a mental disability to someone".^[20]

Criticism of meaning and purpose

Although the term is widely recognized and used,^[4] the use of the term, its construction and the concept itself have been criticized.

Definition

Some scholars have criticized the term as vague, overly broad or misleading. In his 2010 book Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend, Andrew Shryock states that applying the term "is an exercise in negative characterization, a fact that makes [it] invaluable for political purposes, but potentially misleading for analytical and interpretive ones".^[21] Writing in American Behavioral Scientist, Erik Bleich similarly states "there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis".^[22] Johannes Kandel writes that it "is a vague term which encompasses every conceivable actual and imagined act of hostility against Muslims".^[23] At a 2009 symposium on "Islamophobia and Religious Discrimination", Robin Richardson, an original member of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, argued that "the disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are significant" on seven different grounds, including that it implies it is merely a "severe mental illness" affecting "only a tiny minority of people"; that use of the term makes those to whom it is applied "defensive and defiant" and absolves the user of "the responsibility of trying to understand them" or trying to change their views; that it implies that hostility to Muslims is divorced from factors such as skin color, immigrant status, fear of fundamentalism, or political or economic conflicts; that it conflates prejudice against Muslims in one's own country with dislike of Muslims in countries with which the West is in conflict; that it fails to distinguish between people who are against all religion from people who dislike Islam specifically; and that the actual issue being described is hostility to Muslims, "an ethno-religious identity within European countries", rather than hostility to Islam.^[1]

Categorisation

Some critics argue that Islamophobia is real but is just another form of racism and does not require its own category.^[24] In a 2008 article in the "Journal of Political Ideologies" Jose P. Zuquete argues that Islamophobia is a catch-all term that should be avoided. Islamophobia places under the broad umbrella of 'fear or hatred of Islam' discourses and criticisms that may have distinct sources, motivations and goals. He argues instead for the use of "anti-Islamic" (because it distinguishes between different discourses about Islam).Template:Cn The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede is similarly criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism." He also states that strains and types of prejudice against Islam and Muslims vary across different nations and cultures, which is not recognized in the Runnymede analysis.^[25] Poole responds that many Islamophobic discourses attack what they perceive to be Islam's tenets, while Miles and Brown write that Islamophobia is usually based upon negative stereotypes about Islam which are then translated into attacks on Muslims. They also argue that "the existence of different ‘Islamophobias’ does not invalidate the concept of Islamophobia any more than the existence of different racisms invalidates the concept of racism."^[26][27]

Some denounce the concept altogether. The New Criterion editor Roger Kimball argues that the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. "A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia... ...we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia."^[16] Sam Harris^[28] has stated that "apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as 'Islamophobia'." He states that bigotry and racism are "evils" that must be opposed, and that "prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable", but argues that "it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their coreligionists believe."^[29]

Misuse

Paul Jackson, in his critical study of the anti-Islamic English Defence League, argues that the term Islamophobia creates a stereotype where “any criticism of Muslim societies [can be] dismissed ...” The term feeds “a language of polarised polemics ... to close down discussion on genuine areas of criticism ...” Consequently, the term is “losing much [of its] analytical value.^[9] Johann Hari argues that authentic Islamophobia exists, and consists of the "notion that Islam is a uniquely evil religion, more inherently war-like and fanatical than Christianity or Judaism or the other primitive delusions." However, he criticizes how organizations like Islamophobia Watch use the term, stating that they "talk about defending Muslims, they end up defending the nastiest and most right-wing part of the Muslim community – the ones who are oppressing and killing the rest."^[30]

Other critics argue that the term conflates criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism" with hatred of Muslims. In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, a group of 12 writers, including novelist Salman Rushdie, signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism".^[12][13] Daniel Pipes says that "'Islamophobia' deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam."^[31] Writing in the New Humanist, philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who fear the rise of Islamophobia foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy", to the point that what he calls "Islamophobia-phobia" can undermine "critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature."^[14]

Misc -

According to Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, "“Islamophobia” is a meaningless term. Just like the word “racism,” it is mainly used to harass Europeans and intimidate them into silence and submission in the face of the tsunami of mass immigration currently engulfing their countries."^[32]

According to Pascal Bruckner, the term was invented by Iranian fundamentalists in the late 1970s analogous to "xenophobia" in order to exempt Islam from criticism.^[17]

Views

(taken from this revision [1])

The concept of Islamophobia has been criticized on several grounds.^[33][34][35] Some critics argue that it is real, but is just another form of racism and does not require its own category,^[36] while others argue that it is used to censor criticism, that its use threatens free speech,^[34][37] or is used to silence issues relating to Muslim populations in Western countries^[38]

Novelist Salman Rushdie and others signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in March 2006 which denounced Islamophobia as "a wretched concept."^[12] British academic Michael Burleigh argues that the term 'spares anyone the need to examine what has gone wrong within [Europe's Muslim] communities'^[39]. Some opponents argue that Islamophobia is justified.^[4] Others, such as Edward Said, consider Islamophobia as it is evinced in Orientalism to be a 'secret sharer' in a more general antisemitic Western tradition^[40][41][42] However, Daniel Pipes says that "'Islamophobia' deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam."^[43]

The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede is criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims and their actions, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism."^[25] Poole responds by noting that many Islamophobic discourses attack what they perceive to be Islam's tenets, while Miles and Brown write that Islamophobia is usually based upon negative stereotypes about Islam which are then translated into attacks on Muslims.^[26][44] Halliday also states that strains and types of prejudice against Islam and Muslims vary across different nations and cultures, which is not recognized in the Runnymede analysis. Miles and Brown respond by arguing that "the existence of different ‘Islamophobias’ does not invalidate the concept of Islamophobia any more than the existence of different racisms invalidates the concept of racism."^[26] Halliday argues that the concept of Islamophobia unwittingly plays into the hands of extremists.^[25]

British writer and academic Kenan Malik believes that the charge of Islamophobia confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that it is used to silence critics and Muslim reformers. He writes that the extent to which Muslims are more vulnerable to social exclusion and attacks than other groups is frequently and allows for a culture of victimhood, where all failings are attributed to Islamophobia. Islamophobia is not a form of racism, in his view, because Islam is a belief system.^[45] This analysis is criticized by Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain and Abdul Wahid from the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.^[46] Bunglawala writes that Malik's argument is limited to overt acts of violence against Muslims, without recognizing less overt forms of prejudice or discrimination. By ignoring non-violent examples of Islamophobia, Malik's commentary "makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against," according to Bunglawala.^[46]

In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, a group of 12 writers signed a statement in the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in March 2006, warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism." The novelist Salman Rushdie was among these signatories.^[12] These views are shared by Dutch law professor Afshin Ellian.^[47] Critics cite the case of British journalist Polly Toynbee, who was nominated in May 2003 for the title of "Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year" at the 'Annual Islamophobia Awards' overseen by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, for claiming that Islam "... imposes harsh regimes that deny the most basic human rights."^[48]

In an article called "Fighting Islamophobia: A Response to Critics", Assistant Professor Deepa Kumar writes that the modern-day demonization of Arabs and Muslims by US politicians and others is racist and Islamophobic, and employed in support of an unjust war. About the public impact of this rhetoric, she says that "One of the consequences of the relentless attacks on Islam and Muslims by politicians and the media is that Islamophobic sentiment is on the rise." She also chides some "people on the left" for using the same "Islamophobic logic as the Bush regime". She concludes with the statement "At times like this, people of conscience need to organize and speak out against Islamophobia."^[49]

Johann Hari of The Independent has criticized the use of the term by organizations like Islamophobia Watch, arguing that liberal Muslims interested in reform are left unsupported because people fear being accused of Islamophobia.^[30] Writing in the New Humanist, philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who fear the rise of Islamophobia foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy", to the point that what he calls "Islamophobia-phobia" can undermine "critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature."^[14] The New Criterion editor Roger Kimball argues that the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. "A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia... ...we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia."^[16]

John Denham has drawn parallels between modern Islamophobia and the antisemitism of the 1930s.^[50] So has Maud Olofsson^[51] and professor Jan Hjärpe.^[52]

References