On the nature of "Islamophobia"
Recently I've heard some discussion about whether or not the term "Islamophobia" is really the right term to address some of the rather disconcerting noises you hear from more unpleasant voices on the xenophobic right in the United States and Europe, and I thought the debate over the term is probably an apt place to try to take apart the phenomenon.
As for the history of it, I don't know but it seems like it was more or less adopted from the term "homophobia" to delegitimize something and equate it to other terms of bigotry. The main objection to the term is that it seems to suggest opposition to an idea, similar to anti-communism, rather than a hatred of people, as racism or homophobia or anti-Semitism would be. Generally, it's okay to oppose an idea, we're all anti-Nazi and I think more than a few don't mind being called anti-communist (or anti-IslamIST), but it's not okay to hate groups of people, the theory goes, so we should be changing the term to focus on the hatred of particular people.
All well and good, though thinking of it more now, I'm not quite sure it captures the idea that well to say focus on people, not beliefs. That is, I'm guessing Geerts Wilder and Franklin Graham and Ann Coulter (though who knows with her) are quite sincere when they say they don't hate all Muslims. For example those who abstain from practice entirely, like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are probably fine with them. That's not really true of anti-Semitism, religiosity has nothing to do with it there.
At the same time though, it's hardly the opposition to an ideology, as anti-communism is, and therefore not at all legitimate on those grounds. There are a lot of people who take the Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunna very, very seriously, who consider it holy and sacred, and to suggest that ALL of these people, Islamists and secularists, deeply pious and more casual observing, Western born and not, are ALL necessarily in some way intolerant, enamored of war, secretly harboring hatreds of others, even if they haven't done anything to suggest this, is as obvious an act of prejudice and bigotry as can be imagined. Islam is not an ideology, as communism is, it is a rich and vast religion, with some elements that are not only distasteful but horrible and deserving of the most strident criticism, and some of which imply nothing that anyone I know considers objectionable. (I think if you had a problem with the way either of my grandmothers practiced Islam, for example, there would be a pretty big problem with you, not with them, not with Islam.) It's just not possible to chalk up an ideology that defines itself as "against Islam" in all of the latter's complexity and multifacetedness as driven by anything but the types of paranoia, xenophobia, bigotry and hatred of the other that we in the West should abhor and denouce.
But I can't really say the Islamophobes hate everyone called a Muslim, I'm not sure that's true, when the issue of nonpracticing Muslims, or cultural Muslims or whatever comes up. But they do hate Islam, and they hate the practice of Islam, in whatever form, in whatever capacity, in whatever manner. And that's what we are supposed to be rejecting, and what we're trying to get at with the term. So that, for example, I don't think it's inherently bigoted to say all too many Muslims accept violence against the other. Or even all too many Muslims adopt interpretations of the Qur'an, based on certain verses, that make life in a liberal society impossible. I'm not saying it's true, but we have to accept that position as legitimate, it's wrong to stifle debate like that.
But if you just say "the Qur'an stands for hatred and violence", and insist on that, and wish away any loving, caring, deeply sympathetic human beings who find sustenance and spiritual comfort in the Book, if you deny the very possibility that the Book can be so read, well then I'm sorry, but that is a position we have to put into the category of bigoted and entirely unacceptable and itself illiberal and intolerant. That's I think what we're trying to capture--neither the hatred of anyone calling themselves a Muslim, nor the opposition to a particular ideology, but a fear and a hostility to a faith more complex and nuanced than this particular group of people will accept, which necessarily tarnishes anyone who takes it seriously. And in that lies the illegitimacy.
Which makes me wonder if perhaps the term "Islamophobia" isn't the right one after all.
HAH
As for the history of it, I don't know but it seems like it was more or less adopted from the term "homophobia" to delegitimize something and equate it to other terms of bigotry. The main objection to the term is that it seems to suggest opposition to an idea, similar to anti-communism, rather than a hatred of people, as racism or homophobia or anti-Semitism would be. Generally, it's okay to oppose an idea, we're all anti-Nazi and I think more than a few don't mind being called anti-communist (or anti-IslamIST), but it's not okay to hate groups of people, the theory goes, so we should be changing the term to focus on the hatred of particular people.
All well and good, though thinking of it more now, I'm not quite sure it captures the idea that well to say focus on people, not beliefs. That is, I'm guessing Geerts Wilder and Franklin Graham and Ann Coulter (though who knows with her) are quite sincere when they say they don't hate all Muslims. For example those who abstain from practice entirely, like Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are probably fine with them. That's not really true of anti-Semitism, religiosity has nothing to do with it there.
At the same time though, it's hardly the opposition to an ideology, as anti-communism is, and therefore not at all legitimate on those grounds. There are a lot of people who take the Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunna very, very seriously, who consider it holy and sacred, and to suggest that ALL of these people, Islamists and secularists, deeply pious and more casual observing, Western born and not, are ALL necessarily in some way intolerant, enamored of war, secretly harboring hatreds of others, even if they haven't done anything to suggest this, is as obvious an act of prejudice and bigotry as can be imagined. Islam is not an ideology, as communism is, it is a rich and vast religion, with some elements that are not only distasteful but horrible and deserving of the most strident criticism, and some of which imply nothing that anyone I know considers objectionable. (I think if you had a problem with the way either of my grandmothers practiced Islam, for example, there would be a pretty big problem with you, not with them, not with Islam.) It's just not possible to chalk up an ideology that defines itself as "against Islam" in all of the latter's complexity and multifacetedness as driven by anything but the types of paranoia, xenophobia, bigotry and hatred of the other that we in the West should abhor and denouce.
But I can't really say the Islamophobes hate everyone called a Muslim, I'm not sure that's true, when the issue of nonpracticing Muslims, or cultural Muslims or whatever comes up. But they do hate Islam, and they hate the practice of Islam, in whatever form, in whatever capacity, in whatever manner. And that's what we are supposed to be rejecting, and what we're trying to get at with the term. So that, for example, I don't think it's inherently bigoted to say all too many Muslims accept violence against the other. Or even all too many Muslims adopt interpretations of the Qur'an, based on certain verses, that make life in a liberal society impossible. I'm not saying it's true, but we have to accept that position as legitimate, it's wrong to stifle debate like that.
But if you just say "the Qur'an stands for hatred and violence", and insist on that, and wish away any loving, caring, deeply sympathetic human beings who find sustenance and spiritual comfort in the Book, if you deny the very possibility that the Book can be so read, well then I'm sorry, but that is a position we have to put into the category of bigoted and entirely unacceptable and itself illiberal and intolerant. That's I think what we're trying to capture--neither the hatred of anyone calling themselves a Muslim, nor the opposition to a particular ideology, but a fear and a hostility to a faith more complex and nuanced than this particular group of people will accept, which necessarily tarnishes anyone who takes it seriously. And in that lies the illegitimacy.
Which makes me wonder if perhaps the term "Islamophobia" isn't the right one after all.
HAH
Salaam Ustaz,
What did you mean when you said that "Islam is not an ideology, as communism is, it is a rich and vast religion, with some elements that are not only distasteful but horrible and deserving of the most strident criticism, and some of which imply nothing that anyone I know considers objectionable."? Are you saying contesting the fact that Islam is fair and complete?
Reply to this
Thanks for the email, Maryam. The thing is, I know a lot of people who think Islam is fair and complete, and that's fine, but then when you ask them what else it is, you get dramatically different answers. Meaning the American lawyer comes and says "Islam clearly requires tolerance of other religions and celebtrates pluralism" and quotes verses of the Qur'an that say this, and says this is fair and complete. I go to Saudi, and I get a very different idea of what Islam requires from at least some elements (deep, visceral hatred of nonMuslims--Jews in particular) and they say THAT is fair and complete.
So what I was trying to say is that while clearly I take the pluralistic side in this fight, I am an American lawyer, I can't exactly deny that within the vast umbrella of Islam there are huge numbers of people believing a wide variety of things, some of which I find deeply objectionable. I know lots of people solve this problem by simply saying anyone who uses the name of Islam to defend things they don't like is simply not invoking the "true" Islam, but I find that to be hard to support. An outsider could well then say "by what right do you, Haider Ala Hamoudi, American law professor, have the ability to define the "true" Islam, when others take vastly different opinions, derived from the same texts?" Better to acknowledge the vastness and with it identify problems that should be addressed, and in some cases combatted. Otherwise, it's Islamophobia in reverse--ignoring all the bad stuff, and insistng that the only possible path is the good one.
Reply to this
Hmmmm. Why should I be afraid of a religion that includes those savages that cut off peoples heads? I guess it's my rampant xenophobia and racism.
Reply to this
If that's all you see in Islam is those savages, if really you see nothing else, then yes, absolutely, it is your rampant xenophobia and racism. And ignorance too, actually.
Reply to this
It is my understanding that Christians are very much on the run for some time now in Iraq. Is Christianity or any belief other than Islam tolerated in Iran? Are Christians and their bibles allowed to live and practice openly in Saudi Arabia? How many churches or Jewish temples are there in Islamic countries?
Reply to this
Your information on Iraq is simply flat wrong. I would be the last to suggest that Christians are not disproportionately targeted in terrorist attacks by nutcases. But in our offices in Baghdad I had three Christian colleagues, all attended church regularly, all had their children baptized, none hid their religion from anyone I know. "very much on the run" just isn't true.
Iran does have a Christian community and churches, they are open. Synagogues as well, they exist. That said, Christians are discriminated against in Iran, as are Jews, even if their beliefs are tolerated. Saudi is viciously intolerant. Neither is an appealing model for religious pluralism under any reasonable formulation.
How many churches and synagogues are there in Islamic countries? Are you kidding? It's in the hundreds of thousands. Visit Indonesia, visit Iraq, visit Syria, visit Malaysia, visit Egypt, visit Tunisia, visit Morocco, visit Turkey. Just off the top of my head.
I'd go on and point out none of this has to do with my post, which is about the importance of not assuming the very practice of Islam is necessarily intolerant and violent given the many places and the many people for whom that is not true, but since you obviously don't know much about the Muslim world in the first place, it's sort of a waste of time in this context.
Reply to this