"Islamophobia" is ad hominem

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:37 pm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60526.htm

One friend alerted me to a discussion going on in Wikipedia on the neologism “Islamophobia”. Someone has suggested that this category should be deleted because the term Islamophobia is divisive, inflammatory and it is frequently used to inhibit very valid criticism of Islam.

This suggestion, of course, as it is to be expected, has been rejected by Muslims who have Islamized everything including Wikipedia. This friend asked my opinion. Here is what I think:

Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.

According to Dictionary.com Phobia is “a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.” Therefore the neologism "Islamophobia" implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.

This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon. There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim. Irrespective of whether the critics of Islam are right or wrong about whether Islam is dangerous or not, calling them “phobic” implies that their criticism has been already refuted and the irrationality of their fear of Islamic threat has been established. Therefore their disagreement with Islam is not logical but a mental disorder.

All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

Only Muslims are capable of this much irrationality and arrogance. We all recall Muhammad Abdullah, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity and who was facing execution. When the government of Afghanistan was pressured to release him, to save face they accused him of being insane and not fit to stand trial. In the mind of Muslims only an insane person would disagree with Islam. This is sheer arrogance.

Buddhism is by all accounts a peaceful religion as non-violence is the core of it. Despite that Buddhism has its critics and we never call then Buddhistphobes.

The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.

Phobia is a disorder. Here is a short list of a few phobias: Achluophobia or Lygophobia (fear of darkness), Acrophobia, (fear of heights), Androphobia (fear of men), Aviatophobia (fear of flying), Chiraptophobia (fear of being touched), Claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces), Coitophobia (fear of coitus), Decidophobia (fear of making decisions), Agrophobia or Demophobia (fear of crowds), Eleutherophobia (fear of freedom), Gynophobia (fear of women), Hadephobia (fear of hell -this is the phobia affecting all the Muslims), Hylophobia (fear of forests), Insectophobia, (fear of insects), Isolophobia (fear of solitude, being alone), Necrophobia, (fear of death or dead things), Neophobia (fear of anything new), Phasmophobia, (fear of ghosts), Philophobia, (fear of falling in love or being in love), Xenophobia, (fear of strangers or foreigners), etc. (For more see this)

How can criticism of Islam fall into this category? These are all irrational fears that require therapy. Are Muslims suggesting that the critics of Islam should receive therapy? We can’t classify disagreement with Islam as phobia. Islam is an ideology. Phobia is irrational fear of things, people or situations but not beliefs. You can't be phobic of a belief system. Beliefs per se are not frightening. It's people who follow nefarious beliefs that become dangerous and frightening. As one can see, the very term "Islamophobia" is stupid because Islam is a belief system and it is not possible to be phobic of a belief. From whichever angle you look at Islam you find its stupidity glaring at you.

Muslims suffer from an irrational fear of the Jews. Muslim children are taught that the Jews are evil and that they eat Muslim children and make pastries with their blood. Jews are caricatured in derogatory and demonized ways, depicted as bloodsucking monsters. In a television show aired in Palestine a three year old child was interviewed and asked what she hates most, and she responded "the Jews" and the journalists praised Allah upon hearing this stupid remark. So the neologism Judeophobia (fear of Jews) is a correct lexicon, because the irrational fear of Jews is inculcated in all Muslims since childhood. Muslims gravely suffer from this disorder

If children anywhere were taught to fear Muslims, the way Muslim children are taught to fear Jews, then the neologism Muslimphobia would have made sense. But that is not the case. Islam is a belief system. It is a human right to disagree with any belief. Calling that disagreement “phobia” is a logical fallacy. Islam is the only ideology, whose followers try to discredit its critics by calling their criticism "phobia".

Islamophobia makes no sense at all. It is as meaningless as "Fascistophobia". Of course people have the right to disagree and criticize any ideology, whether good or bad. The goodness of an ideology is in the eyes of the beholder. Inhibiting criticism of an ideology is infringing upon the basic human rights, which is freedom of speech.

The absurdity of the Muslim mind is such that they think it is okay for them to incite hate against the non-Muslims in general and the Jews in particular and yet it is not okay for others to criticize their ideology of hate.

What is behind this paranoia and phobia of criticism? It is the inability of Muslims to counter the valid criticism of Islam. Failing that, they resort to ad hominem and try to discredit its critics by undermining their character. By classifying the criticism of Islam as a disorder, Muslims absolve themselves from responding to valid criticisms against their faith.

The neologism “Islamophobia”, is therefore the symptom of the intellectual bankruptcy of Muslim clerisy to come up with logical arguments and defend Islam against criticism in a rational way. "Islamophobia" is an ad hominen. It is a logical fallacy and an insult hurled at the critics of Islam. It highlights the fact that Islam is a lie, unable to withstand criticism. That is why Muslims need censorship and must eliminate the truth by brutal force (law suits or violence) to protect their lie.

The very existence of this neologism is a tacit confession of Muslims that Islam is a lie, which can't be defended logically and that ad hominem and censorship are the only ways to defend it.

Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:01 pm

Here's another view on this same subject...

Why 'Islamophobia' is a brilliant term

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2007/07/017591print.html

Dennis Prager speaks truth to power.

What do anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia have in common?
In fact, nothing.

But according to Islamist groups, Western media and the United Nations, they have everything in common. Anti-Semites hate all Jews, racists hate all members of another race, and Islamophobes hate all Muslims.

Whoever coined the term "Islamophobia" was quite shrewd. Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. The term is not "Muslim-phobia" or "anti-Muslimist," it is Islam-ophobia – fear of Islam – yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race. Nevertheless, mainstream Western media, Islamist groups calling themselves Muslim civil liberties groups and various Western organizations repeatedly declare that Islamophobia is racism.

To cite three of innumerable examples: The Guardian published an opinion piece titled, "Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as racism"; the European Union has established the European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia; and the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission of Australia notes that "Muslims have also been the target of racism in Australia, often referred to as Islamophobia."

Even granting that there are people who fear Islam, how does that in any way correlate with racism? If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist.

Of course, some may argue that whereas conservatism and liberalism are ideas, Islam is a religion, and while one can attack ideas, one must not attack religions. It is, however, quite insulting to religions to deny that they are ideas. Religions are certainly more than ideas – they are theological belief systems – but they are also ideas about how society should be run just as much as liberalism and conservatism are. Therefore, Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism should be just as subject to criticism as conservatism or liberalism.

However, the only religion the West permits criticism of is Christianity. People write books, give lectures and conduct seminars on the falsity of Christian claims, or on the immoral record of Christianity, and no one attacks them for racism or bigotry, let alone attacks them physically. The head of the Anti-Defamation League announces that conservative Christians are the greatest threat to America today, and no one charges him with racism or Christianophobia.

The statement may be an expression of hysteria and of ignorance, but not of racism. But if one says that Islam does not appear compatible with democracy or that the Islamic treatment of women is inferior to the West's, he or she is labeled a racist Islamophobe.

One might counter that maligning people for criticism is not only true of those who criticize Islam, it is also true of critics of Israel and of America – the former, it is said, are immediately labeled "anti-Semitic" and the latter are immediately labeled "unpatriotic." Neither is true at all. Both are, and I use this word rarely, lies.

No one is labeled anti-Semitic for merely criticizing Israel. People are labeled anti-Semitic for denying Israel's right to exist, for siding with those who wish to exterminate it or for singling out the Jewish state alone among all the nations of the world for attacks that most other countries deserve far more.

And no one in any responsible capacity has called anyone "unpatriotic" just for criticizing America. Sen. Hillary Clinton claimed during the last Democratic presidential debate that the Defense Department called her "unpatriotic" for asking whether the Defense Department has a plan to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Yet the term "unpatriotic" was not only not used in the response to the senator, it was not even hinted at.

The fact remains that the term "Islamophobia" has one purpose – to suppress any criticism, legitimate or not, of Islam. And given the cowardice of the Western media, and the collusion of the left in banning any such criticism (while piling it on Christianity and Christians), it is working.

Latest proof: This past week a man in New York was charged with two felonies for what is being labeled the hate crime of putting a Quran in a toilet at Pace College. Not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies. Meanwhile, the man who put a crucifix in a jar of urine continues to have his artwork – "Pi-- Christ" – displayed at galleries and museums. A Quran in a toilet is a hate crime; a crucifix in pee is a work of art. Thanks in part to that brilliant term "Islamophobia."