Islamophobia vs. Islamocriticism

Canada: land of maple syrup and floppy-haired young Prime Ministers, bastion of free speech and liberal values, and epicentre of the latest storm over the term ‘Islamophobia.’

In December 2016 Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid proposed a motion (M-103) that

“the government should recognise the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear…[and] condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

This is a noble aim, especially after the shooting at the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec on 29th January this year. But Canada’s conservative politicians objected on the basis of the lack of a proper definition of ‘Islamophobia’ – and they have a point.

How do you define ‘Islamophobia’? Let’s break the word down. What does ‘Islam’ mean? Google says it means ‘the religion of the Muslims.’ What does ‘phobia’ mean? Google says ‘phobia’ means ‘an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.’ Yet Google says ‘Islamophobia’ is the ‘dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.’ So how did ‘extreme, irrational fear or aversion’ get downgraded to simply ‘dislike’? Is disliking Islam enough to brand you an ‘Islamophobe’? And does disliking Islam mean by definition you dislike Muslims?

The term ‘Islamophobia’ wasn’t invented by an Islamic lobby group. Rather it came to public attention in 1997 via the Runnymede Trust in a report entitled Islamophobia – a Challenge for Us All. The report justified the introduction of the term stating that

“Anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so considerably and so rapidly in recent years that a new item in the vocabulary is needed.”

Twenty years on, it’s done more than highlight prejudice – it has been adopted wholesale by the mainstream, stifling debate and silencing legitimate criticism of Islam to great effect. Even Trevor Phillips, former head of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission  – and commissioner of the Runnymede Trust’s original report – has recognised this problem:

‘Non-Muslims who live and work in areas with a large Muslim presence have been uneasily aware of the emerging differences for a long time, but many are too worried about being tagged as Islamophobes to raise the debate.’

To clarify: at Pfander we condemn all forms of anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crime. We were horrified by the shooting in Quebec. We support Muslims’ human rights, including their freedom of belief. We do what we do out of love for Muslims, because we want them to know eternal life with God through Jesus. We love the people but oppose the ideology. But still, the term ‘Islamophobia’ is chucked at us all the time, by liberal Westerners as well as by Muslims. This taint has kept us from universities and other public forums, and hindered many others from supporting our work out of fear. Neither does the word  ‘Islamophobia’ help how the religion is perceived. It makes it look weak and in need of special protection. Certainly the debaters at Speaker’s Corner would certainly never see Islam in that way. Isn’t it time ‘Islamophobia’ got a replacement?

What about Iqra Khalid and her legitimate desire for Muslims to live without hate or fear? Read her statement with  ‘Islamophobia’ taken out:

“the government should recognise the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear…[and] condemn all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

Doesn’t the phrase ‘religious discrimination’ already cover discrimination towards Muslims? Former Liberal cabinet member and human rights activist Irwin Cotler suggested the phrase ‘anti-Muslim bigotry‘ instead. But in that case why not spell out anti-Semitism, anti Hindu and Christian bigotry as well? Anti-Muslim hate crime in Canada has doubled within the last three years, but it still remains second to anti-Semitic hate crime.

So how do we address the problem of a term that elegantly differentiates between the ideology and the people? To borrow a phrase, ‘a new item in the vocabulary is needed.’  (Spoiler alert: it’s in the title.)

Introducing – ‘Islamocriticism.’ Actually, I didn’t make it up – well done Bart van Audenhove who has already registered a YouTube channel with that name. (I wish I could claim it as my own, but not for the first time, Google has been good for my humility.)  ‘Islamocriticism’ is both a neologism (neologisms are trendy) and, unlike ‘Islamophobia’, etymologically accurate. You can’t ‘critique’ things you can’t help, like your skin colour or your ethnicity. Ideologies on the other hand, can and should be subject to critique. This would solve another problem with ‘Islamophobia’; that it is used synonymously (and wrongly) with ‘racism’.

I hope ‘Islamocriticism’ takes off. Bart, I suggest you copyright it now: Trevor Phillips would be on his own private island if he’d done the same with ‘Islamophobia’. But if not ‘Islamocriticism’, we need something like it. Because terminology matters, and a proper discussion on what Islam actually teaches is long overdue. Just this week Ontario passed its own anti-Islamophobia motion. Let’s hope Canada doesn’t inadvertently shut down the debate by failing to clarify terms.

First published on March 2, 2017 by Pfander Team