Why is Islamophobia even 'a thing'?
For the record, apologies if similar threads have already been made, and I think it should be made clear that while this topic of conversation is prevalent throughout 'alt-right' circles, I am NOT even remotely what you would call 'alt-right'.
With that said and done, I have was wondering, why has Islamophobia become a completely normal and accepted thing by the public at large, so much so, that it is used casually on forums such as this with little to no controversy, in the media and even in academic debates.
The reason for my confusion is quite simple. Given that we live in a liberal democracy, and by extensions, try out best to uphold virtues of free speech and whatnot, surely most if not all ideas deserve to be not only heard but also scrutinised.
Given that Islam is an idea, an ideology etc. why do we, as a society at large, take offense when someone critiques it - and labels such critiques as 'islamophobic'.
If it is true we live in a liberal democracy, and if it is true we value our free speech to a large extent, and if it is true that free speech allows us to critique ideas openly, and if it is true that Islam is an idea, then why is there any need for the word 'Islamophobia' to even exist?
I guess you could obviously say that free speech allows legal freedom to critique, meaning societal backlash is allowed, and I would agree with you (unless there is a law that punishes Islamophobia - I don't think there is).
...But that leads me to question why Islam is the only religion, the only idea, the only ideology that deserves this 'protected' status among society, so much so, that any criticism it receives is deemed 'Islamophobic'?
First and foremost, why does ANY idea deserve to be protected in such a way? And then, why is Islam the only one that is protected?
With that said and done, I have was wondering, why has Islamophobia become a completely normal and accepted thing by the public at large, so much so, that it is used casually on forums such as this with little to no controversy, in the media and even in academic debates.
The reason for my confusion is quite simple. Given that we live in a liberal democracy, and by extensions, try out best to uphold virtues of free speech and whatnot, surely most if not all ideas deserve to be not only heard but also scrutinised.
Given that Islam is an idea, an ideology etc. why do we, as a society at large, take offense when someone critiques it - and labels such critiques as 'islamophobic'.
If it is true we live in a liberal democracy, and if it is true we value our free speech to a large extent, and if it is true that free speech allows us to critique ideas openly, and if it is true that Islam is an idea, then why is there any need for the word 'Islamophobia' to even exist?
I guess you could obviously say that free speech allows legal freedom to critique, meaning societal backlash is allowed, and I would agree with you (unless there is a law that punishes Islamophobia - I don't think there is).
...But that leads me to question why Islam is the only religion, the only idea, the only ideology that deserves this 'protected' status among society, so much so, that any criticism it receives is deemed 'Islamophobic'?
First and foremost, why does ANY idea deserve to be protected in such a way? And then, why is Islam the only one that is protected?
Scroll to see replies
Because usually when people "critisise" it they arent so much as critiquing it but using it as a vehicle to push a generally racist/xenophobic agenda. Its the same with Israel although somewhat stranger there - apparently if you critisise the governments policies you're a filthy racist.But I digress. either way it isnt so much the wording that people can take umbrage with its the subtext and the motive that determine whether said statement is "Islamophobic" or not.
Then again in this delightfully balkanized world we live in everyone takes any point, no matter how innocuous or true [mere details these days] to bend it to suit their ideological bent.
Then again in this delightfully balkanized world we live in everyone takes any point, no matter how innocuous or true [mere details these days] to bend it to suit their ideological bent.
In India, the Muslims are basically an ethnoreligious group with strong cultural distance from the Hindus. While most of the Indians in the UK come from areas where theological religion plays a major role, there are many parts of India where the theological side isn't so strong and everyone treats the other group as if they were different ethnicties. These people tend to have different cultural traditions, live in different areas of the city, etc... This concept actually exists in most parts of the Muslimified world including Africa and China and even Eastern Europe.
Islamophobia in India is partially down to the strong history of invasions by Muslim rulers through the north-west of India, in the same way Greeks (Europeans) and Turks (Middle Easterners) have a strong hatred for each other. Islam and Muslims are viewed as being foriegn to Indian society and culture and so the corruption riddled left-wing, who are old money class of India derived from the British educated colonial middle class and therefore sympathetic to Christianity/secularism, have taken their case upon themselves. The left-wing of India tends to more that often token socially liberal causes and the progressive middle class of India are right-leaning.
Though there is a strong socioeconomic divide in South Asia too, the main fuel for Islamophobia in Europe and the Commonwealth Realms is primarily down to the socioeconomic troubles surrounding the Muslim community in Europe. The Muslims are associated with poverty and crime, with anti-social behaviour and welfare abuse, thereby most Europeans look down on them and oppose the immigration of them. I think the concept is quite clear to most British people considering the negativity surrounding Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK.
Islamophobia in India is partially down to the strong history of invasions by Muslim rulers through the north-west of India, in the same way Greeks (Europeans) and Turks (Middle Easterners) have a strong hatred for each other. Islam and Muslims are viewed as being foriegn to Indian society and culture and so the corruption riddled left-wing, who are old money class of India derived from the British educated colonial middle class and therefore sympathetic to Christianity/secularism, have taken their case upon themselves. The left-wing of India tends to more that often token socially liberal causes and the progressive middle class of India are right-leaning.
Though there is a strong socioeconomic divide in South Asia too, the main fuel for Islamophobia in Europe and the Commonwealth Realms is primarily down to the socioeconomic troubles surrounding the Muslim community in Europe. The Muslims are associated with poverty and crime, with anti-social behaviour and welfare abuse, thereby most Europeans look down on them and oppose the immigration of them. I think the concept is quite clear to most British people considering the negativity surrounding Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK.
(edited 5 years ago)
Islamophobia is a reactionary word used immediately when someone has something critical or negative to say about Islam, because people will automatically think you're being bigoted. It's lazy and ussumes one can't have good reason beyond bigotry or irrational fear to dislike a particular religion.
Religion should never be beyond critique or ridicule, and hatred of religion is fine. That includes Islam, which should be afforded no special treatment.
Religion should never be beyond critique or ridicule, and hatred of religion is fine. That includes Islam, which should be afforded no special treatment.
Original post by Napp
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
For the record, apologies if similar threads have already been made, and I think it should be made clear that while this topic of conversation is prevalent throughout 'alt-right' circles, I am NOT even remotely what you would call 'alt-right'.
With that said and done, I have was wondering, why has Islamophobia become a completely normal and accepted thing by the public at large, so much so, that it is used casually on forums such as this with little to no controversy, in the media and even in academic debates.
The reason for my confusion is quite simple. Given that we live in a liberal democracy, and by extensions, try out best to uphold virtues of free speech and whatnot, surely most if not all ideas deserve to be not only heard but also scrutinised.
Given that Islam is an idea, an ideology etc. why do we, as a society at large, take offense when someone critiques it - and labels such critiques as 'islamophobic'.
If it is true we live in a liberal democracy, and if it is true we value our free speech to a large extent, and if it is true that free speech allows us to critique ideas openly, and if it is true that Islam is an idea, then why is there any need for the word 'Islamophobia' to even exist?
I guess you could obviously say that free speech allows legal freedom to critique, meaning societal backlash is allowed, and I would agree with you (unless there is a law that punishes Islamophobia - I don't think there is).
...But that leads me to question why Islam is the only religion, the only idea, the only ideology that deserves this 'protected' status among society, so much so, that any criticism it receives is deemed 'Islamophobic'?
First and foremost, why does ANY idea deserve to be protected in such a way? And then, why is Islam the only one that is protected?
With that said and done, I have was wondering, why has Islamophobia become a completely normal and accepted thing by the public at large, so much so, that it is used casually on forums such as this with little to no controversy, in the media and even in academic debates.
The reason for my confusion is quite simple. Given that we live in a liberal democracy, and by extensions, try out best to uphold virtues of free speech and whatnot, surely most if not all ideas deserve to be not only heard but also scrutinised.
Given that Islam is an idea, an ideology etc. why do we, as a society at large, take offense when someone critiques it - and labels such critiques as 'islamophobic'.
If it is true we live in a liberal democracy, and if it is true we value our free speech to a large extent, and if it is true that free speech allows us to critique ideas openly, and if it is true that Islam is an idea, then why is there any need for the word 'Islamophobia' to even exist?
I guess you could obviously say that free speech allows legal freedom to critique, meaning societal backlash is allowed, and I would agree with you (unless there is a law that punishes Islamophobia - I don't think there is).
...But that leads me to question why Islam is the only religion, the only idea, the only ideology that deserves this 'protected' status among society, so much so, that any criticism it receives is deemed 'Islamophobic'?
First and foremost, why does ANY idea deserve to be protected in such a way? And then, why is Islam the only one that is protected?
1. It's catchier for the media/politicians than "anti-Muslim bigotry" (which is what is usually meant by it in this context)
2. It's a useful tool for Islamic apologists whose arguments are being dismantled. Far easier to just cry "Islamophobe!" than to actually address serious issues.
Original post by Joleee
because free speech?
if you're allowed to criticise Islam, then others allowed to criticise you right back. not sure what the problem is.
btw free speech is not usually limited to true speech. if that were so, then half of us on TSR wouldn't be allowed to speak.
if you're allowed to criticise Islam, then others allowed to criticise you right back. not sure what the problem is.
btw free speech is not usually limited to true speech. if that were so, then half of us on TSR wouldn't be allowed to speak.
I litterally addressed this very argument in my post, and agreed with it. I questioned not whether people should be allowed, but why they are doing so.
Read on until the end.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by HighOnGoofballs
I litterally addressed this very argument in my post, and agreed with it. I questioned not whether people should be allowed, but why they are doing so.
Read on until the end.
Read on until the end.
i did read till the end. was i not clear? my point was that people use the word because of free speech. they're allowed to; that's their opinion and they may express it the way they want. and thank you, i'm glad you defend my right to use the word as well.
Original post by Joleee
i did read till the end. was i not clear? my point was that people use the word because of free speech. they're allowed to; that's their opinion and they may express it the way they want. and thank you, i'm glad you defend my right to use the word as well.
"Because they're allowed to" and "It's their opinion" aren't reasons, though. You're simply stating the obvious and not actually explaining anyone's motivations.
Original post by Dandaman1
"Because they're allowed to" and "It's their opinion" aren't reasons, though. You're simply stating the obvious and not actually explaining anyone's motivations.
it's their opinion is a reason. how is that not a reason?
when people criticise Islam it's their opinion. same thing. what other motive would they have?
Original post by Joleee
it's their opinion is a reason. how is that not a reason?
when people criticise Islam it's their opinion. same thing. what other motive would they have?
when people criticise Islam it's their opinion. same thing. what other motive would they have?
Again, "It's my opinion" is just stating the obvious. We already know it's your opinion (duh). But why is it your opinion?
Original post by Dandaman1
"Because they're allowed to" and "It's their opinion" aren't reasons, though. You're simply stating the obvious and not actually explaining anyone's motivations.
Wouldn't bother dude. Put it like this Joleee doesn't understand that an opinion isn't a critique. It's an opinion. "I think (Insert racial group) are lazy" is an opinion.
Criticism is:
criticismˈkrɪtɪsɪz(ə)m/noun
1.
1.the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes."he received a lot of criticism"synonyms:censure, reproval, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, captiousness, fault-finding, carping, cavilling; More
2.
2.the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work."alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories"synonyms:evaluation, assessment, examination, appreciation, appraisal, analysis, judgement;More
"Islam has many parts to it which are contradictory to the norms of modern western society (eg "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." suggests homosexuality isn't on, which in the west it is), but are also found in other religions and cultures" is a criticism.
Original post by Napp
Because usually when people "critisise" it they arent so much as critiquing it but using it as a vehicle to push a generally racist/xenophobic agenda.
What complete and utter *******s. Islam is vile, as are many other religions, but they don't claim to be 'perfect'.
either way it isnt so much the wording that people can take umbrage with its the subtext and the motive that determine whether said statement is "Islamophobic" or not.
It's a word invented to try to stifle, entirely rational, criticism of Islam.
If someone makes an accusation of Islamaphobia, I automatically reduce my estimate of their IQ.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Dandaman1
Again, "It's my opinion" is just stating the obvious. We already know it's your opinion (duh). But why is it your opinion?
well first, it's not my opinion. i don't put blanket statements on anyone, including those that criticise Islam or any religion. that would be very ignorant of me.
but i would assume people may think you're Islamophobic because criticising Islam is not always done in a smart debate. ergo, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. if you're an ignorant tool on TSR making blanket statements about millions of people around the world, i can see why Mulsims and others would be frustrated and assume you hate them, especially when comments are said with little education and you're not treating Muslims as individuals or believing what they say when they correct you. i mean why would a non-Muslim know more than a Muslim?
i don't disagree with anything you said earlier, btw.
but i'm frustrated with anyone saying 'don't call me names' because free speech is a two-way street. what's good for the goose is good for the gander to use an old expression.
Original post by Joleee
if you're allowed to criticise Islam, then others allowed to criticise you right back. not sure what the problem is.
The problem is that the word 'Islamaphobia' isn't a criticism, it's an accusation that criticism of Islam is wrong, without providing any justification. All it actually means is that the [l]user doesn't have any valid points ot make.
Original post by Joleee
well first, it's not my opinion. i don't put blanket statements on anyone, including those that criticise Islam or any religion. that would be very ignorant of me.
but i would assume people may think you're Islamophobic because criticising Islam is not always done in a smart debate. ergo, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. if you're an ignorant tool on TSR making blanket statements about millions of people around the world, i can see why Mulsims and others would be frustrated and assume you hate them, especially when comments are said with little education and you're not treating Muslims as individuals or believing what they say when they correct you. i mean why would a non-Muslim know more than a Muslim?
i don't disagree with anything you said earlier, btw.
but i'm frustrated with anyone saying 'don't call me names' because free speech is a two-way street. what's good for the goose is good for the gander to use an old expression.
but i would assume people may think you're Islamophobic because criticising Islam is not always done in a smart debate. ergo, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. if you're an ignorant tool on TSR making blanket statements about millions of people around the world, i can see why Mulsims and others would be frustrated and assume you hate them, especially when comments are said with little education and you're not treating Muslims as individuals or believing what they say when they correct you. i mean why would a non-Muslim know more than a Muslim?
i don't disagree with anything you said earlier, btw.
but i'm frustrated with anyone saying 'don't call me names' because free speech is a two-way street. what's good for the goose is good for the gander to use an old expression.
Just my opinion, but based on your posting history, but I don't think you really should get into debates. For the main reason you can't debate. You don't seem to understand the concepts you are talking about, have a strong enough grasp on linguistics, none of that. Like I say, it's my opinion, but it is based on what you have posted. Doesn't mean I'm phobic of you.
Original post by RogerOxon
The problem is that the word 'Islamaphobia' isn't a criticism, it's an accusation that criticism of Islam is wrong, without providing any justification. All it actually means is that the [l]user doesn't have any valid points ot make.
please note my point about free speech not limited to telling the truth. Islamophobia may not be accurate all the time, but that doesn't mean it's not real in the minds of those saying it. and they're allowed to express their thoughts.
Original post by RogerOxon
What complete and utter *******s. Islam is vile, as are many other religions, but they don't claim to be 'perfect'.
It's a word invented to try to stifle, entirely rational, criticism of Islam.
If someone makes an accusation of Islamaphobia, I automatically reduce my estimate of their IQ.
It's a word invented to try to stifle, entirely rational, criticism of Islam.
If someone makes an accusation of Islamaphobia, I automatically reduce my estimate of their IQ.
What would we lose by stifling your speech here? You're not adding anything new or interesting that we haven't already heard ad nauseam.
Original post by Joleee
well first, it's not my opinion. i don't put blanket statements on anyone, including those that criticise Islam or any religion. that would be very ignorant of me.
but i would assume people may think you're Islamophobic because criticising Islam is not always done in a smart debate. ergo, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. if you're an ignorant tool on TSR making blanket statements about millions of people around the world, i can see why Mulsims and others would be frustrated and assume you hate them, especially when comments are said with little education and you're not treating Muslims as individuals or believing what they say when they correct you. i mean why would a non-Muslim know more than a Muslim?
i don't disagree with anything you said earlier, btw.
but i'm frustrated with anyone saying 'don't call me names' because free speech is a two-way street. what's good for the goose is good for the gander to use an old expression.
but i would assume people may think you're Islamophobic because criticising Islam is not always done in a smart debate. ergo, it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it. if you're an ignorant tool on TSR making blanket statements about millions of people around the world, i can see why Mulsims and others would be frustrated and assume you hate them, especially when comments are said with little education and you're not treating Muslims as individuals or believing what they say when they correct you. i mean why would a non-Muslim know more than a Muslim?
i don't disagree with anything you said earlier, btw.
but i'm frustrated with anyone saying 'don't call me names' because free speech is a two-way street. what's good for the goose is good for the gander to use an old expression.
I didn't mean it was your opinion specifically. I was just speaking figuratively.
Anyway, freedom to do something doesn't mean you should do something. In other words: "Having the right doesn't make it right." So when somebody criticises another for using a certain word, "It's my freedom of speech" isn't really a useful response. We already know it's freedom of speech - but that doesn't make something logical, right, or productive. It doesn't mean it isn't wrong or stupid.
There are some non-Muslums out there who know more about the history and politics of Islam than the average Muslim on the street, actually. You'd be amazed how little some people know about their own religion.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
