…without being labeled racist, bigoted, or “Islamophobic”? Without being perceived as being a member of the religious and/or xenophobic Right? Without being accused of attacking “Muslims as a whole”?

In the media, in my entourage and also on the Sift, I am regularly confronted with the above-mentioned reactions when criticizing the religious ideology called “Islam” and some of its less positive effects in today’s world. There seems to be a bizarre hypocrisy amongst some atheistic or moderately religious progressives, which considers criticizing Christianity a-okay, commendable, a matter of rational response, but responds to criticism of Islam as ignorant racism, ethnocentric bigotry, cultural supremacy, the stuff of right-wing fundamentalists, etc., etc. For example, while Uganda’s “Kill the gays” bill, helped along by evangelical Christian missionaries, will generally be accepted as religion-influenced (if not downright religion-motivated), the negative effects of applying Islamic principles will be rationalized as the result of ethno-socio-political-etc factors (and, if possible, also the fault of “Western” colonization).

I understand that there might be a gag-reflex response to arguments that, on the surface, remind one of the hateful crap that right-wing xenophobes spew. How is it that the religious Right in the “West” seems to have the monopoly of criticizing Islam (when they’re not plain old fear-mongering)?

It seems to me that, on both ends of the political spectrum (and how I wish politics were not so often reduced to “Right” and “Left”), there is a fundamental error being made: “Islam” is being construed as a race/ethnicity, instead of the religious ideology that it is. The xenophobic Right uses this construal to stigmatize the “evil other/outsider/invader”, namely immigrants (especially the poor ones, and the black ones, because racism is never far away). The multiculturalist Left, on the other hand, while probably well-intentioned, uses this construal to stigmatize anyone who dares criticize Islam, while being lenient on its negative effects for fear of feeling “racist”, (seethis video on FGM in the UK for example) thus empowering its fundamentalists with the Victim Card (which they can stash neatly next to the Threat of Violence one).

One explanation for this stance, at least in Europe, is the confusing status of what it is to be a “Jew”. The word denotes one or both of two things: ethnic (i.e. “racial”) origins, and religious beliefs. This double definition is transferred, by both Right and Left (but with different agendas) to “Muslim”, where the ethnic origins blank is filled with the minority of choice: Arab, "Yugoslav", African in general, etc.

There is a primordial distinction to be made between who/what one is, and what one believes. A woman/Jew(ethnically)/homosexual/Arab/foreigner is that, generally not by choice; terms like misogyny/anti-Semitism/homophobia/xenophobia make sense. A communist/Muslim/theist/anti-vaxxer/democrat has certain beliefs, sometimes deeply ingrained (e.g. religious/superstitious beliefs), but when someone criticizes those beliefs, the ideologies that uphold them and their negative effects in society, they are not necessarily displaying any kind of irrational fear. Nor are they systematically criticizing or attacking every individual who holds such beliefs. The concept of “Islamophobia” is completely ridiculous, an insult to our intelligence, used primarily to shut down non-pc criticism. Whether it originated with Islamic fundamentalists or is the invention of the Left is a moot point: its stigmatization and censure of rational criticism serves above all the Islamist agenda.



On a more personal and Sift-related note, I recently made the mistake of promoting a video which I was already mistaken in posting (this one; read the comments, but no need to watch the video). Both of these mistakes were rage-induced; when I first saw the video I was so disgusted and enraged at this completely meaningless violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, that I posted the video “tel quel”, with a provocative title and description, as an illustration of mindless religious violence; no oil involved, no nationalist aspirations, no money, just pure, religious-spurred violence. When I promoted it, it was out of the frustration that this discussion caused me; I had powerpoints to spend, wanted to reach Silver, and irony would have it that I used the points awarded me with this video to make such an ill-advised choice. While I regret making such rash decisions (I am only human), and have since made up for it with a comprehensive documentary report on the subject (see link below), I do not regret criticizing certain ideologies, be they religious, political or otherwise, and will continue to do so. I am relatively new to the Sift, but from what I’ve experienced it seems a great place for rational and (more or less ) civil debate on controversial subjects (and also for cute cat videos); I look forward to attempting to contribute to its unique awesomeness!


Cheers, Sifters.


http://videosift.com/video/Islam-s-deadly-divide-Ahmadiyya-report



p.s.: pardon the post’s longishness, I intend on using it as a reference in future.