By: Sandbad
As a basic
requirement in a society which advocates freedom of thought and speech, Islam
like any other ideology or religion should be kept susceptible to criticism and must
not be exempted from it. In reality
however by using this term in many occasions genuine criticism of Islam is
dismissed as some sort of racist abuse and showing concern about Islamism is often taken as an exaggerated, biased and phobic reaction.
Same negative weight this term has gained itself in public opinion is holding many back from publicly expressing their opinion about Islam as they fear to be accused of Islamophobia.
Same negative weight this term has gained itself in public opinion is holding many back from publicly expressing their opinion about Islam as they fear to be accused of Islamophobia.
But not all the criticism directed at Islam is biased and made under a racist agenda. So should we continue using this word in the same capacity as it is currently used? I think we should not.
The word Islamophobia:
Islamophobia is a compound word created by combining ‘Islam’ and ‘phobia’. The word ‘phobia’ is derived from Greek word “phobos” which means fear. In clinical psychology ‘phobia’ is used in combination with other words in order to create names for different types of anxiety disorder (eg. Arachnophobia – fear of spiders)
The word Islamophobia:
Islamophobia is a compound word created by combining ‘Islam’ and ‘phobia’. The word ‘phobia’ is derived from Greek word “phobos” which means fear. In clinical psychology ‘phobia’ is used in combination with other words in order to create names for different types of anxiety disorder (eg. Arachnophobia – fear of spiders)
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘phobia’ as: “an exaggerated usually
inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or
situation”
According to this definition one expects the term Islamophobia to specifically
refer to an anxiety disorder where a sufferer has a disproportionate fear,
dislike or aversion from the ideology and religion of Islam however the usage
of this term is often extended to
refer to a racist type of hatred and/or aversion from Muslim individuals and
groups.
Oxford dictionary defines ‘Islamophobia’ as “a hatred or fear of
Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”
In my opinion
there are two major reasons usage of word Islamophobia has to be
avoided:
Firstly this word is created by ignoring the complicated
dynamic which gives shape to Islamic world by generalizing the word “Islam” in
a simplistic manner.
Secondly by using the term “phobia” it is implying that any fear from Islam is illogical and disproportionate. And by this it transfers a prejudiced and subliminal message that like any other anxiety disorder the fear of Islam is also just a phobia which worth no further investigation or discussion but treatment as an illness.
What the term Islamophobia is
generalizing:
Ethnic diversity of Muslim Word: Muslim world in itself is very ethnically diverse. This is to a
level that in terms of culture and ethnicity often two distinct Muslim groups have
little in common. For example an Uzbek
Muslim is world apart from a Sub Saharan Muslim in terms of ethnicity,
tradition, customs, language and etc.
This means as Islam is a religion followed
by many ethnic groups in a vast geographical area it just doesn't make sense
to use the term Islamophobia in order to refer to a type of racism.
Distinctiveness of Islamic schools of
thought: Letting apart the ethnic diversity of Muslim
world, the Islam in itself is a very general term which may refer to any of several
Islamic schools of thought commonly practised.
Followers of each Muslim school of thought have
their own distinct believes sometimes in total contrast and despise of another
group. For example in Salafi school of thought followers of Shiism are
considered to be heretics and are punishable for their heresy as seen adequate
in Islamic penal code.
So even in ideological terms the word ‘Islam’
alone is not indicative enough to refer to a specific and defined set of beliefs. In my opinion
any generalization to this level has to be avoided as a matter of principle.
Phobia?
But is fear of Islam can be considered a
phobia? For example is it really disproportionate and exaggerated to fear to be
subjected to Sharia Law?
What if an apostate is aware that in Sharia
Law apostates are punishable by death? What if a nine year old girl is at risk
of being sold into marrying a man older than her grandfather? What if a wife is
repeatedly beaten by her husband and she knows that her husband is only using
his legitimate Islamic right in order to beat her up? What if the same wife is
also aware that her husband is allowed to marry several other women while he is
still married to her? What if a woman has to wear Hijab in 42 degrees hot
summer day of Tehran?
What about discrimination against women in
inheritance and divorce laws? What about homosexual and members of religious
minorities? What about members of an unrecognised religious minority? (Baha’i
faith in Iran) What about punishments like stoning for adultery? Flogging for
drinking alcohol or body mutilation for thieves? What if ‘infidel’ people of a neighbouring
territory fear their Muslim neighbours to come jihad-ing on them?
Is fear involved in any of above cases a phobic fear as term Islamophobia implies? Are these affected individuals in need of
psychotherapy to be relived from their disproportionate and phobic fear of
Islam? Or is it just common sense for them to fear Islam and Islamic law?
Muslim Point of View
To my experience when it comes to
controversial Islamic rules (some mentioned above) Muslims disregard of their ethnicity/race
and school of thought are divided in two major groups:
First group follows Quran and Hadith line
by line and apply Islamic law and Islamic penal code as they were commonly and
historically applied. They are ‘fundamentalists’ and have little or no concern about
reaction of outside world in response to applying rules which according to modern
convention of human rights are considered brutal and inhumane.
In some Islamic countries where political
system is heavily influenced or completely controlled by fundamentalists (such as Iran and
Saudi Arabia) citizens are regularly sentenced to flogging, stoning and body
mutilation and despite all international pressure these countries resist to change
their official penal code which is taken directly from Sharia Law. This is
because in fundamentalist point of view Islamic law and moral code is something
which cannot be disputed or changed even if it is genuinely immoral and in
violation of modern standards.
The second group of Muslims are self proclaimed
‘progressive’ bunch who tend to believe controversial and brutal Islamic law and penal code are enforced only by fundamentalists of the first group as a
result of first group’s misinterpretation of otherwise moral and advanced
Islamic law.
The progressives in second group are often
apologetic about the fundamentalists’ behaviour and they often take their own
interpretation of Islamic law as the correct version. An interpretation which in many occasions is
unlike anything historically practised by any Muslims.
Members of second group are also likely to believe
that the actions of first group has wrongly given a negative and scary image to
Islam in public opinion and that Islam is in fact a kind and tolerant religion unlike what the fundamentalist has shown it to be.
This clash between progressives and fundamentalists is an old trend. But it is still unheard of that a progressive cleric officially rejects
the brutalities historically practised by Muslims as wrong doings
of early Muslims or prophet or Imams and replace them by more modern and moderate rules.
At the same time the progressive Muslim clerics chose
to be vague about controversial parts of Islamic law and Islamic penal code if
they are forced to talk about this subject and they apologetically try to
justify them.
I leave the reader with this question:
Is it a phobia to be scared of a religion
that its self proclaimed progressive movement is being intentionally vague and dishonest about its controversies instead of actively trying to clear them up?
