There have been a lot of articles recently which take people like R. Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bill Maher and Sam Harris to task for being intolerant, hateful etc.  The tortured logic and subtle misrepresentations of these people's positions is often all the more hair-raising because it is usually couched in the 'I'm a liberal secularist, but...' vein. A recent one was a New Republic review of Dawkins' autobiography:

and the latest is from Salon:

After writing basically the same long-winded response in comment sections several times, I decided to turn this into a short essay, and I would like to hear any feedback this community has. Or, when you all tell me that it's perfect, I would love any suggestions on where I could post this in order to perhaps deter the next half-assed apologist from writing the next such article. Also, anyone who knows of concurring/contrasting diatribes on the same subject is invited to share.

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’


In the wake of a recent rash of criticism of ‘strong secular’[1] condemnations of Islam, it seems necessary to elucidate a few lines of reasoning that are often too easily obscured by broad language and fallacious arguments.  Many exchanges over what level of criticism of Islam is appropriate from Westerners tend to be completely unproductive for such reasons, falling prey especially to ad hominem accusations of bigotry and racism. This essay attempts to explain the strong secular critique of Islam as a particular species of the secular critique of all religion, and to demonstrate that particularly strong criticism of Islam, in specific, is a justified response to particularly strong currents of violence in that religion.


The word ‘Islamophobia’ is completely unlike any other in our language.  A quick inspection of English vocabulary reveals that there has never been a comparable usage of the suffix ‘–phobia’, which connotes an irrational fear.  To place a person’s expressed reaction to a religion and culture on the same semantic level as such knee-jerk responses as recoiling from a spider or feeling vertigo is a subtle but meaningful distortion; to call a person ‘Islamophobic’ immediately discredits their views, however rationally supported, as having their basis in fear and misunderstanding. 

It is particularly ironic that most of those branded ‘Islamophobic’ are those who are critical of religion in general. Unlike partisans in a religious conflict, for example, these persons typically arrive at their strong condemnations of Islam after studying it closer, not as a result of irrational fear, personal hatred or ignorance.  While it cannot be conclusively proven that any particular person is or is not irrationally biased, it should be recognized that the conflation of criticizing Islam with the irrational fear implied by the designation ‘phobia’ is itself irrational.  In fact, the reactions of strong secularists to Islam can be described as something quite the opposite of a phobia, i.e. a rationally-based condemnation, hardly deserving to be placed in the same category as gut-clenching fear. Whether or not one agrees with their reasons for singling Islam out, one has at least to recognize that such reason-based criticism is a far cry from cringing at the sight of a crescent and star.


What, then, are the reasons the strong secularists give for the special attention they devote to criticizing Islam?  The most common impression seems to be that their argument amounts to a simple statement: ‘Islam is a violent religion’.  While this certainly expresses some of the spirit of their reasoning, it glosses over the important points that distinguish their position from one of simple out-of-hand condemnation. 

The most important omission from this simplified expression is the fact that true strong secularists are consistently critical of all religions and ideologies.  Many of those tarred as ‘Islamophobes’ are people who have devoted significant creative energies to critiquing religion in general, as well as specific religions other than Islam[2].  One will certainly never hear a secularist say that Christianity is a non-violent religion; the fact that there is less explicitly Christian violence today is mostly a result of social, political and economic factors, and it is easy enough to point to the historical record as a demonstration that Christianity has at least the potential for violence that Islam does.  Rather than categorizing religions as violent or non-violent, a strong secularist recognizes that most religions, certainly the all three Abrahamic ones, are vast and nebulous bodies of advice, prescriptions, proscriptions, philosophy and wisdom; it would be impossible to nail any one of them down to a particular point on a ‘violence spectrum’. We can see from historical example that the cherry-picking afforded by such a wide body of often contradictory scripture and tradition allows a wide leeway for ‘interpreting’ doctrine to suite one’s own ends.  A common reaction to strong secular criticisms of Islam is to say that it unfairly judges the essence of the religion based on those most extreme and violent manifestations of it.  While this is certainly something that should be guarded against, the opposite extreme is equally illogical; one should not assume, either, that Islam (or any other religion) has a noble, non-violent essence which violence is merely a perversion of.  An impartial observer cannot assign either expression of Islam validity or invalidity; he can only remark that both expressions are possible outcomes from the same source text and culture.

To elucidate why secularists single out Islam, however, two distinct points must be understood.  The first, simple point is that, of all the major religions today, Islam is the one most often and pervasively associated with violence.  The second, more abstract, is that religions can, in fact, have a differing levels of inherent violence or peacefulness. Christianity makes a poor point of comparison here, having in its history demonstrated a comparable potential for violence; instead, we will take the example of one of the world’s oldest religions, Jainism.

Jainism, briefly, is oriented around three major principles: Non-Violence, Non-Possession and Non-Absolutism.  In addition, they place a strong emphasis on historical awareness, culture and lifelong learning. Needless to say, not much violence comes out of the Jain community.  That which does has a much harder time excusing itself because the cultural backdrop against which it occurs is distinctly condemnatory of violence.  Contrast this to almost any other socio-religious setting, in which almost any violent act can be ascribed to (not to say excused by) religious motivations, owing to the extreme latitude for interpretation afforded by other religious cultures. 

The simplicity and clarity of Jainism’s attitude towards violence ensures that such violence as occurs will never excuse itself as ‘justified’.  Violence of any sort is always a human-scale phenomenon; only the culture in which it takes place can determine whether it will be discouraged or Magnified and Sanctified. The fact that violence perpetrated by Muslim ideologues is likely often based on political, economic or personal factors does nothing to erase the fact that their religion has elevated violence into a legitimate vehicle for expression. 

The Jains believe plenty of crazy things, as any strong secularist will say, and in an ideal world we would be rid of their superstitions as well as all others.  It is, after all, nothing more than a ‘cosmic accident’ that Jainism universally condemns violence rather than, for example, universally encouraging it.[3] However, reality demands priorities, and it should be clear that Jainism has a far lower inherent propensity for causing human suffering than Islam (and many other religions and ideologies).  A Jain facing the temptation to confront violence must choose it without the possibility of blaming it on ideology, which the Christian or Muslim who acts violently has as many religious justifications open to him as his fellows may have religious-based condemnations. 



An actual investigation of why contemporary Islam is the strongest force for explicit religious violence is beyond the scope of this essay.  It is hoped that the foregoing discussion should highlight the fact that strong secular critiques of violence are entirely conscious of socio-cultural, economic and political factors, and that seeking to paint the strong secular position as dismissing these factors in order to blame all religious violence on the religion itself is misrepresentation. The strong secularist makes no claims about the inherent violence of people (which could rightly be labeled bigotry or racism) but of religions themselves. 


[1] This term is used herein to denote criticisms of religion in toto that attempt to explain religious phenomena in rational and secular terms, and to answer religious claims with naturalistic explanations. Its use is intended to draw a contrast with ‘soft secularists’ who, while non-religious themselves, stop short of condemning others’ religious beliefs.

[2] It is instructive that many of those secularists most often accused of Islamophobia actually first gained notoriety as secularists for books critical of Christianity—Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are notable examples.

[3] The author knows of no such religion per se, but one need imagine nothing more exotic than movements in Christianity or Islam based on those verses which promote religious hegemony. 

Views: 2963

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't remember hearing about that one, yet, but there is a plethora of gods. Odin in particular gets a lot of support, and one's life mission to be accepted into Valhalla. An interesting sideshow (so far, in Season 1) is the Christian monk they abducted from one of the four kingdoms of Anglo (or England? I forgot what they called it). The monk supposedly knew about the Vikings and even learned some of their language during his travels, but this tribe of vikings (at least) didn't believe any other land west of the european shores existed or was reachable, until the main character (in the above photo) learned to navigate to and back from it. I'll pick up on how accurate the series is to real history, as I go.

Could that be what's riding the horse on his maile?

I'd like to know if Vikings actually wore their beards and hair in the skinhead style.

Apparently they were pretty prissy with their grooming habits. Most men had several different kinds of hair and beard combs and brushes (at least those with some money and or reputation as opposed to the numerous slaves) and pretty elaborate wardrobes. They washed far more than other Europeans and their clothes, weapons, accessories were highly decorated and showy.

What a lot of people don't realize about the continental Europeans and the folks in Britain is that in many ways THEY were the barbarians, at least up to the Renaissance. 

The East Indians, Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Persians, and several other civilizations were far more civilized than the Europeans for thousands of years before Europe could claim much civilization. Even the so-called "barbarian" tribes (the Huns, Mongols, Vandals, etc.), were more civilized in many ways, at least within their own societies.

Aha, so I think your bloody angels might be the "blood eagles", in the series. Hacked open rib cages and pulled out lungs?

Here is an interesting read asking the "real" Islam to please stand up and looks at the long history of Islam.

I just heard about this news.  ISIL has released photos of them throwing a man suspected of being gay from a three story building as ordered by their mullahs,  He didn't die so they stoned him to death.

So would someone like to talk to me about this big fur and feather fight over CIA using enhanced interrogation against pseudo hominid creatures who act like rabid animals?

Shouldn't we worry that if we torture one of them, they might have tortured the gay man in addition to tossing him and stoning him. BTW, falling three stories won't outrightly kill many people, so I imagine they were actually looking forward to the stoning part. If you want to be sure to kill someone, go six stories or higher.

More or less, this is an answer to your question.


I'm looking for a possible link that might help everyone understand the historical model for making Islam submit.  I have a out of an old print book that was given to me 4 years ago about the history of the Mongol invasion of the middle east. There was the unbeatable and simple battlefield strategy of the Mongols (called Slow Slow Fast Fastthat the Nazis adapted to great success)


and there was their effective strategies off the battlefields that did more to conquer Islam than the actual battles themselves.  The one that western forces need to adopt is "one-one thousand"  Whatever the forces in the middle east did the mongols returned it multiplied by 1000. It wasn't long before generals and kings in the middle east were being kllled by their own armies and people OR being given to the Mongols in hopes of getting something resembling peace rather than sure death at the hands of the armies of Genghis Khan.


The Mongols didn't invent that type of war strategy. They took the way islamic rulers controlled their own people and magnified it beyond the levels the people were used to tolerating in order to make them move against their own rulers.


Now go read the histories of almost every coup and revolution in the middle east -- the ways each dictator, king, emit, shiek, mullah and shah ran his domain.  It's all been exactly the same since before Big Mo.  Terror by unquestionable male authority is the unifying factor in the middle east in families, villages, clans, politics, religion etc. That is their strength and their weakness if it's exploited.


If forces invade without giving the people something to fear more than ISIL, Al Qaida, the Salafis  and Wahhabs of the Arabian peninsula, the Ayatollahs of Iran, the kings, dictators and Muslim Brotherhood, etc..  then western forces have lost before they put feet on the ground.  That's the history from the fall of the Ottoman Empire when European powers moved to the middle east to fill the vacuum.


But no one wants to believe that.  Too many people are auditioning to play Neville Chamberlain and no one wants to play Churchill.  They want to go over there and teach them to love puppies and kitens, pick flowers and sing Whitney Houston songs.


I'm done.

Yes, I'll take you up on that.  Here's all you need to know: real humans at the CIA actually sat down, at some point, and decided to bring back torture, despite it having been proven ineffective and banned for moral reasons several decades ago. In order to revive it, they had to train their interrogators, a process which apparently brought many of them near tears.  Several years later, however, they had a crack team of agents torturing people without losing much sleep over it, as evidenced by the lack of whistleblowing. Since it seems unlikely that the CIA brought in a bunch of sadistic bastards to replace the bleeding hearts who cried during torture training, the inevitable conclusion is that those people were desensitized to the idea of human rights violations, via the ideology of 'protecting America at any cost'. 

Do I need to elucidate the analogy to religious violence any more clearly?

Brian in case it wasn't apparent from the beginning this thread isn't about the CIA or the recent release by liberal senators of a "report" on CIA use of torture.


That's a valid subject and you ought to start a thread on it if you want to discuss it. In other words, please think about taking that discussion elsewhere.

Brian in case it wasn't apparent from the beginning this thread isn't about the CIA or the recent release by liberal senators of a "report" on CIA use of torture.

I disagree with Virgil on this. Besides, it's your thread.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service