“Islamophobia: a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” Christopher Hitchens.
Phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation (Merriam-Webster)
Now that I have set the mood with the above quotes, I can reveal that I am getting ever tired of hearing the word “Islamophobic” in the public sphere from left-wing “journalists” who are rabble-rousing and virtue signalling to the masses for attention whenever someone who has a dislike, a distrust or hatred of the activities of Muslims who are faithfully following the edicts of their religion.
So let me state right now that I want to explore the subtle differences between the two right now, so I can get it through their
thick heads. Also, anyone who calls Islam a race, please, be first in line, so a carefully planned and powerfully enforced hit to the head with a clue bat can make contact with your low aptitude-powered cranium. Much appreciated.
If someone has no direct knowledge of Islam, primary the works known to us as the Quran (sometimes Koran) and the Hadith, and had an aversion or fear of the works, and maybe of it’s followers, because the actions of a few fundamentalists (ie: those following the fundamentals of their sacred texts, in contrast to those social Muslims, or like so many other religions, following their scriptures Ala carte), then they would be using the term correctly. However, if someone has familiarity with the works, can point out and quote verses from the books who show not only the command but only the injunction to commit some atrocious acts such as defending free speech, permitting homosexuality, suicide bombing or even treating women as more than just beasts of burden and walking incubators and decides that they find those beliefs and instructions to be irrational, deprived of logic, lacking common sense, primitive and barbaric compared to modern society’s standards established at least since the Enlightenment, then they are to be referred to anti-Islamic. They have a rational and well-reasoned dislike, dare I say a hatred of the religion (not it’s followers, the religion itself, though they may also hate the actions of it’s most motivated and devout followers) and everything it stands for.
I highly doubt the public pseudo intellectuals in the world will take notice, but in the world of competing for rating, trying to out-stupid each other with click-bait headlines for attention and getting eyeballs and indirectly encouraging others to get their pitchforks and torches out, I will keep making noise about it. Think of it like this, you ask a Christian what they might call someone who hates their religion, or doesn’t think very highly of their saviour, they are called Anti-Christ, or Anti-Christian, not Christophobic, or Christianphobic. Why it that? I refer you back to the quote earlier of Christopher Hitchens. If someone hates Judaism, or is incredibly critical of it, are they called Judaeo-phobic? No, they are called Anti-Semitic. See, there’s that prefix again!
Some in the media do get it right, when they are not concentrating on trying to get attention by targeting just one religion. The above three religions are monotheistic, they follow one god, the Abrahamic one. These three religions are theistic, which separate from the deist point of view, believe in a god that not only kickstarted the universe (the Prime Mover argument) but intervenes in their daily lives, cares who they sleep with and in what position, cares what food you eat and on what day, demands mutilation of the genitals of children (girls, not just boys) and endorses slavery and genocide. Those people who believe that such a belief structure is not very constructive to modern life, and hinders social progress and is actually detrimental to wellbeing in the world, are called Anti-Theists. They are against the idea of the personal god, who as powerful as they are supposed to be, still need to rely upon millennia-old books, and fallible humans to speak for it, who always seem to express revelation and doctrines who happen to coincide with their own world-view, interests and perspectives. Funny about that, eh?
So I want a call to arms, for intellectually honest journalists, writers, news presenters and news writers, editors and members on social media claiming to be social media influencers (who are they influencing other than followers who are lacking approval in their own daily lives of the way they live and with low self-esteem?), to finally call this out for what it is. We do not have an irrational fear of Islam, we have a well reasoned and logical dislike of it. I don’t shy away when a Muslim comes near me (though I might if they were wielding a weapon or yelling their battle cry at me), but I am very, very critical of their bronze age beliefs, which like the Christian faith, is a death cult; eagerly calling for and awaiting for the end of the world.
As a writer I understand the nuance between use of words and language, and though it distresses me greatly when I see the English language being abused so horribly (what did it ever do to you?!) such as the difference between “definitely” and “defiantly”, the use of proper words and labels will show your audience not only that you are smart enough to accurately and meticulously construct your message, but may show off your intelligence and well crafted though processes. If you can’t get your message across properly, you risk either alienating people, being misquoted, being taken out of context (another cheap tactic sometimes used by media screaming for attention), or failing in getting across your thoughts and having people walk away with a fuzzy and blurring idea of what you’re actually trying to convey.
So again, please get these words right. By using the word Islamophobic in place of Anti-Islamic, you are showing your lack of understanding of the core issues, painting the anti-theists with a label we don’t want nor deserve, and showing ignorance of the underlying message of living in a (hopefully) predominantly secular society allowing for peaceful pluralism where faith does not trump the law. Anything is else misguided and may be seen as malicious, which is just as bad as being taken of out context or being misquoted. Most writers already know how they feels, why would they want to tarnish their reputation by inflicting it on others?