What Is Islamophobia?

The term "Islamophobia" has recently gained currency among bloggers, journalists and pundits, especially those on the left. Like all politically-charged terms, the term has been used in good faith, in attempts to identify an actual attitude toward Islam, and has also been used as a cheap political brick to be thrown at one's opponents. The key to understanding what exactly "Islamophobia" is lies in the difference between these two usages of the term.

Those who apply the term to anyone voicing criticism of Islam, the traditions surrounding Islam, or extremist versions of Islam are doing so merely to gain cheap political points. Such criticisms of Islam are entirely valid so long as they are reasonable and factually based. Those who assert that Islam and Muslim societies are not to be criticized (or those who label any such critics as "bigots") achieve nothing but the neutering of essential discourse that is very relevant to our times.

Christopher Hitchens, the prominent conservative-leaning (at least on foreign policy issues) writer, has repeatedly denigrated the term Islamophobia, calling it a "stupid neologism" and characterizing it as nothing but a cheap means of stifling debate. Based on his impression of the term, it seems that Hitchens has only encountered the above-described illegitimate use of the term, and has concluded that it serves only this illegitimate purpose.

If one delves into the vast space of internet discussion forums, blogs, and reader comments (both on blogs and news sites), however, it is disturbingly easy to identify instances of real Islamophobia. To identify such instances, we must determine, if reasonable criticism of Islam and Muslim society are legitimate, where does one draw the line? Where does such criticism turn into Islamophobia?

Despite the widespread confusion over the meaning of the term, Islamophobic remarks are remarkably easy to identify: they are simply statements that, ignoring established facts and utilizing hyperbole or outright fabrications, seek to portray all Muslims (or sometimes a majority of Muslims) as extremist, violent, dangerous, ignorant, or any number of other unsupported, hateful characterizations. What sets these statements apart from legitimate criticisms is that they are almost always meant to support a preconceived notion that is unsupported by fact and that serves only to denigrate Muslims.

An example of an Islamophobic argument, which I encountered in an online discussion forum, is the following: The claim was made that, since the Quran contains passages which appear to sanction violence against non-Muslims, one must conclude that Muslims are generally violent and dangerous.

It is perfectly legitimate for this person to point out that certain passages in the Quran could be taken by Muslims as a justification for violence against non-Muslims. However their comments became Islamophobic when they made the illogical, unsupported assertion that, because of this, all Muslims are violent and dangerous. The existence of violence-sanctioning passages in the Quran does not in any way lead to the conclusion that all Muslims are violent, just as the Old Testament passage which says to kill homosexuals does not mean that all Christians or Jews kill homosexuals. This person was unwavering in their certitude that the existence of these passages was irrefutable proof of the violence of all Muslims, even when the flawed logic of their argument was pointed out.

Similarly, it is relatively common for people to point to the widespread violence following the Danish cartoon controversy, and to claim that this supports the conclusion that all Muslims are violent and fanatical. This conclusion is Islamophobic because it ignores the fact that, even though the violence was widespread, only a small fraction of Muslims took part in any kind of violence. As in the above example, this argument serves only as a thin cover for the illogical, preconceived notion that Muslims are violent, which is based in an illogical fear and dislike of Muslims.

Sadly, it seems that many people willfully fail to distinguish between these two types of criticism, so as to legitimize their irrational, Islamophobic remarks or those of others. While it does not appear that this is the case with Hitchens, it is certainly the case with a number of prominent writers, especially among those who seek to justify belief in a global "clash of civilizations" or a concerted effort by Muslims to destroy Western society. If political writers, bloggers and readers can keep in mind the distinction between legitimate criticisms and bigoted Islamophobia, reasoned debate will progress greatly and all-too-prevalent bigotry can be rejected as it should be.