Maajid Nawaz has another article out, and the cover picture for it is, as usual, of his face (it’s rarely a picture relating to the content of the piece). This time he’s looking contemplatively at the viewer. At other times, he’s staring wistfully in a pastel-coloured turtleneck, or gazing off into the middle-distance as though enthralled by a beatific vision, or in contemplation of a deeply profound wonder. In his article, Maajid tells us that the word Islamophobia is a “misnomer.” In the wake of the New Zealand terrorist attack, Maajid says Islamists have used the word in order to insist that Islam is above scrutiny, and that any condemnation of Islam is simply a phobia attributable to anyone who doesn’t like their reading and interpretation of the Quran. Keep in mind that if there is a jihadist or extremist reading to be found in the Quran, then it was put there by the Quranic author/s or compilers, and is therefore a very legitimate reading of it – Pope Maajid doesn’t get to tell his fellow Muslims what is or what is not the correct way to read the Quran, or any other book, for that matter.
In the UK, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims have put forward a definition of Islamophobia which states: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” Notice how they managed to get two references to race in that one sentence, even although, as allegedly educated adults and Muslims, they should know very well that Islam is not a race. As a solution to all of this, Maajid has put forward his own word. He would like us to use “Muslimphobia” instead of Islamophobia. Maajid claims that, “Islamophobia” conflates scrutiny of Islam, a powerful world religion, with hatred of all Muslims: “the word ‘Islamophobia’ is too blunt. It fails, in principle, to distinguish between hating Muslims and criticising Islamic doctrine.”
The word “Muslimphobia” is also “too blunt,” and that it tightens the noose around the necks of non-Muslims, and the wrong kind of Muslims, more than the word “Islamophobia” does. Maajid claims in the article that the APPG’s definition is bringing the blasphemy laws in through the back door. But if people start using the word “Muslimphobic,” then the blasphemy laws are kicking down your front door, with no need to knock first, and definitely no need to ask permission to enter. At least with “Islamophobia,” it’s quite clear that it is Islam that is being discussed; the texts, the cultural practices that Islam gives rise to, the constant bloodshed and unrest between sects and unbelievers, and not individual Muslims in general. Muslims are already masters of victimhood. It is their stock in trade. Introducing a word such as “Muslimphobia” into the public discourse would be giving these people more ammunition to beat us over the head with in their bid to be perceived as the biggest casualties in society.
This is the way in which Muslims are imposing themselves and their will onto the rest of us here in the West. Islam, to my mind, is one of the worst ideas ever to have been made manifest on planet Earth, and it’s not just Muslims that I call in to question for adhering to Islam. I question anyone who looks at Islam and thinks it’s a good idea, and that’s regardless of race and gender. What better word could we come up with to describe people who aren’t too keen on Islam and the doings of so very many Muslims? Entire villages in Pakistan killing a mentally ill man for blasphemy, for example – no lone wolf or crazed individual there, simply your everyday, next-door neighbour kind of Muslims. The same Muslims who are hunting for Asia Bibi, you know, the Christian lady whose crime was to drink from the same water container as her superior Muslim co-workers. Similarly disturbing things are also happening in Afghan, Yemen, Africa, and across the Middle East. Death to blasphemers, and a good old-fashioned stoning for adulterers. It’s an insult to the dead and the currently oppressed to say that anyone has a phobia about Islam. Maybe Maajid and Muslims have a phobia against criticism.
Everything offends Muslims, and every time they say they’re offended they get their own way. Muslims jump on any and all perceived slights or wrongdoings to further the false narrative that they are the constant victims. Requests for government handouts and public donations skyrocket every time a Muslim gets called a name. It’s like watching a rugby scrum to see all of the Muslim community leaders in their rush to get on to the TV or the front page of the newspapers to see who can whine the loudest and the longest about Islamophobia. The public are sick to death of it, and speaking out about it is not and can never be a crime, although it will be if Islam gets its way. If Maajid and co. want “Islamophobia” to disappear, there’s a very easy solution – stop whining and stop wanting preferential and special treatment above everyone else. Just get on with the business of living, and most importantly stop moaning and foot-stomping like little girls with hurt feelings. London’s Muslim mayor has suddenly found money to give mosques extra protection after the New Zealand attack, even although the city is under-policed and experiencing unprecedented crime levels. Catholic churches didn’t receive this special treatment after Father Jacques Hamel was slaughtered on his altar by two Muslims. Maajid and co. don’t seem to realize where the public discontent towards Muslims is coming from. It’s coming from exactly this place of Muslims constantly whining and wanting more and more privileges. Muslims are no better than any other group of people on the planet. It’s time they realized that.
To be fair, in the article Nawaz is condemning the government for allowing “pro-Islamist” supporting group MEND to define Islamophobia (I’ll call them terrorist supporting, because Islamist and terrorist are one and the same to my mind, and there’s too many -ists and -phobias going around just now that I feel the need to simplify language in relation to Islam). But I also sense a little bit of jealousy in Pope Maajid’s article. I get the impression he would have liked the government to call on him and have him define exactly what Islamophobia is. Thank God they didn’t; otherwise, we would be having to use the word “Muslimphobia.” “Muslimphobia” is far more sinister and dangerous than “Islamophobia” because it concentrates the criticism or the hatred or the dislike onto an individual and that in turn makes it a personal assault. Muslims would relish in this. At least “Islamophobia” is broader and more vague, and being accused of it isn’t an attack on a person in the way that a racist attack or a “Muslimphobic” attack would be.