It has become de rigueur these days when condemning antisemitism, for the speaker — Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and millions of others — to automatically condemn in the same breath “Islamophobia,” as if antisemitism and Islamophobia described identical kinds of “hate,” that differed only in the objects of that hatred. But Adam Milstein argues that they are not at all equivalent: “Condemn antisemitism without equivocation to Islamophobia – Opinion,” by Adam Milstein, Jerusalem Post, April
In 2020, Americans took the streets to protest the death of George Floyd. The phrase “Black lives matter” was born. This chant and slogan is now recognized throughout the world to represent a stance against Black intolerance. When some tried to counter it with “all lives matter” they were perceived as dismissive of the unique struggles of the Black community. One of the better arguments is that universalizing a concept when a specific group of people are harmed, is tantamount to an empty platitude or an even a bigoted retort.
Following October 7th Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Israelis, injuring 7,000 more, the Jewish community is asking the same: condemn antisemitism. Condemn it without caveat and without universal language of “standing against all forms of hate”. Yet, time and time again, “Islamophobia” is evoked as a counterpart of antisemitism. This is misguided. It’s unproductive. And it’s unfair.
Let me be clear.
That said, by definition, antisemitism and Islamophobia refer to two very different phenomena that have no connections to one another. When lumped together, the message is muddled at best and offensive at worst.
- The term Islamophobia does not mean hate against Muslims
First, it’s important to define that despite common misconception, the term Islamophobia doesn’t represent hate against Muslims but rather irrational fear of Muslims. ‘Islamophobia’ as a term has existed since the nineteenth century, but became prominent in 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie following his publication of The Satanic Verses. The fatwa not only imposed a death penalty on Rushdie, but also criminalized all the publishers and translators of the book. When Rushdie was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 2007 for his services to literature, Iran accused Britain of “Islamophobia”.
Since then, the Islamophobic label has been used increasingly to deter and ultimately criminalize any scrutiny of the behavior any groups or individuals who happen to be Muslim, even when those are committing atrocities like Hamas, or advancing radical or harmful ideas, like Iran’s Mullahs.
Hatred toward Muslim is real, but it doesn’t equal Islamophobia. The Australian man, who killed 51 Muslims in 2019 in Christchurch, New Zealand was an extremist bigot who hated Muslims. He did not irrationally fear them….
“Islamophobia” — the word — began several decades ago to be used quite deliberately by Muslims and their supporters to describe and undermine every manifestation of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim feeling, no matter how justified such feeling may be. Most recently, it has been used to describe the hatred of those Muslims who promote, or praise, or took part in, the rapes, tortures, and murders of Israelis on October 7, but that is hardly; “an irrational fear or hatred” of Muslims. It is rather, a most understandable and justified reaction.
Those who have earned our rational fear and hatred include Rashida Tlaib, for her praise of the Hamas rapists and murderers as “resistance fighters” and for calling for the eradication of Israel — which is what “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means — in order that it might be replaced by a twenty-third Arab state.
It is not an irrational hatred or fear of Islam, but moral outrage, that prompts criticism of Mehdi Hasan, a Muslim journalist who has defended Ilhan Omar’s antisemitic remarks and peddled conspiracy theories about Israel, and during a sermon he delivered in 2009, quoting a verse of the Quran, Hasan used the terms “cattle” and “people of no intelligence” to describe non-Muslims. In another sermon, he used the term “animals” to describe non-Muslims. You can see Hasan making these remarks here.
“Is it “Islamophobic” to deplore Mehdi Hasan’s views, and to have urged that his news-and-interview program at MSNBC should be dropped from the station, as in fact it was?
Antisemitism, in the working definition of the IHRA, is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Jews do not have to do anything to be the objects of antisemitism. Their mere existence is enough for them to be hated, sometimes murderously so, by antisemites. Antisemitism is a pathological mental condition whose carriers can be fought, physically and in other ways, to lessen their ability to hurt, but seldom will the dyed-in-the-wool antisemite be susceptible to argument, to see the error of his malevolent ways.
The term “Islamophobia” — though it dates back to the nineteenth century — began to be employed only in the last decades of the twentieth century. It was coined quite deliberately, by Muslims and their defenders, to silence perfectly rational critics of Islam and of Muslim behavior. Do you criticize Rashida Tlaib for refusing to denounce Hamas for the October 7 atrocities? You are Islamophobic. Do you take issue with Muslims who falsely claim that Israel is “committing genocide” in Gaza? Again, that simply shows you are an Islamophobe. Do you want to limit Muslim immigration because you believe it impossible for a large Muslim population to integrate into a non-Muslim polity, especially since Muslims are taught to despise non-Muslims who, the Qur’an instructs them, are “the most vile of created beings? Do you believe that Muslim women must not be forced to wear the “hijab”? You must be an “Islamophobe.” If you bring up in a debate the fact that little Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad when she was six years old, and that marriage was consummated when she was nine years old, and he was 54, you will be called an “Islamophobe.” And if you raise an alarm about Muslim No-Go areas in your country, where non-Muslims fear to tread, you must be denounced as an “Islamophobe.”
The spread of Muslims throughout the Western world, many of whom batten on all the benefits the generous welfare states of Western Europe offer, also are engaged in a kind of demographic jihad, that has led many non-Muslims to be filled with anxiety and dread that their societies are even now being undermined by aggressive Muslims determine to transform the countries of Western Europe and North America into Islamic polities, part of Dar al-Islam. When the critics of Islam — say, Richard Dawkins or Jordan Peterson — deliver their thoughtful reflections on this phenomenon, and present their considered criticisms of Islam and of Muslim behavior, they are labelled “Islamophobes” so that others will dismiss their criticisms.
But that word in all its variants — Islamophobia, Islamophobe, Islamophobic — is no longer having the desired effect. It’s been weakened by overuse. Those who are labelled “Islamophobes” are now holding that word up for critical inspection and throwing it back in the faces of those who had hoped, in using it, to suppress all criticism of Islam. Every time someone holds up that word for analysis and criticism, it loses a little of its luster. So keep at it, poking holes in it so that the light of truth can ultimately shine through.
DavidW says
Islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.
– Christopher Hitchens
A phobia is an irrational fear of something, like of snakes or spiders. In regard to Islam, there is nothing irrational about fearing an ideology that calls for violence, oppression, and cruelty against those who do not follow the “faith”.
Pray Hard says
Actually, a guy named Andrew Cummins coined that. Hitchens used it often, however.
I’ve been explaining what a phobia is for decades. There’s been very little impact.
loek says
Excellent article. Thank you Hugh.
How can I reach you if I have a question?
somehistory says
The thing that strikes me is that having a phobia is not a crime. If one respects the power and danger of snakes, airplanes, high places, spiders or other objects or situations one may encounter, that is viewed as normal…unless the “respect” turns to an irrational fear.
One may be deathly afraid of snakes….all snakes, even those which are harmless and even helpful. This fear is seen by doctors as “irrational,” a “phobia.” The doctor may try to help his patient to overcome the fear, but the fear is not considered a crime.
mozlums want a dislike of islam, or even the mozlums who adhere to islam, to be seen as a hate crime. mozlums don’t want the violent and evil Truth about islam to become known to everyone, and claim that telling such is a hate crime against mozlums.
Hating islam, even hating mozlums is not a “hate crime.” It’s only a crime if a crime is committed. If some law on the books is committed…not the hate alone.
But mozlums are desperate to get people on-board with their claims of hate crimes committed against them in order for the ‘phobia’ to be legislated into law. mozlums want the hate to be criminalized.
When this fake phobia is propagated along with the current reports of the hatred….and violence being perpetrated…against Jews, mozlums see it as a win toward the legislation, and the unaware are encouraged to believe it exists.
Hating something is not a crime. If it’s a hatred of evil, it’s a good thing. Hatred of islam is a good thing. Hating islam is not the same as hating the adherents of islam. Some may feel justified in hating the adherents.
But as long as nothing is done to hurt or harm the adherents, no crime has been committed. mozlums are pushing for that to change.
That is why when someone talks about hating being unacceptable against the Jews, they also include mozlums. If people are led to believe that mozlums are also being targeted on campuses and other places, they may be easier to lead to accept a law against a ‘phobia,’ whether it’s real or fake.
rubiconcrest says
We have to be as careful with our words when when it comes to criticizing a religion like Islam because of it’s duality. For example, many say they hate Islam. I understand where that comes, absolutely, from but not all Muslims believe all that Islam teaches. By making the issue black and white we exclude many who might agree with us.
We can alternatively say, ‘we hate the evils of Islam’. This allows us to make the case that it’s intolerance of other faiths and Jews and criticism and apostasy etc…is evil. This intolerance and the violence it condones for transgressions makes it incompatible with democratic societies to the extent that individuals take it literally. There is plenty of evidence of that. It cannot be ignored as our leaders are doing.
It is far better to say, ‘we hate the evils of sharia’. We respect the reasons why it may have been useful 700 years ago but it promotes inequality and does not protect individual rights. To the extent that the evils of sharia permeate Islamic institutions it is not legal and should be considered a form of racketeering.
somehistory says
I say “to each his own.” I do not recognize the word mozlums use for their lawless code of conduct, and will not refrain from calling out the evils islam commands and demands of those who follow it..
islam is evil through and through and nothing about it has ever been “useful.” And I don’t “respect” islam….not even a little bit.
So, on this, we must disagree.
Ray Jarman says
I definitely second that opinion Somehistory. Islam is the only religion, which is fallacious to refer to it as a religion, of which I am aware that espouses the extermination of another people because of their religion or ethnicity. Almost all religions have had their moments in history where that religion was used by men in contradiction of its teachings. Another way to express it is to say that men have committed huge acts of cruelty in the name of a religion but that is different from a religion where the so-called sacred text preaches hatred of others.
somehistory says
Thank you, Ray. And your comment says it all in a few words. Thank you.
rubiconcrest says
You miss the point entirely. You would ban the Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s of this world from immigrating. By focusing the evils of Islam and sharia we create cracks in the dam. Eventually the dam breaks. Islam has erected high walls to prevent critical analysis. There are many evils of Islam and sharia on which people can agree. We should focus on those things. Just saying Islam is evil accomplishes nothing.
somehistory says
No, I did not miss your “point.” I wouldn’t “ban” anyone from doing anything except forcing me to do as they choose for me to do.
You are free to think as you wish. But I will say as I have said, islam is evil….its very core is from satan the devil and all of the demands and commands are evil.
There is not even one nano particle of islam that is worth anything.
You seem to believe it’s okay to take away some of my freedom to speak…or write…what I think. mozlums want to do that too, as they believe they have the right to tell all of us what to say and what to think about islam.
By your demand that I think and write as you do, you have accomplished nothing of any value.
James Lincoln says
rubiconcrest says,
“…not all Muslims believe all that Islam teaches.”
Yes, that’s true – but it is in SPITE of islam.
Of course, all bets are off if a particular muslim decides – for whatever reason – to become more “devout”.
And that is unpredictable: it can happen at any time – or not at all – there is no way to predict…
somehistory says
And, for those, James, we might be speaking with one….”watching our words”….and that’s the time they explode.
Like the guy years ago, shortly before September 11, in my apartment. Talking quietly when he suddenly grabbed my video player and rushed outside with it. Back he came, doing the same with the t.v.
My calm reply to something he said must have been the straw for him.
PRCS says
Yes, in spite of Islam.
Grandma Fatima in Detroit may not want to cut off a thief’s hand, but she knows what Qur’an says.
With few exceptions, our politicians, so-called journalists, and others who could and should tell others the truth are, to date, perpetuating the “religion of peace” lie.
Pray Hard says
Who says “we have to be careful”? You? No, we don’t. Tell the truth. Save your sermons for other islamoliberals. That is all.
somehistory says
Thank you, Pray Hard. I agree.
PRCS says
I agree, rubiconcrest.
Pointing out that theocracy’s specific teachings and commands which Muslims are unable to deny are incompatible with and antithetical to the secular, man-made laws of the democracy we are governed by has to be step number one.
Hudud punishments like the amputation of a thief’s hand is a good example of that. Fasting, wiping with one’s left hand and praying five times a day are not.
Saying “I hate Isalm” lacks specifity.
Pray Hard says
There is no such thing as islamophobia. It exists as a contrived word, nothing else. There is no such thing as an irrational fear of moslems. Explaining it, as if it’s real, only validates it further.
“This is misguided. It’s unproductive. And it’s unfair.” Nah, it’s just stupid. “Islamophobia” needs only a very short definition, non existent.
Mike says
There seems to be a large amount of Christophobia, Judeophobia, Hinduphobia, Buddhaphobia, Sikhophobia, Shintophobia, and all-round Kuffarphobia amongst many Muslims at the current time.
James Lincoln says
Anyone who does not fear the spread of islam by muslims – or their useful Leftist idiots:
IS NOT RATIONAL.
Gurek says
Why is this slander word frequently used by the media, politicians and other freaks? We never hear from these scums saying Christophobia or phobia of any other group apart from phobia of evil islam? Are Muslims superior to peoples of other faiths? The evil leftists and their “hate” media have turned this world into pits of real hatred.
PRCS says
“Are Muslims superior to peoples of other faiths?”
Yes, according to Islam’s teachings and laws, yet members of the media–and others–still parrot the “religion of peace” lie.
So many of them, some of whom had no qualms about printing or showing the “award sinning” Piss Christ picture refused to print or show the 2005 Danish cartoons.
The failure to pusth back reinforces the Muslim belief that they’re superior to others.
PRCS says
“award winning”
Michał Moś says
Of course. It cannot be compared. Anti-Semitism meant that we murdered Jews because they were Jews. And Islamophobia, in turn, results from what Muslims do. It’s hard not to be afraid of people who can make the entire university in Katowice cry at any moment just because they blew up the campus where an exchange student from the philological faculty in Sosnowiec was staying. It’s hard not to be afraid of people who rob every mother who sends her child on an exchange to France or Italy, for example, and every information about an attack in this country makes the child’s father’s heart beat faster.
Kees says
The same can be said of the expression transphobic.
jerry glenn says
What we do need to fear is rampant Islamopandering.
Greyhound Fancier says
I oppose Islam because it enshrines as religious duty many of the worst human sins, including violence toward anyone who converts from Islam, violence toward anyone who says or does anything judges by a Muslim to have “insulted” Islam or its reprehensible “prophet”. As a female I have a healthy fear of Islam — I don’t care to be forced by sharia law to be made to wear Muslim coverups, to be liable to rape as an “infidel” woman, to have to stop joyful noise at church so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities, to have to hear the wailing “call to prayer”, and to be dhimmi status and exist only to support Muslims through taxation and to be humbled by Muslims.
I have two daughters and would not wish a life in an Islamic hellhole on them.