5 ms·

I agree with you about most of those phobias, but I strongly disagree about Islamophobia. I think future societies will be surprised by how much human sufferin

by ucarion 13y ago

I agree with you about most of those phobias, but I strongly disagree about Islamophobia. I think future societies will be surprised by how much human suffering we permit in the name of being "tolerant". Religions are not all created equal, and no intellectually honest person will claim that Islam and Jainism are equally valid moral frameworks (this is why few people fret about Jainophobia). We know that Islam and its adherents are generous contributors to the surplus of misery in the world. People concerned about the quality of human life will recognize that we were right to be extremely suspicious of Islam. (Note that I'm defining Islamophobia as "deep suspicion of Islam / thoughts informed by Islamic beliefs", especially when it comes to questions of morality and ethics.)

chrismonsanto 13y ago
I think a lot of people write "Islamophobia" when they mean "hating Islam as an excuse to hate Arab people." Speaking as an Arab person who is very critical of Islam, I think we should be careful to distinguish the two.
- ivanca 13y ago
  Many times is used by the offended ones in an (rightful or not) attempt to portray any critics as motivated by hatred/racism and not on rational thoughts.
gautamnarula 13y ago
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, wrote an interesting post on Islamophobia and how he believes it doesn't actually exist, at least not in the framework that we normally consider phobias: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#views_on_islam http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controve... The relevant part: The meaning of “Islamophobia” is not at all like the meanings of those other terms. It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice against Muslims from ordinary racism and xenophobia directed at Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalis, and other people who happen to be Muslim. Of course, there is no question that such bigotry exists, and it is as odious as Greenwald believes. But inventing a new term does not give us license to say that there is a new form of hatred in the world. How does the term “anti-Semitism” differ? Well, we have a 2000-year-old tradition of religiously inspired hatred against Jews, conceived as a distinct race of people, both by those who hate them and by Jews themselves. Anti-Semitism is, therefore, a specific form of racism that, as everyone knows, has taken many terrible turns over the years (and is now especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons that can be explicitly traced not merely to recent conflicts over land in the Middle East, but to the doctrine of Islam). “Sexism,” generally speaking, is a bias against women, not because of any doctrines they might espouse, but because they were born without a Y chromosome. The meanings of these terms are clear, and each names a form of hatred and exclusion directed at people, as people, not because of their behavior or beliefs, but because of the mere circumstances of their birth. Islamophobia is something else entirely. It is, Greenwald tells us in his three points, an “irrational” and “disproportionate” and “unjustified” focus on Muslims. But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam. There is no race of Muslims. They are not united by any physical traits or a diaspora. Unlike Judaism, Islam is a vast, missionary faith. The only thing that defines the class of All Muslims—and the only thing that could make this group the possible target of anyone’s “irrational” fear, “disproportionate” focus, or “unjustified” criticism—is their adherence to a set of beliefs and the behaviors that these beliefs inspire. And, unlike a person’s racial characteristics or gender, beliefs can be argued for, tested, criticized, and changed. In fact, wherever the norms of rational conversation are allowed to do their work, beliefs must earn respect. More important, beliefs are claims about reality and about how human beings should live within it—so they necessarily lead to behavior, and to values, laws, and public institutions that affect the lives of all people, whether they share these beliefs or not. Beliefs end marriages and start wars. So “Islamophobia” must be—it really can only be—an irrational, disproportionate, and unjustified fear of certain people, regardless of their ethnicity or any other accidental trait, because of what they believe and to the degree to which they believe it. Thus the relevant question to ask is whether a special concern about people who are deeply committed to the actual doctrines of Islam, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, is irrational, disproportionate, and unjustified.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Not at all to endorse Harris's particular view (EDIT: on which tunesmith's comment that is a sibling of this one sums up my position quite well), but much of the anti-group feelings that we label X-phobia aren't really phobias (either in the clinical sense, or necessarily even in the simple sense of "fear", and much of what is labelled "misogyny" isn't really hate.) In both cases, its a way to ascribe a dismissive blanket explanation to discrimination (from whatever motivation) that the speaker disagrees with. Its probably true that some discrimination against muslims is fear, and some against women is hate, but the use of the blanket terms "Islamophobia" or "misogyny" for that discrimination is a way to assert that it is invalid, slap a neat explanation on it, and dismiss it all in a neat package that resists discussion.
- ucarion 13y ago
  I totally agree with you, and I think everyone commenting on this thread should stop and read Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation". It pretty much covers all the questions being asked here.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who practices Islam is "deeply committed to the actual doctrines" as practiced by the hijackers, which is false. He's implying that people who practice Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs, when in reality they will target them by their headwear (see the various crimes against Sikhs, one of the gosh-darn nicest religions in the world). Every time I read something by Harris my blood boils a bit because of how insidious his pseudo-logic is.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - arbitrarywords 13y ago
sanderjd 13y ago
Causing suffering is neither unique to Islam nor the intent of the majority of its adherents. Being intolerant of the factions of Islam (and other religions/sects/movements) that do cause suffering is not problematic, but generalizing that intolerance to the rest of the faith is.
smtddr 13y ago
>>We know that Islam and its adherents are generous contributors to the surplus of misery in the world. NOPE! You've been made to think that by the media. Time to bring out this vid again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQnxnYEVp4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQnxnYEVp4U

by ucarion 13y ago

chrismonsanto 13y ago

I think a lot of people write "Islamophobia" when they mean "hating Islam as an excuse to hate Arab people." Speaking as an Arab person who is very critical of Islam, I think we should be careful to distinguish the two.

ivanca 13y ago
Many times is used by the offended ones in an (rightful or not) attempt to portray any critics as motivated by hatred/racism and not on rational thoughts.

gautamnarula 13y ago

Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, wrote an interesting post on Islamophobia and how he believes it doesn't actually exist, at least not in the framework that we normally consider phobias: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/#views_on_islam http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controve... The relevant part: The meaning of “Islamophobia” is not at all like the meanings of those other terms. It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice against Muslims from ordinary racism and xenophobia directed at Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalis, and other people who happen to be Muslim. Of course, there is no question that such bigotry exists, and it is as odious as Greenwald believes. But inventing a new term does not give us license to say that there is a new form of hatred in the world. How does the term “anti-Semitism” differ? Well, we have a 2000-year-old tradition of religiously inspired hatred against Jews, conceived as a distinct race of people, both by those who hate them and by Jews themselves. Anti-Semitism is, therefore, a specific form of racism that, as everyone knows, has taken many terrible turns over the years (and is now especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons that can be explicitly traced not merely to recent conflicts over land in the Middle East, but to the doctrine of Islam). “Sexism,” generally speaking, is a bias against women, not because of any doctrines they might espouse, but because they were born without a Y chromosome. The meanings of these terms are clear, and each names a form of hatred and exclusion directed at people, as people, not because of their behavior or beliefs, but because of the mere circumstances of their birth. Islamophobia is something else entirely. It is, Greenwald tells us in his three points, an “irrational” and “disproportionate” and “unjustified” focus on Muslims. But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam. There is no race of Muslims. They are not united by any physical traits or a diaspora. Unlike Judaism, Islam is a vast, missionary faith. The only thing that defines the class of All Muslims—and the only thing that could make this group the possible target of anyone’s “irrational” fear, “disproportionate” focus, or “unjustified” criticism—is their adherence to a set of beliefs and the behaviors that these beliefs inspire. And, unlike a person’s racial characteristics or gender, beliefs can be argued for, tested, criticized, and changed. In fact, wherever the norms of rational conversation are allowed to do their work, beliefs must earn respect. More important, beliefs are claims about reality and about how human beings should live within it—so they necessarily lead to behavior, and to values, laws, and public institutions that affect the lives of all people, whether they share these beliefs or not. Beliefs end marriages and start wars. So “Islamophobia” must be—it really can only be—an irrational, disproportionate, and unjustified fear of certain people, regardless of their ethnicity or any other accidental trait, because of what they believe and to the degree to which they believe it. Thus the relevant question to ask is whether a special concern about people who are deeply committed to the actual doctrines of Islam, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, is irrational, disproportionate, and unjustified.

dragonwriter 13y ago
Not at all to endorse Harris's particular view (EDIT: on which tunesmith's comment that is a sibling of this one sums up my position quite well), but much of the anti-group feelings that we label X-phobia aren't really phobias (either in the clinical sense, or necessarily even in the simple sense of "fear", and much of what is labelled "misogyny" isn't really hate.) In both cases, its a way to ascribe a dismissive blanket explanation to discrimination (from whatever motivation) that the speaker disagrees with. Its probably true that some discrimination against muslims is fear, and some against women is hate, but the use of the blanket terms "Islamophobia" or "misogyny" for that discrimination is a way to assert that it is invalid, slap a neat explanation on it, and dismiss it all in a neat package that resists discussion.
ucarion 13y ago
I totally agree with you, and I think everyone commenting on this thread should stop and read Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation". It pretty much covers all the questions being asked here.
tunesmith 13y ago
I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who practices Islam is "deeply committed to the actual doctrines" as practiced by the hijackers, which is false. He's implying that people who practice Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs, when in reality they will target them by their headwear (see the various crimes against Sikhs, one of the gosh-darn nicest religions in the world). Every time I read something by Harris my blood boils a bit because of how insidious his pseudo-logic is.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- arbitrarywords 13y ago

sanderjd 13y ago

Causing suffering is neither unique to Islam nor the intent of the majority of its adherents. Being intolerant of the factions of Islam (and other religions/sects/movements) that do cause suffering is not problematic, but generalizing that intolerance to the rest of the faith is.

smtddr 13y ago

>>We know that Islam and its adherents are generous contributors to the surplus of misery in the world. NOPE! You've been made to think that by the media. Time to bring out this vid again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQnxnYEVp4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQnxnYEVp4U