Islamophobia is ad hominem, divisive, inflammatory & discredits critics of Islam

[krsna]

"Islamophobia" is ad hominem

 

By Ali Sina

 

2006/05/26

 

One friend alerted me to a discussion going on in Wikipedia on the neologism “Islamophobia”. <O:P>Someone has suggested that this category should be deleted because the term Islamophobia is divisive, inflammatory and it is frequently used to inhibit very valid criticism of Islam. <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> </O:P>

This suggestion, of course, as it is to be expected, has been rejected by Muslims who have Islamized everything including Wikipedia. This friend asked my opinion. Here is what I think:<O:P> </O:P>

Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.<O:P> </O:P>

According to Dictionary.com Phobia is “a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.” Therefore the neologism "Islamophobia" implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational.<O:P> </O:P>

This claim has not been established and it is not universally agreed upon. There are many who argue that Islam is indeed a dangerous ideology and they have their logical arguments to prove their claim. Irrespective of whether the critics of Islam are right or wrong about whether Islam is dangerous or not, calling them “phobic” implies that their criticism has been already refuted and the irrationality of their fear of Islamic threat has been established. Therefore their disagreement with Islam is not logical but a mental disorder.

All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.

 

Only Muslims are capable of this much irrationality and arrogance. We all recall Muhammad Abdullah, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity and who was facing execution. When the government of Afghanistan was pressured to release him, to save face they accused him of being insane and not fit to stand trial. In the mind of Muslims only an insane person would disagree with Islam. This is sheer arrogance.

Buddhism is by all accounts a peaceful religion as non-violence is the core of it. Despite that Buddhism has its critics and we never call then Buddhistphobes. <O:P> </O:P>

The neologism Islamophobia makes absolutely no sense. It is derogatory and is used in a pejorative way to discredit the critics of Islam from the outset.<O:P> </O:P>

Phobia is a disorder. Here is a short list of a few phobias: Achluophobia or Lygophobia (fear of darkness), Acrophobia, (fear of heights), Androphobia (fear of men), Aviatophobia (fear of flying), Chiraptophobia (fear of being touched), Claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces), Coitophobia (fear of coitus), Decidophobia (fear of making decisions), Agrophobia or Demophobia (fear of crowds), Eleutherophobia (fear of freedom), Gynophobia (fear of women), Hadephobia (fear of hell -this is the phobia affecting all the Muslims), Hylophobia (fear of forests), Insectophobia, (fear of insects), Isolophobia (fear of solitude, being alone), Necrophobia, (fear of death or dead things), Neophobia (fear of anything new), Phasmophobia, (fear of ghosts), Philophobia, (fear of falling in love or being in love), Xenophobia, (fear of strangers or foreigners), etc. <O:P>(For more see this) </O:P>

How can criticism of Islam fall into this category? These are all irrational fears that require therapy. Are Muslims suggesting that the critics of Islam should receive therapy? We can’t classify disagreement with Islam as phobia. Islam is an ideology. Phobia is irrational fear of things, people or situations but not beliefs. You can't be phobic of a belief system. Beliefs per se are not frightening. It's people who follow nefarious beliefs that become dangerous and frightening. As one can see, the very term "Islamophobia" is stupid because Islam is a belief system and it is not possible to be phobic of a belief. From whichever angle you look at Islam you find its stupidity glaring at you.

Muslims suffer from an irrational fear of the Jews. Muslim children are taught that the Jews are evil and that they eat Muslim children and make pastries with their blood. Jews are caricatured in derogatory and demonized ways, depicted as bloodsucking monsters. In a television show aired in Palestine a three year old child was interviewed and asked what she hates most, and she responded "the Jews" and the journalists praised Allah upon hearing this stupid remark. So the neologism Judeophobia (fear of Jews) is a correct lexicon, because the irrational fear of Jews is inculcated in all Muslims since childhood. Muslims gravely suffer from this disorder.

 

 

<O:P>

</O:P>

 

 

 

If children anywhere were taught to fear Muslims, the way Muslim children are taught to fear Jews, then the neologism Muslimphobia would have made sense. But that is not the case. Islam is a belief system. It is a human right to disagree with any belief. Calling that disagreement “phobia” is a logical fallacy. Islam is the only ideology, whose followers try to discredit its critics by calling their criticism "phobia". <O:P>

Islamophobia makes no sense at all. It is as meaningless as "Fascistophobia". Of course people have the right to disagree and criticize any ideology, whether good or bad. The goodness of an ideology is in the eyes of the beholder. Inhibiting criticism of an ideology is infringing upon the basic human rights, which is freedom of speech.

The absurdity of the Muslim mind is such that they think it is okay for them to incite hate against the non-Muslims in general and the Jews in particular and yet it is not okay for others to criticize their ideology of hate. </O:P>

 

What is behind this paranoia and phobia of criticism? It is the inability of Muslims to counter the valid criticism of Islam. Failing that, they resort to ad hominem and try to discredit its critics by undermining their character. By classifying the criticism of Islam as a disorder, Muslims absolve themselves from responding to valid criticisms against their faith. <O:P> </O:P>

The neologism “Islamophobia”, is therefore the symptom of the intellectual bankruptcy of Muslim clerisy to come up with logical arguments and defend Islam against criticism in a rational way. "Islamophobia" is an ad hominen. It is a logical fallacy and an insult hurled at the critics of Islam. It highlights the fact that Islam is a lie, unable to withstand criticism. That is why Muslims need censorship and must eliminate the truth by brutal force (law suits or violence) to protect their lie.

The very existence of this neologism is a tacit confession of Muslims that Islam is a lie, which can't be defended logically and that ad hominem and censorship are the only ways to defend it.

</O:P>

[gHari]

Where there is no love, there can only be hate.

 

Fear and intimidation can carry spiritual life only so far. Subjugation it seems, doesn't lead very quickly to love necessarily. The resentment and even hatred seems to be then transferred towards those not cowering and suffering under the same intimidating warlord deity.

 

If we forced the punks and whackos and junkies and psychos in New York to be religious, just how long would it be before they began doing their craziness in the name of Yahweh - murder, rape, yadda yadda? Even the suicidals would now be strapping dynamite to their chests and blowing up whatever minority we label as "bbbbbad".

 

So maybe at the time, the plan to gather all the murderers, rapists, thieves and suicidal psychotics together to be slain might have been a reasonable strategy. I don't see it as a rational plan forever though, as any sort of dharma. Those that do are necessarily insane, and death is their best fate too. So perhaps the upcoming genocide sunni-shia horror is a necessary conclusion to the process.

 

Those who see murder, rape, thievery and suicide as reasonable behaviour will again be exterminated as they smile and identify themselves for termination. Say cheese, Mr. Qaeda.

[Kulapavana]

another similar word comes to mind: "anti-semitism"

 

that word enjoys tremendous popularity as a weapon of mass-disinformation despite it's legitimate intent... maybe Arabs are finally learning something from Jews?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

The absurdity of the Muslim mind is such that they think it is okay for them to incite hate against the non-Muslims in general and the Jews in particular and yet it is not okay for others to criticize their ideology of hate.

So true is that!

 

While the rest of the world tries to be introspective of the issues that cause collective conflicts some muslims are making every effort to do the opposite.

 

These noted fascists have mirrored their own ideological [and other] defects onto the rest of the global population. With that mindset they do indeed think it is okay for them to incite hate.

 

The world and Islam specifically must confront these groups and individuals - they are bent on inflicting harm where they can...

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

 

another similar word comes to mind: "anti-semitism"

 

that word enjoys tremendous popularity as a weapon of mass-disinformation despite it's legitimate intent... maybe Arabs are finally learning something from Jews?

 

 

I'll just use an emoticon:

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Muslims are Impersonalists.

[Guest guest]

Muslims are NOT impersonalists. They believe in a god who has a vengeful personality who gets angry at those who don't follow what he says. This is a personal God. Some muslims say Allah has no form, others say we do not know what Allah looks like.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Most of them are.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Most of them are not. Who will tell them about 'the' personal form of God?..

[Guest guest]

Muslims believe in a personal god without form, or a form they do not know of. Impersonalist believe in an attributeless God without personality, without feelings, that is not a deity but the ultimate reality.

 

These are the differences.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Yes, they generally say they do not know what God looks like. But they have mixed feelings. They either say God can have form or not. (not He may or may not). Tell you the truth what you just told me is something to tell an Islamic Person. I have to remember that one.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Of course the above caricatures from the Arab world are very bad - especially showing a menorah as the devils fork - yes - that is a serious double standard at work there - huh...

 

What if anything did they learn from that whole uproar about the cartoons of the founder of Islam?