Doing the Islamophobia Rag
‘Islamophobia’ in the news today. There is Nick Cohen’s piece on Maryam, and comments on that at Normblog and Harry’s Place. And there is a Times article that says Hizb ut-Tahrir is recruiting students ‘using an anti-racist front organisation’ called ‘Stop Islamophobia.’
Well there’s part of the problem right there – ‘Stop Islamophobia’ shouldn’t even be seen as the name of an anti-racist organization. It’s too late now, of course, the name is well dug in, but it never should have been allowed to get so well dug in – it performs exactly the deceptive maneuver its proponents want it to do: it conflates criticism of Islam with criticism of Muslims, opposition to Islam with opposition to Muslims. The word ought to be ‘Muslimophobia’ – in which case it still wouldn’t be anti-racist, since ‘Muslim’ is not a race, but it would at least be about group prejudice. But as it is it isn’t even that – it’s about dissent from and criticism of a particular religion – which ought not to be treated as in the same category as blanket criticisms of large groups of people. A religion is one thing, the people who adhere to it constitute another thing. The word ‘Islamophobia’ is just a trick to make Islam beyond criticism.
Nick and Maryam sum up the problem well:
After years of hearing this postmodern twaddle, Namazie flipped. Why was it, she asked, that supposed liberals always give ‘precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and her rights’? Why was it that they always pretended that other cultures were sealed boxes without conflicts of their own and took ‘the most reactionary segment of that community’ as representative of the belief and culture of the whole. In a ringing passage, which should be pinned to the noticeboards of every cultural studies faculty and Whitehall ministry, she declared that the problem with cultural relativism was that it endorsed the racism of low expectations. ‘It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than respect for human beings. Human beings are worthy of the highest respect, but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must they be respected?’
I suppose you’ve seen the ridiculous Islamophobiawatch. It’s so classic, so typically typical, it’s tempting to think it’s a joke. But it probably isn’t.
At least it sometimes has useful links or extracts. This from on offline article in Tribune by Joan Smith, for example:
I haven’t opposed religious reactionaries all my life to suddenly go soft on people who argue that calling for a ban on ‘adulteresses’ being stoned to death is a bit too radical for Islam at the moment (yes, I do mean Tariq Ramadan). It’s time they took an honest look at where they may be heading and I don’t just mean the restoration of the Caliphate.
Dear me – she seems to be a religious reactionaryphobe. How very shocking.
“Islam” is a religion.
All religions are based on fear and superstition, and are blackmail.
All religions have been made by men.
All religions Kill and torture.
Here endeth the lesson.
“It conflates criticism of Islam with criticism of Muslims, opposition to Islam with opposition to Muslims.”
I think it’s also important to distinguish between criticism of Islamism and criticism of Islam. Islamism’s political challenge to secular democracy and the rule of law need not be an inevitable part of Islam. Islam has its own questions to answer, but there is evidence – e.g. in John Ware’s Panorama programme on the MCB – that Islam is capable of finding a n accomodation with secular democracy. Much of what is labelled Islamophobia isn’t even criticism of Islam per se, it’s criticism of Islamism.
I am definitely Islamophobic: any ideology that advocates killing for differences of opinion scares the shit out of me – though I no more hate Muslims than I hate the sick.
_
Dittos, Adam. Why do trendy lefties who feel no compunction about criticizing the christofasicts (I refuse to capitalize it-how much does Jerry Falwell really have to do with the Biblical Jesus?)and ridiculing the western church suddenly go all soft and googly over yet another Semitic Thunder God REligion of COnquest?
“Why do trendy lefties who feel no compunction about criticizing the christofascists […] and ridiculing the western church suddenly go all soft and googly over yet another Semitic Thunder God Religion of Conquest?”
Cuz it’s The Other, dude. And from oppressed former colonies, too. The enemy of my enemy…the proverb is something musty.
Butyou already knew all that, didn’t you?
I suppose you’ve seen the ridiculous Islamophobiawatch. It’s so classic, so typically typical, it’s tempting to think it’s a joke. But it probably isn’t.
It’s not a joke. I’ve had e-mail conversations in the past with Bob Pitt, the guy who edits it and also edits the What Next journal on Marxism.
He struck me as a fairly typical Judean Peoples Front-esque Marxist, though slightly more thoughtful than the SWP types. Not that that’s saying much.
Did anyone read the other related article in the Observer by A. Sivanandan? It made some good points (particularly about civil liberties) but shows the essentially confused position of many on the left.
For exanple:
“The more Blair denies his complicity in the destruction of Iraq and its part in the terrorist cause, the more he has to find other reasons for 7 July, and the more he engages in the politics of fear to erode democratic rights and civil liberties. Conversely, the sooner he owns up to the Iraq debacle, the sooner he will be able to address the most important element in apprehending terrorists: intelligence, intelligence, intelligence.”
Note the last sentence. Where on earth is the link?
In an effort to be “anti- imperialist” and anti -racist he ties himself up in knots.
Re the Sivandan article in the Observer (oops, I almost typed the Guardian, which is really its spiritual home). What a muddled mish-mash of tendentious contentions. The basis of Sivandan’s ideological position is illustrated in his article elsewhere on “Globalism’s Imperial War”, which deserves a distinguished mention in any list of modern day conspiracy theories:
” The war on Iraq is the opening salvo in a war to redesign the world to the needs of corporate America… […] The impetus for the [Iraq] war, however, derives from the imperative of global capital to break free of the geopolitical fetters that prevent it from bestriding the world.”
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/mar/13siva.htm
Back to Sivandan’s Observer article, and his comments on the July 7 bombers:
“Yet these young men were prepared to take their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens in the name of Islam. One reason, therefore, must be as Mohammad Sidique Khan stated it: the invasion and destruction of Iraq.”
Note the logic implicit here: These young men had such strong objections to the war in Iraq that they felt impelled to wander down into the Underground and murder and maim large numbers of their fellow-citizens.
I misspelled Sivanandan above. The URL for his Observer article is
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1593282,00.html
While we are about it can we get rid of the term “imperialist”? I think it causes softening of the brain all round.
As far as I can see it simply means “Western foreign policy”. So, for example “UK imperialism” simply means “UK foreign policy”.
This foreign policy is undoubtedly self interested (name a country where it isn’t!) but it isn’t imperialist in any meaningful way.
Personally I’m all in favour of a more ethical approach to foreign policy but to call the current foreign policy “imperialist” is absurd.
I just followed the link to Harry’s Place comments on this article. We’re all doomed.
p.s. joke du jour, why did the chicken cross the road? Dunno, but if it coughs, run like hell!
“All religions have been made by men.”
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=527388