The following article was written by Ali Sina, and originally published on the apostate's site, Faith Freedom. An apostate is someone who was once a Muslim, but then rejected the religion (became a non-Muslim). In an Islamic state, becoming an apostate is a crime punishable by death. Here is Ali Sina's article:
One friend alerted me to a discussion going on in Wikipedia on the neologism “Islamophobia.” 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 them Buddhistphobes.
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.
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)...etc.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 hominem. 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.
That's the end of the article. Ali Sina makes some excellent points. We cannot defeat terrorism if we can't discuss some issues that may be central to it. And calling someone an Islamophobe is an attempt to stop legitimate questions about the role Islamic doctrines play in Islamic terrorism. Stifling the discussion seems obviously counterproductive to the goal of defeating terrorism. If you witness such a slander, please send the slanderer Ali Sina's article. If you'd like to know what else you can do to help halt terrorism, read this.
More on Islamophobia:
1. Robert Spencer's definition of Islamophobia.
2. This is an article that will help you clarify what you're doing when you criticize Islam. It articulates what is wrong with the term "Islamophobia."
3. This is an article I wrote to peaceful Muslims who often write to me and tell me I shouldn't criticize Islam. I talk a bit about "Islamophobia" in the article.
4. This is a video: Robert Spencer's simple plan to end Islamophobia. It's kind of tongue-in-cheek, but he makes some good points, and you might want to send it to anyone who accuses you of being an Islamophobe.