Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Tag Archive | "James Bloodworth"

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Islamophobia: Orwellian ‘Doublespeak’ ?‎

Posted on 13 July 2012 by Emperor

A nuanced and in-depth article on all the problems with James Bloodworth’s article comparing the term “Islamophobia” to “Orwellian doublespeak.” It covers all the points that I may have missed in today’s feature:

Islamophobia: Orwellian ‘Doublespeak’ ?‎

by M. Francois-Cerrah (HuffingtonPost)

Earlier this month, James Bloodworth wrote a blog for the Independent ‎comparing Islamophobia to a type of Orwellian doublespeak, designed to ‎shut down public debate. He joins a chorus of voices on the Left who reject ‎the term on grounds of the ‘freedom to criticise’ Islam.‎

Some on the Left have gone further still, joining voices on the Right in ‎denouncing Islam on the grounds of its alleged anti-liberal tenets. British ‎novelist and former New Statesman editor Martin Amis has previously ‎stated Muslims should be deprived of their civil liberties and Guardian ‎columnist Polly Toynbee frequently regurgitates the most odious and ‎decontextualized translations of the Quran as if they were, well – Gospel. ‎Paul Hockenos argues that “the left and liberals have largely capitulated, ‎unable to address the issue of Islam and the Muslims among us in a ‎constructive way.”‎

Despite the frequently erected straw-man of stifling free speech, ‎countering islamophobia is not about limiting discussion of the faith itself. ‎It is about ensuring a largely sociallyeconomically and politically‎disenfranchised minority is not stigmatised, stereotyped, further ‎marginalised and consequently left open to hate crimes.‎

A personal bugbear is the suggestion that Islam or the Quran ‘says’ – Islam ‎doesn’t speak – people speak in the name of Islam, filtering the texts ‎through their experiences and drawing on interpretive traditions. ‎Islamophobia is when influential figures like Toynbee define Islam in a ‎public sphere where Muslims struggle to make themselves heard, over ‎and above how Muslims themselves understand their faith. In other ‎words, it is to ascribe meaning to Islam which most Muslims do not. This ‎reification of faith assumes that, unlike other religious traditions, Islam is ‎monolithic and can be gleaned from a brief perusal of sacred texts. It can’t. ‎To do so is to misrepresent Islam, the faith of over 1.3 billion people in the ‎world, and to leave its practitioners open to the accusation of complicity in ‎a depraved hate cult.‎

What’s more, despite a clear ontological distinction between race and ‎religion, it cannot be ignored that Islam is associated with racialized ‎minorities – South Asians in the UK, Arabs in France, Turks in Germany. ‎When critique of religion overlaps so significantly with a particular racial ‎group within society, and is often used as short-hand for that racial group, ‎the line between religion and race becomes obscured. The Daily Mail’s ‎choice to use the term “muslim gang” to refer to rapists, is one such ‎example. The recent case in Rochdale further illustrated this confusion. ‎While Chief Crown Prosecutor in the case Nazir Afzal blamed “imported ‎cultural baggage”, commentators such as David Aaronovitch promptly ‎interpreted that to mean Islam.

Although Pakistan is a Muslim majority ‎country, to assume Islam is the central motivating factor in the behaviour ‎of all Pakistanis, is a form of cultural racism. ‎

Islamophobia, as a term, is required to refer to precisely these cases where ‎the focus of abuse is a projected understanding of what someone stands ‎for based on their being identified as Muslim. New forms of discrimination ‎avoid the crude biological markers of racial stereotyping and have been ‎replaced with a focus on cultural differences, real or imagined, to ‎rationalize the unequal status and treatment of different racial groups. ‎

The assumptions is that honour killings and forced marriages are ‎reflections of a backward ‘islamic’ culture, which through the presence of ‎Muslims in Europe, poses a threat to our identity and values. Despite ‎Muslim objections to these practise, such assumptions are then reflected in ‎people’s attitudes and behaviour towards Muslims. ‎

The topic of Islam has had a uniquely harmonising effect on Left and Right, ‎uniting unlikely pundits in a shared concern that Islam – assumed to be a ‎hegemonic influence on people’s behaviour- is responsible for virtually all ‎social ills, from sex trafficking to benefit fraud. Perceived ethnic uniformity ‎is taken to mirror a uniformity of belief and outlooks, despite the fact, all ‎religions have plural expressions.‎

The concern is that the racist essentializing of “Muslimhood” is ignored on ‎the grounds that the term ‘islamophobia’ isn’t clear enough. I would wager ‎the term is crystal clear for those on the receiving end – such as when ‎Muslim columnist Mehdi Hasan was described by one blogger as a ‎‎”moderate cockroach“. Or when the American writer Laila Lalami ‘s ‎husband was asked by an immigration officer “So, how many camels did ‎you have to trade for her?” ‎

Islamophobia is only unclear to those who seek to obfuscate its meaning. It ‎is the tendency to reify Islam – that is to assume the behaviour of given ‎individuals (typically extremists) reflects an accurate concretisation of the ‎principles of the faith itself, and it is the tendency to view its practitioners, ‎Muslims, as a monolithic block, whose every behaviour is a consequence of ‎that essentialised identity.‎

Rather than investigating and investing in countering rape culture, we ‎claim the ‘muslimhood’ of particular rapists is to blame, absolving popular ‎culture when the men themselves refer to the victims using the popular ‎playground put down “slags“. We regularly see ‘Islam’ used as a catch-all ‎phrase to explain complex phenomena, distracting us from the real issues.‎

Islamophobia is rejecting the ease with which dejecting stereotypes are ‎accepted as normal, such as the recent claim, popularised by the Daily ‎Mirror, that Zain Malik of boyband One Direction, was “pimping Islam” on ‎young girls through “boyband jihad”. Or the use of imagery to fan the ‎flames of fear, as the Sun on Sunday did by superimposing the image of a ‎woman in a burka against a caustic anti-immigration article. ‎

Raising awareness of islamophobia is also about recognising that far from ‎being a lone sociopath, Breivik’s actions were grounded in an all too ‎common view of Islam and Muslims as a fifth column and a threat to ‎Western values. A consequence of this ‘theoretical’ islamophobia, the ‎intellectual jousting over the place of Islam in Europe, is that Muslims in ‎Europe are facing increasingly tough conditions. ‎

According to a report from Amnesty International, “European Muslims are ‎regularly denied employment and educational opportunities because of ‎widespread cultural and religious stereotypes that lead to discrimination ‎against them.” ‎

Just as minarets or or face veils have become imbued with a significance ‎beyond that attributed to them by Muslims themselves, discrimination ‎against those bearing religious symbols becomes justified through the ‎fallacious reasoning that people have chosen to subscribe to those ideas, in ‎a way people don’t choose their ethnicity. We don’t choose the significance ‎people attribute to our symbols – especially when we have so little access ‎to defining them ourselves. We have no choice in the stereotypes and ‎assumptions people make on the basis of our skin colour, nor do we have a ‎choice in those stereotypes concerning the symbols which people interpret ‎according to the dominant narrative of extremism and cultural ‎incompatibility. ‎

John Mullen of France’s radical left-wing Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste has ‎argued that “opposition to religious practices on the basis of progressive ‎values can easily turn into a thinly disguised form of racism.” It is time the ‎Left take a stronger and clearer stance against islamophobia and stop ‎giving the Right free rein to dictate the terms of European interaction with ‎Muslims based on misplaced and ill-informed assumptions about Islam ‎and Muslims.‎

The struggle against islamophobia is the struggle for a nuanced and ‎contextualised appraisal of events involving Muslims, a refusal to accept ‎that everything can be explained away through a facile reference to ‘Islam’ ‎and a defence of a European minority group. There is nothing Orwellian ‎about that.‎

Follow Myriam Francois-Cerrah on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MFrancoisCerrah

Comments (11)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

James Bloodworth’s Problem with Islamophobia

Posted on 13 July 2012 by Emperor

Islamophobia definition

Islamophobia

by Emperor

James Bloodworth‘s blogpost beseeching English speakers to stop using the term “Islamophobia” garnered some attention recently. He has the sneaking suspicion that the term resembles characteristics one expects from slick “Orwellian” style PR campaigns. For Bloodworth the main concern seems to be his belief that the term “Islamophobia” will make it harder to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Islam and anti-Muslim prejudice.

Bloodworth makes the sweeping claim that,

It is now possible to shut down almost any contemporary political debate by blurring the distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and the anti-Muslim prejudice of the far-right.

Where is the evidence for such a claim? Bloodworth does not provide it in his article. In fact, the opposite seems to be true; contemporary political debates are filled with claims by populist and fearmongering fascist politicians that they are just “criticizing Islam,” when in reality they are stoking hate and promoting irrational anxieties and myths about both Islam and Muslims. One only has to recall the mosque controversies, anti-Sharia’ drives, attempts to redefine Islam as not a religion but a political ideology, etc.

Bloodworth also altogether rejects any “racist” component to anti-Muslim bigotry,

[t]erms like “islamophobic racism” – a further extension of the concept of islamophobia -, which conflate the idea of “race” (the way a person is born) with religion (a set of ideas passed on in the home, the school and the community).

This simplistic analysis ignores the fact that irrational fears about Islam are quite often tied to race. For example when Fox News commentator Juan Williams says he feels “worried” and “nervous” when he sees people dressed in “Muslim garb,” he is identifying Islam with particular cultural appearances and races.

In a further attempt at delegitimizing “Islamophobia,” Bloodworth gives space in his blog to the theory that the coinage of “Islamophobia” had its root in the minds of the “mad” Mullah’s of Tehran during the Iranian Islamic Revolution; relying of all people on the so-called “French feminist” Caroline Fourest.

Interestingly, the French feminist writer Caroline Fourest makes the claim that the word Islamophobia was originally popularised by the Mullahs during the Iranian revolution, where the term was employed to describe those women who bravely refused to wear the hijab.

Bloodworth does not seek to verify Fourest’s claim, and he fails to mention that Fourest has made her career on what has essentially been an Islamophobic witch-hunt of the European Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan, whom she accuses of “double speak” and the old bogeyman of taqiyya. So it is strange that Bloodsworth would cite Fourest, whose credentials on this topic are dubious at best.

In Garibaldi’s article, Islamophobia is Not a Neologism Anymore–It’s Mainstream he notes that “Islamophobia” was first employed as a term in the 1920′s,

The first occurrence of the term Islamophobia “appeared in an essay by the Orientalist Etienne Dinetin L’Orient vu de l’Occident (1922),” however it did not enter into “common parlance” until the early 90′s.

Oddly, Bloodworth must think that the French have some special providence to speak on matters related to Islam and Islamophobia because he once again cites a French author to prove Islamophobia is a “crude” term. This time he cites nouveaux philosopher Pascal Bruckner, writing,

As Pascal Bruckner puts it in his book The Tyranny of Guilt, “To speak of Islamophobia is to maintain the crudest confusion between a religion, a specific system of belief, and the faithful who adhere to it…Must we then speak of anticapitalist, antiliberal, antisocialist, and anti-Marxist racism?”.

Bruckner, a staunch ally and supporter of loon Ayaan Hirsi Ali believes there is an “Islamic offensive  in Europe” and that words like “Islamophobia” just muddle this “reality.” Does Bloodworth likewise believe there is an “Islamic offensive” in Europe? Isn’t this exactly the kind of paranoid conspiracy talk that he wants to differentiate from legitimate “criticism” of Islam?

Finally, one must question whether Bloodworth would be consistent in his criticism of terms that may not completely, to his liking, precisely, describe certain hateful phenomena. Take anti-Semitism, as Garibaldi notes,

We are not going to stop using anti-Semitism because some fail to delineate “what is and what is not ‘anti-Semitism.’” Or because the term excludes Semites who are non-Jews.

Bloodworth’s article is a little late: “Islamophobia” as a term to describe anti-Muslim prejudice and irrational fears about Islam is mainstream now. It has reached an irretractable point in our language, a fact witnessed by its usage in academia and various mediums of media. It is up to scholars, politicians, journalists, bloggers and activists to make sure that they use terms like Islamophobia and anti-Semitism responsibly; being careful not to confuse or conflate legitimate criticism of Islam or Islamism and Judaism or Zionism with racism and prejudice.

Updated: 7/16/12

Comments (16)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here