Why Using the Word "Islamophobia" is Misleading
By Tawfik Hamid
Name-calling with the term Islamophobia is an aggressive tactic popularized by apologists for Radical Islam to silence individuals who attempt to tell the truth about Jihadist Islam.
In the spirit of "the best defense is a good offence," accusations of Islamophobia were first slung broadly in this country to suppress attention to the Islamic Jihadist motivations of the perpetrators of the September 11th Twin Towers attack. Most recently Islamophobia name-calling has been utilized with renewed vigor to discredit Rep. Peter King (US) whose Congressional Hearings threatened to expose the realities of the ideological basis of terrorism. The accusations of Islamophobia have been also used to silence European Politicians such as Geert Wilders and UK Academics such as Patrick Sookhdeo.
The psychological term phobia describes an excessive and irrational fear. So-called Islamophobia, by contrast, is appropriate willingness to heed the solid evidence of who commits terror acts and their motivations.
The statistics are striking. According to a recent survey by the Justice department, while Muslims constitute about 1% of the American population, they contribute 80% of the Home Grown Terrorism. According to these data, the probability of an American Muslim to conduct a terrorist act in the US is approximately 400 times the probability of American Non-Muslims to an act of terror. Furthermore, the vast preponderance of the last decade's worldwide terror acts have been conducted by Radical Islamic groups (A list of these terror acts has already exceeded 15 thousand acts by Radical Islamists since September 11th -is available athttp://www.thereligionofpeace.
In addition, the ONLY nations that punish or kill in our modern times for religious crimes are majority Muslim states.
Likewise, one of Sharia (Islamic) Law's central ideals which is approved by ALL the main schools of Islamic Jurisprudence-even to today- is declaring wars against Non-Muslims to spread Islam across the globe. This has led several of its practitioners to believe that violent acts are a legitimate means of accomplishing that goal.
The above can be just added to the practices of Sharia laws in Muslim countries such as killing apostates & sorcerers, hanging gays, Honor Killing, stoning adulteries and using violence against women. The reality is that, it is seldom, in our modern times, to see similar atrocities practiced in the name of any religion other than Islam.
The lack of a powerful denouncement in the Muslim world or by leading Islamic scholars to the formerly mentioned atrocities just adds more salt to the wound. In fact, many-if not most-of Islamic institutes and scholars actually promote such values. These are facts-NOT irrational beliefs. Therefore, labeling fear of Islam "Islamophobia" is clearly inappropriate and misleading.
American health authorities recently have begun conducting tests to evaluate nuclear irradiation in foods imported from Japan. The Japanese people are not labeling these actions that protect the American people from fallout from the distressed Japanese nuclear reactors as "Japano-phobia." They are not complaining that this information-gathering is a discriminatory response to Japan.
Similarly, singling out Muslims for evaluation in the counter-terrorism Congressional hearings of Rep. Peter King or in other forms of research is an appropriate response to the facts and dangers of Islamic terrorism.
Failure to take appropriate steps to evaluate a statistically validated danger violates the Constitutional mandate that the federal governmental protect its citizens from "domestic violence." Moreover, the outcomes of ignoring terrorism's Islamic roots can be disastrous. Yet, perhaps because of the American spirit of goodwill plus prevailing winds of political correctness, the intimidation tactic of name-calling with the term "Islamopobia" has been all too effective in inhibiting our political leaders and the American media from pursuing an understanding of the role of religious ideology in Islamic terrorism. The result has been a confused public and muddled understanding within our State Department, Congress, and Department of Homeland Security.
In conclusion, fear of Islam cannot be described as "Islamophobia" as this fear is based on facts and realities rather than irrationality as the word 'phobia' would indicate. American concerns that religious teaching is the primary factor in contemporary terrorism must be heeded, not suppressed by name-calling tactics. Americans who allow themselves to be silenced by "Islamophobia" accusations serve as radical Islam's enablers. Finally, fear from Islam can ONLY be changed when the Muslim world challenges itself to change the above mentioned frightening facts and realities.