Religion is a Mental Illness

“Islamophobia” is a meaningless word

We must retain the right to criticise or mock any ideology.

andrewdoyle.substack.com

For a precious few decades, we in the west enjoyed a liberal consensus. The overwhelming majority of us had accepted that we should be free to speak and act as we wish so long as we adhere to the rule of law and not violate the rights of others. But since the early 2010s, culture warriors have successfully managed to destabilise this consensus. This has been achieved not through a process of persuasion, but largely through linguistic chicanery.

The term “Islamophobia” is a case in point. Few of us would tolerate the abuse of citizens for their belief in Islam, the vandalism of mosques, or physical attacks on those who are identifiably Muslim. We are right to condemn all such behaviour, and to support freedom of belief and worship. This is the essence of a secular democracy.

And yet those of us who maintain that the belief system of Islam is essentially wrong, that the veiling of women is rooted in misogyny, and that no religious icon should be ringfenced from ridicule, are often dismissed as “Islamophobic”. This is to conflate the actions of bigots and criminals with those who are simply exercising their right to criticise ideas. It is linguistic sleight-of-hand. And it works.

The UK government is currently considering how to tackle so-called “Islamophobia”, which should come as no surprise given that the Labour Party seems to be waging an open war against free speech. Having already jettisoned the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act - a bill that had been thoroughly debated in parliament and had received cross-party support - Labour has moved on to targeting online speech. Meanwhile, judges are openly imposing draconian prison terms for speech-crimes in order to “set an example”. These are dark times for liberty.

So what will the criminalisation of “Islamophobia” mean? If it is to tackle vandalism, assault, or harassment of Muslims, then its proponents should rest assured that such actions are already illegal. To understand what the Labour party is considering, we need to examine the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)’s definition of “Islamophobia”, a variation of which is likely to be adopted by the current government in future legislation. A report by the APPG in November 2018 put it this way:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

The definition is factually wrong. Islam is a belief-system, not a race. There are over two billion Muslims in the world, and they belong to multiple ethnicities. To criticise Islam is to criticise an idea, not a racial demographic. If we wish to live in a free society, that means we must retain the right to reject or embrace ideologies as we see fit. We don’t criminalise “Christianophobia” or “Marxistophobia” or “Freemarketcapitalismophobia”, so why should we do so when it comes to Islam?

The conflation of race and belief is, of course, a strategic means to silence dissent. Most of us in the west have reached the consensus that racism is an intolerable evil. And so by making criticism of Islam akin to racial hatred, we implicitly render such criticism an act of bigotry. This is why so many intersectional campaigners are silent on the treatment of women in Islamic theocracies. While western activists are claiming that the veil is empowering, courageous women in Iran are throwing off these oppressive garments and dancing in the streets. This is in spite of the risks of imprisonment and violence by the “morality police”.

The term “Islamophobia”, like many other “phobias”, is an attempt to pathologise perfectly legitimate points of view. It is similar to the claim that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is “homophobic” or that anyone who believes that women are entitled to single-sex spaces is “transphobic”. As a tactic, it’s about as sophisticated as saying: “Oh, don’t pay any attention to him. He’s a nutcase”.

The term “Islamophobia” apparently dates back as early as 1910, when it appeared in the French form islamophobie in an essay by Alain Quellien. It was popularised in the 1970s by Iranian Islamic fundamentalists. Like all ideologues, they understood that cultural revolutions are best achieved through the control of language and definitions.

Those who struggle to convince others to join their cause often take this alternative approach. They simply redefine words so that people end up supporting their side without realising it. This is precisely the method that had led so many liberal-minded people to promote “woke” causes, even though they represent the precise opposite of liberal values. It’s also why people who fully understand that human beings cannot change sex are nonetheless parroting the slogan: “trans women are women”.

The propagation of the term “Islamophobia” works in much the same way. It prevents open discussion about Islamic beliefs by stigmatising those who participate. We saw this explicitly when the European Court of Human Rights agreed with a court in Austria that criticism of the Prophet Mohammed was “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate”. As Qanta Ahmed pointed out in the Spectator, this was offensive to Muslims because it infantilised them. It implied that they should be treated like children who are prone to violent tantrums when insulted.

In criminalising criticism and ridicule of Islam, the UK government would effectively be asserting that Muslims are second-class citizens who need to be protected from the realities of life in a pluralistic society. Would this not be a violation of their own law? Could the implementation of a law against “Islamophobia” itself be an act of Islamophobia? These are dizzying possibilities that remind us that the state should never attempt to control the speech or thoughts of its citizens.

Enough of the word games. Islam is not a race. Its disciples are not entitled to a life free from offence. Anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice exists and ought to be criticised, but it is not the same as the mockery or the denunciation of a religious creed. Any legislation against “Islamophobia” would be tantamount to a new form of blasphemy law. In a supposedly free society, this cannot be tolerated.

"There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe." – Sam Harris

Richard Dawkins once again melts brains with reasonable comments about Islam and being a 'cultural Christian'.

Dawkins said he prefers Christianity to Islam and social media had a meltdown.

sknight.substack.com

Religion is a term like sports: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing); some are safer but synonymous with violence (mixed martial arts); and some entail little more risk of injury than standing in the shower (bowling). To speak of sports as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common apart from breathing? Not much. The term religion is hardly more useful.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

New Hate Speech Laws Threaten Freedom Across the West

Those fighting censorship in Canada, or Britain, or Ireland, wish they had a First Amendment to fall back on.

https://www.thefp.com/

One of the first things you learn—or should learn—in Civics 101 is that there is no freedom at all without freedom of expression. Free speech is the essential freedom from which our other rights flow. It’s a right that we have taken for granted in the West. 

But a new wave of hate speech laws has changed that. In English-speaking countries with long traditions of free expression—countries like Canada, Britain, and Ireland—this most basic freedom is under attack. 

Take Canada. Civil liberties groups north of the border are warning a new bill put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government will introduce “draconian penalties” that risk chilling free speech. How draconian? The law would allow authorities to place a Canadian citizen under house arrest if that person is suspected to commit a future hate crime—even if they have not already done so. The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for advocating genocide from five years to life.

These punishments depend on a hazy definition of hate that Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has warned could blur the line between “political activism, passionate debate, and offensive speech.” 

The proposed law is in keeping with the Trudeau government’s broader hostility to free expression. I’ve reported before for The Free Press on this censorious turn in my country, from the crackdown on the trucker protesters to the backdoor regulation of online speech. And, testifying before the U.S. Congress in November, I urged Americans to treat Canada’s war on free expression as a cautionary tale. Increasingly, though, what’s true of Canada is true across the English-speaking world. 

In Ireland, the government is pressing ahead with controversial new restrictions of online speech that, if passed, would be among the most stringent in the Western world. 

The proposed legislation would criminalize the act of “inciting hatred” against individuals or groups based on specified “protected characteristics” like race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation. The definition of incitement is so broad as to include “recklessly encouraging” other people to hate or cause harm “because of your views” or opinions. In other words, intent doesn’t matter. Nor would it matter if you actually posted the “reckless” content. Merely being in possession of that content—say, in a text message, or in a meme stored on your iPhone—could land you a fine of as much as €5,000 ($5,422) or up to 12 months in prison, or both. 

As with Canada’s proposed law, the Irish legislation rests on a murky definition of hate. But Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee sees this lack of clarity as a strength. “On the strong advice of the Office of the Attorney General, we have not sought to limit the definition of the widely understood concept of ‘hatred’ beyond its ordinary and everyday meaning,” she explained. “I am advised that defining it further at this juncture could risk prosecutions collapsing and victims being denied justice.” 

In Britain, existing online harm legislation means that tweeting “transwomen are men” can lead to a knock on the door from the cops. Now the governing Conservative Party is under pressure to adopt a broad definition of Islamophobia as a “type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” 

Other parties have adopted this definition, and free-speech advocates in Britain worry that it is only a matter of time until a Labour-run government codifies the definition into legislation. To do so, they argue, would mean the introduction of a de facto blasphemy law in Britain. 

These growing restrictions on speech across the Anglosphere are making the United States, with its robust First Amendment protection of speech, an outlier—though not for the Biden administration’s lack of trying. 

In April 2022, the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” to “coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security.” There was an immediate pushback from free-speech advocates, who pointed to the obvious fact that this new body would necessarily impinge on protected First Amendment rights. The administration dropped the idea a few months later. 

Then, in September 2023, a federal court ruled that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when they “coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content” during the pandemic. 

Jay Bhattacharya was one of the scientists on the winning side of that case. Writing in The Free Press after the ruling, he recalled being grilled on the First Amendment during his citizenship test when he was nineteen. “The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy,” he wrote. “I never imagined that there would come a time when an American government would think of violating this right, or that I would be its target.” 

The trouble isn’t just the Biden administration. 

Listen to Barbara McQuade, an MSNBC legal analyst and professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Her new book, Attack from Within, details “how disinformation is sabotaging America.” America’s “deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. . . makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship,” said McQuade in an interview with Rachel Maddow last week. 

A worrying number of Americans appear to be sympathetic to McQuade’s argument. A 2023 Pew survey found that just 42 percent of voters agreed that “freedom of information should be protected, even if it means false information can be published.” 

McQuade has it backward. The First Amendment is a feature, not a bug; a strength, not a vulnerability; and the bedrock of American freedom and flourishing. 

Across the English-speaking world, we once took our civil liberties for granted. Freedom of speech was understood as a blessing of democracy, not something that needed to be fought for every day. We thought that opaque and vague laws were used by those in power to punish their political or ideological opponents only in illiberal autocracies such as Russia or China. But we were wrong. And those now fighting censorship in Canada, or Britain, or Ireland, wish they had a First Amendment of their own to fall back on. 

"The right to take offense is stretched to its very limits by many religious groups even in Western liberal democracies. It should be held, in my opinion, that the right to critique supersedes the right to take offense... The essential right to constructive or even ironic criticism is something that we should fight for." -- Saahil

I'm not tweeting anyone, I'm just tweeting, okay. I don't know who's following me. I've got 12 million followers. I don't know who's following me, they can be following me without me knowing, choose to read my tweet and then take that personally.

That's like going into a town square, seeing a big noticeboard and there's a notice, "guitar lessons," and you go, "but I don't fucking want guitar lessons!"

What's this? There's a number here. Right, call that, right. Are you giving guitar lessons? Yeah? I don't fucking want any!

Fine, it's not for you then, just walk away. Don't worry about it.

Despite superficial similarities to First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., the proposed Irish hate-speech statute would all but guarantee its politicized use.

"Every time you violate, or propose to violate, the right to free speech of someone else, you in potentia, you’re making a rod for your own back. Because, to whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? … To whom you would give the job of deciding for you? Relieve you from the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear? Do you know anyone? Hands up, do you know anyone to whom you'd give this job? Does anyone have a nominee?"

The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew far greater attention to the heretofore obscure photograph in 2003.

“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn’t exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.” -- Salman Rushdie

Islamophobia was invented to silence those Muslims who question the Koran and who demand equality of the sexes.

At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term "Islamophobia" formed in analogy to "xenophobia". The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.

But confession has no more in common with race than it has with secular ideology. Muslims, like Christians, come from the Arab world, Africa, Asia and Europe, just as Marxists, liberals and anarchists come or came from all over. In a democracy, no one is obliged to like religion, and until proved otherwise, they have the right to regard it as retrograde and deceptive. Whether you find it legitimate or absurd that some people regard Islam with suspicion – as they once did Catholicism – and reject its aggressive proselytism and claim to total truth – this has nothing to do with racism.

Do we talk about 'liberalophobia' or 'socialistophobia' if someone speaks out against the distribution of wealth or market domination. Or should we reintroduce blasphemy, abolished by the revolution in 1791, as a statutory offence, in line with the annual demands of the "Organisation of the Islamic Conference".  Or indeed the French politician Jean-Marc Roubaud, who wants to see due punishment for anyone who "disparages the religious feelings of a community or a state". Open societies depend on the peaceful coexistence of the principal belief systems and the right to freedom of opinion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed, as is the freedom to criticise religions. The French, having freed themselves from centuries of ecclesiastical rule, prefer discretion when it comes to religion. To demand separate rights for one community or another, imposing restrictions on the right to question dogma is a return to the Ancien Regime.

The term "Islamophobia" serves a number of functions: it denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire. It follows that young girls are stigmatised for not wearing the veil, as are French, German or English citizens of Maghribi, Turkish, African or Algerian origin who demand the right to religious indifference, the right not to believe in God, the right not to fast during Ramadan. Fingers are pointed at these renegades; they are delivered up to the wrath of their religions communities in order to quash all hope of change among the followers of the Prophet.

On a global scale, we are abetting the construction of a new thought crime, one which is strongly reminiscent of the way the Soviet Union dealt with the "enemies of the people". And our media and politicians are giving it their blessing. Did not the French president himself, never one to miss a blunder - not compare Islamophobia with Antisemitism? A tragic error. Racism attacks people for what they are: black, Arab, Jewish, white. The critical mind on the other hand undermines revealed truths and subjects the scriptures to exegesis and transformation. To confuse the two is to shift religious questions from an intellectual to a judicial level. Every objection, every joke becomes a crime.

The desecration of graves or of places of worship is naturally a matter for the courts. In France, for the most part it is Christian graveyards or churches that are affected. Let us not forget that today, of all the monotheist religions, Christianity is the most persecuted – particularly in Islamic countries such Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey or Egypt. It is easier to be a Muslim in London, New York or Paris than a Protestant or Catholic in the Middle East or North Africa. But the term "Christianophobia" does not function – and that's a good thing. There are words which taint language, which obscure meaning. "Islamophobia" is one of the words that we urgently need to delete from our vocabulary.

"Where did this idea come from that all beliefs deserve respect? If your beliefs are ridiculous, they deserve to be ridiculed, as would mine." -- MissaMHx

"Islam is not a race, but an idea, and ideas are open to criticism and even contempt." -- Christopher Hitchens

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, contempt, [your] freedom of thought becomes impossible." -- Salman Rushdie

"The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made." -- Christopher Hitchens

"We have to stop saying, well, we should not insult a great religion. First of all, there are no great religions; they're all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them, and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like." -- Bill Maher

"Absolutely no ideology is exempt from scrutiny, criticism or mockery. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are non-negotiable human rights."