Where matters of religion (and especially Islam) are concerned, it’s fair to say that internet comment sections seldom provide nuanced, measured arguments. What ensues is less a sophisticated dialogue à la Plato’s Academy and more a virtual representation of Hyde Park’s Speaker’s Corner. Less an elegant, refined fencing joust, and more a case of village idiots hitting each other over the head with flat-nosed clubs. And yet, look deeper amidst the verbal carnage and you find an insidious zeitgeist. A question of semantics as yet unchallenged; the use of the word 'Islamophobia'.

Let me make something clear; it is painfully apparent that discrimination against those of the Islamic faith is the growing societal problem of our age. One only has to look at the frequency of news stories this year- the rise in London’s hate crimes, the American Airlines drinks controversy, and more recently, Ahmed Mohamed’s case in Texas - to realise this. This is a problem. But in describing these incidents as 'Islamophobic', as opposed to 'anti-Muslim Hate Crimes', we serve only to maintain the discrimination. The word 'Islamophobia' is an entirely limp statement. Much like Europe’s solution to the migrant crisis it neither deals with the problem, nor makes it worse. It is, and has become, a meaningless statement, a mental thumb-twiddling exercise.

Let me use the story of Tasneem Kabir to explain why we need this shift. Tasneem, a sixteen year old hijabi from London, was knocked unconscious by a man later dubbed 'Islamophobic'. But what was the straw that broke the bigot’s back? The principles of Islam? The intricate theology of Islam? In all likelihood it was simply the sight of a Muslim woman. It was the sight of the Hijab, the emblem of a Muslim woman. The hate was directed towards her as a Muslim, an individual, a person. This is the key distinction in this debate. 'Islam' - and 'Islamophobia' - deal with the intellectual form of the faith. “Muslim”, on the other hand, represents the reality, the person on the ground being abused. The former is principles, ideas and theology. The latter is people, grounded in a reality and when abused, abused in that reality. A case of the cerebral over the corporeal. When Tasneem collapsed, the last thing that mattered was doctrine. The immediate problem was the 'Muslim' lying unconscious.

There are important implications in distinguishing between 'Islamophobia' and 'anti-Muslim', especially when it comes to free speech. 'Islamophobic' has, in the eyes of some of Islam’s critics, become associated with political correctness. Nothing more than cotton wool plugging up further critique. Critics of Islam get lumped together with the violent bigots who attack Muslims. There is a link between 'anti-Muslim' and 'Islamophobic', that is clear. When someone hates an individual Muslim, it often follows that they hate the principles behind that person’s faith. A mere critic of Islam, on the other hand, may despise the teachings, yet still be a moral and peaceful person. Someone may, for example, hate Conservatism, but that does not mean they necessarily hate those who hold conservative views - a case of 'hating the sin, loving the sinner'. What a move away from 'Islamophobia' achieves is permitting criticism of Islam to take place, whilst at the same time dealing with the prejudice that affects the average Muslim on the street.

What is especially concerning is the use of 'Islamophobia' by Muslim organisations. The Muslim Council of Britain, for example, led a march earlier this year against 'Islamophobia'. Like most marches and rallies, it achieved very little. There was no major media engagement, nor significant policy changes. Given that a major crisis affecting Muslim communities around the country is the lure of ISIS, it seems strange that the term 'Islamophobia' is not being challenged. What 'Islamophobia' unconsciously does is to divide the camp into those who are either 'with Islam' or 'against Islam' (whatever that means). When an angry, impressionable teenager sees headlines about 'Islamophobia' and finds comments saying that 'a fear of Islam is entirely rational', what does he feel? But change the words and make it 'anti-Muslim hate crimes' and we would all agree that a woman being knocked to the ground is abhorrent and a mosque being firebombed is morally odious. Society, Muslim and non-Muslim, would come together in condemnation. Most importantly, that young man would feel that he has a place in this society. This question of word choice is more than just pedantry; it has the potential to be forward-looking and inclusive.

Our parents’ generation, growing up in the Cold War, was defined by ideological battles. Our generation faces a battle for identity; and this is perhaps best exemplified by Barack Hussein Obama. When Obama defiantly declared that “words matter”, it takes on a greater significance today in dealing with anti-Muslim prejudice. Words do matter, for they say something about our society. When we say 'Islamophobia' we say something, nothing and everything at the same time. We say that our society is unrefined in thought and unwilling to deal with this issue. We say that we are less the inheritors of dialectic wisdom, and more the creators of acquiescent temerity. Worse still, we say that we are a society that is happy to remain divided. In using the antiquated 'Islamophobia', we may not necessarily be the village idiots hitting each other over the head with flat-nosed clubs. But we are certainly not the elegant swordsman duelling away the hate - and to do that, we need to get rid of 'Islamophobia'.

 

 @mustafa_ma651