In my last article about the hysteria around Canada’s Motion 103 on Islamophobia this past winter, I alluded to the idea that Islamophobia as a term might not accurately convey anti-Muslim bigotry or racialized hatred endured by Muslims. I also noted how in the discussions around the use of that term in the federal motion, Islamophobes who were arguing that the whole thing should be trashed were not actually interested in whether or not the term accurately described what Muslims face. They had their own hateful agenda centered on shutting down the motion and stirring up anger towards Muslims and the Liberals which became abundantly clear in the death threats and hate mail received in the tens of thousands by MP Iqra Khalid who put forth the motion.

But there are people who are actually concerned about whether or not the term Islamophobia is good enough. As an academic, I am preoccupied with not only definitions of terms but how people use and think of terms, irrespective of their official definitions. And I would say, yes, Islamophobia is insufficient for some of the phenomena we describe with that term. That doesn’t mean we should throw it out completely and I would even say that we could continue using it until we find something adequate to slowly replace it with and that replacement is successfully filtered into popular memory… but before I suggest what to do with it, I will talk about the reasons it just doesn’t work anymore.

  1. It centers the person who fears/hates. The first thing to note is that Islamophobia is not about what Muslims endure. Unlike racism, anti-Semitism or sexism, Islamophobia does not name the violence that Muslim people are faced with. It isn’t about the micro-aggressions, verbal assaults, fearing for one’s personal safety, systemic marginalization or obstacles Muslims face to self-actualization. It isn’t about having to watch your brethren globally massacred. It isn’t about how you feel when people demand that you apologize for the actions of extremist militants. None of that is really encapsulated in the term Islamophobia because a phobia is used to describe the irrational fears of the person who fears, not the person who has to deal with the symptoms of those fears. In this way, the term Islamophobia actually centers the person who either fears or hates Muslims, marginalizing Muslim voices in the very term which is meant to describe their marginalization in the first place.
  2. Not all hatred is rooted in fear. Using Islamophobia to refer to hatred and violence lobbed at Muslims assumes a subscription to what has become a pervasive (but false) axiom in our society: that the root of hatred is fear and ignorance. I actually do not believe this. The root of hatred is not always fear and it certainly is not always ignorance. In fact, historically, the root of hatred is more often power: the desire to consolidate, maintain, and build it. If this were not the case, we might have been able to sing kumbayah with hateful people like Hitler and his Nazi henchman to show them the err of their ways. But Hitler didn’t fear Jews and he certainly was not ignorant of some knowledge about them. He scapegoated Jews and other minorities to consolidate power according to his own warped worldview and the one he exploited in his society. Similarly, using a term which ends in -phobia connotes fear and ignorance, and subliminally excuses the person who hates.
  3. It conflates Islam and Muslims. Unsurprisingly, when people actually legitimately fear something, it usually isn’t “Islam(s)”, but some horrendous cultural practices found within the purview of some Muslims. By calling it Islamophobia, we conflate Islam with Muslims and basically declare them to be the same thing when they are not. Islam is a cultural and comprehensive philosophical, ethical, and legal system. People who use Christianoform secular definitions of “religion” think that separating Islam from bad cultural practices is a matter of separation “religion from culture.” This is a poor way of thinking of Islam. The term deen which Muslims use to refer to Islam better translates to “way of life” meaning a cultural system. Where people get caught up is in forgetting that people can actually subscribe to multiple cultural systems at any given time and some of those cultural expressions come to the fore dependent on the socio-political context they find themselves in. That’s a very simplified version of describing how we can get practices that are “unIslamic” in “Muslim” cultures. These practices might even be justified as Islamic but that doesn’t actually make them Islamic. So this conflation doesn’t work.
  4. It ignores the economy of hatred that produces Muslimophobia(?). Fear of Muslims by regular folks is very real. People are inundated daily by lies about Islam and Muslims, and they come to believe those things. Who wouldn’t fear a terrorist? Who wouldn’t fear the obscene garbage Saudi Arabia passes off as Islamic law these days? Crucifying teenagers? Lashing raped women? Come on, none of this bullshit has anything to do with Islam. What people see in places like KSA should be called what it is: Wahhabism – a 19th century political-cultural cult centered on the power of the Al-Saud family which obfuscates its false origins by masquerading as Islam. It is an insult to the Prophet sallahu alayhi wa salam and an abomination to the guidance sent to him by Allah that a government funding terror globally, obliterating women’s rights, and single-handedly causing the most recent man-made famine in Yemen could call itself “Islamic” or be the keepers of the Hijaz. Period. People are taught to believe that those things are Islam itself though and they rightly fear those things. But they are merely pawns in a much larger, transnational game of manufacturing consent for modern Crusades which generate untold wealth and power for elites in Western countries – and Islamophobia does not adequately describe that practice.

So what do I tentatively propose instead?

To describe the manufactured fears of cultural and political practices commonly found in Muslim cultures, especially when those fears are found in non-elite folks who do not hold positions of power, we might use the term Muslimophobia. These people tend only to keep their fears to themselves or they might talk about these fears in some groups. They are susceptible to becoming radicalized easily, particularly when preyed upon online. This group is also the easiest to change the minds and hearts of. They are the most likely to alter their worldviews through interaction with real Muslims and by learning more about Islam. These are the people whose attention community organizers should focus on in order to build numbers of allies.

To describe those who manufacture those fears for personal and political gain, we can say that they exhibit anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry. These people might be in government, policy-making, or media. They are harder to convince in terms of the unethical nature of their hatred. They often gain financially from their hatred and construct their identities around their hatred. If one manages to change these peoples’ minds, they become very strong allies and often center their lives on fighting anti-Muslim hatred to fill the void left by their hatred when they change their ways. Community organizers, advocates and lobbyists should focus on these people to build numbers of allies.

For those with a Crusading ethos who hold key power positions and have openly declared war on Islam with the hopes of obliterating the religion from the face of the earth, we might describe them as engaging in anti-Islamic hatred, repression and genocide. Their goal is to eliminate the cultural system of Islam from their borders and maybe even globally which would entail having to kill off Muslims. These people are like Nazis or are Nazis and should be treated as such.

These terms might not take hold right away but I am certainly going to try to start using them more frequently and encouraging others to do so as well.

What terms would you use?


16265681_10154323322850753_2679466403133227560_n

Nakita Valerio is an award-winning writer, academic, and community organizer based in Edmonton, Canada. She recently completed graduate studies and work as a research assistant in History and Islamic-Jewish Studies at the University of Alberta, as well as a research fellowship on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism for The Tessellate Institute. Nakita serves her community as the Vice President of External Affairs with Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC), as an advisor for the Chester Ronning Center for the Study of Religion and Public Life,  and as a member of the Executive Fundraising Board for the YIWCL Cree Women’s Camp. Nakita is the co-founder of Bassma Primary School in El Attaouia, Morocco and is currently working on a graphic novel memoir weaving her experiences abroad with her community work and research.

 

This past winter, Canadian MP Iqra Khalid put forth the now-infamous Motion 103 in the Canadian parliament – a 125 word document which recognizes the existence of Islamophobia and other discriminations, and categorically condemns them. Similar motions have passed in the past, including those condemning anti-Semitism and racism. What had previously been a straight-forward process turned into a ridiculous attack on both the motion and the MP with Khalid receiving tens of thousands of pieces of hate mail about the wording of the motion. While the motion thankfully passed, that hasn’t stopped the deluge of hateful rhetoric around the motion, nor its rippling social after-effects as people continue repeat the same intellectually-impoverished arguments about Islamophobia. So-called critics published op-eds in conservative tabloids and on social media platforms claiming the following:

  1. The concept of Islamophobia infringes on the right to free speech. People actually tried to claim that naming a discrimination meant they could no longer criticize Muslim countries or Islam itself. Forgive me while I take a second to crack my knuckles and wipe my glasses before I get on the debunking bullshit train. First of all, critique is an intrinsic part of the Muslim tradition and has been that way for centuries. The history of Islam is literally one scholarly critique after another to infinitude. Have people making this claim even read Islamic legal texts? The cross-pollination of past case studies and rebuttals of other scholars is nothing but criticism. But one would never know that if they actually believed that, for example,  criticizing Saudi Arabia’s laws against the mobility of women were the same thing as say, calling a Muslim a sand n*gger before ripping their hijab off. Clearly not the same thing. Maybe if the same people weren’t so busy trying to pretend that critique of Israel was anti-Semitic they wouldn’t have such a hard time separating concepts that literally no one else conflates. Also, what makes half of the people making this claim think they know enough about Islam to genuinely critique beyond the usual “Muslim women are oppressed” and “Mohammed was a false prophet” arguments we have been hearing since literally the medieval period? Practicing Muslims themselves are barely qualified to engage critically with discourses on Islamic law simply because they are not trained in that disciplinary field. You wouldn’t ask someone without at least a theology degree to start questioning philosophical claims made by the Pope, but suddenly everyone is an expert on complex Islamic ethics, philosophy and law? Alright then.

Secondly, nothing about the motion was enforceable at all. Why can’t people understand anything about Canadian political processes? Was no one paying attention in Junior High School? Also, a similar motion passed unanimously in October 2016 that also used the word Islamophobia. Why is the short-term memory in this country completely non-existent? Does no one value even the most contemporary of histories? I have more faith in the historical narratives of goldfish at this point. I mean, really.

Thirdly, even if it was enforceable, we don’t actually have free speech in Canada – we have freedom of expression. Hate speech is not included in that so if someone’s idea of criticizing Islam is actually just Muslim bashing and spreading hatred and inciting people to violence: guess what? This isn’t America. That’s a punishable offence in Canada, thank God. The only people I ever see going on and on univocally about free speech are pseudo-neo-Nazis, real neo-Nazis or The New Atheists (not to be confused with regular atheists) who use that argument as a crutch for pushing their hateful agendas. Yes, we need to be free to express ourselves, and we need to protect that right especially in the press, but hate speech isn’t a part of that.

  1. The motion was giving Muslims special rights. Nope. Also, even if it did, the social marginalization endured by Muslims would mean that anything that gave them some “privileges” would just be for the purpose of buffering the effect systemic violence against them: but, you know, equality always feels like oppression to those in power. As usual. Also, this is the same argument that racist people have used about Indigenous people for years. Complaining about peoples’ “special rights” (most of which are total myths) when the system one benefits from has spent generations committing cultural genocide against them is just blind hypocrisy.
  2. Islamophobia doesn’t exist. Yes, people actually tried to claim this. They tried to claim that Muslims are treated identically to white Christoform secular people in this country. Riiiiiight. Newsflash people: denying Islamophobia exists is Islamophobia. Just stop. When marginalized people tell you they are marginalized, your only job is to listen and to do everything in your power to dismantle the systems which cause it. If someone is not doing this for Muslims, I really hate to think how they treat people who confide in them about their physical or mental illnesses, or people who have endured trauma. The empathy gap among people who identify to the right of the political spectrum is startling and needs to be better examined.

Sure, Islamophobia might not accurately convey anti-Muslim bigotry or racialized hatred endured by Muslims but that is a completely different discussion that these groups were simply not willing to have because they don’t actually care. By putting all of the micro-aggressions Muslims endure under the categories of only hatred and bigotry, it also undermines the actual fear that perpetrators feel about Muslims, most of which is stirred up by a global Islamophobia industry in which a hell of a lot of states and transnational entities are fully-invested. This is the modern crusading ethos in action, and there is money to be made by the manufactured social consent acquired when people are made to either hate or fear Muslims. It’s why  a lot of people no longer bat an eyelash when the MOAB is dropped on Afghanistan (yes, even if it “only” killed a few dozen people and militants) or #45 does missile strikes in Syria without seeking government approval. It’s why people even cheer this crap on.

Pretending Islamophobia doesn’t exist is what happens when people haven’t gotten out of their own privileged echo chambers to actually listen to the real, living, breathing human beings around them. They don’t even know how fully fabricated their worldview is by powers who seek only their own entrenchment and gain. They don’t recognize that even having to manufacture public consent for Islamophobia is indicative of how powerful that public could truly be if they only knew to rise up against the machine that harms all of us.  And, as a result, Muslims continue to be utterly dehumanized, marginalized and murdered in the process.

Should I tell you how I really feel?


16265681_10154323322850753_2679466403133227560_n

Nakita Valerio is an award-winning writer, academic, and community organizer based in Edmonton, Canada. She recently completed graduate studies and work as a research assistant in History and Islamic-Jewish Studies at the University of Alberta, as well as a research fellowship on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism for The Tessellate Institute. Nakita serves her community as the Vice President of External Affairs with Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC), as an advisor for the Chester Ronning Center for the Study of Religion and Public Life,  and as a member of the Executive Fundraising Board for the YIWCL Cree Women’s Camp. Nakita is the co-founder of Bassma Primary School in El Attaouia, Morocco and is currently working on a graphic novel memoir weaving her experiences abroad with her community work and research.