Skip to main content

What is, and isn't, Islamophobic/anti-semitic?

There's currently a great deal of talk about Islamophobia and anti-semitism in the UK press. You won't be surprised to hear me say I am very firmly against both forms of prejudice. However, I suspect many would consider me guilty of one or other.

I suspect many Muslims or Muslim-supporters would consider me Islamophobic because, say, I consider the religion of Islam one root cause of much contemporary terrorism. On the other hand, I don't doubt some Jews or Israeli-supporters would consider me anti-semitic because, say, I think the attacks on Gaza were disproportionate and unjustified, or because I am broadly sympathetic to non-violent methods of Palestinian resistance, such as their BDS campaign - Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.

It may well be that I'm just mistaken about what is and isn't Islamophobic/anti-semitic, and I genuinely want to be guilty of neither, so I thought I would arrange various claims according to whether I consider them Islamophobic or not and anti-semitic or not, to get your feedback.

I DO consider the following claims Islamophobic:

All Muslims should be forcibly removed to Arab countries (e.g. from the U.S. or from Israel)
Muslims all want to take over the world (and place it under sharia)
The Muslims are secretly plotting to take over the world (and place it under sharia)
Muslims are cockroaches and rats
Muslims are a source of moral depravity
Muslims are bigots (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.)


I DO consider the following claims anti-semitic:

All Jews should be forcibly removed to the USA (e.g. from Israel)
Jews all want to take over the world (and place it under Zionist control)
The Jews are secretly plotting to take over the world (and place it under Zionist control)
Jews are cockroaches and rats
Jews are a source of moral depravity
Jews are bigots (Islamophobic, gentile-phobic, etc.)
 
However, I DO NOT consider the following claims Islamophobic (that is NOT to say I agree with them all, or consider them all unobjectionable, please note!)

It would have been better had Islam never existed
Islam is a major cause of terrorist attacks and atrocities
Islam is a poisonous and destructive religion
Many Muslims are horribly bigoted against Jews, women, and gays.
There should be a boycott/sanctions against countries like Saudi Arabia that engage in such violent attacks in Yemen (and spread violent wahabist ideology).
The pro-Saudi lobby has had an undue and damaging influence on Western foreign policy.
 
Similarly, I DO NOT consider the following claims anti-semitic (that is NOT to say I agree with them all, or consider them all unobjectionable, please note!)

It would have been better had Israel never existed.
Israel is a major cause of terrorist attacks and atrocities
Israel is a poisonous and destructive state
Many Jews are horribly bigoted against Palestinians.
There should be a boycott/sanctions against countries like Israel that engage in such violent attacks in Gaza.
The pro-Israel lobby has had an undue and damaging influence on Western foreign policy.
 
Of course I acknowledge anti-semites might well say such (I think) non-anti-semitic things. But what I do currently deny is that their saying such things automatically qualifies them as anti-semites. Similarly, I acknowledge many Islamophobes say similar things about Muslims. But that does not automatically make them Islamophobes.

But am I right? I am offering this as a platform for discussion. For example, many consider the Palestinian BDS campaign against Israel intrinsically antisemitic, whereas I do not. Nor do I consider the claim that it would have been better if Islam had never existed, or that Israel had never existed, Islamophobic/antisemitic. That might surprise some of you. If you think I'm mistaken, why am I mistaken?

P.S. Notice I understand Islamopohobia to be a prejudice against Muslims as people, not mere criticism of Islamic belief, in the same way as I understand anti-semitism to be prejudice against Jews as people, not mere criticism of Jewish religious belief or the State of Israel. 

PS. I first posted this on the CFI blogs website.  

Comments

Michael said…
Dear Stephen, I am sorry that I can't disagree, because it sounds ok for me. I think the most important point is the motivation behind such a sentence. The point of view together with the motivation is what makes the difference. But this is just a quick thought about it.
August 18, 2017 at 4:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.
10 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
161 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o
151 comments
Read more