Anti-Muslim bigotry and equate this with the Criticism of Islam
Yes! As a matter of fact, we in the U.S. as well as every other part of the world could readily agree that language conventions accompanied with bigotry and ostensible bias will really mar up the landscape. This article very much is addressing language; consequently, it is of the utmost importance to use discretion and dignity when one is attempting to change any part of any language. This article inspired me for various reasons, none of which could afford a lackadaisical approach insofar as what is occurring is an act of political correctness.
For a long time, elements on the ‘left’ have been conflating Islamism with Muslims; thus granting Islamist ideology the same type of protection afforded by “protected characteristics” like race or sexual orientation.
The question of what language we use is not ‘merely’ a rhetorical point – it cuts to the heart and reality of the matter. The word ‘Islamophobia’ was memorably described as “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons” and it is succeeding very well in manipulating discussion about Islam.
The bigoted views of Islamists and anti-Muslim demagogues must be challenged, but the term ‘Islamophobia’ only serves to confuse the issues and shut down debate, argues Benjamin Jones.
A motion was pushed through which aimed to “end transphobia, biphobia and Islamophobia on Campus.” The motion stated that “the NUS Women’s’ Officers and members of the NUS Women’s committee shall not offer a platform to any transphobic speaker, biphobic or Islamophobic speaker, nor shall it officially support any event that does.”
Actually to assist in clearing up and confusion this motion was instigated by the Women’s Officer Corps. of an organization called The National Secular Society, headquartered with offices in England.
This example of trying to get their message across is excruciatingly worrisome. “The NUS Women’s Conference made headlines recently after the organisers asked delegates to start using “jazz hands” instead of clapping, out of fear that clapping was “triggering” anxiety. What was not as widely reported was their decision to outlaw “Islamophobia.”
However to be commended on a need to change what could be offensive to others has been a difficult transaction. As for me, the method that should be used is honesty, integrity, with good well-thought out intentions.
Worryingly, the phrase ‘Islamophobia’ was not defined in the motion: in fact, the word is not truly defined in society generally. The word ‘Islamophobia’ has long-since entered common usage, but it describes two completely different things.
Apparently the battle arises when two or more compelling ideologies are used to insinuate a word. We need to separate anti-Muslim bigotry from criticism of Islam, both of which are maddeningly labelled as ‘Islamophobic’. At present, Islamists and their apologists use this single term to shut down reform of Islam by labelling critics of (and within) the faith with the same neologism used to describe bigoted thugs.
Personally it doesn’t seem fair to me whatsoever to even suggest a guide for anti-Muslim bigotry and then compelling individuals to somehow equate this with the criticism of Islam. It is not as though one were comparing apples to apples.
We must stop equating these two completely separate phenomena, and object loudly when others try to make this spurious connection. To do this, we need to sort out our terminology and our language conventions and then laying appropriate language — meaningfully.