ISLAMOPHOBIA: WHAT IS IN A NAME?

Islamophobia: What Is in a Name?
Analysis of US Press Coverage of the Term after 9/11
By Eid Mohamed

In this in-depth study, the author traces the multifaceted definitions given to a term that has been increasingly employed after 9/11, that is : “ Islamophobia” He offers a reading through a number of U.S newspapers headlines before and after the magnanimous event that rocked the world back in September 2001. He concludes that even though the term Islamophobia was used so commonly in the U.S press after 9/11 , it became ambiguous because it is defined in a number of meanings.

Introduction

Coined in Great Britain a decade ago, the neologism Islamophobia appeared in 1996 by the self-proclaimed Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. The word literally means undue fear from Islam. However, it is used to mean prejudice against Muslims. It joins more than 500 other phobias spanning virtually every aspect of life.

The term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance to the point that the secretary-general of the United Nations presided over a December 2004 conference entitled "Confronting Islamophobia." Also, in May 2005, a Council of Europe summit condemned Islamophobia. (Pipes,”Islamophobia?”).

The American media and the media of many other Western countries always tend to link Islam and Muslims in general with the 9/11 attacks. This was the time when a number of terrorists hijacked some American airplanes from airports and used them to attack the Pentagon and the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.

The World Trade Center is the symbol of America's economic supremacy, while the Pentagon stands for its military power. Islam and Muslims have been described by the U.S media as the source of terrorism, religious fanaticism, and cultural backwardness.

Moreover, some U.S politicians parrot the media and refer to the same picture of Islam and Muslims. This was extremely evident when former US president George W. Bush used the term crusade to describe his "war on terrorism," recalling the famous wars waged by the West against Arabs and Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. Meanwhile, Muslims are being asked to reform their educational programs so that they may be kept at a distance from radical Islam.

In the U.S, this wave of fear and hatred against Islam and Muslims is defined by the term Islamophobia, which was initiated in Europe in the 1990s. The term was rarely mentioned in US newspapers before 9/11. However, it became increasingly common soon thereafter.

The term was rarely mentioned in US newspapers before 9/11. However, it became increasingly common soon thereafter.

For example, a Lexis -Nexis search in US newspapers before 9/11 yields 41 stories in which the term is mentioned (see Table 1). Within three months after 9/11, the term was mentioned in only 12 stories in US newspapers. From September 11, 2001, to September 11, 2002, the term recurred in 35 stories. Then, from September 11, 2002, to September 11, 2003, it appeared in 22 articles.

Surprisingly, thereafter came a wave of increase in the use of the term. From September 11, 2003, to September 11, 2004, the term was mentioned in 44 stories. This number increased in the following year to 82 occurrences. The rise continued: In the period between September 11, 2005, and September 11, 2006, the term appeared in 117 articles. In the following year, the number increased and reached211 occurrences.

Thus, since September 11, 2001, and up until now, stories mentioning the term in popular US newspapers continue to increase.

Table 1. US Newspapers that mentioned the term Islamophobia before 9/11

Number of articles
1 The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
1 Atlanta Journal and Constitution
4 The Boston Globe
3 Chicago Sun-Times
1 The Christian Science Monitor
3 Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City )
1 Investor's Business Daily
1 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel New York Post
1 The New York Times
1 New Times, Inc. Publications
1 News & Record (Greensboro, North Carolina)
1 Plain Dealer
2 Post and Courier (Charleston, South Carolina)
1 San Jose Mercury News (California)
1 The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey
1 St. Petersburg Times
5 University Wire
2 USA Today
1 The Washington Post
3 Washington Times
6 Washington Post
41 Total

The objective of this research is to trace the meaning of Islamophobiain US press coverage since 9/11 and to throw light on the unsteady meaning of the term and its multifaceted connotations. The paper addresses one decisive question that needs to be answered: What are the multifarious uses of Islamophobia in US newspapers after 9/11?

A study of the usage of the term in US newspapers after 9/11 indicates the extent to which the term had an occasionally changeable meaning during the last few years. People are still confused about Islamophobia as a term and about its existence or inexistence in real life.

What is expressed in US newspapers is but a reflection of the ambiguity of the term, about which long discussions have taken place in US media. Sometimes, the term seems to be a hat rack on which people hang their political inclinations and hidden agendas. Other times, the term proves to have a verifiable existence.

This study endeavors to follow the analytical approach as a method of research so that the nature and background of Islamophobiacan be revealed and the main tenets shared by the different definitions of this term in US newspapers can be rendered and compared.

Furthermore, the comparative approach will be used to verify the validity of the arguments about Islamophobia and check whether the concept is a myth or reality. Through analyzing the US press coverage of Islamophobia, three different meanings of the term can be identified:

1.Islamophobia denotes speech and behavior that are derogatory to all Muslims and Arabs. In this sense, Islamophobia is a horrible disease that needs to be diagnosed and treated.

2. Islamophobia is the fear of "Muslim and Arab terrorists." Such fear is exemplified in the traumatic attacks of 9/11 and other horrible attacks in different areas of the world in which Muslims and Arabs were allegedly involved. This usage makes the term seen in the right place. The users of the term confine it to the doers of these murderous attacks, and they require Muslims and Arabs to better introduce themselves and their religion to the Western societies so that this phobia can be eliminated.)

3. Islamophobia is a myth or invention that is used by Muslims and Arabs in defense of themselves and their religion against any kind of criticism. In this usage, the term stands as an illegitimate shield against legitimate action and speech. The term itself turns into a threat to the US, as this usage of the termmakes use of people's agitation toward any discrimination based on religious belief or ethnicity. The term is seen by some as no more than a method of deception or a trick that is used to draw people's attention to a buzzwordthat hides illegal content.

One of the challenges that face the study of using the term Islamophobia in US newspapers is that identifying what each article is trying to prove requires a detailed analysis of a large number of articles so that valid conclusions can be reached.

In fact, since 9/11, a corpus of 556 stories about the term was written in US newspapers. Thus, the research method sought allows one to gain an overview of a wide-ranging corpus. This can be achieved through the method of search available at LexisNexis, which provides articles with the term Islamophobia in headlinesand lead paragraphs.

This method of search — which produces 93 articles published between September 11, 2001, and December 5, 2007 — guarantees a considerably wide audience, especially those readers who quickly scan the headlines and lead paragraphs rather than read the whole articles (see Table 2).

These 93 articles are classified according to the aforementioned meanings of Islamophobia. All these articles were carefully studied, but a detailed analysis of representative ones can reveal the evolution in the prominence given to the term over time and highlight the changing connotations of the term.

The importance of this paper lies in proposing different interpretations of Islamophobiaas a term and in showing the contradicting nature of some of these interpretations.

Table 2. Newspaper articles on Islamophobia used for this study
Number of articles
1 Ann Arbor News (Michigan)
4 Atlanta Journal and Constitution
1 The Boston Globe
2 Chattanooga Times Free Press
2 The Christian Science Monitor
1 Los Angeles Daily News
2 Daily News (New York)
3 Daily Variety
3 Forward
2 Houston Chronicle
2 Investor's Business Daily
1 McClatchy-Tribune Business News
1 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
4 Mobile Register (Alabama)
7 The New York Sun
1 The New York Times
1 The News and Observer
1 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
1 Pittsburgh Tribune Review
1 Philadelphia Inquirer
1 Plain Dealer
3 Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York)
1 Press Enterprise
1 San Diego Union-Tribune
1 Seattle Times
1 South Bend Tribune
3 St. Petersburg Times
13 Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Virginia)
3 University Wire
3 Wall Street Journal
9 Abstracts The WashingtonPost
9 WashingtonTimes
93 Total

Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim Racism

Soon after the fatal attacks of 9/11, the Americans began to ask questions about the "unknown" enemies called Muslims and Arabs. They turned to media to find answers to their questions. The answers were given by analysts and reporters who have little or no knowledge of the Muslim and Arab history, culture, and values. Also, some politicians tend to exploit the public's fear and anger for their own political agendas.

Televangelist Pat Robertson said that Muslims were worse than Nazis. Televangelist Jerry Falwell described Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as a "terrorist," while Preacher Jerry Vines described him as a "demon-obsessed pedophile" (Pintak, Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas).

Ann Coulter, one of America's most controversial commentators, wrote in a column published on September 13, 2001 (and was quickly quoted around the world), "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" (Pintak, Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas).
Ann Coulter, one of America 's most controversial commentators, wrote in a column published on September 13, 2001 (and was quickly quoted around the world), "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

Although millions of Muslims worldwide have denounced and condemned the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the image of Arabs and Muslims has been growingly tarnished after 9/11. A 2006 pollconducted by ABC News and Washington Post showed that almost half of all Americans expressed an unfavorable opinion of Muslims and Arabs: 45 percent think Islam does not teach respect for the beliefs of non-Muslims; nearly 6 in 10 think Islam is prone to violence (ABC News).

On September 8, 2001, the United Nations World Conference Against Racism issued the following statement: "We also recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities" (Neuffer, “ UN Conference Agrees on a Plan to Fight Racism”).

Thus, the conference concluded that there is a connection between the terms anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, on one hand, and the term racism, on the other. In this sense, the two terms transcend the limited meaning of hating a certain Jewish, Muslim, or Arab group into hating all Jews, Muslims, and Arabs. This confession by the United Nations that there is something alive called Islamophobia is not isolated from real life. Stories abound in US newspapers regarding Islamophobia as a phenomenon in the American society.

In fact, the term Islmophobia existed before 9/11, but the murderous attacks of 9/11 made it more visible as if it were newly coined in the US. According to the "Today's Quote" column in the Houston Chronicle, during a daylong UN seminar on Islamophobia, the following statement was given by former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan:

When a new word enters the language, it is often the result of a scientific advance or a diverting fad. But when the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia.(Annan, The Houston Chronicle)

Of course, after 9/11, Islamophobia became a hot issue on most US news channels; however, even before 9/11, the issue of Islamophobia was present on these channels.

The pre-9/11 Islamophobia phenomenon is evident in a statistic published in the U.S. Newswire on August 22, 2001:

According to a national report released today by a prominent national Islamic advocacy group, incidents of anti-Muslim discrimination rose 15 percent in the past year. That report, titled "Accommodating Diversity" and published by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), details more than 360 incidents and experiences of anti-Muslim violence, discrimination, stereotyping, bias, and harassment. (US Newswire, August 22, 2001)

The report relates incidents, "many of which involved denial of religious accommodation in the workplace (48 percent) or schools (15 percent), included thirty Muslim employees in Minnesota who walked off the job because they were denied the right to pray, a correctional officer in New York who was denied the right to wear a beard, a woman in Illinois who was fired for wearing a religiously mandated headscarf, Muslim students in Virginia who were told they could no longer hold obligatory Friday prayers in school, and even a shotgun attack on a mosque in Tennessee that left one worshiper wounded" (US Newswire, August 22, 2001).

The events of 9/11 and the rhetoric accompanying the US-led "War on Terror" have heightened anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments, giving credence to confrontational theories, such as Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." It is not strange that the term Islamophobia recurs in US newspapers in the post-9/11 era more than it does in the newspapers of any other Western country.

It is evident that"Anti-Islamic sentiment in the country swelled in the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" (Gunderson, “Lectures Target Islamophobia”). This swell of hatred is due to the horrible events that were connected with Islam and Muslims.

In the Houston Chronicle, Melanie Markley wrote an article entitled "Condemning 'Islamophobia': Recent Attacks Raise Fears of New Rash of Crimes Against Muslims." Markley stated, "Last week's attempted firebombing of an Islamic center in El Paso represents the latest in a renewed rash of hate crimes against Muslims in Texas,' the director of Houston's Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday" (Markley,”Condemning Islamophobia: Recent Attacks Rise Fears of New Rash of Crimes Against Muslims”)

In a letter to the editor of Herald News (Passaic County, New Jersey), a Muslim American wrote,

Muslims frequently have to deal with people using terms such as "radical Islamists," "Islamofascism," "Islamic fanatics," etc. As a Muslim who has grown up in Muslim countries, these terms hold no meaning for me, but I recognize that they work to promote a fear of Islam and Muslims among our fellow Americans.

Due to 9/11 attacks, fear accompanied or followed by hatred of all Muslims/Arabs became common in American society. All Muslims/Arabs are now associated with "terrorism," "violence," "radicalism," "Islamism," and "Al-Qaeda."

The "radicalism" and "fanaticism" frequently referred to are not a function or product of Islam and therefore should not be associated with Islam. True, there may be Muslims, Christians, or Jews who commit violent acts in the name of their religions, but it is important to note that their religions do not condone these acts of violence. (Letters to the Editor, Herald News, September 15, 2007)

Here, we notice the explanation of the phenomenon as a phobia, where fear of a few is represented as fear held by all. Islamophobia is criticized by this Muslim American because it is a term that should be used in describing terrorists, radicals, and fanatics, not all Muslims and all Arabs. The writer believes that this phobia is unjustified if it is a feeling toward a whole race or a certain ethno-religious group.

In Confronting Islamophobia in Educational Practice, a book edited by Barry van Driel, Lorraine Sheridan indicates that interest in knowing Islam and Muslims increased after 9/11 "but did not always lead to greater understanding or acceptance of Islam and Muslims" (Driel164).

Sheridanconnects the lack of understanding Islam and accepting Muslims with the increase in the number of hate crimes against Muslims in the West, especially after 9/11. Sheridan adds that in the 9/11 attacks, "Islam went from anonymous to terrorist" (Gunderson “Lectures Target Islamophobia”).

The writer states that the FBI records indicate that "hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims in the US increased by 1,700 percent in 2001." The book indicates that the increase in hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs is built on Islamophobic attitudes toward this race and this religion. The book lays much emphasis on the importance of education in the process of confronting this violent wave of Islamophobia.

What is proposed in this book leads us to observe the mix between Muslims and Arabs in the way the term Islamophobia is used. This usage of the term regards all Arabs as Muslims and makes all of them subject to the same post-9/11 hate crimes.

Muslim Arabs make up only 15 percent of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims. The biggest numbers of Muslims are found in Indonesia, India, Pakistan Bangladesh, Malaysia, China, Iran, Nigeria, and Turkey, and none of these countries is anArab country. For example,Indonesia alone has Muslims more than those living in the entire Arab World.

This invites us to study the term, not only from a religious perspective but also from a racial one. There is a general trend that views all Muslims as belonging to a single race and that regards their political goals as one and the same.

In an article published in the Monitor (McAllen, Texas), while discussing French president Nicolas Sarkozy's expected policy on immigration, the writer stated,

The most intriguing issues are immigration and policy in the greater Middle East [all Arab nations, Iran, Turkey and Israel], … traditional ties with the Arab World, historically tangled relations with Israel, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, claims to a special role in Mideastern settlement, a search for a place in the world arena and one's own identity, and the impact of the domestic political and socio-demographic situation on foreign policy, is this about Russia or France? (Belenkaya, "Sarkozy's Conundrum")

Again, Islamophobia is linked to the Middle East and the Arab World. This is affirmed in the same story:

A number of Muslim countries are wary about Sarkozy's Islamophobic image, all the more so considering his Jewish roots and "friendship with Israel."

This link between "Sarkozy’s Islamophobic image" and his "friendship with Israel" while the struggle in the Middle East is frequently called the Arab-Israeli conflict (not the Islamic-Israeli conflict) asserts the fact that Arabs and Muslims are always perceived as identical.

The way the link between race and religion is obvious in US newspapers after 9/11 calls attention to some voices that equate Islamophobia with racism. Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, chairman of the Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony, UK, refers to this in his article "Islamophobia: A New Word for an Old Fear." He stated that Islamophobia is "a new form of racism."

It is worth noting that the primary sources of US newspapers used in this study regard Muslims and Arabs everywhere as essentially the same. Race and religion are interwoven with each other in the term Islamophobia.

It is worth noting that the primary sources of US newspapers used in this study regard Muslims and Arabs everywhere as essentially the same. Race and religion are interwoven with each other in the term Islamophobia.

In a Philadelphia Inquirer article, the following stereotypes were mentioned among other post-9/11 ones:

Muslim equals Arab equals "unscrupulous pathological fanatic or terrorist with primitive motives," especially post-9/11.

These stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims "continue to be fueled by Hollywood images, media clichés, and just plain ignorance. They include the three B's: bomber, belly dancer, billionaire."

This was also evident in what was published by the Washington Post about fliers that appeared all over the campus of George Washington University: "Campus police moved quickly to remove the fliers, university leaders began investigating how they got there and student groups met last night to deplore the posters, which had a photo of an Arab and description of 'typical Muslim' features such as 'suicide vest,' 'hidden AK-47' and "peg-leg for smuggling children and heroin'"

In the poster shown below, it is evident that Muslim and Arab are regarded as being the same.

This takes us to what can be called political culture (i.e. introducing political views into the cultural arena). In fact, the last few decades of the relationship between the West and the Middle East were governed by such kinds of politics-oriented cultural themes. It is evident that no line of demarcation is drawn between what is political and what represents peoples' cultures. Politics muddies the cultural atmosphere.

That is why we find terms like Islamophobia becoming an ambiguous combination of contradictory meanings. Media again heavily contribute to shaping unsettled cultural views on such terms by introducing so many interpretations of the same term with respect to a vast array of disparate incidents.

Actually, this problem of US press coverage has been addressed in certain panel discussions in which some Muslim scholars repeatedly referred to the misuse of certain terms of the Islamic culture. This misuse results in conveying negative meanings to the American reader.

For example, in the University Wire, Aminah McCloud, professor of Islamic World studies at DePaul University, focused on "how the misuse of language has led to misunderstandings of Islam.” Jihad, for example, traditionally refers to personal struggle with temptation and desire but has come to be associated solely with holy war" (The University Wire, October 25, 2007).

It is through the use of such terms that ambiguous definitions also became attached to even non-Muslims, often cobbling up many races and cultures under the term Islamophobia.

Phobia is always connected with the "unknown" or the "unseen." In promoting this kind of Islamophobia, some news channels tend to make the term seem as if it were made up of a collection of different things, the combination of which is a phobia in itself.

It is generally accepted that phobias arise from a combination of external events and internal predispositions. It is also believed that genetics, brain chemistry, and lifeexperiences combine to play a major role in the development of anxiety, disorder, and phobia.

Hence, we can say that Islamophobia is not the outcome of the late 20th century; on the contrary, it has something to do with the relation between the East and the West throughout history. Islam is always connected with the Arab World, which is an area of interest in the Middle East.

To the Western peoples, Islam and the Arab World are almost the same, so this kind of phobia has always been there in the Western heritage. It passed from one generation to another.

Before 9/11, the term was connected to the struggle between the Arabs and Israel. Moreover, before the 20th century, this kind of distrust and mutual fear between the East and the West was there since the Crusades. This leads us to the second meaning of Islamophobia in US newspapers:Islamophobia is fear.

Islamophobia: Fear of "Muslim or Arab Terrorists"

The term Islamophobia cannot be extricated from its origin: Islam and phobia. The word Islam refers to the religion founded in the Arabian Peninsula more than 1,400 years ago. The Arabic word islam is derived from the root salem, which means to be in peace, and salam, which means to surrender. So, the word islam means peace and surrender.

Islam as a religion refers to both meanings at the same time: It means surrendering oneself to Allah's will, and thus enjoying the peace of mind and soul. The suffix phobia usually means fear, but in the term Islamophobia, its use is similar to its appearance in homophobia, where prejudice or hate are more precise usages than just fear.

In the Plain Dealer, Kevin O'Brien wrote an article entitled "'Islamophobia' Is a Smoke Screen." He stated, "It's nonsense to imply that Americans fear everything about Islam. What Americans fear, when they give Islam any thought at all, is the segment of it that uses violence to promote its agenda — nor are Americans enthralled with the agenda itself. Ohio may not want casinos, but it doesn't want Sharia law, a state religion or a governor who issues a daily fatwa, either."

O'Brien makes fear of Islam and Muslims connected not with Islam as a religion or with its adherents in general but with what is announced as part of Islam by the so-called Muslim terrorists in their promoting of violence and terror. The segment of Islam to which O'Brien refers remains the source of this phobia about Islam.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Gloria Gelman stated, "Islam should be feared because it is an oppressive and aggressive religion. It exerts control over people through bondage and fear, and does not permit individuals to think for themselves."

The unknown is always unjustly judged. Unfortunately, Islam is taken from the mouths of terrorists' rifles. It is to be noted that this article regards fear as connected with Islam as a religion rather than with the people who follow Islam.

But, why at this time of the late twentieth century that people in the West started to fear Islam and dreadfully look to Muslims? Islam has existed for more than 1,400 years during which there have been so many clashes between the Islamic World and the West, yet the term Islamophobia has never been there. Even during the Crusades, the aim announced by the West was to rescue the Christians and recover the Holy Land from Arabs and Muslims, but again the aim was not called Islamophobia.

It is also so strange that the term, which dates back to the early 1990s, appeared after the West (the US and its allies) had become the ultimate and only global power after the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Here, we should refer to something that backs up the supremacy of the West: The increase in numbers of Muslims in the West.

Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity in most European countries, as well as the US. This kind of fear is expressed in the US press by former Republican congressman Virgil H. Goode. In St. Petersburg Times, he stated, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped" (Maxwell, "Religious Intolerance Is Un-American").

Goode fears the cultural bombs that might "destroy the American values and traditions," which is why he calls for closing the US borders to prevent those Muslims or Arabs from stepping with their cultural goods into US soil. This is a strange proposal from a US politician. In fact, he needs to remember that the US is a multicultural nation and that multiculturalism is part and parcel of the US identity. Fear does not always come from rifles and bombs; sometimes it comes from cultures and thoughts.

So, why fear from Islam in particular? Goode went on to say, "The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall of my office. A Muslim student came by my office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, 'As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, the Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office" (Maxwell, "Religious Intolerance Is Un-American").

Thus, it is evident that fear does not always come from rifles and bombs; sometimes it comes from cultures and thoughts. In a book published in 1999, John L. Esposito indicated that with "the breakup of the Soviet empire, Islam constitutes the most pervasive and powerful force in the world …. It has been all too tempting to identify another global ideological menace to fill the 'threat vacuum' created by the demise of communism." (Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?).

While the term Islamophobia was used before 9/11 to refer to fear from Islam, it is now used to refer to hatred toward Islam and Muslims.
This book, which appeared before 9/11, discusses whether the so-called Islamic threat is real. A thorough reading of the book left one convinced that such a threat is nothing but a myth. However, the unprecedented traumatic attacks of 9/11 have made so many Americans doubt Esposito's views. This implies that post-9/11 Islamophobia has donned a new cloak that misunderstands Islam and refuses to accept Muslims.

The importance of referring to this new meaning of Islamophobia emanates from the importance of realizing that 9/11 has initiated a new way of looking at things and a new way of chronicling terms and concepts. While the term Islamophobia was used before 9/11 to refer to fear from Islam, it is now used to refer to hatred toward Islam and Muslims. Whereas some may have thought before 9/11 that Islamophobia was illogical and inexcusable, the situation is different after 9/11. Now, these feelings of fear and, most of the time, hatred are justified after the traumatic attacks of 9/11.

Esposito wrote his book and defended his viewpoint regarding the unjustified fear from the "Islamic threat" because there were no attacks like those of 9/11. After these attacks, many people turned to books going in the other direction and predicting a clash of civilizations and an inevitable war between the West and the East.

In the Washington Times, Tony Blankley wrote, "Of course Islamophobia is a repulsive mentality — suggestive of old-fashioned hate of others. But, as Denmark's leading Islamic scholar Jacob Skovgaard-Peterson explained in 2004, there is a different and growing phobia, which he named 'Islamistphobia.' This is not an atavistic hatred of another man's skin or faith or last name but is instead the fear of the ideas and conduct of radical Muslims" (Blankley, "Islamistphobia-Phobia — There Is More to Phobia Than Phobia Itself").

But we are not told by Skovgaard-Peterson or by Blankley about the criteria based on which a person can be called a radical Muslim. The term radical Islam might be used to refer to anything that is not Western. What Skovgaard-Peterson referred to as "the fear of the ideas and conduct of radical Muslims" can be applied to whatever looks different from the Western culture. Thus, what is referred to as "fear of radical Islam" by non-Muslims in the West is going to be termed Islamophobia by Muslims.

In the Washington Times, Diana West wrote, "Only one faith on earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place unrepulsed [sic] by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal." (West, "Facing Hard Facts: Islam Is a Global Menace").

It is clear that the words of this writer are rife with the smell of conspiracy theories and Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. She refuses multiculturalism that will do nothing but produce terrorists and enemies. For her, it is better to prescribe one model and change the face of life "for those nations that lie back in ignorance and backward ideas."

Peoples can be different and can have a variety of cultures, including customs, ideas, etc. Nevertheless, no one culture is wrong. Each culture is correct according to its criteria.

This takes us back to what Blankley mentioned about "radical ideas and conduct." West solves the equation by calling for one culture that has the upper hand over other "uncivilized" cultures. She pays no heed to the fact that peoples' cultures cannot be totally imported because they are the product of human work and thought.

No one culture can claim the uncontested right to provide an ultimate recipe for any nation. Peoples can be different and can have a variety of cultures, including customs, ideas, etc. Nevertheless, no one culture is wrong. Each culture is correct according to its criteria. Thus, one can note the absence of this understanding in the interpretation of Islamophobia that adopts a monocultural approach.

In the New York Sun, Daniel Pipes wrote, "While prejudice against Muslims certainly exists, 'Islamophobia' deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam. I personally experience this problem: Despite writing again and again against radical Islam the ideology, not Islam the religion, I have been made the runner-up for a mock "Islamophobia Award" in Great Britain, deemed America's "leading Islamophobe," and even called an "Islamophobe Incarnate" (Pipes, "What I Really Am Is an "Islamism-ophobe").

Here, Pipes wants to say that he is being against what he calls radical Islam rather than being against Islam in general. But, again, how can one regard a certain part of Islam as radical and another part as not radical? There may be so many answers to this question, but none of them would be adequate. This is due to the fact that a question in the US or the West in general cannot be answered in the East, and vice versa.

The problem is that most of the issues raised against Islam may seem against the Western cultural agenda, but actually it is a matter of difference rather than opposition. What looks natural and normal in the West may not be accepted in the East. The differences in culture, environment, geography, etc. play an important role in shaping people's way of thinking and attitudes toward certain acts and phrases.

That is why one finds some Muslim scholars writing books that address Muslim minorities in the West. The religious jurisprudence in these books is totally different from what is actually applicable in Muslim countries. In these books, Muslim scholars take into consideration these cultural, geographical, and environmental differences and build their religious views upon them.

Thus, again, fearing radical Islam and calling it Islamism-phobia adopts a monocultural approach to what is proposed by Islam, thus adopting what is accepted by the Western mentality and refusing what is thought inferior because of it being non-Western.

In sum, Islamophobia as fear from radical Islam or fear from fanatic Muslims and Arabs is still an unsteady term that is subject to different interpretations according to various cultural backgrounds. This invites some to get rid of the term and claim that it has nothing to do with reality. This takes one to the third meaning of Islamophobia: Islamophobia is a myth.

Islamophobia as a Myth or Invention

In an essay entitled "The Islamophobia Myth," Kanan Malik doubted the existence of Islamophobia and wondered if the term does really exist. He stated, "But does Islamophobia really exist? Or is the hatred and abuse of Muslims being exaggerated to.

The mix between race, religion, and politics in the use of the term Islamophobia plays an important role in seeing the term as no more than an invention that serves a certain political agenda
suit politicians' needs and silence the critics of Islam? The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism."

Here, Malik puts a new dimension to the term: Islamophobia is a way to counteract those who criticize Islam and Muslims. In this way, the term itself instills fear rather than reflects fear from something.
The mix between race, religion, and politics in the use of the term Islamophobia plays an important role in seeing the term as no more than an invention that serves a certain political agenda and threatens the US. This is evident in the 2006 crisis of the proposed operational transfer of six major US ports to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates.

In one of its editorials, Grand Rapid Press declared, "It's one thing for feckless grievance-mongers on the Left to accuse Americans genuinely concerned about national security of Islamophobia. It's quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery."

The editor defends the rights of Americans to keep their land secure, even if this is going to be called Islamophobia. Here, we notice that the term is interpreted as a weapon used by some to menace the US security. It is very important to take into consideration the connotation that will be attached to the term when it is interpreted that way. It will be used to transfer a negative meaning and will be used as a threat, rather than a savior, to those who seek refuge in it.

Grand Rapid Press related that Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow had stated, "This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration's green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia."

Then the writer defends his stance: "The UAE is our 'friend,' we're told. To question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Well, some friends are more equal than others. To trust a longtime, Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime and Islamic extremism is not 'Islamophobia.' It's self-preservationism in a time of war."

The editor again fails to state the difference between his stance and Islamophobia. If he is against the Dubai Ports World port deal because of fear of those Arabs and Muslims, and if this is not Islamophobia, so what is it? The inability to learn from history lies behind this inefficient way of dealing with the term. Slavery was regarded as inhumane by some Afro-Americans and some Whites, while the majority on both sides believed it was not inhumane. Anti-Semitism was heeded only after the so many atrocities committed against Jews over decades. Thus, the reality of any conception is proved by the way peoples look back at its occurrence in history.

Away from the port deal, there came in the Investor's Business Daily a story entitled "Hyping Hate Crimes vs. Muslims." The writer stated, "Discrimination: New FBI data on hate crimes reveal Muslim groups are crying wolf about exploding anti-Muslim abuses. They're actually shrinking, belying claims of mass Islamophobia."

The story went on to cite official reports that assert that Islamophobia is nothing but a myth and that such hate crimes are no more than a part of the overall religious hate crimes in the US, which are not directed toward Muslims alone. The newspaper confirmed, "The FBI report gives lie to CAIR's [Council on American-Islamic Relations] alarmist narrative of 'Islamophobic' lynch mobs marching on mosques across America. In reality, Americans have been remarkably, and admirably, tolerant and respectful of Muslims and their institutions since 9/11."

The article concluded, "By crying wolf, CAIR shows it cares more about furthering its own political agenda than protecting ordinary Muslims. When real abuses occur, few Americans may pay attention. So CAIR is actually doing the Muslim community it claims to represent a disservice by hyping hate crimes. CAIR should spend more time condemning the real threat from Islamic terrorists, not American vigilantes."

This usage of the term Islamophobia can harm Muslims, as the term might lose its credibility when it is used to "hype hate crimes." The article ends with an invitation to CAIR to express its strong disapproval of any kind of terrorism committed under the name of Islam rather than direct its Islamophobia accusations toward those who advocate law and democracy in the US.

Islamophobia as a myth is thus the result of loss of credibility caused by incidents regarded as relating to the national security or by false accounts of hate crimes. Moreover, Islamophobia may in fact mean irrational fear of Muslims and Arabs, but the loss of this term's credibility, along with the absence of any attempt to correct the image of Arabs and Muslims in the eyes of Western people, may aggravate the situation and turn this mere fear to hatred and violent actions against this minority.

This is extremely evident in a story written by Caryn L. Kirkpatrick: "We are already in World War III, and many people in the West are still in denial. Terrorism is not by accident; it is part and parcel of the religion and culture of jihad, of the march to world domination that has been brewing for decades in the Islamic World."

Kirkpatrick went on to say, "Furthermore, we must be aware of the insidious ways Islamic extremists use our own system of democracy against us, how they are demanding equal rights in America's open system and immigration for one purpose and one purpose only: to make Islam a reality in America. Islamic extremists have perfected the art of playing games with the West by understanding Western weaknesses and taboos, effectively using buzzwords such as 'racist,' 'Islamophobia' and 'profiling.' Can the West win this war given today's attention to political correctness, our open and free society and nearly unfettered immigration from radical Muslim countries?" (Kirkpatrick, Birmingham News).

The writer of this article regards Islamophobia as part of a conspiracy perpetrated by Western Muslims in their attempt to win a war on their homelands for the sake of their religion. According to the writer, the purpose of Western Muslims is to "make Islam a reality in America," and so Islamophobia is nothing but a buzzword or an important-sounding word that is used to impress laypersons.

Again, the term loses its credibility when it is used monoculturally in a multicultural sphere. Which one is better? To accuse a certain film of being "Islamophobic" or to introduce my own cultural remarks on it? (Cieply, "Fluent in Two Languages: Studio and Independent") Which is better? To know the culture of the other or to attack him or her under the claim of "freedom of speech"?

"Freedom of speech is our most important right, forcing us to bounce ideas around in the sunlight. Most important of all, free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution is what makes everything possible …. Phobias, as in homophobia, Islamophobia and even Christophobia, have entered the canon of diagnoses. By linking criticism with a phobia, we deprive the speaker of his right to speak; by classifying him as having an emotional disorder, we deprive him of independent thinking" (The Virginian-Pilot, B11)

This is the way any phobia will be no more than a myth or an invention that serves to prevent others from practicing their legal right to criticize, analyze, and evaluate.

"The very real and universal fears in the wake of September 11, when zealous Muslims crashed several airliners to punish 'infidels,' are brushed aside. Metaphorical phobias are an appeal to self-censorship and demand limits on free speech. An accusation of Islamophobia restricts legitimate debate over what can be criticized. It obscures distinctions between intelligent observation and irrational prejudice."

Again the cultural dimension is missing in what is proposed in this article. Others' rights are part and parcel of one's freedom. An individual is free as long as he or she does not harm others with his or her speech or actions. The way others feel this harm depends on their cultures. What is sacred for some may not be the same for others.

Western societies feel the Islamic threat is coming from inside. In a book published in 2006, while handling the Australian case, the writer stated, "Call it Islamophobia or what you may, the West in general, and the Australians in particular, have already experienced a taste of 'real' Islam and they do not want an iota of it in their lives. The government is now very concerned about the threat, not from outside Australia but from inside Australia, from the very Islamists and their children whom the Australians have fed and clothed, and given the chance for a better life. Security has been increased and all sectors of the security services are now extra vigilant" (Shienbaum and Hasan, 185).

In fact, what applies to the Australian society also applies to the US. Islamophobia is the product of the increase of Muslims in Western societies, which, under the impact of media, became confident that the existence of Muslims in their countries constitutes a threat to their safety.

In the Washington Times, Larry Witham stated, "Advocacy efforts have put Muslims on the political map, secured religious liberties, discouraged media and corporate slighting of Islam, and included its religious symbols in national holidays." (Witham, "American Muslims a New Force").

Witham added, "Two weeks before Election Day, the American Muslim Political Coordination Council endorsed Texas Gov. George W. Bush and a post-election poll found 70 percent of Muslim voters took its advice." Witham continued, "Still, the continued claim that Muslims face 'Islamophobia' and 'discrimination and harassment' has prompted some critics to call it special pleading. Some critics say that American Muslims, while decrying discrimination against them in America, rarely scold Islamic governments in the Middle East for harsh discrimination against Christians and Jews."

Here, again, there is this link between politics and what Muslim Americans face in their country (i.e. the US). Moreover, again and again, US Muslims are made part of the Middle East rather than part of their homeland: the US. The fact that most Muslims are not Arabs is still absent from the scene.

The two terms Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are always juxtaposed in an attempt to prove the similarity or dissimilarity between them.
This missed fact contributes to making the myth of Islamophobia, because whatever Muslims and Arabs propose is taken out of its context. When they speak up for their rights as a minority in the US, they are reminded of the status of minorities in Middle Eastern countries. If they complain of Islamophobia, they are faced with the problems being experienced in the Middle East — a region which supposedly has nothing to do with their current status as US citizens.

It is like blaming Egypt's Copts for US policy in the Middle East. Egypt's Copts belong to Egypt, not to the US; they are not to be blamed for US policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, most of them do oppose US foreign policy in the region.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after 9/11, the term Islamophobia has become very common in the US press; however, the ambiguity of the term is evident in the different meanings it implies. The more people analyze and comment on the term the more the term becomes equivocal. It is so strange that there is Islamophobia and not anti-Islamitisim or anti-Muslim.

The two terms Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are always juxtaposed in an attempt to prove the similarity or dissimilarity between them. Let's conclude this article by getting close to each term through the linguistic microscope: the English dictionary.

If we compare the meanings of the prefix anti- and the suffix -phobia in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, respectively, we will find a difference in the implication of each term. For example, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, defines anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." This definition refers to the discrimination and hostility committed by anti-Semites against Jews.

On the other hand, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines Islamophobia as "hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, esp. as a political force."

The difference in the meanings conferred by the prefix anti- and the suffix -phobia is evident. The word phobia refers to the overall feeling of those who feel endangered. The coiner of the term Islamophobia cared more about those who hate than about those who are hated, while the coiner of the term anti-Semitism paid more attention to the feelings of the sufferers.

In this way, it becomes important to take into consideration this linguistic dimension while juxtaposing the different interpretations of the term Islamophobia. It is this linguistic element that draws one's attention to the difference between the literal interpretation of the word Islamophobia as "illogical and abnormal fear of Islam" and the way the term is used to mean "discrimination against Muslims."

In comparing the terms Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, it is also important to note the religious and ethnic dimensions included in or excluded from the two terms. Anti-Semitism is used to refer to the political, social, and economic agitation and negative activities directed toward Jews. At the same time, the word Semite refers to the descendants of Shem (or Sam in Arabic). Thus, the term Semitism should have included the Arabs side by side with the Jews. But this was not the case; the Arabs are sometimes even accused of being anti-Semitic, which means they are accused of being "anti-Arab"!

On the other hand, the term Islamophobia is used to refer to hatred and fear of Muslims and Arabs (whether Muslims or non-Muslims). Here, one finds the term is going against its literal meaning.

Moreover, in the US press, one of the meanings of Islamophobia is a form of racism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is "a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races."

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief."

In Macquarie Dictionary, racism is defined as "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."

In all these definitions, racism has something to do with one's race but not religion. This adds to the results of this research, which can be summarized by saying that the term Islamophobia remains torn among different readings that are also far away from the dictionary meaning of the term. The term, which is always monoculturally defined, needs a multicultural interpretation that is capable of absorbing the various dimensions of its meaning.

Sources

Anan, Kofi. "Today's Quote." The Houston Chronicle. 11 Dec. 2004.

Belenkaya, Marianna. "Sarkozy's Conundrum." The Monitor. 16 May 2007.

Blankley, Tony. "Islamistphobia-phobia; There Is More to Phobia Than Phobia
Itself." The Washington Times. 1 Mar. 2006.

Cieply, Michael. "Fluent in Two Languages: Studio and Independent." The New York Times. 8 Sep. 2007. Accessed 8 Feb. 2009.

Cohen, Jon. "Poll: Americans Skeptical of Islam and Arabs. 9/11 Hardened Americans' Views of Muslims." ABC News. 8 Mar. 2006. Accessed 8 Feb. 2009.

Esposito, John L. The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? 3rd. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Gelman, Gloria. The Philadelphia Inquirer. 9 Nov. 2007.

Grand Rapid Press. 2 Mar. 2006.

Gunderson, Matt. "Lectures Target 'Islamophobia.'" The Boston Globe. 11 Oct. 2007.

"Hyping Hate Crimes vs. Muslims." Investor's Business Daily. 7 Dec. 2007.
Kirkpatrick, Caryn L. The Birmingham News. 10 Nov. 2007.

"Letters to the Editor." Herald News. 15 Sep. 2007.

Markley, Melanie. "Condemning 'Islamophobia': Recent Attacks Raise Fears of New Rash of Crimes Against Muslims." The Houston Chronicle. 21 Sep. 2004.

Maxwell, Bill. "Religious Intolerance Is Un-American." St. Petersburg Times. 31 Dec. 2006. Accessed 8 Feb. 2009.

Neuffer, Elizabeth. "UN Conference Agrees on a Plan to Fight Racism." The Boston Globe . 9 Sep. 2001

O'Brien, Kevin. "Islamophobia Is a Smoke Screen." The Plain Dealer. 3 Oct. 2007.

"Peanut Butter and Free Speech" The Virginian-Pilot. 6 June 2007.

Pintak, Lawrence. Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas. London: Pluto Press, 2006.

Pipes, Daniel. "Islamophobia?" The New York Sun, 25 Oct. 2005.

Shienbaum, Kim and Jamal Hasan, eds. Beyond Jihad: Critical Voices From Inside Islam. Bethesda: Academica Press, LLC, 2006.

Van Driel, Barry, ed. Confronting Islamophobia in Educational Practice. Staffordshire: Trentham Books, 2004.

Witham, Larry. "American Muslims a New Force." The Washington Times. 28 Nov. 2000.


Eid Mohamed, a PhD Candidate in American Studies and International Affairs at George Washington University and an assistant lecturer at Faculty of Languages and Translation, Al-Azhar University. Eid can be reached at: eaam@gwmail.gwu.edu .

Add your comment

Showing 1 - 21 of total 21 messages


reagrding palestine
By yasir on 2009-11-09 17:19 (GMT)

is it not better to kill each & every jew...the simplest way to end their brutal occupation , which they have started in Palestine......this point should b noted that in last 8 years , only 23 jews have been killed in attack of hamas i. e extremist group of palestine liberation organization, while on other hand in december 2008, in the name of security of israel..more than 4 thousand people has been killed ans other thousands were njured. even the UN general secratery has to go thee , requesting brutal forces of us and israel, to end this ame of evil.....y more than 10 lakhs of people has been martyred in the name of disastering weapons in IRAQ. the countries such as iraq, afghanistan , has been moved to stone age..lakhs of people who has been martyred.. obviously , they wil b having millions of relatives...and who ever raises weapon against this injustice, wil b declared as a terrorist....

@Eris
By Well-wisher on 2009-09-30 09:10 (GMT)

As a critic I respect you. Criticism is a bitter pill which cures many diseases. What you say of Carbet Bombing, Bumber Bluster Bombing, Drone Attacks etc done by your well-wishers. Who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasakki killing Millions ? Yes, my friend, Muslims are violent towards aggressors. We are extremely sorry for it. If your well-wishers are ready to stop attacking Muslims, we are ready to stop our Defence one minute earlier. Kindly Open Your Eyes and Ears towards both East and West to analyse the events in the Globe. Thank You.

to Munir
By Eris on 2009-09-30 08:34 (GMT)

do you have problems with the critique of islam? why do you feel that it is necessary to delete islam criticising comments? plus to the "islamophobia" this term is an insult to every rational being. phobia means an irrational fear coming from innocent and innocuous things. I think taking into account the number of terrorist and violent acts, carried out by moslems over the whole world, it is very rational to fear islam as the hotbed of terrorism and war. so the "islamophobia" is very easy way to avoid any rational critique of islam, branding every critique as mentally instable person. so if moslems are using this strategy, they should not to wonder if they are treated as the members of a totalitarian cult...because this is exactly the way the communist treated their opponents..

"Ex-Muslim" likes to drink Red Wine and Blood of Muslims
By Sympathizer on 2009-09-27 11:05 (GMT)

When Muslims are killed by Carpet Bombing in Afghanistan... When they are shot in "encounters" in India.... When they are hanged in China.... When they are massacred in Gaza.... When they are imprisoned here and there.... If they sleep well...Enemies never call them Terrorists... But If they fight back, they are called "Terrorists" ... Why do they feel shame over it..?

Kooolyar77@hotmail.com
By Mazhar Abbas on 2009-09-25 08:06 (GMT)

It is our duty as Muslim to tell them the true spirit of Islam that Muslim are human being of the believe Love all the men kind i.e. how actually Islam spread. We r not against the humanity. Some misled peoples are in ever faith. Also its is our duty teach them the true teaching Islam. If this happened then no is afraid of Islam as well as Muslims.

EXTERMINATE MILITANT MUSLIMS
By EX MUSLIM on 2009-05-11 13:48 (GMT)

These militant muslim cunts prove that racism is embedded in their primitive pea brains.
militant muslims are the scum of the earth, you know something is wrong when these maggots managed to get kicked out of every country they've ever infected. Their pussified uneducated morons that are addicted to war and primitive behavior. United Nations got it right :
There is a great danger for world. That great danger is the militant muslim. Gentlemen , in whichever land the muslims have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have created a State within a State, and when they are opposed, they attempted to strangle the nation financially as in Palestine and hamastine"
Militant Muslims must be exterminated for the sake of world peace. Hang a Militant Muslim by its nose and put a slug in itsmonkeys ass.

No Muslims = No Terrorism!

TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL BELOW
By FOREVER A ZIONIST on 2009-05-09 19:51 (GMT)

BLESSED BE THE LORD FOR GIVING ISRAEL THE ABILITY AND CAPABILITY OF BUILDING, CREATING AND SELLING GOODS THAT THE WORLD WANTS AND NEEDS. IT IS A PITY THAT MILITANT MUSLIM SCUM CANT BE BOYCOTTED BECAUSE THEY LACK THE CAPACITY OF CREATING ANYTHING.

LORD WILLING ISRAEL WILL CREATE AND SELL MORE TO THE WORLD SO WE CAN ERADICATE THE WORLD OF MILITANT MUSLIM SCUM

About Eris
By Munir on 2009-03-29 14:57 (GMT)

At first glance, it appears that dissent is tolerated on these message boards. Eris argues logically and with quotes from scriptures to back him up. He points out that in it's own words, Islam is an intolerant, violent, and deceitful religion.

So his messages, and these others have been here for more than a month.

It is just a bit confusing that Islam claims to be intolerant in the scriptures, then claims to be tolerant in this article by Eid, then tolerates Eris and his very effective critique.

One possible explanation, no one knows how to delete comments from these forums.

One thing for sure, the Muslims answering Erid do not know the scriptures very well.

hi
By carina on 2009-03-25 16:18 (GMT)

omgggggg dis ting is bere long i wasnt bothered to read it man i have to do dis for hw man hehe byye

to Imram/3
By Eris on 2009-02-22 13:54 (GMT)

And the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone…" (Muslim)

Shaikh Rabee' bin Haadee, the Ibn Ma'een of the Era, stated, "Verily, refraining from the jihaad against the Mushriks (pagans) when a caller calls to jihaad, and when the Imaam of the Muslims calls them to come out and fight - even if the Imaam was a sinner (faajir) is counted one of the shades of Nifaaq (hypocrisy), in fact it may be more intense than it." Then after this he begins quoting some of the verses of Jihaad and then says: "So refraining away from Jihaad [the Jihaad behind an Ameer] and to be very laxed/sluggish towards it is one of the characteristics of the Hypocrites and one of the causes of punishment in the world and destruction in the Hereafter." (Ahl ul-Hadeeth p. 158)

to Imram/2
By Eris on 2009-02-22 13:50 (GMT)

Now, any Sunni knows that the purpose of Jihaad is to make the word of Allaah supreme, and that is none other than worshipping Him alone, and establishing and spreading Tawheed. So if the Qaradawite Think Tank and its theoreticians claim that this is not the motive and reason, and it is but land, then the land in the view of Qaradawite Thought, is more lofty and more noble and more worthy than the Islamic Aqidah.

Stated the Lord of Majesty and Honour, "Fight against those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (At-Tawbah 9:29)

nice, well and exactly said. so where is your so called spiritual jehad? nowhere. that is only for fooling stupid kuffaar. but it is not working on me. try something better

to Imram
By Eris on 2009-02-22 13:49 (GMT)

you probably never read Quran carefully with Sira (ibn Ishaq) together, otherwise you will know, that all you wrote is a big lie.
proof: [A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, "They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them." (Ibn Ishaq 423)
The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. (Ibn Ishaq 424)
A fifth of the loot was also given to Muhammad as war booty, which would not have been the case if it rightfully belonged to another Muslim (Ibn Ishaq 425).
When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq 428)
so my dear, read well Sira. and do not trust all that your imam says.
pagan arabs did not confiscated the property of moslems. moreover, there was no persecution of moslems in Makkah.
Muslim biographers provide the names of other Muslims who continued to live in Mecca following Muhammad’s departure and there is no record that they were persecuted. There is even some evidence that the Muslims in Medina were allowed to conduct pilgrimages to Mecca during the holy months (Ibn Ishaq 424 & Qur’an 2:196).
so about what starving to death you are blundering?
it was pure lack of moral - induced by islam and greed of so called prophet. nothing more.
*Eris your claim about the term Jihad meaning 'holy war' is false because NOWHERE in the QUr'an is the term holy war used or war referred to as holy. *
aha, so when Nazis did not described death camps as death camps, death camps did not existed... well, sorry, this is a low grade taqyiya. Can you try something better?
i like to refer to those good salafi:http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=NDV16&articleID=NDV160004&articlePages=1
No

BOYCOTT FIRST ISREAL
By human being on 2009-02-20 04:05 (GMT)

whoever buys isreal products or do business with isreal , then they are eating dead bodies of 300+ kids in gaza brutally killed by isreal

be a humanbeing , keep up justice

another thing
By Imran on 2009-02-20 00:33 (GMT)

Eris your claim about the term Jihad meaning 'holy war' is false because NOWHERE in the QUr'an is the term holy war used or war referred to as holy. Your comment on the raids of caravans is taken out of context since the Pagan ARabs ceased all the Muslims' property and homes and sold them and stopped selling food and other necessities to the Muslims. SO basically the Muslims were left to starve they resorte dto targeting the caravans that had the persecutors held. Not any random people they could find. It was a matter of survival not of greed or lack of morality as so many critics claim.

read the article
By Imran on 2009-02-20 00:28 (GMT)

I think all those who think Islam is a violent religion should take up their views with the scholars who have studied Islam much longer than any one who posts here. Maybe your views themselves are due to ignorance and/or prejudice.

tnx
By Eris on 2009-02-19 09:11 (GMT)

really big thanks to Isaac Newton Rt.(retard)
he, as a good muslim likes islamophoby more than candies.
it allows him to play victim.

Vain dreamers
By Isaac Newton, Jr. on 2009-02-19 08:21 (GMT)

Eris ahould take a hike to la-la-land where many wishful thinkers and retards like him are locked-up for good.

Interesting.......
By Sam Elfeky on 2009-02-18 22:41 (GMT)

very good.

A very important subject
By Ahmed Magdy Mabrouk on 2009-02-18 19:36 (GMT)

Thank you, DR EID Mohammed, how wonderful writer subject. you always pleased us with your interesting subject that defending on Islam and show the correct image of the West

easy way to stop islamophobia
By Eris on 2009-02-18 18:55 (GMT)

you, moslems can stop islamophobia today, in this very second. it is enough to give up:
1. support of armed jihad everywhere by zakat.
2. idea of caliphate
3. giving up shariah
4. revise quran and cancel for example wife-beating verse, verse of Sword, verse allowing marriage with prepubertal girls
to adapt to idea that islam is solely and uniquely relation between muslim and Allah. with no political or other implications.
doing this, islamophobia will evaporate.
are you ready?
I do not think so.

Good article
By Angellyn on 2009-02-18 07:19 (GMT)

Thank you so much Eid Mohamed for this very good article. This has been my view for a very long time that religious intolerance and race intolerance are actually the same thing. Islamaphobia is just another tool of the racist mind. It is ignorant people who are in a coma condition causing all the hate and destruction in this world. I pray for our Ummah. We must remember everything is a test from Allah Most High. Thank you again.