What is islamophobia? 

   A schmilblick

In its history, the word ‘islamophobia’ has had different meanings. The first meaning was attributed by the ethnologist Alain Quellien in 1910. This initial definition respects the linguistic roots of the word. Islamophobia originally referred to an intense, even unreasonable, fear of the islamic religion. But since the islamic terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the word islamophobia has been given a different definition. An ambiguous definition, which describes islamophobia as hostility towards islam, but also towards Muslims.

• For the Larousse dictionary:

"hostility towards islam, Muslims."

• For the Linternaute Dictionary:
  

"Systematic hostility towards islam, Muslims."

• For LeRobert Dictionary:
  

"Hostility towards islam and Muslims."

• For the United Nations:

"Islamophobia is a fear, prejudice and hatred of Muslims that leads to provocation, hostility and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world. [...] This approach also interprets islamophobia as a form of racism, whereby islamic religion, tradition and culture are seen as a ‘threat’ to the Western values."

• For the French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights:

"Attitude of systematic hostility towards Muslims, people perceived to be Muslims, or towards islam."

• For the Cambridge Dictionary:
  

"unreasonabledislike or fear of, and prejudice against, Muslims or islam"

One constant persists throughout these definitions. In 2024, islamophobia surprisingly combines 2 very different concepts:

1. Hostility towards a religion or ideology: islam.
2. Hostility towards a group of people or a community: Muslims.
   

How islamophobia is a fraud

   Confusion between illegality and legality.
According to the French Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales, legality refers to a state or situation that conforms to the law and complies with legal requirements. On the other hand, illegality is characterised by a state or situation that is contrary to legality, and therefore contravenes the provisions of the law. For example:

• Illegality can be illustrated by cases of hostility or discrimination against individuals on the grounds of their religion. According to article 225-1 of the French Criminal Code, discrimination is defined as any distinction made between people. This distinction may concern, among other things, actual or assumed membership or non-membership of a religion. Discrimination becomes an offence when its use violates the fundamental rights of individuals. In France, the law guarantees freedom of conscience. It is therefore forbidden to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their religion.
• Legality, on the other hand, can be illustrated by the right to criticise an idea, even with hostility. In France, freedom of conscience is guaranteed by the Constitution. This allows every individual to express critical opinions, as long as their expressions are part of the exercise of freedom of conscience. To encourage this exercise of thought, freedom of expression reinforces this right. Consequently, speech that is critical of an idea, whether constructive and academic or virulent and parodic, does not contravene the law.

   Carophobia?

Let's now use an analogy to clarify the nonsense that arises when these two notions (illegality and legality) are confused.

Are you familiar with carophobia? Carophobia is a neologism invented by The Federation of Automobile Negligence and Traffic Infringement, Creating Scoundrels (F.A.N.A.T.I.C.S). Carophobia defines a hostility towards pollution caused by cars like Hummers as well as the desire to condemn to death drivers of polluting vehicles, or vehicles perceived as such.

• The Larousse Dictionary could define carophobia as:

"Hostility towards car pollution, car drivers."

Under these conditions, ask yourself if you know someone who is carophobic. Perhaps you yourself are concerned? Anyone could be carophobic, your neighbor or even your child. In any case, this person harbors strong hostility towards pollution from vehicles. But a carophobic person may also be hostile to the existence of drivers of polluting vehicles. Or, the person is hostile towards car pollution and towards those responsible for it. Whichever of these three possibilities, simply being carophobic must be reprehensible. Because it's not nice to be mean. Members of F.A.N.A.T.I.C.S recommend a life sentence for carophobic individuals. This sanction may seem extreme, even absolute, but it is considered legitimate by F.A.N.A.T.I.C.S. Indeed, according to them, there is always a link between hating car pollution and wanting the death of drivers. It might even be that questioning the integrity of F.A.N.A.T.I.C.S is synonymous of carophobia. Only a carophobes would dare contradict F.A.N.A.T.I.C.S. Right? So, in the future, think about it: "To avoid life imprisonment, don't criticize anything anymore, it's not worth it." Message sponsored by The Federation of Automobile Negligence and Traffic Infringement, Creating Scoundrels. [Text for apagogical purposes]

   What does all this hide?

A believer will never be justified in imposing their beliefs on others. Firstly, this goes against freedom of conscience, a fundamental principle of democracy. Secondly, what supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity would need an extremist to subject others to their belief, if not out of cowardice and weakness? Finally, a belief is based on faith, meaning the acceptance of an idea without empirical or rational proof. Fear, obscurantism, violence, manipulation, and indoctrination can compel belief, but these are not good reasons; they are means of pressure. So, under normal circumstances, no one imposes their faith on others, and multiculturalism works well. However, sometimes religion completely eclipses reason. Sometimes passions are unleashed and reason dies.

"Ideology is what thinks for you." (Jean-François Revel)

In her seminal work "The Origins of Totalitarianism" (1951), Hannah Arendt explores how certain regimes (communism and Nazism) manipulate and exploit the masses by merging individual identity with the party's ideology. Thus, criticism of ideology is conflated with hostility towards individuals who adhere to it. Ideology or belief can then be imposed on others under the guise of a supposed virtue: tolerance. The confusion between 'critique of an idea' (legal) and 'attack on a person' (illegal) is a strategy to avoid any critique. By deliberately confusing these two notions, constructive questioning is prevented. Ardent defenders of an ideology then place their beliefs (which they consider to be their identity) above all else. This excessive commitment, where all means (such as irrationality, obscurantism, violence, and deception) are justified to defend and impose a belief, is called "fanaticism."

Conclusion

Fanaticism (both political and religious) represents a threat to democratic societies.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." (Voltaire)

Since September 2001, islamic ideology has carried out more than 45,000 deadly attacks. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2022, since 2007, 60% of terrorism victims have been killed by islamic groups.

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." (Albert Einstein)

If you respect others, offer them the right to have their ideas subjected to criticism. Do not allow your loved ones or fellow citizens to fall into fanaticism. Differentiate between legitimate criticism of a religion and absurd hatred towards its followers. Let's fight against ideologies that suppress critical thinking to establish their absolute power. It is our responsibility as citizens to prevent these drifts by remaining vigilant and questioning beliefs that compromise freedom and human dignity. Questioning a religion is not an act of hatred, but rather an affirmation of democracy and an exercise in compassion. Islam, like any other ideology, deserves to be subject to critical analysis.

"As long as it is dangerous to criticize islam, it will be necessary to criticize islam." (@MajidOukacha, May 9, 2024)

In summary, criticism of islam should be seen as a necessary act for the defense of democratic values and for the promotion of an enlightened and benevolent debate. Remaining silent out of fear of reprisals only encourages intolerance and oppression.

"Neutrality aids the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." (Elie Wiesel)

So let's criticize:

• The call for violence in islam;
• The sectarian drift of the misogynistic islamic veil, an object of degradation of women, which is defined as the flag of the islamic regime;
• The call for the murder of apostates in islam;
• The tolerance of the marriage of little girls in islam;
• The tolerance of slavery in islam;
• Misogyny in islam;
• The anti-Semitism in islam;
• The homophobia in islam;
• The anti-black racism in islam;
• The animal torture in islam;
• The islamic obscurantism;

Let us not forget that the first victims of islam are Muslim women and men. Let us help Muslims, respect Muslims, and therefore criticize their religion. Islamophobia has been distorted from its original meaning to prevent anyone from criticizing islam. Do not fall into this trap. Let your silence no longer foster islamic fanaticism.