Skip to main content

A Balanced Criticism of Islam's Defense

Ya know what ticks me off? Islamophobia... Anti-Semitism... Anti-Africanism... Anti-White... racism. Racism. Discrimination. Bigotry. You name it. But if anything, I also hate hypocrites. I'm here to talk about some of the hypocrites who defend Islam, who, while still in a minority, need to tone their voice down because they are setting a bad example for the Muslim community. It's like someone who complains about other people persecuting him/her and what he/she believes in, and at the same time forces others to deviate from societal norms for his/her sake by telling them to do something that would comply with their religious values.

What I'm trying to get at is that there are some Muslims who have many other phobias as a result of Islamophobic pressure being applied unto them. For example, there are Muslims who will stand up for their religion and denigrate the religious beliefs of others. The biggest example of this is the trend of anti-Semitism evident amongst extremely leftist Muslims who completely shun Islamophobia to the extent that the Islamophobes that they are defending Islam from suddenly become a target of extremist rhetoric on part of these defenders! It just happens, however, that much of the anti-Islamic voices come from Jews, especially Zionist Jews; thus, in their own eyes, they see it completely justifiable that they attack the roots of their debating opponents, given that the opponent has already attacked the roots of Islam. This "two wrongs make a right" philosophy just doesn't fit: if a Muslim is to defend Islam, he/she should not attack other faiths, for the issue of discussion is Islam. The same should be done on part of Jews if Muslims and Christians debated the validity of the Jewish religion, and likewise for Christians or any other believer for that matter.

Bigotry, as evidenced, can be contagious, but when Islamophobia-phobic Muslims are given too much support, zeal may develop in them in that they would go to taking slight provocations or hints at Islam as outright attacks on every aspect of the religion. I was attending a speech on part of this Muslim woman who spoke out against references made in passages of certain books towards Muslims. And guess what those passages happened to be?

Sonnets from Shakespeare.

Yeah, who would've thought of that? Anti-Islamic remarks from one of the world's most famous playwrights? Hardly. And guess what one of those "offensive" words was...?
"Saracens"
Considering that the word "Saracen", a pen-name that I wear with pride, has Greek and Arabic origins, I wouldn't say that there is anything anti-Islamic about it. But never mind that Martin Luther's anti-Semitic readings are still available, and that his anti-Semitic literature is thousands of times more offensive than "Saracens".

I think it's completely wrong to defend Islam and at the same time insult other religions. While many Muslims are strongly opposed to other religions and implicitly intolerant of their teachings, I suggest that a true Muslim keeps to himself/herself regarding this matter. God said in the Koran:
"You have your own religion, and I have mine"
-Koran, 109:6
On the other hand, I am NOT (repeat... NOT) shunning defense of Islam. As a Muslim, it is also my duty to defend my religion from blasphemous criticism of my religion, and even in cases where the criticism sounds "constructive" - as a result of supposed scholarly work - should I defend my religion in a most civil manner. But that's not all. Individually, I believe that every other religion has a degree of truth and conviction, for religion is a way for many pious people to distance themselves from worldly evils and seek solace and salvation in the Divine. Thus, it is in my individual belief that I don't only defend Islam, but I defend against any other form of intolerance on any one group of people who ascribe to a certain faith.

We have to face it: religion, as a form of social institutional order, is not above criticism. After all, I believe in a free society. However, it is in our best interests, and the interests of humanity, to bring out and encourage tolerance, virtue and acceptance of what makes us different, if not acceptance altogether. It is also in our best interests not to see others coerce their views on others, even if there appears to be some sort of racism or bigotry in a piece of prose or product of speech. It is also imperative that we not exclude any one group or alienate people from society for the sake of difference: a truly free society does not discriminate nor eliminate any of its members. Discrimination and bigotry, while they are evils of the free society, can only be met with goodness, for seeking to suppress these evils politically will only strengthen them when they have the chance to be expressed.

It all comes down to this: I believe that Islamophobes - many of them, really - have it wrong about Islam, and that many Muslims have it wrong about civil discussion as well as their opponents. To bring out a public defense of Islam, one must not be on the offense, for this is not logical. Logic requires that we respond to what arguments have been presented. Therefore, I am against Islamophobia-phobia, the feeling that Islamophobes are at fault because of who they are, and thus fear, and therefore hate, of/towards them is justified. But it isn't. It is best that we stand up against this menace of bigotry and social inequity together as a people. The government has no business, and we have no business in continuing it further by creating a cycle of destructive (or "less than constructive", for lack of a better term) criticism. I will defend Islam, but I will not do so by attacking any other religion or background, or by forcing my views on others and limiting other freedoms.

Ramadan Kareem to my Muslim brothers, and Shanah Tova to all Jewish readers of this blog. I hope that this month will be an opportunity to seek Divine Guidance from God/Allah/Jehovah, and that we pray for peace and equity in the name of God. God bless you all. As Salaamu alaikum.

Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un