No, Ed Brayton, There Really Is No Islamophobia

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

Whenever I heard Christian Right figures such as David Frum and Sean Hannity accusing atheists of being soft on Islam, I used to laugh that off as ridiculous. The implication had to be, either, that atheists are chicken and only go after “nice” Christians so they don’t have to deal with threats and violence, or else they simply have a bone to pick with Christianity and claims of skepticism and supremacy of the scientific method were just a facade. After all, haven’t New Atheist figures such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens been accused, if anything, of being too harsh and militaristic about Islam?

But may be Frum, Hannity et al did have a point, after all. Some atheists do seem to be all too interested in dismissing criticisms against Islam. Look, for example, at Freethought Blogs co-founder, Ed Brayton. He’s none too pleased with Ali Rizvi’s writing on the use of the word “Islamophobia”, on which I commented earlier. In a post titled “Yes, Virginia, there really is Islamophobia”, he challenges Rizvi’s stance:

I would agree that any push to remove reference to Islam and jihad from a film about 9/11 is a terrible idea and is endorsing a lie. There is no question that at least one form of Islamic ideology was a huge motivating factor in that horrifying attack. But does this make the case that Islamophobia does not exist? I don’t think it does. There are unjustified accusations of Islamophobia, just as there are unjustified accusations of homophobia, racism, sexism and any other form of prejudice I can think of, but that does not mean there isn’t real racism, sexism, homophobia or, most importantly for our purposes, Islamophobia.

You may notice that, unlike me, Rizvi does not endorse the Idea that Islamophobia doesn’t exist. This is as close as it gets:

The phobia of being called “Islamophobic” is on the rise — and it’s becoming much more rampant, powerful, and dangerous than Islamophobia itself.

And hence Brayton’s response boils down to a straw man fallacy. But that is not the only thing that is wrong with his writing. He cites example after example of what, to him, are bigoted attitudes that cannot be called anything but Islamophobia, making the use of the word justifiable:

When you’ve got people like Bryan Fischer claiming that Muslims are not covered by the First Amendment and do not have religious freedom in this country, and people like Gaffney seriously arguing that Islam is not a religion at all, what else would you call it if not Islamophobia?

In an interesting coincidence, just one day after Brayton wrote his post, Alabama chief justice Roy Moore graced us with these gems:

Speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment only applies to Christians because “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures” who created us.

Is it not clear what Christian supremacists are trying to say? Wherever the word “religion” appears in the context of freedom of religion in American historical documents, according to Roy et al, it is just short hand for “Christianity”. Hence, for them, it is not only Islam that is not a religion at all, but any religion besides Christianity. The insanity of this thinking not withstanding, their intolerance clearly goes beyond Islam. So, if we need the word “Islamophobia” for those who think Islam is not protected by the First Amendment, then how do we describe the exact same attitude about Buddhism? “Buddhophobia”?

As for Bryan Fischer himself, this video may be enlightening.



On his radio broadcast yesterday, Bryan Fischer spent two segments laying out his argument that, when the founders of this nation used the word “religion,” what they really meant was “Christianity.” As such, authorities in Oklahoma have every right to reject an effort by Satanists to erect a monument outside the Oklahoma Capitol building next to a monument of the Ten Commandments, Fischer said, because the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion was never intended to protect anything other than Christianity. “If by ‘religion,'” Fischer said, “the founders, and the founders of the state of Oklahoma, meant Christianity, then you can ban a monument to Satan because that’s not Christianity … You can say ‘no, we’re not going to let you do it. Our Constitution protects the free exercise of the Christian religion; yours is not a Christian expression, we’re not going to have that monument.’ If we don’t understand the word ‘religion’ to mean Christianity as the founders intended it, then we have no way to stop Islam, we have no way to stop Satanism, we have no way to stop any other sort of sinister religion practice that might creep onto the fruited plains”.

While Fischer obviously needs to read James Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance”, if he is to be called “Islamophobic” (according to Brayton), is he “Satanophobic” as well?

Brayton also cites a number of examples of false accusations against Muslims, which I don’t dispute; I’ll go even further, and add conspiracy “accusations” against people perceived to be Muslims who are not, perhaps the most notorious of those being the (oft heard) claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim (funny, though, that you can somehow be a secret Muslim and an “Islamophobe” at the same time). It doesn’t mean, however, that we need the word “Islamophobia”. Some conspiracy delusions have commonly used names, including (speaking of Obama) “Birtherism”. Not all have names, though, and hence this cannot be used as justification of using the word, either.

But most importantly, commmon use of the term “Islamophobia” as a tool to silence all criticism of Islamists, Islamic institutions and Islamic doctrines shows that the term is doing more harm than good (which is exactly Rizvi’s point); and it must be called out for the canard it is, or abandoned altogether.

Hat tip to commentator kraut2 (with whom I often have differences of opinion!).