There have been an increasing number of articles in the media portraying those who criticize Islam as “Islamophobes,” and about the pressure Muslims apply (using the “I”-word) to quash those who dare question their faith. How refreshing, then, to see someone of a Muslim background call out this nonsense.

The author is Ali Rivzi, a Canadian-Pakistani physician and author who’s now writing a book called The Atheist Muslim. (I hope he has bodyguards!). And his piece, in Monday’s HuffPo, is called “The phobia of being called Islamophobic.” It says a lot of sensible things, and also reprises the latest kerfuffles over “Islamophobia,” including the rescinding of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s invitation to speak at Brandeis, the cancellation of the film Honor Diaries at the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois at Chicago (shame, shame on them!), the London School of Economics’ ridiculous kerfuffle over Jesus and Mo tee shirts, and Katy Perry’s removing a scene from one of her music videos because it offended Muslims.

But the most important thing Rivzi does is draw a clear distinction between dislike of Islam as a faith and dislike of Muslims as people. Only the latter is “Islamophobia,” just as “anti-Semitism” is dislike of Jews, not criticality of the tenets of Judaism:

For decades, Muslims around the world have rightly complained about the Israeli government labeling even legitimate criticism of its policies “anti-Semitic,” effectively shielding itself from accountability. Today, Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have borrowed a page from their playbook with the “Islamophobia” label — and taken it even further. In addition to calling out prejudice against Muslims (a people), the term “Islamophobia” seeks to shield Islam itself (an ideology) from criticism. It’s as if every time you said smoking was a filthy habit, you were perceived to be calling all smokers filthy people. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. But when did we start extending those rights to ideas, books, and beliefs? You’d think the difference would be clear, but it isn’t. The ploy has worked over and over again, and now everyone seems petrified of being tagged with this label. The phobia of being called “Islamophobic” is on the rise — and it’s becoming much more rampant, powerful, and dangerous than Islamophobia itself.

He then goes after the CAIR, which might also be called OMHF (Organization for Muslims with Hurt Feelings):

Last month, a white American man successfully convinced the Massachusetts liberal arts school Brandeis University that he was being victimized and oppressed by a black African woman from Somalia — a woman who underwent genital mutilation at age five and travels with armed security at risk of being assassinated. That is the power of this term. The man, Ibrahim Hooper, is a Muslim convert and a founding member and spokesman for CAIR. The woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is an unapologetic activist for the rights of girls and women and a harsh, no-holds-barred critic of the religious ideologies (particularly the Islamic ideology in Muslim-majority countries that she experienced first-hand) that perpetuate and maintain their abuse. Having abandoned the Islamic faith of her parents and taken a stance against it, she is guilty of apostasy, a crime that is punishable by death according to most Islamic scholars, not to mention the holy text itself.

Here’s a screenshot of the Qur’anic verse used to justify murder for apostasy (from the link):

Hirsi Ali was also involved with the award-winning documentary, Honor Diaries, which explores violence against women in honor-based societies, including female genital mutilation (FGM), honor killings, domestic violence, and forced marriage. Despite featuring the voices of several practicing Muslim women, the film was deemed “Islamophobic” by — you guessed it — the poor folks at CAIR. Again, they felt they were the real victims, wanting their own voices heard while silencing those of the victims of FGM and honor killing in the film. “So what?” you say. “It’s 2014. No one’s going to take that kind of position seriously, right?” Wrong. Astonishingly, this ludicrous argument was enough to convince both the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan to cancel their screenings of the film.

It’s astonishing to me that people who not only dislike tenets of Catholicism, for instance, but regularly go after it publicly and vociferously, pull back when it comes to Islam. I think there are two reasons for this. The first, of course, is fear. Despite the bullying tactics of Bill Donohue, Catholics aren’t wont to murder those who disagree with them. Let no one doubt (and you’re blind if you do) that Muslims have cowed many of us into submission by the implicit threat that offending Muslims will bring on violence.

Second, the “Islamophobia” canard is a form of reverse racism. Muslims with hurt feelings are catered to more often simply because they look different from Westerners, and come from a different culture. It smacks of racism, so the argument goes, to criticize the “cultural” practices of such people. That’s why we have the conflation between the reprehensible tenets of Islam itself and the “Islamophobia” canard implying dislike of Muslims as people. I will confess to disliking any Muslim who fervently believes in sharia law, the suppression of women, the murder of apostates, and so on, but not those Muslims who don’t adhere to those doctrines, but disliking them for their views, not as humans. (All of us have friends with some views we dislike.) It’s the practice of those tenets that I find odious, just as I’d dislike the ideas of any Catholic who tried to excuse child rape by priests.

Rivzi continues, quoting Sam Harris:

After being publicly accused by Glenn Greenwald of “spouting and promoting Islamophobia,” Sam Harris responded with these words, which should be read by everyone:

“Needless to say, there are people who hate Arabs, Somalis, and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim societies for racist reasons. But if you can’t distinguish that sort of blind bigotry from a hatred and concern for dangerous, divisive, and irrational ideas — like a belief in martyrdom, or a notion of male ‘honor’ that entails the virtual enslavement of women and girls — you are doing real harm to our public conversation. Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims — especially women and girls. There is no such thing as ‘Islamophobia.’ This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it.”

The fear of being called Islamophobic once led many prominent Westerners to abandon their own values when they abandoned Salman Rushdie. It led Yale to publish a book about the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy, but without the cartoons. It led Comedy Central to censor the show South Park on more than one occasion for fear of offending Muslims, even though the show irreverently lambastes virtually every other religion on a regular basis, unhindered.

Rivzi, in fact, is endangering himself merely by saying stuff that is obvious, like the above. He further opens himself up with his truthful and eloquent conclusion:

As I’ve written before, this is an effective deterrent. This is exactly how terrorism works. This is how perfectly intelligent, well-read writers, commentators, and broadcasters become silenced by the Islamophobia smear fear — and rationalize themselves into becoming unaware victims of it. When you’re unable to introduce Pakistan-style blasphemy laws in a secular, Western society, you have to find alternative ways to silence those who offend you, right?

Now certainly there are true Islamophobes: those who recoil at the sight of Muslims, and dislike them on principle simply because they’re foreigners (although there are many American Muslims). This isn’t racism, for Muslims are not an ethnic group, but simple xenophobia. And I must admit that I, too, recoil when I see a woman shrouded in a burqa, which, to me, instantiates the endemic misogyny of Islam. But we have to fight against this xenophobia and remember that the target is religious beliefs themselves: the beliefs of what happens to be the world’s most odious and dangerous faith. The way to get Muslims to stop cowing us with their implicit threats is not to be cowed by them, but simply laugh them off. Yes, that will stir up nastiness, but better that then devolve into a country where we’re not free to criticize pernicious doctrines.

Have a look at this report on the cancellation of the film Honor Diaries, which shows clips from the film, as well as an interview with a really disingenuous Muslim woman, Agnieska Karoluk (coordinator for CAIR events in Chicago), who defends the film’s cancellation.

It’s a shame that criticism of CAIR comes largely from the right-wing media (Fox News in this case). Liberals, of course, are those who are most afraid to appear Islamophobic, and it must be admitted that some conservatives are genuine Islamophobes. But just because someone holds politically conservative views does not mean that she’s always wrong. To consider conservatives always wrong a priori is in fact to reject the tenets of skepticism, for it is the ideas, not their exponents, that matter.