What is Islamophobia, and are the New Atheists guilty of it?

On the ‘Problem of Evil revisited’ thread, Kantian Naturalist says:

And I’ve become increasingly disgusted by the Islamophobia of “the New Atheists” — especially the odious Bill Maher, who has become their spokesperson in the US media. I think that people who rightly reject the fascist tendencies of contemporary Abrahamic religiosity (whether in the guise of Marco Rubio, Benjamin Netanyahu, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) are rarely aware of how fascistic their own atheism sounds.

Patrick responds:

I don’t watch Maher regularly, but I often enjoy him when I do. What has he said that demonstrates Islamophobia? (And what does Islamophobia mean? Being phobic of the jihadists seems sensible to me.)

 

 

The New Atheists are regularly accused of Islamophobia, and I know it isn’t intended as a compliment, but I would echo Patrick’s questions. What exactly are they being accused of, and what have they said that qualifies? Please provide specific quotes.

The New Atheists aren’t perfect, and I am quite open to the possibility that some of them have said  things that qualify as ‘Islamophobic’.  However, I’d like to see specific examples along with a definition of ‘Islamophobia’ under which they qualify.

Though these questions are motivated by KN’s claim, all are welcome to answer them.

147 thoughts on “What is Islamophobia, and are the New Atheists guilty of it?

  1. Personally I don’t like a religious culture that will get so riled up to incite death threats and injury just for saying something critical of Mohamed or drawing a cartoon of him.

    Such a mindset is threating to free society. I’m phobic of that, and I think those who champion FREETHOUGHT (many atheists and agnostics), would find Islamic culture threatening to freethought on principle.

    If someone wants to believe in Mohammed, that’s up to him. If he thinks he and his buddies have the right to threaten me and my family for saying something negative about Mohammed, I have issues with that.

    One only need to look at countries like Saudi Arabia and other places to see where freethought will go if Islam has its say.

    That isn’t to say, Christendom hasn’t had some horrible inquisitions in its past, but that isn’t the Christendom of today. It morphed into something more civil.

    I think there is a systemic structure to Islam that will prevent it from adapting to a more free society.

    Finally, where are the atheist femminists in all this? They seem more interested in Elevatorgate issues than Islam and women’s interests being threatened by Islam. In that sense, one segment of the atheist community is not Islamophobic, but only because of complete disinterest. They’d rather focus on the depiction of females in video games and how it de-whateverizes women.

  2. Hi Dave,

    I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the misleading post title and neglecting the content. Coyne doesn’t actually question the existence of moderate Muslims:

    Certainly there are many Muslims who are moderates, but when we say “moderate”, we must realize that what Westerners mean is not just Muslims who abjure terrorism, but those who embrace the values of democracy and Enlightenment, rejecting the demonization of nonbelievers, gays, apostates, and blasphemers, and embracing a religious pluralism—including those who don’t believe at all.

    I don’t have experience to know whether such a community exists. The 2013 Pew Survey of worldwide Muslim belief suggests that it’s sparser than we think.

  3. Dave Carlson: I think this recent post from Jerry Coyne (somebody I read regularly and whose thoughts I often agree with) is pretty questionable

    That was my reaction, though I didn’t read it very closely.

    Coyne does the same with Christianity. He often writes as if unaware of liberal Christianity.

  4. KN,

    How do you personally define Islamophobia, and what are some New Atheist quotes that illustrate it, in your opinion?

  5. Dave Carlson,

    More the point: Coyne’s blog post obscures the difference between Muslims who ascribe to a ‘literal’ reading of the Qu’ran (which could the majority, for all I know — or care) and those who are willing and eager to commit mass murder and who justify that on the basis of their reading of the Qu’ran.

    And in fact — though this is not widely reported in the West — the people signing up with ISIL did not first become (or were raised as) observant Muslims who then became radicalized. They are, for the most part, disaffected, alienated youths with no strong commitments, no strong sense of community, who are drawn to the promise of adventure and identity.

    ISIL is really a revolt by young Muslims against their parents’ generation

    This might be the most controversial theory for what’s behind the rise of ISIS

    The underlying cause of the Islamic State isn’t religion; it’s inequality, marginalization, alienation, nihilism. For these people, their interpretation of Islam offers a convenient ad hoc rationalization of the underlying rage and resentment. (Nor is this anything new: a generation ago, tens of thousands of people who couldn’t follow the dialectical arguments of Capital if their lives depended on it were doing the same thing with Communism.)

    And now, with the New Atheists, we see an evolutionary biologist (Dawkins) and a neuroscientist (Harris) disregarding the research of sociologists, anthropologists, and economists. Why? From what I can tell, in the case of Dawkins and Harris, it’s as simple (and complex) as this: they are racists.

  6. KN,

    From what I can tell, in the case of Dawkins and Harris, it’s as simple (and complex) as this: they are racists.

    How do you infer racism from criticisms of Islam, which is a religion, not a race?

    This is where exact quotes would help. What are the specific words of Dawkins and Harris that have led you to conclude that they are racists?

  7. keiths: This is where exact quotes would help. What are the specific words of Dawkins and Harris that have led you to conclude that they are racists?

    Because Harris thinks we should kill anyone who looks Muslim.

  8. I don’t think that stereotyping New Atheists is going to help anything, anyway.

    At least the charges on this matter are diminishing the many earlier claims that New Atheists only attack Christianity.

    Glen Davidson

  9. keiths:
    Hi Dave,

    I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the misleading post title and neglecting the content.Coyne doesn’t actually question the existence of moderate Muslims:

    I do think that the title is perhaps slightly more aggressive than the actual content, but there is only one person to blame for that.

    In any case, based on my reading of his blog post, I honestly can’t tell whether Coyne actually thinks moderate Muslims actually exist in any reasonable number or not. Perhaps instead of asking such a silly and insulting question about an enormous and diverse group of people (including millions of Americans, a few of whom I personally know), maybe Coyne should actually meet some of them? Then he wouldn’t have to ask silly questions.

  10. stcordova: One only need to look at countries like Saudi Arabia and other places to see where freethought will go if Islam has its say.

    You want to know what Islamophobia looks like? That, right there is Islamophobia.

    That was written by someone who doesn’t know (or care) that the country in the world with the largest percentage of the world’s Muslims is a multicultural democratic republic, and who doesn’t know (or care) that the majority of countries that have Muslim majorities over 90% do not accept the Salafist school of Sunni Islam that predominates over Saudi Arabia (and which does inspire and guide Al-Queda, the Islamic State, and Boko Haram), and does not know (or care) that some Salafi scholars have denounced terrorism.

    Judging Islam — a religion of 1.7 billion human beings — based on Saudi Arabia, al-Queda, the Islamic State, or Boko Haram is no different from judging Christianity by the Inquisitions, the KKK, or Dominationism.

    That is Islamophobia: stupidity, ignorance, apathy, and fear.

    I get exercised by this topic because there are political groups in the West — in the US, in the UK, in France, in Germany — who want to do to Muslims what the Nazis did to my family.

  11. Kantian Naturalist: Because Harris thinks we should kill anyone who looks Muslim.

    While I imagine that I come down somewhat more toward your side on this issue than many atheists, I would also like to see a quote to substantiate this claim.

  12. As far as the charge of New Athiests being Islamo “phobic”, consider the woman who has been nominated as the 5th horseman, or at least one of the 4 horsewomen.

    After the death of Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who was intended to attend the original occasion where the term was coined) was described as the “fourth horse-woman” of the non-Apocalypse.[21] Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, fleeing in 1992 to the Netherlands in order to escape an arranged marriage.[22] She became involved in Dutch politics, rejected faith, and became vocal in opposing Islamic ideology, especially concerning women, as exemplified by her books Infidel and The Caged Virgin.[23] Hirsi Ali was later involved in the production of the film Submission, for which her friend Theo Van Gogh was murdered with a death threat to Hirsi Ali pinned to his chest.[24] This resulted in Hirsi Ali’s hiding and later immigration to the United States, where she now resides and remains a prolific critic of Islam,[25] religion, and the treatment of women in Islamic doctrine and society,[26] and a proponent of free speech and the freedom to offend.[27][28]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

    I’d hardly classify her as ignorant of Islam. And maybe phobic is the wrong characterization when your murdered friends have your name pinned on their chest as a death threat.

    Phobia is an irrational fear. I don’t think new atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali fears of islam can be said to be irrational.

  13. I read the nasty streak one and was left wondering what’s not nasty?

    From where I stand the best thing about Christianity is that it had its balls cut off in the 19th century and hasn’t bothered people much since then.

    Except in South America, Africa, Ireland and such places, and in choir lofts.

    If you look at polls taken world wide about the beliefs and political attitudes of ordinary non-ISIS Muslims, they are not compatible with the values of western secular society.

  14. Kantian Naturalist: Judging Islam — a religion of 1.7 billion human beings — based on Saudi Arabia, al-Queda, the Islamic State, or Boko Haram is no different from judging Christianity by the Inquisitions, the KKK, or Dominationism.

    I grew up in the American South. There were cross burnings within sight of my school bus stop. I DO judge Christianity by the KKK.

    Because that’s what Christians believed and did. (Not my family, of course, but most of the kids i knew and their families.)

  15. Kantian Naturalist: That was written by someone who doesn’t know (or care) that the country in the world with the largest percentage of the world’s Muslims is a multicultural democratic republic

    I don’t think that holding up Indonesia as some bastion of freethought will serve your argument very well.

    I don’t know much about people like Harris or Maher, and whether they go too far or not. I certainly think that Islamic countries like Indonesia should be criticized for actual disregard for freedom when it’s apparent, rather than whitewashed.

    Glen Davidson

  16. KN,

    Because Harris thinks we should kill anyone who looks Muslim.

    Quote, please. I’ve never seen Harris say anything even remotely like that.

  17. Kantian Naturalist:
    And now, with the New Atheists, we see an evolutionary biologist (Dawkins) and a neuroscientist (Harris) disregarding the research of sociologists, anthropologists, and economists. Why? From what I can tell, in the case of Dawkins and Harris, it’s as simple (and complex) as this: they are racists.

    You have lost your mind.

  18. I get exercised by this topic because there are political groups in the West — in the US, in the UK, in France, in Germany — who want to do to Muslims what the Nazis did to my family.

    KN,

    It’s commendable you want to defend the rights of the underprivileged.

    But we might have to consider whether a fear is rational or not. If not, it can be considered a phobia.

    I live near DC. Muslims and people from Muslim countries and Muslim influence all around. I have an Iranian in-law. I am part of a Coptic (Egyptian) Christian group having their churches burned in Egypt back home. My Iranian in-law talks about the Ayatollah going after his family (he is an agnostic/atheist). I had a cousin living in Suadi Arabia. She couldn’t go around with her husband to public places without evidence of a marriage license for fear of getting thrown in jail. I worked in Kuwait on the al-Jabr air force base. Now quite as bad as Saudi Arabia, but I didn’t feel the culture had the freedoms we see in a secular society.

    In Mindanao in my homeland of the Philippines, there are regular Muslim terrorist attacks. I have missionary friends in Indonesia, Lebanon, Africa, Turkey, Afganistan. Can’t remember a single one of them that wasn’t at risk for merely believing in Jesus, and even more risk to muslim who left the Muslim faith for Jesus. Islamic society tolerates intolerance and looks the other way to human rights and wants sharia law.

    I don’t think the fear of Islam is irrational, therefore it can’t be labeled a phobia.

    I don’t agree with Hitchens and Harris on what to do about Islam.

    I have friends and acquaintances like Heather Mercer. Heather was affiliated with a congregation I was a part of. She was thrown in jail and sentenced to death by the Taliban when a child’s eyesight was restored after she prayed for the child in the name of Christ.

    You may have a larger and more comprehensive sample space to judge the value of Islam and it’s worthiness in society. But from all my contacts with it, I see it as a blight on humanity. I think there are atheists out there who feel the same way, and for rational reasons.

  19. keiths: Quote, please. I’ve never seen Harris say anything even remotely like that.

    OK, I’ll eat crow on this one: he said that anyone who looks Muslim should be profiled in security screenings in airports. I still think that’s an implicitly racist remark, since he ignores that there are black Muslims, white Muslims, Asian Muslims, etc.

  20. Sam Harris tried to settle the issue, but here it the quote in question:

    It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

    Make of it what you will. Sam Harris said also:

    My position on preemptive nuclear war (Link to here)

    The journalist Chris Hedges has repeatedly claimed (in print, in public lectures, on the radio, and on television) that I advocate a nuclear first-strike against the Muslim world. His remarks, which have been recycled continually in interviews and blog posts, generally take the following form:

    I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world.

    (Q&A at Harvard Divinity School, March 20, 2008)

    Harris, echoing the blood lust of Hitchens, calls, in his book The End of Faith, for a nuclear first strike against the Islamic world.

    (The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, Alternet, March 22, 2008)

    And you have in Sam Harris’ book, “The End of Faith,” a call for us to consider a nuclear first strike against the Arab world. This isn’t rational. This is insane.

    (The Tavis Smiley Show, April 15, 2008)

    Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first-strike on the Arab world. That’s not a rational option—that’s insanity.

    (A Conversation with Chris Hedges, Free Inquiry, August/September 2008)

    So there has been some interpretation of what Harris had to say.

    I don’t think it irrational to have some fear of what Islamic culture can do to the world.

    Bombing Islam won’t work, that will just strengthen their resolve. Propagation of truth might do the trick, but the question is how can the truth be propagated?

  21. Rumraket: KN, have you seen the interview of Sam Harris by Cenk Uyghur? It’s on youtube.

    You mean this one? Unless I’m reading it wrong, it’s three hours long! Who has that kind of time? 🙂

  22. Kantian Naturalist: he said that anyone who looks Muslim should be profiled in security screenings in airports.

    That’s sort of unnecessary. They already are. Not that airport profiling is done competently enough to matter.

    I find is a bit darkly amusing that Europe has always been portrayed to me as the epitome and the epicenter of cosmopolitan. Paris, in particular, has always been the center of sophistication. Paris is to avant-garde what Los angeles is to surfing.

    Now Europe is rearing its other head.

  23. There’s a phrase, thinking the unthinkable.

    One does not advocate first nuclear strike by thinking it is possible.

    No one on this forum will ever have any influence over whether such a thing happens. Nothing we say, think or do will have the slightest impact.

    But our worries reflect the worries of the world at large. There are others thinking these thoughts and war-gaming all kinds of scenarios.

    Regarding the Sam harris first strike thought: Some might recall a last-centuries war in which one side seemed to be inspired by religious conviction to disregard death as a deterrent. Do suicide bombers not evoke memories of Kamikazes?

    And what was the outcome of that confrontation?

  24. I’m not denying that I regard the US, UK, and EU as coming closer to implentibg the ideals I espouse than any other country currently existing, and I’m not denying that no Muslim-majority country has come as close to realizing the ideals of the Enlightenment as those societies have.

    I am saying that it is irrational to judge an entire religion on the basis of violent extremists. It is also irrational to ignore the very lovely debate among sociologists, economists, anthropologists, historians, avd political scientists about how much violent extremism that is rationalized in the rhetoric of Islam is actually best explained in terms of the tenets of Islam.

    As Olivier Roy puts it, perhaps what we are seeing here is not the radicalization of Islam but the Islamicization of radicalism.

  25. Kantian Naturalist: I am saying that it is irrational to judge an entire religion on the basis of violent extremists.

    KN, I judge religions on the content of their ideas.

    I judge people on their willingness to believe and act on absurdities.

    In my lifetime, Christians have become less affixed to the absurdities of their religion. This manifests itself in the secularization of governments.

    Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, for all.

  26. Kantian Naturalist,

    I am saying that it is irrational to judge an entire religion on the basis of violent extremists.

    The most recent Pew Survey I’ve seen shows that the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism. However, the majority’s views on women’s rights and the death penalty for leaving Islam are definitely not aligned with enlightenment values.

    Would you say it’s rational to judge a religion based on the views of its adherents?

  27. stcordova: : I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.

    IIRC, anti-communists used to say the same stuff about “the Red menace”–deterrence couldn’t work on such robots because they don’t actually care about people or truth, only ideology.

    Anyhow, FWIW, I think this Harris quote (which obviously does not take Erik’s reading of scripture into account when it makes the Batman comparison), suggests an incredible level of mass stupidity, which, whether it is racist or not, is certainly insulting to “the other.”

    They’re all dewy-eyed maniacs, in Harris’ view. Such remarks don’t exactly help matters, I don’t think. But it’s the kind of remark that know-it-alls can’t seem to help making on an almost daily basis.

  28. Dave,

    I do think that the title is perhaps slightly more aggressive than the actual content, but there is only one person to blame for that.

    I think Coyne picked a bad title, but that’s hardly evidence of Islamophobia. That diagnosis should rest on the content of the post and on his other writings.

    In any case, based on my reading of his blog post, I honestly can’t tell whether Coyne actually thinks moderate Muslims actually exist in any reasonable number or not.

    I think he genuinely doesn’t know. It seems pretty clear from what he wrote:

    The only Muslims I know are ex-Muslims, so I have no idea whether such “moderate” Muslims are ubiquitous. I hope so, but others think not…

    I don’t have experience to know whether such a community exists. The 2013 Pew Survey of worldwide Muslim belief suggests that it’s sparser than we think.

    [Emphasis added]

    Asking whether the community of moderate Muslims might be “sparser than we think” doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

  29. walto,

    They’re all dewy-eyed maniacs, in Harris’ view.

    No. Here’s what he said:

    What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry?

  30. keiths:
    Dave,

    I think Coyne picked a bad title, but that’s hardly evidence of Islamophobia.That diagnosis should rest on the content of the post and on his other writings.

    I think he genuinely doesn’t know. It seems pretty clear from what he wrote:

    Asking whether the community of moderate Muslims might be “sparser than we think” doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

    What I’m trying to say is that Coyne could know if he wanted to. He could meet some and talk to them. Frankly, I’m somewhat incredulous that he could be a professor at a major American university without knowing any Muslims. In just the past couple years of TAing evolutionary biology labs, I’ve gotten to know several Muslim students, all of whom were decent people and have had no problems with evolution.
    Incidentally, the subset of the Pew Survey that was geared toward American Muslims is worth reading. Encouragingly (or not, depending on your perspective I guess), the rate of acceptance of human evolution is essentially equal to that of American Christians–although, somewhat surprisingly, this is lower than the rate of acceptance of evolution among Muslims worldwide!

  31. I guess my major problem with Coyne’s post is that it just seems…problematic to ask an incendiary and, in my view, insulting question about an enormous and diverse group of people when you literally don’t know a single person that belongs to that group. It just smacks of tribalism and lack of empathy and self-awareness to me. That’s my $0.02 anyway.

  32. Dave,

    Do you see anything in what Coyne has written that would justify an accusation of ‘Islamophobia’? If so, how would you define the term?

  33. keiths:
    Dave,

    Do you see anything in what Coyne has written that would justify an accusation of ‘Islamophobia’?If so, how would you define the term?

    I honestly prefer not to use terms like “Islamophobia” or “homophobia” because I think they lack clear meaning and, probably, shed more heat than light. In any case, I don’t agree with the thrust of what Coyne wrote, but I have no desire to accuse him of anything.

  34. walto,

    Do you think there might be a difference between “all Muslims” and “an Islamist regime”?

  35. Having most likely alienated everyone, I will compound my sins by saying I think the goal and rationale for Islamic terrorism is isolation of Muslims from secular society. The point is to prevent integration.

    Assimilation means dilution of doctrine and diminished power for religious powers. That is the great satan. I don’t think any Bronze Age religion can co-exist with modern secular societies. At least not ones that place a high values on purity of essence.

    I believe what triggered the current troubles was not colonialism, but consumerism.

  36. why are these subjects on a origin blog? who cares about these obscure things.
    These are trivial matters relative to the large numbers of people.
    islam has nothing to do with the fights.Its about identity and simply islam makes a identity. Yet its not about religion. Israel is not a religious state or purpose even if its claimed jews are organized as a religious identity. in reality its a people group with a identity that includes religion. Same as the muslims.

    Bill Maher is a hateful person i last heard years ago. i don’t say such accusations easily. Such people are not worthy of living America and getting money for doing nothing.

  37. Robert,
    \

    why are these subjects on a origin blog?

    This is not an “origin blog”. Discussion here has never been limited to one subject.

  38. keiths:
    walto,

    Do you think there might be a difference between “all Muslims” and “an Islamist regime”?

    Not enouigh difference to exonerate your buddy, iMO. What is a ‘regime’ anyhow–a couple of rulers or a people? Harris is indicting this ‘regime’ (that he finds plausible) with stupidity, mania and bloodlust. I’m more worried about trump myself.

  39. A regime is not a people, walto.

    re·gime
    rəˈZHēm,rāˈZHēm/
    noun
    1.
    a government, especially an authoritarian one.
    synonyms: government, system of government, authorities, rule, authority, control, command, administration, leadership
    “members of the former military regime”

Leave a Reply