With the commemoration of the killing at the Quebec City mosque, the word “Islamophobia” has been much in the news. Although a day against Islamophobia has been proposed by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), a clear definition of what that word means has still not been provided. A definition of the expression cannot be found on the NCCM web site itself. Consulting Wikipedia, we find the following definition:
Islamophobia is an intense fear or hatred of, or prejudice against, the Islamic religion or Muslims, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism. The term was first used in the early 20th century and it emerged as a neologism in the 1970s, then it became increasingly salient during the 1980s and 1990s, […] The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks, some from multiple terror attacks in Europe and the United States, while others have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in the United States and in the European Union. Some people also question the validity of the term. […]
Thus, an evolving definition for which there is no consensus. Again, Wikipedia provides the following etymology:
The word Islamophobia is a neologism formed from Islam and -phobia, a suffix used in English to form “nouns with the sense ‘fear of —’, ‘aversion to —’.” […]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word means “Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims” and is attested in English as early as 1923.
[…] Several scholars consider Islamophobia to be a form of xenophobia or racism.
This definition would lead us to believe that it would be irrational to fear Islam. We can also observe that the mainstream media attribute a very negative connotation to the word, implying that to be Islamophobic means having prejudice and resentment against Muslims. We can also wonder why the NCCM would call for a day against Islamophobia if its priority is to protect Muslims against violence as it states in its letter to the Prime Minister. We can reasonably conclude that the NCCM is acting in an opportunistic way in order to promote Islam and silence any criticism.
On Monday, January 29th during an event commemorating the first anniversay of the killing at the Quebec City mosque, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took advantage of the occasion to characterize the identitarian group La Meute (The Pack) as a bunch of “nonos” (“ignoramuses”).
“It is easy to condemn racism, intolerance and discrimination against the Muslim community. We know who the racists are: the other guys, the ones who walk around with the image of a dog’s paw on their t-shirt.” Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada.
The following day, Trudeau offered the following explanation:
“I will always be there to denounce those who do not contribute to building a better, more open society.”
However, the majority of Canadians are not activists and therefore do not work to build a better, more open society. Mr. Trudeau directly attacked the group La Meute and, in so doing, he attacks his own citizens. Instead, he could have chosen to criticize the actions of that group or its message. He could have explained to us what his objections are, so that we might understand and debate. But no, he chose instead to attack directly the messager as if this messager had no right to speak. What has that group done to deserve such an attack?
Since Mr. Trudeau never bothers to explain himself to those who criticize Canadian multiculturalism, I will attempt to spell out what seems to be happening in his mind.
Mr. Trudeau dreams of a Canada where all live in peace and harmony. In order to achieve this, each and every religious group must be granted the accommodations it requests. Thus, each citizen, identified by his or her religion, will live in his/her group with the privileges which that group enjoys. Anyone who opposes this vision of society must be ignorant, or intolerant, or racist, or xenophobic, because this vision is obviously the best, no explanation necessary. In order to counter any such opposition, the public must be educated in order for them to understand just how their prejudices and their ignorance wound and offend others, the others being religious and other minority groups. The public must learn to be tolerant by accepting all “reasonable” accommodations which religious groups may eventually demand.
One thing is very clear: these various ideologies are mutually incompatible. Each claims to possess the ultimate truth to which all others should submit themselves. Furthermore, they are incompatible with a society based on the rule of law which recognizes universal rights, including equality between women and men, and the right to be free of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Justin’s dream of peace and harmony is impossible because of these conflicts. This cannot be denied: it is real and obvious. All one has to do is open one of the so-called sacred books in order to see the problem. And yet, instead of dealing with this problem by restricting religion to the private sphere, little Justin feels so hurt that he prefers to simply deny that the problem exists. This is why he behaves in such an infantile fashion, why he can offer only insults to his opponents, rather than explanations. His position is indefensible and he knows this all too well, so he avoid engaging in any reasoned debate. We are thus stuck with an immature Prime Minister suffering from a psychological block. In addition, a large part of the population also prefers to close its eyes. They become complicit, letting themselves be lulled by the temporary comfort of a simplistic idea which allows them to avoid serious reflection.
This incompatibility is all the more obvious if one takes the time to learn about the legislative and aggressive character of the qu’ran. Indeed, the qu’ran is misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, intolerant and it condemns freedom of thought. Here is a list of criminogenic qur’anic verses which we have compiled in order to convince you.
Thus, the aggressive character of the qu’ran cannot be denied. Furthermore, the hadiths (sayings which Muslims attribute to the prophet Muhammad) paint a very reprehensible portrait of the prophet. Particularly towards the end of his life, this character, who is considered by many Muslims to be a model to be emulated, was apparently a bloodthirsty warlord, a pillager, a terrorist, and slave-trader, a rapist, a usurper who claimed to be god’s messenger, and a pedo-agressor who very much resembled the most violent Islamist terrorists. Certainly not someone who would convince us of the peaceful nature of Islam! On the contrary, it would be both foolish and ignorant to say that fear of Islam is irrational. Thus, Islamophobia, i.e. an irrational fear of Islam, does not exist. One may however speak of miso-Islamia, i.e. hatred of Islam. If one is at all humanist, then one can only reject Islam, even hate it for its inhumane nature. Let us not therefore shy away from expressing our fear or our rejection of Islam! Those who do not share our disgust would be well advised to make an effort to to learn more.
What makes Islam so dangerous today is the combination of the fact that whoever criticizes Islam risks death by the intransigence of Islamists, as well as risking being ostracized, stigmatized, insulted and censored by the mainstream media, by the majority of politicians and by part of the population. This situation can only increase the risk which critics of Islam incur when they dare to speak up. And yet, this criticism constitutes almost the only major obstacle which prevents Islamists from advancing their program. Thus, the population can only gain by educating itself further and by defending the critics in order to preserve democracy and the rule of law from a very real threat which continues to spread devastation around the world. Mr. Trudeau’s declarations are therefore a threat not only to the security of critics of religions, but also a threat to the entire nation.
One can only conclude that it is humanly, morally and politically unacceptable to defend Islam. On the contrary, it must be denounced, just as the propagation of the word “Islamophobia”, meaning an irrational fear of Islam, must also be denounced. Use of this word must stop. We must instead start to denounce destructive Islamic hatred, whether directed at other Muslims, i.e. those who reject political Islam, or directed against non-Muslims. Islam has no place in our society. We must take position now. We must do it while there is still time.