Writing about Islam and its truth-claims comes with a rather interesting occupational challenge. You get called 'phobic' a lot. In this case 'Islamophobic' of course. I fully realize that I'm not alone however, I share this shameful status with 'Transphobes', 'Fatphobes' and many other similarly benighted souls. The first few times I was called 'Islamophobic' I chuckled a bit and even patiently pointed out that you can only, by definition, be phobic if there genuinely is nothing to fear.
Non-Muslims do have lots to be concerned about from an ideology that calls them the 'vilest of animals' (Qur'an 8:55), that counsels believers to be 'hard against the unbelievers and merciful among themselves' (Qur'an 48:29). In fact, I would be somewhat negligent if I was not at least a little apprehensive of a document that inspires its believing audience to 'Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness' (Qur'an 9:123)
However, pointing out the above points did not seem to make even the slightest dent in the confidence of those making the accusation that they just scored a major rhetorical victory. As if the mere hint of a 'phobia' on my part was enough to end the matter there and then. What is going on? Why has the spurious identification of a pathology of mind replaced rational debate for
large parts of our society?
Many answers can be given to the questions posed above. We can point to the well-established practice of Soviet authorities to subject the opponents of their socialist utopianism to horrific psychiatric treatment. As with so much else George Orwell, furthermore, nailed it in 1984 when he introduced us to 'thought crimes' that required intensive 'treatment' before the guilty could be readmitted to society. Ultimately, however, the answer may rest in one of the oldest logical fallacies of them all. Our old friend 'ad hominem'. In its simplest terms this can be defined as a method of argumentation that is: "...directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." Playing the man and not the ball, in other words.
In my field, those who want to argue that Islam is truly all sweetness and light really don't have that much to base their convictions on (especially when it comes to Islam's views of those who reject the message of Muhamad). So, the easiest fall-back position is to crank up the name calling. This way the attention can be safely shifted to the troglodyte nature of those who dare to
question Islam. This strategy is, of course, endlessly repeated in other areas as well. In fact, belief in some 'phobias' is now so firmly entrenched that being accused of one can land you in serious legal trouble in many parts of the Western world. Maybe we're not quite there yet with 'Islamophobia' (MS Word's spell check still regards it as a typo for example!) But the signs are unmistakable that Muslim groups in the West and their cheerleaders would dearly like to move on from diagnosing made-up pathologies to initiating prosecutions.
The only way to stop this seemingly inexorable process in its tracks is to refuse to engage with ad hominem accusations and return to the substance of what is being discussed. In terms of Islam, I call this the 'Islamorealist' position (sadly Word notes this as a typo as well). In arguing for this position in an informed and well-researched way we will not only do the world a service. We may even find that we've cured ourselves of a phobia along the way.
My book 'Nothing to do With Islam?' has a section dedicated to the question of 'Islamophobia' and spells out the 'Islamorealist' position in great detail. It is available in Kindle, paperback and audiobook at www.ntdwi.com