The recent passage of Resolution 6S is an infringement on American civil rights. Not only was the definition of “Islamophobia” misrepresented, the claims that there are no contradictions between American values and Islamic values are baseless. UNM students should definitely do their research, which should lead them to the conclusion that Islam is not peaceful, apolitical, tolerant of other religions or compatible with democratic norms. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, and voicing anti-Islamic sentiments is not a crime.
Let’s look at the definition of “Islamophobia.” Phobia is defined as excessive or irrational fear of something. Clearly, if this fear comes from something rational and is not excessive, then it would not fit the definition of a phobia. Resolution 6S defines “Islamophobia” as such: “Dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”
This might seem rhetorical, but why even mention “political force” if Islam isn’t political in the first place? Perhaps people don’t realize it, but Sharia is a political system and its encroachment on America is being done through exploitation of the American system of democracy. Clearly, if someone accuses all Muslims of being terrorists, it would be incorrect. It is evident that many Muslims do not embrace terrorism. However, this does not mean that the doctrine of Islam itself does not command such violence. It is a possibility that, in addition to the willful bias portrayed by certain Muslims in their deceptive narrative of a peaceful and tolerant Islam, there are those Muslims who simply do not know the truth. This is possible because of the biased and controlled information they receive, which leads them to conclude that their version of Islam is correct.
The truth is that Islam is Islam: there is no “Islam of ISIS,” “Islam of Al-Qaeda,” “Islam of Turkey,” “Islam of Hamas,” or “moderate Islam.” Islam is based on the Quran and the accepted Hadiths. Islam is also defined by the schools of jurisprudence and their interpretations of Sharia. For the Muslims who are living in denial, it would behoove them to realize that all schools of Islamic jurisprudence advocate violence towards Christians, Jews and unbelievers. Furthermore, the Hadiths of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim corroborate this fact. The notion of a “peaceful and tolerant Islam” is a fabricated myth that has no Islamic justification.
If people are so dumb as to claim “differences in interpretation,” then consider ABC News’ example over the word “virgin.” In an effort to distance the word from its proper context and usage in the Quran and Hadiths, which indicate that “houris” (virgins) are rewards in paradise for the faithful Muslim men, an argument was made that “virgins” actually means “raisins.” So let us then consider why a faithful Muslim would become a suicide bomber for 72 raisins when he can just go to the grocery store and buy a boxful.
If the argument is made that critics of Islam cannot criticize Islam because they don’t understand classical Arabic, then many Muslims must also be treated the same way, as not many people understand classical Arabic. This argument (not surprisingly) usually comes up when Muslims face criticism, but they never use it on themselves when they attempt to re-interpret Islam. In addition, if the Quran has been so perfectly preserved (as Muslims will state), then what difference would a translation into a non-Arabic language make?
It is interesting to note that Muslims are the only ones reacting so defensively, even coming up with “Islamophobia” as a means to silence criticism. Is there a “Christianophobia”? If anything, it is the Christians who are being victimized, as their religion is used as a red herring almost every time a criticism of Islam comes up. It is the Christians who are being victimized, as they are slandered and misrepresented. Muslims who claim “Islamophobia” have no ground to stand on, as their own Islamic sources will show the facts of violence and intolerance.
If Muslims want to cherry-pick verses from the Quran to justify their fairytale fantasy of a peaceful and tolerant Islam, then they are forgetting their own principle of abrogation. The surahs (chapters) of the Quran are not arranged chronologically, but rather by size. However, if the surahs are arranged chronologically, it will be clear to the reader that even with the principle of abrogation, violence and intolerance is commanded by Allah. If the argument of context is brought up, the Hadiths will verify that the Quran does, in fact, command violence and intolerance.
If intellectual honesty is valued, then it should be clear exactly what Islam is, and what Islam isn’t. Clearly, if someone called Mohammed a homosexual pedophile, it would be incorrect. But if someone says that Mohammed was a racist and a violent person, it would be factually correct. Saying that Islam is aggressive, violent and intolerant towards other religions is also factually correct.
Nobody in their right mind would accuse all Muslims of being terrorists. Clearly, there are Muslims and those who practice Islam the right way. There are no moderate or radical Muslims. There is only the practicing and non-practicing Muslim, because Islam is Islam.