Shaheed is talking sense, but he is going against what has been the near-universal usage of the term “Islamophobia” since it was invented. The term “Islamophobia” is an illegitimate conflation of two distinct phenomena: crimes against innocent Muslims, or discrimination against them, neither of which is ever justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. Islamic advocacy groups and their Leftist allies have been insisting for years that such analysis, too, constituted “Islamophobia.” And they mean to silence it and force the West to adopt what are in essence Sharia blasphemy restrictions.
“UN Rapporteur warns of Islamophobia but acknowledges right to criticise Islam,” Barnabas Fund, October 8, 2021:
Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, has raised concerns about the growth of Islamophobia, arguing that since the 11 September terrorist attacks suspicion of Muslims “has escalated to epidemic proportions”.
Shaheed raised these concerns in a “Report on Countering Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred” presented to the UN Human Rights Council which met in spring 2021.
The report, however, maintains that “criticism of the ideas, leaders, symbols or practices of Islam” is not in of itself Islamophobia, and that “international human rights law protects individuals, not religions”.
Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, likened Islamophobia to an “epidemic” but drew a distinction between anti-Muslim hatred and legitimate criticism of Islam
Shaheed, a former foreign minister of the Maldives, argued that there is “collective blame cast on Muslims for terrorist acts purportedly carried out in the name of Islam, alongside Islamophobic attitudes that draw on negative overgeneralisations about Islam”.
He further argues that there are viewpoints “which depict [Muslims] as threatening and centre on constructions of irreconcilable cultural difference between Muslims and the values of majority populations”.
These, suggest Shaheed, “have fuelled acts of discrimination, hostility and violence against Muslim individuals and communities”.
“I strongly encourage states to take all necessary measures to combat direct and indirect forms of discrimination against Muslims and prohibit any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence,” he added….
Shaheed’s concession that criticism of Islam does not constitute Islamophobia unless accompanied by “hatred” of Muslims as individuals seems to offer some protection for those who would comment on Islamic teaching or practices.
Shaheed explained in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council that, “My report does not deny that fundamentalists and politicians alike exploit the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ to punish legitimate criticism of Islamic practices and beliefs or even to encourage sympathy for terrorism.”
“Others,” he added, “have responded to Islamophobia with ill-advised campaigns to criminalise expression that is deemed ‘blasphemous’.”
Jim says
He is putting his life on the line by saying that any criticism of Islam is not necessarily bigotry or prejudice. I would never dare to say that in the UN or in public.
mortimer says
UN rapporteur Shaheed admits there may be certain criticisms of Islam that are OK with him and that are not ‘phobic’, but he doesn’t specify what that might be. Practically ALL the Muslim apologists call ANY COMMENT about Islam that they personally dislike ‘Islamophobic’ … whether the comment is perfectly accurate and precise, and perfectly expressed or whether it is a bigoted slur of all Muslims without solid evidence. For Muslim apologists any opposition to Islam for any reason is unacceptable and ‘phobic’.
However, what is ‘phobic’ about the 40,187 LETHAL jihadic attacks since 9/11 ?? Those attacks have caused at least a quarter of a million deaths from jihad.
The website of religionofpeace.com keeps a daily tally of all the deadly jihadic attacks since 9/11. We observe that since then, an average of 5 deadly attacks and an average of 50 deaths occur every day of the year motivated by the JIHAD IDEOLOGY which is a canonical, compulsory, central teaching of Islam.
Any ideology which produces 250,000 dead bodies in 20 years, deserves to be analyzed, dissected and critiqued.
Ray Jarman says
+1 Mortimer,
If I may add to your insight, how can Islam exist without Muslims? As you said, Christians were not slaughtered by a religion but by its members which are Muslim.
Alex says
As long as islamic states and muslim majority states discriminate against non muslims without any reaction from their muslim population, the only fair rule from non muslim states is symmetric reaction, without that, muslims would be in strategic advantage and islamic groups and muslims would prevail. This is how they actually had conquered Middle Eastern countries and destroyed other ethnic groups and other religious groups. The only fair answer is symmetric . If muslim individuals and groups prevail then so would prevail the doctrine. This symmetric response is also the only Biblical answer which is strategic logic
mortimer says
Mr. Shaheed says that there is “collective blame cast on Muslims for terrorist acts purportedly carried out in the name of Islam.”
He assumes that Muslims disapprove of jihadic terrorism. I suppose it depends on the degree. 15% of Muslims in nearly all countries self-identify as supporters of one jihad-terrorist group or another, but 65% of Muslims probably consider those jihadists to be ‘good Muslims’. How could they not?
Mohammed called jihad the ‘camel’s hump’ in Islam … Islam’s highest deed.
The Prophet said, “The head of its matter is Islam and its pillar is the Salah and its highest peak is the Jihad.” – Sunan At-Tirmidhi 2616
For all Muslims, there is nothing that rivals jihad in importance. So how does Mr. Shaheed show that criticism of Muslims as supporters of jihad is an error?
A Muslim who disagrees with Mohammed is no longer a Muslim. He is an apostate.
mortimer says
I suspect Mr. Shaheed is one of the 35% of Muslims who are non-practicing, ‘cultural’ Muslims. He sees Islam as primarily a system of praying, rather than a political ideology of an imperial state as understood by ISIS, Al Qaeda and many other terrorist groups.
Mr. Shaheed is probably among the 35% of cultural Muslims who DON’T want jihad, DON’T want terrorism, DON’T want wall-to-wall Sharia and DON’T want an imperial caliphate. In other words, Mr. Shaheed appears to be trying overgeneralize himself … implying that most Muslims share his non-traditional, modernizing views of Islam. In fact, most Muslims are not modernizers. They are conflicted by modernity and live in a constant cognitive dissonance about it, vacillating between jihadism and rejecting jihadism.
As long as Muslims remain in Islam and venerate Mohammed, they are more or less bound to Mohammed’s approval and promotion of jihad.
The question of whether jihad is authentic jihad is one that Mr. Shaheed is trying to sidestep.
Joeyn says
Excellent analysis bu RS on the statement of Shaheed. Although i am somewhat grateful to Shaheed for not equating the criticism of Islam with Islamophobia most of his statement does not make sense at all and still seems to be deceptive due to his BS conflation of the term Islamophobia.
Joeyn says
To me:
1) Islamophobia is healthy and justified since Islam is a very dangerous and evil ideology.
2) Muslim-phobia (i.e. being afraid of or suspicios of those who profess to practice the religion of Islam) may not be that healthy but is very understandable since a substantial number of Muslims practice the dangerous ideology of Islam
3) In the world there are way far more (in fact at epidemic proportions) people especially non-Muslims being severely oppressed and victimized by people and nations that practice the teachings of Islam than those who practice the religion of Islam being oppressed or victimized by non-Muslim and non-Lefty people or nations.
jostle says
Strange, what about those have made an industry out of ‘islamophobia’, Bobb Pitt of Islamophobia watch, who packed it in, but CJ Werleman who was Danios at Loonwatch is still at it
CJ Werleman is Danios of Loonwatch and also J Stubbs and J Spooner
https://cjwerlemanisdaniosofloonwatch.wordpress.com/2021/10/10/cj-werleman-is-danios-of-loonwatch-and-also-j-stubbs-and-j-spooner/
OTTER says
Well this is an advancement, it does not go far enough because it is the Muslims who implement Islamic ideology. Those who implement an ideology are equally blameworthy. Therefore one must have the right to criticize both Islam and Muslims. This Leaving open Islam to a certain amount of criticism while at the same time keeping Muslims hermetically sealed from any must be resisted. Both Islam and Muslim’s must be severely criticized and analyzed both for what they stand for and for what they do
OLD GUY says
Yes crimes against muslims and discrimination against muslims should not take place. But muslims/islamic crimes and discrimination against others should also not be allowed either. When Muslim/islamic people encourage the destruction of other religion churches and culture, along with breaking the CIVIL laws of the countries that they are living in, they are criminals.
gravenimage says
UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion says criticism of Islam is ‘not in of itself Islamophobia’
…………….
Surprisingly, Ahmed Shaheed has also spoken out against Islamic antisemitism.