I find it deeply ironic that an award for “Islamophobe of the Year” in 2015 went to an organization that was attacked, and had many of its members slaughtered, by Islamic terrorists. But let’s look at the background.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) is a British-based organization that professes a commitment to human rights, regardless of nation or ethnicity. And it appears to do some good stuff, including campaigning for gay rights, women’s rights, and for political prisoners in Muslim countries. But it also appears to engage in some apologetics for jihadist terrorism, and has periodically conferred its “Islamophobe of the year awards”—which ran from 2003-2006 and, after a hiatus, resumed in 2014—on recipients who aren’t bigots, but merely criticize Islam, or (in the case of Obama), don’t even do that.
Here’s IHRC’s description of what the awards “recognize”:
What is Islamophobia?
A contemporary and emerging form of prejudice Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level and perceiving their views to be intrinsically problematic, violent or unethical.
And here’s who won them in 2014:
The Islamaphobia [sic] awards returned on 21 February 2014 after an 8 year absence. The categories were North America, UK, South- East Asia and Australasia, Middle East And Africa and Overall. The winner of North America was Pamela Gellar, UK was Raheem Kassam. The winner of South- East Asia and Australasia category was Aung San Suu Kyi, in Africa and Middle East was Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the winner of the Islamophobe of the year was Barack Obama.
The rationale for these awards is given on the Muslim site 5 Pillars. Some of these people may really be bigots, like Gellar, who opposed the building of a mosque on the 9/11 attack site. And Aung San Suu Kyi, once a hero of mine (and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize), has been disconcertingly silent about the poor treatment of Burma’s Muslim minority (the Rohingya). But really, Obama—the man who bends over backwards to avoid stigmatizing Muslims? He got the award for drone strikes and for maintaining Guantanamo, but Obama has repeatedly tried to close that facility!
In 2014 there was a message of support for the awards from Rowan Williams on the IHRC site:
Dr Rowan Williams
The fact that prejudice and ignorance are ridiculous doesn’t – unfortunately – make them less lethal. But it is important from time to time to be reminded that they are ridiculous, and that’s why this event is so welcome. Some theologians have contrasted the light-heartedness of heaven with the fact that the devil and his angels take themselves with deadly seriousness, even when engaged in the most absurd project possible, resisting the all-powerful goodness of God. I hope this evening will make some contribution to delivering us from deadly seriousness and recall us to the joy that faith opens for us.
That’s not only bizarre, but largely incoherent. The whole bit about humor and Satan escapes me, but I suggest that Williams best stay away from pronouncements like this.
At any rate, IHRC’s 2015 Islamophobia Awards were awarded last Saturday, and they’re pretty dire. Breitbart UK gives a list.
Charlie Hebdo was named “International Islamophobe of the Year”, and Breitbart gives the rationale, along with a dry remark:
According to the Muslim website 5Pillars the award was given to Charlie Hebdo because of its “continual stoking of Islamophobic sentiment by caricaturing Muslims as terrorists and ridiculing their beliefs.”
It continued: “Charlie Hebdo’s repeated mocking of Muslims is part of a culture of hate that is intended to marginalise, further alienate and further endanger a community that has effectively been ‘otherised’ in much the same way that Jews were in Nazi Germany.”
Staff at Charlie Hebdo were unable to accept the award as many of them had been murdered for mocking Mohammed.
Other awards:
Overall Islamophobe of the Year was the Home Secretary Theresa May. She is accused of being the “driving force behind the introduction of yet more repressive legislation targeting the Muslim community”. The IHRC is specifically unhappy with the Counter Terrorism and Security Act, which requires professionals like teachers to report potential terrorists to the authorities.
The UK winner this year was Maajid Nawaz, co-founder of the anti-extremism think tank Quilliam. He takes the crown from the former Editor of Breitbart London, Raheem Kassam, maintaining the tradition of giving the award to a British Muslim whose activities are not deemed acceptable to the IHRC.
Media awards were given to both Fox News and the film American Sniper. 5Pillars explained the award for Fox News saying: “The jingoistic American news network remains a major source of misinformation about Islam and Muslims and continues to take delight in their demonization.”
Nawaz, really? By giving the “UK Islamophobe” award to a man who is a Muslim, but battles Islamic extremism as well as oppressive Muslim dictates like murder for apostasy and adultery, and the oppression of women, the IHRC has simply discredited itself, and allied itself with those oppressive dictates. As for Charlie Hebdo, which always made fun of anti-Islamic bigotry but decried things like Islamic homophobia, well, let’s just say that the choice was quite unwise.
By giving the awards to Charlie Hebdo, Obama, and Nawaz, the IHRC has made the usual error—conflating criticism of the religion with bigotry against its adherents. And someone at the IHRC should have thought, “Wait a minute: we’re giving a bigotry award to a magazine whose staff was slaughtered by Muslim terrorists?”
In response to the IHRC’s awards, Professor Ceiling Cat will confer his Annual Judeophobe Award to that institution which most fosters genuine anti-Semitic bigotry rather than criticizing the tenets of Judaism. And, this year the award goes to. . . THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST. The award is given for the institutionalization of anti-Semitism in the state media of Jordan, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine. Here are some cartoon examples in addition to those (including videos) I’ve published before (note the ubiquitous trope of big noses):
This cartoon appeared in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustur and was rebroadcast on official Palestinian Authority television.
Bi-weekly paper The Capital City, which is distributed with the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, featured a cartoon portraying Rabbi Yehuda Glick as a snake. Terrorist Mutaz Hijazi, who attempted to murder Rabbi Glick on Oct. 29, 2014, is seen trying to strangle Rabbi Glick while saying: “You make me mad!”
Ad-Dustur, March 5, 2008 (Jordan). In Arabic: “the only democracy in the Middle East.”
Al-Ayyam, March 4, 2008 (Bahrain)
I won’t go on, as I’ve published state-approved anti-Semitic cartoons and videos regularly, the kind of stuff that’s ignored by liberals in the U.S. though it’s just as vile as the racist chants that just got a fraternity banned at the University of Oklahoma.
Maybe some kind of atheophobe award is also in order, to highlight some of the more absurd claims regarding atheists.
Seems to me that Israel certainly needs an award for their constant anti-Semitism against the Palestinians who are surrounded, choked, bombed, starved etc like an open gulag by the Israelis. Seems only fair. Since much of what is done to Israel is retaliation. Doesn’t make it right, just explains why a few radicals send the missiles.
Stuff like this makes it easy to understand why Europe is in the middle of it’s own version of a culture war. These Islamic organizations just don’t get it.
Just proves an already well repeated fact — that religion can always do one more extremely stupid thing. Ironic is not the first word to come to mind but I’ll clean it up with disgusting.
Running a close second to this Islamic Commission might be the republican senators in the Congress who recently sent a letter to Iran explaining to them how the constitution works. I wonder if the republicans can actually read, if they have looked at the section on Treason.
I heard about this on NPR. They condescendingly explained to the Iranians that any deal made with Obama will not last if the next prez is a Republican — as if they needed to be told that! It was a ridiculous case of over-reach and open dis-respect of a standing President to an opposing foreign power.
It was the Republicans that had been saying that political disagreements with a President stays on our shores. But they have violated that rule over and over again.
That letter shocked me in its bipartisanship. Talk about undermining your own country overseas and washing your dirty laundry in public. It was embarrassing.
A good agreement may be reached, but not if the GOP has anything to do with it, or Netanyahu for that matter.
Bigots should be called out at every opportunity but when a negative award program senselessly and unjustly hands out awards to the undeserving, the program becomes a useless parody of itself.
+1
This seems very insensitive. Even if you did agree that CH is racist (which I think would be an incorrect judgment based on the purpose of the paper and the underlying satire, never mind that we should be able to criticize ideas), then these people “paid” for their “wrong doing” in a very disproportionate way. Even outright racists and bigots shouldn’t be shot to death in their workplace. Insult to injury.
It’s not insensitive. These people know exactly what they’re doing. The so-called “Islamic Human Rights Commission” (was there ever a more Orwellian name than that?) is just another Islamist front organization whose aim is to deny, whitewash or deflect attention from jihadist violence, while simultaneously blaming the West for every terrorist atrocity committed by muslims. In a nutshell, their message is “How dare you associate Islam with terrorism! If you do that again you’ll only have yourself to blame if some innocent muslim saws your head off”.
You and I may agree that “Even outright racists and bigots shouldn’t be shot to death in their workplace”, but to the IHRC, anyone who in their view insults Islam very much deserves to be shot. They may pretend to disapprove of the Charlie Hebdo murders, but it’s just a smokescreen. In reality they applaud them.
Going by the IHRC’s standards, I think their “What is Islamophobia?” explanation should be changed to Douglas Murray’s definition: “Anything which could be deemed offensive to any Muslim, anytime, any place, anywhere.”
Theophobia being the fear of religion, Islamophobia is the fear of religion called “Islam” and not of its followers. In getting the definition wrong – knowingly in my opinion – these organisations manage to generate “faux outrage” which is greedily lapped up by the media.
That seems to be increasingly true for many other organizations, governments and assorted media.
Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at and criticizes all religions and political groups. Calling Obama an islamophobic is nutty. I am really outraged by this event.
Going off of the big-nose thing, often used as a negative caricature of Jewish people, always amuses me. Put a bone in the nose, and it’s racist against Africans and their descendants, make it red with gin-blossoms and it’s Irish, and of course, Hollywood saw similarity enough to brown-up Jewish actors to play Native Americans in old westerns. Why are noses so racist?!
ok, in all seriousness, genetics is a good place to discuss this nose business. For instance, an abstract from Human Immunology in 2001 which I quickly googles, said that, as many probably figured, Palestinians and Jews are closely related, possibly with a shared origin, intermixed frequently with each other and had extensive gene flow with the rest of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the abstract actually makes the bold claim that: “Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences.”
Any thoughts? Updates, clarifications?
“Funny, she doesn’t look Druish”. -Barf (John Candy) from Spaceballs
It’s not a genetic difference? Gee, ya think? IMHO the only rational basis for war between peoples is over which side of the bread people put their butter – I’m looking at you, Zooks! Don’t get me started!
This quote by Williams is wrong on so many levels.
On the surface, he seems to be saying something atheists often say: “if God is so powerful, then why do religious people think they have to fight His battles?” In other words, if we’re religious then we can relax when our religion is criticized because God will deal with it better than we can. The pious don’t have to take the blasphemers seriously, we can laugh at their absurdity. They WILL lose in the end. No sweat.
Frankly, I think this attitude does help promote a more enlightened “live and let live” approach to dealing with religion in a diverse and secular society.
But at the same time it manages to define the critics of Islam as enemies of Everything Good. They know the Truth but have chosen evil. That will NOT end up well. It’s not “reasonable people disagree” on God, it’s “faith gives us the joy of certainty.” That will include the conviction that one’s opponents are really just resisting God.
And then Williams plugs this framework into a religion with a mindset which takes itself very seriously indeed. The “Islamophobe” blasphemers were murdered. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
IHRC should have stopped ate Fox News and American Sniper.
That award is utterly ridiculous and wholly devoid of any class or intelligence. Are the media flacks within the British Muslim community really this tone deaf? It was only last week that CAGE made their absurd statements about “Jihadi John” Mohammed Emwazi touching off the #BlameQuilliam meme on social media.
They’re not tone-deaf although they do a good impersonation – it’s just that they receive absolutely no substantive criticism from the only people they’d be forced to listen to – the liberal left. Their silence is an implicit ‘as you were’ to all these jaw-droppingly crass apologists, including CAGE. The only criticism of Qureshi’s fatuous claims came from the right and any fence-sitting Muslim will, not without reason, dismiss them out of hand.
This tactical policy of swirling in genuinely dodgy people like Pamela Geller with pretty much unimpeachably progressive and tolerant liberals who have the temerity to criticise Islam is very effective. You’re either with us or you’re against us, and even if you’re a tolerant, progressive person whose aims are purely to do with pushing back at human rights abuses and entrenched bigotry you still go on that pile over there.
Every single liberal worthy of the designation should be ripping this absurd smearing campaign to pieces. How much attention will it actually get in the Guardian or the Independent? None. It’s not important. Let’s hang people like Irshad Manji and Maajid out to dry, after all they’re just fighting for the very heart of liberalism in the Muslim world.
The scorched earth attacks of organisations like this are utterly typical of the way Islam(and religion in general, though to a lesser extent) reacts to criticism. There is such a chasm between the behaviour of people like Maajid and the behaviour of his opponents. One is reasonable, accepting of constructive criticism and realistic about his religion. The other is utterly, hysterically incapable of countenancing criticism from within or without.
I’ve mentioned it so many times, but the Maajid vs Mehdi Hasan/Mo Ansar Newsnight interview encapsulates perfectly what a job Muslim reformists have on their hands. Mehdi Hasan is the ‘moderate, liberal’ voice of Islam and yet the scattershot aggression and reflexive smearing that characterises his reaction to even the mildest criticism is typical of the overwhelming majority of Islamic voices in the media. And part of the reason they are so confident in their ability to shred the character of someone as seemingly unobjectionable as Maajid Nawaz is because they have the unblinking co-operation of an embarrassingly large segment of the liberal left, who seem to consider intolerance, homophobia, misogyny, murder of apostates, stoning to death of adulterers, murderous anti-Semitism and the slaughter of illustrators for doing their job of secondary importance so long as the perpetrators are an ethnic minority.
At this point in time, when the(admirable) principle of ‘defend minorities from criticism’ meets other liberal principles about tolerance, equality, freedom of speech, etc. the latter gets junked and the former hardens into dogma. The left need to get a grip, and criticism of poisonous, slippery smear campaigns like this one would be a good start. I’d find it genuinely difficult to think of a more perfect embodiment of liberalism than Maajid Nawaz. I find it equally difficult to think of a single fellow liberal, besides Jerry, Dawkins, Harris and other gnus, who have stepped up to defend Nawaz from the constant, gutless smears and death threats he receives from his own community. More and more my reaction to liberal opinion on Islam is a sigh of deep disappointment.
Agreed.
And one part of improving things is to call out the equating of “liberal” with “left”. There is a “liberal left”, certainly, but “liberal” and “left” mean very different things.
Most of the people you criticise above are leftists (or similar) who are often mistakenly and misleadingly referred to as liberals, but from the views they express they are pretty much by definition not liberals.
(I’m usually the first to whinge when people are just arguing over definitions of words, but in this case I think its a key step).
I agree, that’s largely my point – that these people ditch liberal values at the drop of a hat and argue against people fighting in their defence. But they would, and do, self-identify as liberals nevertheless. They generally believe in the same, essentially liberal things I do – equality, tolerance, free-speech – it’s just that they have a particular blindspot when it comes to Islam(and, I suspect, although it’s never been put to the test, any other ethnic minority religion). Remove that blindspot about Islam, and religion in general, and the number of disagreements diminishes rapidly.
They have an Allah shaped hole in their brain.
These Islamaphobe awards are ridiculous, and in the case of Charlie Hebdo very insensitive, but the one for Majid Nawaaz is sheer lunacy. I have read his book Radical (it’s excellent, I highly recommend it) along with most of his recent media pieces and he writes with more rationality and compassion than virtually any other religious person I have ever come across. In fact he talks so much common sense I find it hard to understand how he could be religious. What comes across in his writing is his view that the way to tackle extremism is by better understanding between communities and treating those from other cultures with kindness and humility. There are very few people I respect or admire as much as Majid Nawaz and I urge all those who are not familiar with him to read some of his work. The fact that he has been given one of these silly awards just demonstrates how absurd and politically motivated they are.
I agree wholeheartedly with all three of you.
I would have thought Islamophobe of the year would consistently be a terrorist organization – finalists for 2014 would be Al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, DAESH, and Hamas, with the prize going to DAESH. They are who consistently give Islam a bad name given that they commit all their heinous acts in the name of Islam, Allah (pbuh!) and while shouting, “Allahu Akbar”.
Heather:
As a fellow Kiwi (albeit one living in the US instead of Godzone), is “pbuh!” the same as the sound of a fart?
Interestingly, I don’t see an award for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, after all, he’s an extremist who has nothing to do with Islam who has been responsible for the murder of countless Muslims.
Or what about Ayman al-Zawahiri (AlQaeda), or Abubakar Shekau (Boko Haram).
The fact that they think Maajid Nawaz is more deserving of this award than any of the aforementioned should remove any credibility form this organization.
Or how about Mo himself. Nobody else has done more to make life miserable for moslems.
Yes but those guys are apparently quite testy you see, and Maajid, Charlie Hebdo and the rest are less likely to murder people for nominating them. IHRC are obviously an incredibly brave organisation but they’re not that brave.
Hello? Yes, this is The Right Reverend and Right Honourable The Lord Williams of Oystermouth and former Archbishop Of Canterbury. What’s that you say? Your religious group is putting on a publicity stunt, giving out anti-awards for people who disagree with your religion? Why yes of course I’m more than happy to make a statement of support! Will a noncommittal nonsequitur do? Perhaps something about how Heaven is a place of laughter and Satan’s minions take themselves too seriously? I see … yes, given that you are “honouring” humourists who were slain by members of the faith they joked about, yes, I can see where some might take that the wrong way. That’s the devil in them, not being able to take a joke! Well, I’ll dash something off, and I’ll make sure it makes no sense whatsoever. No, thank YOU! Toodlepip!
Lol, what a tw*t! Williams, not you.
they campaign for political prisoners in Muslim countries… how do they know those aren’t in jail for being Islamophobes?
Yes, excellent point!
Quite! Excellent point!
Well, it is insensitive to the extreme. And also, very illuminating. Don’t they realize how stupid this appears? If Maajid Nawaz, who is trying so hard to disassociate ‘Islam’ from ‘Islamism’ and make the former a religion of peace, is an ‘islamophobe’, it means that for the people at IHRC ‘true Islam’ is actually what Maajid is attacking, i.e., violent extremism.
That is in part what I find so depressing about the way mainstream muslim organizations reject the reformers. It sends the clear message that those organizations hold precisely the views about Islam that make it so necessary to have it reformed.
Sub
Regarding the last cartoon, you would think that even foam-at-the-mouth antisemitic Arabs might notice that equating Israel with Nazis doesn’t make sense, yet it is a very common accusation. The anti-Israel people got lots of their material straight from the Nazis and Mein Kampf, which has been a best-seller in those parts for years. They wave placards saying “Hitler was right!” Maybe they just realize that a swastika sets off a knee-jerk reaction in Westerners and for people who hate Israel the arguments don’t have to make sense.
sub
If we are to be honest, I think most of us here are, in all sincerity, afraid of Muslims. Muslims have an extensive recent history of reacting with deadly violence to those who criticize or mock Islam. You’d have to be an idiot not to fear violent attacks, and you’d also have to be an idiot to not realize that writing things like, “Fuck that pedophile Muhammad and the horse he flew off on,” — something I myself have expressed on multiple occasions — is exactly the sort of thing Muslims are prone to react to with murderous mayhem.
The Pope might pop me one in the nose for dissing his mother, but these Muslim cowards are all too eager to put a bullet in my brain for insulting their imaginary superfriend.
So, yeah. I’m an Islamophobe. Aren’t you?
Cheers,
b&
Hear hear!
Considering that phobias are irrational fears, I think perfectly rational ones like you describe above do not qualify. 😉
That’s exactly the thing. By calling it “Islamophobia” the insinuation is that this fear is completely irrational. Yet certainly a fear of (extremist) Islam is not irrational. Charlie Hebdo more than proved that (as if it needed more proof).
And to me even a general “fear” of Islam and religion in general is not irrational since it has been shown time and time again what actual damage can be done when religion (or other totalitarian views) takes a hold on our societies.
And still that does not mean I’m scared of- or angry at random islamic people on the street.
Terror ‘apologists’ must share blame – Hammond
Interesting link. Thanks.
What a stupid organization and what stupid awards.
What these morons don’t seem to see, or refuse to see although it’s right in front of them, is the fact that attacks by Muslims on those who mock or criticize Islam is perfect evidence of just why there IS something in Islam to be feared!
So far as “further endangering” of the Muslim population is concerned, they’ve got a lot more to fear from their fellow (?) Muslims than they do from the infidels…..I’m not seeing any evidence of an epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims anywhere in the “civilized” world, while Boko Harum and ISIS are busy wiping out entire villages of Christians.
Not just Christians. DAESH are wiping out villages of Sunni Muslims too because they won’t accept their authority. Muslims are in just as much danger as everyone else in the region.
Even people who smoke get their fingers chopped off!
I have a rather forlorn belief that in the fullness of time the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo killings from Muslims and much of the left will be considered a source of deep shame.
This is repugnant.
I really am astounded, how could any person think that it’s sane or in any way acceptable to award this to an organisation who has had twelve members of staff murdered by Islamists? The very people, one might’ve thought, to be justifiably very phobic of Islam.
I too am wary of Gellar but I do disagree with the idea of a mosque being built at ground zero, I think that’s in a similar vein to this award.
🐾
Ahh, my beautiful state of Oklahoma. It has been in the news often lately and never for anything good (unless you count the phenomenal Russell Westbrook of the Thunder). It’s hard to believe that Seth Andrews of the “The Thinking Atheist” podcast lives in Tulsa. I can attest to both Tulsa and Oklahoma City being home to many non-religious citizens, but not enough yet to make a real difference in our government. But, the generation of my children fill me with optimism. I don’t know anyone of that age that is devout. I hope that when the younger generations begin to take over the various official roles and government offices in Oklahoma things will begin a change for the better, regardless of how painful that journey may be for them, their children, and their grandchildren.
If you get away from the 2 big cities I suspect the devout are more prevalent. Heck, even in the cities they are likely to be large in number because all the christian schools, and there are a LOT of christian schools, are prospering greatly. Oklahoma has been characterized as the rhinestone on the buckle of the bible belt, but perhaps we’re not quite as bad as Texas?
There is nothing to explain, this is in the catagory of free-dumb speech. Nothing more and nothing less.
It’s not bigotry if it’s true. These people want carte blanche to behave like fools, and want the rest to applaud them while they do it. Easiest way? Blasphemy laws! Oh well.
Just take “Human” out of IHRC, and you will see where they’re going.
The IHRC is a Khomenist organization.
http://hurryupharry.org/2009/11/25/a-hearing-for-khomeinists/
https://efrafandays.wordpress.com/tag/islamic-human-rights-commission/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100023272/the-truth-about-the-islamic-human-rights-commission-recommended-by-britains-muslim-police/
http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.ae/2007/09/demonstrate-against-islamic-republic-of.html
“Staff at Charlie Hebdo were unable to accept the award as many of them had been murdered for mocking Mohammed.”
Somebody at Breitbart has a nice sense of irony.
Just about what you would expect from a definition and meaning as muddled as “Islamaphobe”. On a similar note, Islamists may like that the definition as so fuzzy as it means that whenever someone criticizes their beliefs, whether part of the religion or not, all they have to retort is that the person is “Islamophobic” rather than counter the points they have raised.
Maybe the word can be redefined as:
Islamophobia: choice word for the intellectually lazy.
*is so fuzzy
“We define ‘Islamophobia’ as meaning any remarks, about Islam or Muslims, that we want to take exception to.”
/@
Surely Islamic Human Rights Commission is an oxymoron?
The article mentions only Jordan, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine as feeding their populations a daily diet of Judeophobic vitriol. It misses out on mentioning Egypt, Syria, Qatar, Libya, Iraq etc.
Something that those who purport to represent muslims (I can’t speak for Muslims themselves)really don’t get, is the difference between respect for a religion and respect for the practitioners of said religion. Something else they really don’t get, is the concept of civil society.