Islamophobia?

A phobia, in my canvassing of sources, is commonly defined as an irrational fear of something, also often described as an intense and persistent fear. Islamophobia, then, would be an irrational fear of Islam; so, is it irrational to fear Islam?

Life in our world often involves living with irreconcilable differences. Sometimes these issues become muted or even resolved over time. With others, potential resolution is difficult to imagine. Still, we continue to live our lives, just far enough removed for the moment, although that often seems to become harder and harder.

Conflicts that historically loomed large have achieved resolution often arriving at that end after cataclysmic confrontation, an example being World War II bringing resolution to the Allies’ irreconcilable differences with Nazi and Japanese imperial conquests, while the Cold War (fortunately) calmed the West’s differences with the imperial Soviet Union without open warfare. There are hundreds of other examples in the  Lists of wars, many of which brought only temporary agreement.

What is it that makes Islam incompatible with the West? Western society, birthed from a Judeo-Christian heritage, has also peacefully and successfully accommodated other socio-cultural traditions, including Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc. Admittedly, those acceptances have come after periods in Western history that were often marked by antagonism.  But Islam, while colonizing in the West, remains at best aloof and problematic.

Mohammed designed Islam to be both his exercise in omnipotent self-aggrandizement as well as an infinitely self-perpetuating ideology (or religion, if you must). And as he declared himself the one true prophet, dissent from what he proclaimed is not in good faith possible and must be dealt with without compromise. All of Mohammedism is designed to preserve and protect the system, and the multiple daily prayers serve as daily reminders of each mujahideen’s place in what is a grand whole, with little regard for the individual.

Robert Spencer noted in An Islamic Scholar’s Telling Admission:

Al-Suwaidan [Islamic scholar and Muslim Brotherhood leader – ed.] then offered a succinct and telling enunciation of Islamic values: ‘Preserving life is not the only objective of the shari’a – these include the preserving of religion, life, lineage, intellect, and property. These are the main objectives of the shari’a. Which one of these objectives has higher priority? It is preserving religion, not preserving life. This is why there is a thing called ‘Jihad.’ If preserving life had the priority, there would be no Jihad – we would abolish it. Preserving religion takes priority over preserving life.”

A key takeaway is, “Preserving religion takes priority over preserving life.” This is what sublimates individuality under Islam, and simultaneously sanctions harsh, often violent, actions against infidels and apostates, up to and including death. Islam has a long and continuous history of proselytizing by the sword. Non-believers are generally not accorded mutual respect, although taquiyya allows for temporary dissimulation in pursuit of Islamic goals.

But a disconcerting aspect of Islam is that, unlike other religions we see in the West that treat government as secular (“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”), it incorporates an Islamic state into governance, and with it comes Sharia law.

Looking into Sharia Law finds sites such as The Halal Times that attempt to explain it in terms at which Westerners might not blanch. It does give some helpful information, such as mentioning the Quran and the Hadith as sources, as well as listing the following set of goals of Sharia:

1. Protection of Faith (Deen): Preserving religious freedom and practices.

2. Protection of Life (Nafs): Safeguarding human life with dignity.

3. Protection of Intellect (‘Aql): Encouraging education and prohibiting intoxicants that cloud judgment.

4. Protection of Family (Nasl): Supporting the sanctity of marriage and lineage.

5. Protection of Wealth (Mal): Ensuring fair trade and protecting property rights.

And it outlines five major schools of thought  used to interpret Sharia principles:

1. Hanafi School

• Known for its adaptability and use of reason.

• Followers: Turkey, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Central Asia.

2. Shafi’i School

• Emphasizes the Quran and Hadith while limiting personal reasoning.

• Followers: Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen, and parts of East Africa.

3. Maliki School

• Considers the practices of Medina’s early Muslim community as a key source of law.

• Followers: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.

4. Hanbali School

• Advocates strict adherence to texts, minimizing personal interpretation.

• Followers: Saudi Arabia, and parts of Qatar.

5. Ja’fari School (Shia Islam)

• Unique to Shia Muslims, focusing on reason guided by the teachings of imams.

• Followers: Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, parts of Lebanon.

While that website, as with similar others, tries to present Sharia in neutral – “reasonable’ – terms, reading that should give any free-thinking Westerner pause. Never is it a good idea for government to determine religion. And we’ve all heard of the extremes of Sharia that include a distinct lack of the civil rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution, combined with a penal structure that is barbaric by contemporary standards.

A fuller description of Sharia can be read at the Britannica, but here’s a snapshot.

Offenses against another person, from homicide to assault, are punishable by retaliation (qiṣāṣ), the offender being subject to precisely the same treatment as the victim. This type of offense is regarded as a civil injury rather than a crime in the technical sense, since it is not the state but only the victim or the victim’s family who has the right to prosecute and to opt for compensation or blood money (diyah) in place of retaliation.

For a handful of specific crimes, the punishment is fixed (ḥadd): death for apostasy, amputation of the hand for theft and of the hand and foot for highway robbery, death by stoning for extramarital sexual relations (zinā) when the offender is married and 100 lashes when the offender is unmarried, and 80 lashes for an unproved accusation of unchastity (qadhf) and for the drinking of any intoxicant.

Additionally, while widely accepted in the West, homosexuality incurs various sanctions in Islamic countries, up to capital punishment in Iran and ISIS-controlled land. Women do not fare well under Sharia; a rape conviction requires either a confession or two male witnesses and if a woman reports such, she runs a risk of prosecution for unlawful sex. Pregnancy is considered proof of sexual activity.

Islamic Wills offers an acknowledgement that Sharia is lacking in human rights and recognizes that no concrete reform is at hand:

The relationship between Sharia Law and human rights is a complex and often contentious topic. Critics argue that certain interpretations of Sharia may conflict with universal human rights principles, particularly concerning issues such as gender equality, freedom of expression, and the rights of religious minorities. For instance, some Sharia-compliant legal systems may impose restrictions on women’s rights in areas such as inheritance, testimony, and marital autonomy. These interpretations have sparked debates about the compatibility of Sharia Law with modern human rights standards.

From the The Halal Times comes:

In Western countries, some fear Shariah as an attempt to establish Islamic law alongside or above local laws. For Muslims in the West, Shariah primarily serves as a personal guide for ethical living. It helps in family matters, dietary practices, and worship, not as an alternative to local legal systems.

That is, until Shariah can supersede the local legal system? Even without that caveat, it isn’t easy to have parallel legal systems on a permanent basis. When would Shariah be a contender for becoming the law in Western societies? At what level of the Muslim population?

For the last decade, Muslim immigration to Europe has been at high levels, at least since the likes of Angela Merkel threw open borders. As the Islamic colonizers' numbers have grown, we increasingly hear of behavior disrespectful of European customs and culture and abusive of the indigenous Europeans. And the North American experience is not far behind.

At the same time, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world today. According to the Pew Research Center, this is largely due to Islamic fertility rates being above everybody else’s around the world, plus the fact that they comprise a younger demographic. Islam shares its Abrahamic naissance with Judaism and Christianity, and like them it prescribes family structures that allow for the nurturing of the next generation. It’s been reported that American minority women may be attracted to Islam because Islam places much value on the strength of family. A Muslim husband, although allowed to have up to four wives, is obligated to take care of his wives and children. Although Islamic culture is not producing legions of fatherless sons, many of the recent Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are solo males.

A continuing source of cultural friction stems from humanity’s competing desires for individual freedom and liberty vs. collective predictability and the illusion of security. Today, it is primarily Marxism or Islam that denies individuality a rightful place in society, and a, to me, surprising (is it really surprising?) number of people seem to prefer being subjects of an omnipotent collective leadership. Life can seem easier the less one has to think for oneself.

Of course, the leadership of either Marxist or Islamic societies only becomes such through individual pursuit and usually enjoys relief from the strictures under which their masses must live. While hypocritical, that condition seems unavoidable in the collective because somebody has to make governing decisions.

Noted above are several, not all, sociocultural traditions and religious practices that peacefully coexist in the West and I think much of the mutual accommodation that requires came about through continued proximity. That can ameliorate conflict, but can proximity have that effect when one culture is an omnipresent monolith?

There are, of course, some cracks in that singularity, such as the implacable discord between Sunni and Shia Islam. And I have noticed on the dating sites that some women describe themselves as both Muslim and social drinkers.

I don’t know if Islam’s internal tumult will serve to forestall the emergence of a Western Caliphate of an Islamic colonial empire, but it’s certainly not irrational to feel developments merit monitoring, at the least.