soc.culture.pakistan

Hating Islam Is the Same Thing as Hating Muslims
Iman Kurdi, Ik511@hotmail.com


“I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam.” Of course, these are not my words and certainly not my
sentiments. They are the words of a Dutch politician. I will not reveal his name, nor talk
about the film he is allegedly making, because I do not wish to pander to his need for media
attention, and I certainly do not wish to give his film free publicity. Besides, how can I have
a meaningful view about a film that no one has seen?

But his words exist; they are in the public sphere. In a newspaper interview this week, he
calls Islam “the ideology of a retarded culture” and goes on to say that “Islam is something we
can’t afford any more in the Netherlands. That means no more mosques, no more Islamic schools,
no more imams...Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.”

I suspect this is hitting many readers like a red rag to a bull, but I am keeping my calm for
the moment, aware that the man’s intention is to provoke me. Are his words offensive? Yes. Are
they insulting? Yes. Are they lies? Yes. His words anger me, but what strikes me most about
them is how familiar they seem. They are words we don’t normally hear from politicians or
people in the public sphere, but they are words you hear if you listen carefully on European
streets, and elsewhere too, I imagine.

So the first question I ask myself is this: If these views — as offensive as they are — exist,
should they be aired in public so that Muslims can at least have a chance to counter them, or
should they be outlawed? A second question is could a politician have uttered the same words
about another religion, say Christianity or Judaism? And finally, could anyone seriously make a
distinction between hating a religion and hating the people who profess its faith?

There is a fine line between expressing a view in order to open up a debate, and giving
credibility to a view by making it part of public discourse. The sentence “I hate Islam” is one
that will shock regardless of whether or not you are a Muslim. I suspect most Dutch people,
even those who feel threatened by immigration or who hold negative views about Islam, will
respond negatively to the strong emotive nature of the words used. It is not acceptable to hate
a religion. If anything, the politician has scored something of an own goal by using these
words. Far more worrying in terms of impact is the rest of his discourse, in particular the
sentence: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims”. It is of
concern because it is fast becoming a mainstream view.

So is it true? I say no without hesitating because in my mind those who commit murder in the
name of Islam are not Muslims, but I concede that this is a facile argument. The academic
answer I am assured is also no. If you do a head count of terrorists on the planet past and
present, you will find that Muslims do not make up the majority. I have not done a head count
and nor do I wish to. It is sadly a reality that we regularly see terrorist acts committed by
people born Muslims and it is also sadly a reality that in the eyes of many, violence is
becoming a significant part of what defines Islam. I may see Islam as a religion of peace but
that is no longer a majority view in the West. So, to return to the question in hand, I prefer

to see a sentence like this one out in the public domain, as it refers to an issue that needs
to be debated and refuted. Do I think an intelligent debate is forthcoming? Possibly not,
certainly not if we focus on being offended instead of focusing on explaining why such comments
are offensive.

Could a European politician have made these comments about another religion? As a rule of
thumb, laws are tough against racism and relatively more lenient toward attacking religious
beliefs. Hence the politician would not only have committed political suicide if he had said he
hated Jews, but would also have opened himself up to being prosecuted. Since Islam, and
Christianity too for that matter, are religions but not races, offending Muslims or Christians
does not carry the same weight as offending Sikhs or Jews. Add the current political equation
to the mix and it seems evident that it would be unthinkable to see this kind of language used
about any religion other than Islam in today’s political climate. Criticizing Islam is not the
same as attacking Muslims. The first may be offensive to most Muslims but is acceptable to most
Westerners. It may be unacceptable to many Muslims reading this piece but in countries where
freedom of speech is a fundamental value, criticizing a religion is considered healthy.

Frankly, I sometimes find it hard to understand the knee-jerk reaction I often see at any hint
of disagreement. Islam is far too great a religion to be damaged by a little debate. Reading
points of view I disagree with does not cause even a hairline fracture in my religious beliefs.
Quite the contrary. The more I challenge my beliefs, the more convincing they become and surely
that is how faith should be.

But the Dutch politician was careful with his words. He did not say he hated Muslims, he said
he hated Islam. In his view, he is merely criticizing an ideology, not attacking a people. But
when I read his words I felt personally attacked. He is not criticizing my religion; he is
expressing hate in the set of beliefs that makes me a Muslim. He is very clearly expressing
hatred for Muslims and his affirming the contrary only makes it all the more offensive to
Muslims. His words not only offend me but more importantly threaten me. I accept being
offended. I do not accept being hated for what I believe in.