Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia

[Thanas]

People should be criticizing Islam as much as the facts allow, just like any other religion.

[PainRack]

Ever the drama queen, Stephen Fry is scared shitless:

Sadly we live in more worrying times. Phobos is the Greek for fear. Am I afraid of certain fanatical Christians, Muslims, Lord’s Resistance Army fighters or any other group like that? You bet your cute keister I’m afraid. I am afraid of anyone who hates me and everything I stand for and wants me and the civilisation I grew up in destroyed. I am afraid of any state or religious endorsed brute squad that suddenly smashes my door down at three in the morning and drags me to the wall to be shot. I am afraid of any group of people wherever they’re from and whomever they do or don’t worship who see justification for explosions that cause human blood to run like rivers down the streets.

Because being in the UK means he has so much to fear from fanatical Third Worlders and their primitive religions. This reminds me of the claim made by his whiskey-drenched, holocaust-denying buddy, Christopher Hitchens, who claimed he was on the front lines of the war against "Islamofascism" because he lived in a D.C. suburb and the Pentagon wasn't too far away and...

I don't know where Fry finds the courage to go on living.

You're fucking kidding me Elfdart......

Stephen Fry gets called an islamoPHOBE.

He uses that term he's being called at to highlight exactly what he's targeting. IE, he doesn't fear muslim, he fears brutes and killers.

He even makes it clear. The thing he's afraid of is?
violentsuicidallyfanatichatefilledkillerofpeopletheyhaventevenmet-ophobe

But an Islamophobe? He doesn't want to claim that title.

NOW, the problem was that Dawkins and I dare say Fry initial twitter comments lack context, context that a fuller post might have given and prevents call of racism. But that's the medium of twitter and frankly, I dare say nobody would have cared to elaborate in so much detail to defend himself in the first place.

[mr friendly guy]

So Fry proves he isn't afraid of criticising Islam by criticising their fanatics. He is then called an Islamophobe. Can't win can you?

Also Fry mentions Dawkins is accused of not being brave enough to confront Islam. Are these people for real? Have they not heard of his doco the Root of all Evil. Or better yet just scour youtube to see Dawkins lay into Islam apologists.

[Channel72]

You're allowed to criticise the islamic world as much as you want. And other people are allowed to call you privileged, imperialist douchecanoes for it as well if they think it fits. Can't deal with that? Tough titties, that's Free Speech for you.

This is silly. I'm a privileged first-world American, which is awesome. I regularly pay like $4.00 just for a fucking mediocre Soy Latte. That has pretty much nothing to do with the behavior of radical Islamic fundamentalists. There is no shortage of third-world hell-holes which have been fucked over by Western aggression which AREN'T doing things like blowing up the World Trade Center and regularly setting off car bombs in Baghdad. India and most of Sub-Saharan Africa are also victims of Western Imperialism, and everytime some stupid religious idiot in some remote Indian village sets his daughter on fire, we rightly criticize it, because it's retarded.

So why, again, is Islam so deserving of protection from criticism? Can we ever criticize Islam without having to qualify that criticism with statements to the effect of "Christianity and Judaism ALSO suck..."?

An overall analysis of the situation reveals this:

• (1) Abrahamic-based religions are incredibly harmful, due to their exclusivist mentality and roots in extremely violent, Bronze Age Hebrew tribalism
  
  (2) Christianity is particularly harmful because it takes the tribal exclusivist mentality of Judaism and elevates it to a COSMIC scale, where the whole Universe is a spiritual battlefield where the losers are sent to burn for eternity, creating a sense of desperate righteousness that can be used to justify acts of violence
  
  (3) Islam is particularly harmful because not only does it inherit the radical eschatology and exclusivism of Christianity, but certain Koranic verses are extremely amenable to justifying acts of violence, provided that such violence can be subjectively justified as "protecting" Islam. Terrorism, mass-murder, etc., anything can be justified this way.

There's no reason we should be allowed to mention (1) and (2), without mentioning (3). Historical Western aggression and power differential are interesting factors to talk about, but nothing about European or American imperialism changes the fact that (3) is true, and has been used to justify mass-slaughters of pagan peoples well before the colonial era.

It should also be noted that Islam's entire existence is a result of military aggression and conquest. That doesn't make it particularly worse than Christianity, but it does create a bit of hilarious irony that a religion based on bloodshed is now immune to criticism simply because the Western World is currently bullying everyone around in this century.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's also extremely idiotic to make the assumption that criticizing Islamic radicals/fundamentalists/whateveryouwanttocallthem carries with it an implicit approval for Western imperialist/colonialist actions. Just because someone says that the actions of, say, al-Qaeda are bad doesn't also mean that they are saying that the actions of America are good. The latter does not follow logically from the former.

It's like saying that anybody who criticizes the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars must love the Emperor, for a completely innocuous analogy. Despite what some people seem to imply in this thread, it IS possible to have a complex, multifaceted view of the world. Criticizing something does not necessarily entail the blind acceptance of other ideas.

Has Western criticism of the third world ever lead to any sort of improvement without causing mass murder and economic devastation along the way? And if it has, does the balance pan out compared to all the bad that's come from it?

So I assume you can prove that every single time anybody in the West has criticized an aspect of a foreign culture or society it has led to something bad? Just because bad actions have been committed in the name of certain criticisms does not necessarily mean those criticisms were off base in the first place, nor does it preclude our ability to make other criticisms.

[Scrib]

Ever the drama queen, Stephen Fry is scared shitless:

Sadly we live in more worrying times. Phobos is the Greek for fear. Am I afraid of certain fanatical Christians, Muslims, Lord’s Resistance Army fighters or any other group like that? You bet your cute keister I’m afraid. I am afraid of anyone who hates me and everything I stand for and wants me and the civilisation I grew up in destroyed. I am afraid of any state or religious endorsed brute squad that suddenly smashes my door down at three in the morning and drags me to the wall to be shot. I am afraid of any group of people wherever they’re from and whomever they do or don’t worship who see justification for explosions that cause human blood to run like rivers down the streets.

Because being in the UK means he has so much to fear from fanatical Third Worlders and their primitive religions. This reminds me of the claim made by his whiskey-drenched, holocaust-denying buddy, Christopher Hitchens, who claimed he was on the front lines of the war against "Islamofascism" because he lived in a D.C. suburb and the Pentagon wasn't too far away and...

I don't know where Fry finds the courage to go on living.

You're fucking kidding me Elfdart......

Stephen Fry gets called an islamoPHOBE.

He uses that term he's being called at to highlight exactly what he's targeting. IE, he doesn't fear muslim, he fears brutes and killers.

He even makes it clear. The thing he's afraid of is?
violentsuicidallyfanatichatefilledkillerofpeopletheyhaventevenmet-ophobe

But an Islamophobe? He doesn't want to claim that title.

NOW, the problem was that Dawkins and I dare say Fry initial twitter comments lack context, context that a fuller post might have given and prevents call of racism. But that's the medium of twitter and frankly, I dare say nobody would have cared to elaborate in so much detail to defend himself in the first place.

Then how bout you don't make statements like that on Twitter? Seriously, it's a shit medium, if you break any global, multicultural entity and it's issues down to fit into a pithy remark with 100-something characters you're going to have problems.

[Zwinmar]

Do people not realize that Islam was spread through Imperialism? "Traditionally" Muslim countries are only so because they were forced to become so or die. But people always forget that part. They are no better than any other religion and deserve to be criticized for it, as does every other bronze age barbarism, or neo-bronze age barbarism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Considering the history of what happens every time Europe and America have found something to criticise about the third world, considering how much scrutiny they get to the point of deception compared to the real sins of the world powers, yes, I do think there should be extra leeway given there. Has Western criticism of the third world ever lead to any sort of improvement without causing mass murder and economic devastation along the way? And if it has, does the balance pan out compared to all the bad that's come from it?

There is a really really big difference between "I say Old Chap, let us read too much Kipling, shoulder the White Man's Burden and civilize those people whom we have, on the basis of language differences and skin color, classified as inferior. Thus, we can tell ourselves we are helping while we strip mine their country"

and

"What the hell are you guys doing with those bombs? Hey guys, we have been through this Decades of Internecine Warfare Over Religion thing and it never ends well. Stahp. Hey, you know, your society would be a lot better off if you let women be... you know... people. Speaking of which, what are you doing with that 7 year old girl, and that piece of sharp glass?

Ok. Ok. Look, that shit you are doing, that shit you feel is justified by your religion and various cultural practices that predate your religion? It is fucked up, it hurts people, and it holds you back as a group of civilizations. We know, because our religion etc held us back the same way, and we did all sorts of rancid shit back in our pre-industrial period... and in fact during our industrial period... that we justified at least in part with religion. Take it from us... calm the heck down about it. You will be happier."

Those are two very different sets of statements. And no, I dont have a problem saying that killing people is fucked up. There is a lot of shit about the developing world we ought not criticize because of our history of imperialism, and the problems it caused. For example, Kleptocratic governments are something I expect, and while I am perfectly happy to offer a helping hand, I am not going to rail against it, per se. However, I find it rather difficult to excuse FGM, torture, or slavery, or certain OTHER things that happen in the developing world(and indeed, my own country is not spared this criticism WRT torture and slavery). Sorry. If you think those things are excusable because the big bad imperialists completely removed the ability of various people's to have a conscience, I must politely tell you to go fuck yourself. Earlier in history, these things were Outside Context Problems. They are not anymore, and have not been for a long time.

[PainRack]

Do people not realize that Islam was spread through Imperialism? "Traditionally" Muslim countries are only so because they were forced to become so or die. But people always forget that part. They are no better than any other religion and deserve to be criticized for it, as does every other bronze age barbarism, or neo-bronze age barbarism.

Ok. While Stephen Fry statement is not grounds for bigotry, yours is.

You combined a stereotype with blind ignorance of the facts, which is seperated from Dawkins historical claims on how there are less Muslim science laudrates since Islam became fundamentalist. Dawkins statement is too blind, too out of context, has a stereotype that makes it bad and ignores how economics and factors like the Mongol invasion has on society, taking wholesale the cultural religious impact of Islam and ignores the complex, multi-factorial blah blah blah, but the general statement? Its generally true. UNLIKE YOURS.

Indonesia, the world most populous muslim nation, had religion spread by trading and inter-marriage. There were conquest of areas like Java by muslim states, but its a complex mix and saying that Islam spread to the region via Imperialism? Wrong.

The term forced to become so or die also ignores the context of dhimini and its application in the Arab states or Islam and its practice in India.


Labelling an entire religion as imperialist, labelling every muslim country as being so because it was converted through the sword? Its equivalent to me claiming that because Christianity was spread relatively peacefully during the Roman Empire, Christianity is the religion of peace. Factually wrong, stereotypical and blind.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC historically most of the invasions and forceful conquering of regions by Muslim caliphates was only after several decades of peaceful spread of Islam to those regions in the first place, until a substantial portion of the population were Muslims already. So saying that Islam was being spread "through the sword" is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak; in most cases, the expansion of those Islamic states was more about consolidating existing Muslims than creating new ones.

[Channel72]

Labelling an entire religion as imperialist, labelling every muslim country as being so because it was converted through the sword? Its equivalent to me claiming that because Christianity was spread relatively peacefully during the Roman Empire, Christianity is the religion of peace. Factually wrong, stereotypical and blind.

Oh please... Zwinmar is obviously referring to the original Arab conquest which destroyed the Sassanian Empire and forcefully converted hundreds of thousands of pagan peoples to Islam via the sword. That's how Islam started. Yes, not everyone was converted via the sword, but why are you downplaying the large swathes of people who were?

And again... nobody is saying Christianity was peacefully spread through Europe.

[PainRack]

Labelling an entire religion as imperialist, labelling every muslim country as being so because it was converted through the sword? Its equivalent to me claiming that because Christianity was spread relatively peacefully during the Roman Empire, Christianity is the religion of peace. Factually wrong, stereotypical and blind.

Oh please... Zwinmar is obviously referring to the original Arab conquest which destroyed the Sassanian Empire and forcefully converted hundreds of thousands of pagan peoples to Islam via the sword. That's how Islam started. Yes, not everyone was converted via the sword, but why are you downplaying the large swathes of people who were?

And again... nobody is saying Christianity was peacefully spread through Europe.

Except for one thing. Those nations traditionally associated with Islam? The world LARGEST muslim state? Indonesia. Malaysia is also one of the world most populous muslim state.

[Zwinmar]

I combined a stereotype with blind ignorance huh? How about you got buy a history book detailing how Mohamed spread his desert hallucination in the first place. Or maybe look up what happened one generation later after he died. Or perhaps look up what happened to everyone else who refused to convert.

I can not and will not condone religion, of any kind even Pastafarian, spread by forced conversion. Everyone can believe what they wish, right up until they try to force it on another.

[Darth Yan]

There were plent of times they willing converted. Jews and Christians also kept (relative) rights and weren't forced to convert a lot of the time. Those who say that Islam only spread through force conversion is either a.) A liar b.) a racist c.) a racist idiot.

[JLTucker]

"Islamophobia" is a term coined by cowards who won't admit that followers of Islam, much like followers of Christianity, are uncivilized barbarians.

Is this statement good enough for the atheists on the board? Does this satiate your every desire to hate all things religion?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I can't tell how much of what you're saying is sarcasm, but for those who agree with the literal interpretation of it:

Labeling peoples as uncivilised savage barbarians has a great track record behind it, doesn't it?

[Spekio]

In my personal experience, people throw arround the term islamophobia (or christophobia, for that matter) as a way to saying that your criticism is founded only by prejudice - by nature, irration. Trying to equate it, for instance, with homophobia.

I think Islam is a shitty religion. Christianism is too, mind you. Only people shy away from criticising it for fear of being perceived as intolerant.

[DarkArk]

The world LARGEST muslim state? Indonesia.

Which is also not generally associated with Islam in most Westerner's minds.

Except for one thing.

Congratulations, you have discovered the exception that proves the rule. Egypt, Syria, Persia, North Africa, Spain, Turkey, and the Indian subcontinent were all brought Islam by conquering armies.

Jews and Christians also kept (relative) rights and weren't forced to convert a lot of the time.

Which was only a thing because if the Muslims hadn't they'd have been thrown out of their newly conquered territories immediately. If the only way to survive is to be "good" I don't think you should get points for it. The Pact of Umar might seem nice and generous now, but it was a political necessity on the part of the new Muslim rulers.

[Thanas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC historically most of the invasions and forceful conquering of regions by Muslim caliphates was only after several decades of peaceful spread of Islam to those regions in the first place, until a substantial portion of the population were Muslims already. So saying that Islam was being spread "through the sword" is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak; in most cases, the expansion of those Islamic states was more about consolidating existing Muslims than creating new ones.

No. Islam was quite literally spread by the sword into the Eastern Roman Empire, The Sassanid Empire, Spain and Southern Italy. None of those regions had Muslim populations before.

[cosmicalstorm]

I've been encountering the notion that you need to be of <insert race, sex, subculture> in order to be allowed to have an opinion on a subject quite a lot lately. I find it very disturbing. Does anyone even know what it means to "be aware of ones white privileges"? I have been told or heard of this very thing on a number of occasions and I literally don't know what it means. What am I supposed to do?

[Ralin]

I've been encountering the notion that you need to be of <insert race, sex, subculture> in order to be allowed to have an opinion on a subject quite a lot lately. I find it very disturbing. Does anyone even know what it means to "be aware of ones white privileges"? I have been told or heard of this very thing on a number of occasions and I literally don't know what it means. What am I supposed to do?

Mostly it means recognizing all the crap that you don't have to deal with because you're white/male/straight/whatever.

It's a good principle, but there's such a thing as going overboard with it, especially when it's used to declare that certain people's opinions don't matter because of who they are.

[cosmicalstorm]

Can you tell me what it means? What do I physically do in a conversation to show this? Flog myself over the back? I just don't get it.

Are there any other privileges that I should be aware of? Does this logic apply to other ethnic groups or is it only for whites?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

It's a good principle, but there's such a thing as going overboard with it, especially when it's used to declare that certain people's opinions don't matter because of who they are.

The reason for that is that in general, the voice of the privileged is already the current narrative, it tends to be listened to the most over the oppressed even though the oppressed have a better perspective on the situation, it intrudes even into safe spaces for the oppressed, and people get upset if you so much as tell them to not be quite as much of a dick so might as well go whole hog here.

Can you tell me what it means? What do I physically do in a conversation to show this? Flog myself over the back? I just don't get it.

It means exactly what it says. To "check" one's privilege, as in to be aware of it, and act accordingly. To know how your life is different being part of a privileged oppressor class in some ways, even if you're not on other ways. For example, a gay black cis man still has male and cis privilege, could have others too, but by being gay and black is part of two other oppressed classes. It's also an examination how they all can interact.

[Ralin]

Can you tell me what it means? What do I physically do in a conversation to show this? Flog myself over the back? I just don't get it.

It's a fancy way of saying you should step back and take into account the way being white (not having to worry about racism in any major way)/male (not being constantly judged by your appearance and considered a bitch if you're the least bit assertive)/straight (when's the last time you were worried about being assaulted because of your sexuality?) informs your the way you see and react to things, and trying to see it from the perspective of people who do have to deal with all that.

Really it, like many things, boils down to not being an arrogant dick. Non-Tumblrites aren't going to expect you to apologize on behalf of your sex or whatever, but isn't it obvious why you should make the effort to understand these sort of differences?

Are there any other privileges that I should be aware of? Does this logic apply to other ethnic groups or is it only for whites?

Yes, and when you get down to it it's pretty situational, so you can talk about non-handicapped privilege (being able to go up stairs because you're not in a wheelchair) or, say, Chinese privilege (if you're an ethnically Chinese person in Hong Kong, as opposed to Southeast Asian guest workers).

Some corners of the internet take it to silly extremes because there's always someone who wants attention, but the principle is sound.

[Simon_Jester]

It's very situational; in my current job, my life might actually be a bit simpler if I were black, but were otherwise the same person.

On the other hand, in other parts of my life, my being a black guy doing exactly the same things might have annoyed or frightened people a lot more, and got me into more trouble, so yeah, checking privilege is a real and reasonable thing.