Firstly, it is essential to define the term “phobia.” The word originates from the Greek term “phobos,” meaning fear or flight. The Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive record of the English language, defines ‘phobia’ as ‘a fear, horror, strong dislike, or aversion; esp. an extreme or irrational fear or dread aroused by a particular object or circumstance.’1 It is also crucial to examine how the two most authoritative sources define phobia clinically, as the term is a clinical term. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edition) (DSM-5), the standard reference used by clinicians and psychiatrists, defines a phobia as an irrational and persistent fear of specific objects, activities, or situations that pose little to no actual danger. 2 Similarly, the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), another globally recognised standard for defining health conditions, emphasises that phobias involve exaggerated, irrational fears of certain objects or situations.3
One might argue that ‘Islamophobia’ refers to an exaggerated, irrational fear of Islam and prejudice towards Muslims. However, it is important to critically assess whether negative sentiments towards Muslims fit the psychological criteria for a phobia. Several reasons suggest that Islamophobia may not meet the requirements for classification as a phobia:
- A phobia, as previously noted, is characterised by an irrational (note my italics) fear or aversion to things or situations that pose little to no actual danger.
While Muslims view their religion as fundamentally peaceful, an examination of Islam’s portrayal in various texts, such as the Quran and Hadiths, reveals elements of violence. Coupled with the historical record of Islam’s expansion through military campaigns, it becomes evident that violence has played a significant role in Islamic history and its global expansion, with ‘jihad’ frequently employed as a means of propagation. For those unfamiliar with the concept, ‘jihad’ is often defined as “struggling” or “striving.” While some scholars emphasise its non-violent aspects, it is important to acknowledge that they often overlook the historical context of Islamic expansion. This historical fact indicates that jihad has frequently been associated with violence, particularly in the context of territorial conquest and the spread of Islam. Although the term can encompass a range of meanings, including personal and spiritual struggles, its historical usage in relation to Islamic global success often connotes a more militant interpretation. Consequently, the fear associated with Islam may not be entirely irrational, as it is reasonable and valid to feel apprehensive about something that is dangerous or harmful.
I recognise that when confronted with questions about jihad, many Muslims often respond by referencing the Crusades. However, it is important to understand that the Crusades were launched as a response to centuries of Islamic expansion, invasion and abuse. The Crusades had a defensive nature rather than invasive and thus, represented a defensive measure taken by Christians to preserve their own communities and faith in the face of ongoing attacks. If a community is being invaded, it is entirely reasonable for its members to seek to preserve their own beliefs, culture, and way of life. In such a context, it was justifiable for Christians to have sought to defend their communities and faith against what they perceived as an ongoing invasion.
What is particularly concerning is that, unlike the Crusades, the concept of jihad remains as relevant in the 21st century as it was during Muhammad’s time in the 7th century. One does not need to be a scholar to recognise this reality. The occurrence of the biggest jihadist attack on European soil in Madrid on 11th March 2004 resulted in the death of 191 innocent civilians and over 2,000 injuries, the London bombings on 7th July 2005, which killed 52 individuals and injured over 700, and the coordinated terrorist strikes in the United States on 11th September 2001, which claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people, serve as stark reminders of this ongoing Islamic threat. These events are not exaggerations; they are historical facts that illustrate the contemporary implications of jihadist ideology. Given this historical context, it is perfectly rational for individuals to express concern about the growth of Islam in our Western nations. Such apprehension is not necessarily rooted in prejudice but rather arises from an awareness of the historical and contemporary associations between jihad and violence.
When addressing acts of terrorism, many Muslims often defend Islam by stating that such violence is carried out by radical extremists who do not reflect the true nature of Islam. However, a thorough reading of the Quran shows that certain verses, if followed to the letter, can be seen as not only justifying violent actions, but also encouraging them. This suggests that those who engage in terrorism are faithfully adhering to the core tenets of the religion as outlined in the text.
- The inability to differentiate between criticism and bigotry can stifle valid, constructive criticism of religious practices or ideologies that may conflict with human rights or liberal democratic values. It also prevents meaningful discussions by automatically casting dissent as a psychological disorder rather than an intellectual or ideological disagreement. This allows Muslims to weaponise the term Islamophobia to silence criticism of Islam or discussions about issues like Islamic terrorism, women’s rights in Islamic contexts, or free speech concerns. This further undermines its validity as a true phobia.
- There is no official clinical diagnosis of Islamophobia, making it more of a social or political term than one rooted in clinical psychology. Given the absence of a clinical definition, we must exercise caution in our use of the term; otherwise, we risk compromising the objectivity that is fundamental to the medical sciences.
It is important to note that not only is any criticism of Islam often incorrectly labelled as a phobia, but it is also frequently mischaracterised as racism. This could not be further from the truth, as Islam is not a race but an ideology, one that seeks to spread globally due to the belief among its adherents that it is Allah’s will. Muslims refer to their deity as Allah, though it is worth noting that this figure appears distinct from the God of the Bible. However, that distinction will be explored in a separate post.
As a Podiatrist, I find the prospect of being required to label a patient as suffering from ‘Islamophobia’ not only intellectually dishonest but also deeply troubling. In a clinical setting, the focus should be on medical issues rather than intertwining personal beliefs, ideologies, or political sentiments with healthcare. Medicine should remain neutral and objective, prioritising the health and well-being of patients without allowing external factors to influence clinical assessments. By introducing terms like Islamophobia into medical records, we risk undermining this objectivity and creating an environment where religious or political beliefs could overshadow genuine health concerns, which ultimately leads to poor patient care. It’s crucial for healthcare providers to maintain a clear distinction between medical conditions and social or ideological issues, ensuring that our focus remains solely on the physical and mental health of our patients.
In summary, integrating terms like Islamophobia into our society does a disservice to both patients and practitioners. It distracts from the fundamental goal of healthcare, which is to provide unbiased, effective treatment based on clinical evidence rather than social or political labels.
Given the historical context and the reasons outlined above, applying the term “phobia” to criticism, rational fear, or aversion towards Islam is inconsistent with its clinical definition. A phobia is characterised by an irrational and disproportionate fear which does not align with concerns grounded in historical and ideological realities. Therefore, the continued use of the term “Islamophobia” is not only inaccurate but also a misuse of the term in a clinical sense.
MOVING FORWARD
I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to immigration; in fact, the diversity it fosters can greatly enrich our societies. Additionally, I want to clarify that I do not claim that all Muslims are violent, as that would be both unreasonable and unjust. The focus of our discussion here is on the core teachings of Islam as reflected in the Quran, as well as relevant historical events and facts. However, there is growing concern that if current trends continue unchecked, we may increasingly find ourselves influenced by Islamic ideology, leading to a loss of the freedoms upon which Western societies were built. Freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democracy, is at risk. In many interpretations of Islamic law, criticism of the religion is limited and can be met with severe consequences. As the Muslim population grows, we must carefully examine the impact this may have on our fundamental rights.
The UK, Europe, and the USA have a proud tradition of welcoming those seeking a better life, and inclusivity is central to our identity. However, this hospitality should not come at the expense of our cultural values and freedoms. It seems that our leaders are either unaware of or reluctant to address this challenge.
The move to legalise restrictions on criticising Islam, under the guise of protecting individuals from perceived phobias, raises serious concerns about freedom of speech. The push to “protect” Islamic minorities could unintentionally undermine the very freedoms that define our societies. Protecting one group at the expense of another can lead to a slippery slope where dissenting voices are silenced in the name of “tolerance”, hampering healthy debate and leading to further division and resentment among communities.
The fear that one day we might find ourselves in the minority, subjected to laws that do not reflect our values, is a legitimate concern and cannot be ignored. The establishment of Sharia law in certain areas could signify a dramatic shift in our legal and cultural landscape, ultimately eroding the freedoms we cherish. If we allow the term ‘Islamophobia’ to dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse, we risk sacrificing intellectual, moral, and clinical integrity in favour of a narrative that, while seemingly “tolerant,” is ultimately deceptive.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ‘Phobia, n.’ Oxford English Dictionary, 19 July 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/4130674554.
- American Psychiatric Association (APA). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing., 2013.
- World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases. 11th ed. Geneva: WHO, 2019.
JGR is a follower of Jesus, and she delights in studying God’s Word, as well as encouraging others to deepen their relationship with Christ. She has attained a Certificate of Higher Education in Theology, Ministry, and Mission from Durham University and holds a Bachelor of Theology from the University of Oxford. Her theological education is distinguished by a robust academic emphasis on ancient Biblical languages (Hebrew and Greek) and Apologetics. Additionally, with her academic background in Art & Design and a Master of Science in Podiatry, she is dedicated to pursuing both fields when not composing works on Theology. In her leisure time, she enjoys reading, hiking, and cooking.
GREYES 