While I would expect to see the term “Islamophobia” thrown around for the purpose of Muslim apologetics, I never expected to see that term thrown around for the purpose of Christian apologetics – until I saw a video by Acts 17 Apologetics in which David Wood did exactly that. Wood uses twisted pseudo-logic to suggest that the real Islamophobes are moderate and liberal Muslims – and that the only way for them to escape Islamophobia is to either become radical, fundamentalist Muslims or to leave Islam altogether. This suggestion goes beyond his channel’s usual absurdity into the realm of the down-right creepy – which meant that it was time for me to make a response video in which I took his argument apart and showed how it is complete and utter nonsense. So I did exactly that.
Properly used – the term “Islamophobia” refers to attempts to target Muslims (and/or people who get mistaken for or otherwise mixed up with Muslims) for discrimination or other mistreatment just for being Muslim (or for having gotten mixed up with Muslims). It also can properly be used to cases where criticism of Islam clearly goes beyond that which is reasonable – namely cases where the person criticizing Islam is clearly at the same time giving a free-pass to other religions (such as Christianity) doing the exact same thing.
However, while there exist these proper uses of the term – the term can also be thrown around for invalid, even harmful purposes – such as silencing even the most legitimate of criticism of Islam. That said, while I would expect to see the term “Islamophobia” thrown around for the purpose of Muslim apologetics, I never expected to see that term thrown around for the purpose of Christian apologetics – until I saw a video by Acts 17 Apologetics in which David Wood did exactly that. Wood uses twisted pseudo-logic to suggest that the real Islamophobes are moderate and liberal Muslims – and that the only way for them to escape Islamophobia is to either become radical, fundamentalist Muslims or to leave Islam altogether. This suggestion goes beyond his channel’s usual absurdity into the realm of the down-right creepy – which meant that it was time for me to make a response video in which I took his argument apart and showed how it is complete and utter nonsense. So I did exactly that.
The main fallacy that I identify in David Wood’s argument is one known as “Equivocation”, which someone commits by switching between two or more definitions of a single term throughout the course of an argument in order to conceal flaws in reasoning. David Wood does that with the word “Islam” which he uses in some parts of his argument to refer to moderate and/or liberal Islam and in other parts to refer to radical, fundamentalist Islam.
I also discuss how even when David Wood criticizes actual, real problems that exist in Islam, he still is logically inconsistent if he gives Christianity a free pass for the same or similar abusiveness – a practice that would not further the goal of ending religious oppression altogether (which would be a good goal) but rather, of replacing oppression by one religion with oppression by another (which would not be progress at all).
You can watch my response video on YouTube.
