AfD's religious criticism is simply Muslim-bashing in disguise

When Germans mention "Islamophobia", the role of the country's right-wing party AfD (Alternative fur Deutschland / Alternative for Germany) is always part of the issue. The party insists its views on Islam constitute a form of religious criticism and are thus protected by the right to freedom of expression. But many accuse the party of fomenting latent resentment.

The real question then is whether what the AfD says in statements, interviews and its party programmes can in fact be considered religious criticism – or whether this assertion merely serves as a cover for fundamental hostility towards Islam and those identifying as Muslims.  

Where does religious criticism end and Islamophobia begin? The distinction – apart from overtly criminal statements or actions – remains controversial. 

In the AfD's 2016 party agenda, "criticism of religion" and "criticism of Islam" are mentioned in the same breath: "Criticism of religion, including criticism of Islam, is lawful under general legislation as part of the basic right to freedom of expression. (...) The AfD supports the efforts of critics of Islam to educate others about Islam, to initiate reforms within the Muslim community, and to adapt Islam to conform to the norms and values of enlightened modernity."

AfD deputy party leader Beatrix von Storch said in a newspaper interview that Islam was "a political ideology that is not compatible with the Constitution". Nicolaus Fest , a former journalist at Springer and now a member of the interim executive committee of the Berlin AfD, also made a public statement after joining the party: "I consider Islam less a religion, than a totalitarian movement that is more akin to Stalinism or Nazism." Islam does not separate state and religion, he said, and is therefore a political ideology. The AfD party agenda takes a similar stance: "Minarets are to be forbidden as signs of Islamic rule, as is the muezzin call, according to which there is no other god but Allah." 

Criticism of Islam sounds better than Islamophobia

This is a commonplace sleight of hand used by critics of Islam. First, Islam is deprived of its status as a religion. Then it is classified as a political ideology. The next step is to emphasise one's own unqualified commitment to freedom of religion, conscience and creed – but not in relation to Islam, because these constitutional rights do not apply to a political ideology.

For the AfD, the relationship between its "Islam-critical" positions and criticism of religion is clear. The party members view their own statements as "critical of Islam" and not "hostile to Islam". They believe they are well within the boundaries of religious criticism, and so statements on Islam are covered by freedom of expression.

This apparent clarity dissolves, though, as soon as we consider both Muslim and non-Muslim reactions to the AfD's statements. They are in fact not perceived at all merely as religious criticism, but are often seen instead as veritable "Islam-bashing", as "Islamophobic" and also quite frequently as "critical of Islam". The nuances are by no means without semantic consequences. The term "criticism of Islam" has much more legitimacy than the term "Islamophobia". In order to draw a line between the two terms, it is helpful to first of all focus on the question of whether religious criticism is in fact present here at all.Three basic forms of religious criticism

There are three basic forms of religious criticism. We speak of religious criticism from within in the case of a direct engagement with the contents of a religion, the goal being its improvement  ̶ including in competition with other religions. Religious criticism from within comes from the community of faith and arises out of solidarity with it. This type of criticism views the religion positively in principle, but finds certain aspects troublesome.

Then there is interreligious criticism, in which the rivalry between religions is in the foreground, in other words, a type of criticism originating from the so-called religious spirit, referring not to one's own religious tradition, but to other religions.

Both religious criticism from within and interreligious criticism are thus religiously motivated. In addition, there is also religious criticism that is fundamentally against religion per se and denies it any credibility or justification. This type of criticism is referred to as external or even fundamental criticism of religion. An atheist standpoint outside religion is usually taken here as a vantage point for attempts at appraising, analysing and explaining religion.

Some scholars of religion, such as Perry Schmidt-Leukel from the University of Munster, distinguish between another three basic forms within this fundamental critique of religion. The truth of religious content may be disputed "with respect to the belief in the existence of a transcendent, divine reality". Or religion is seen as a phenomenon that is contrary to human self-development. The third type of critique, subsumed under the catchword "New Atheism", not only denies the truth of religious statements, but also refuses to recognise any cognitive meaning in them at all, thus rejecting such statements as "incomprehensible false assertions".

It is obvious that the critique of Islam voiced by the AfD can be seen neither as interreligious nor as religious criticism from within. But nor can the party claim that it is exercising a fundamental critique of religion. Because the AfD does not consider itself to be an areligious or anti-religious party.

On the contrary, its representatives refer quite explicitly to the "Christian tradition" and even lay claim to being the last Christian party, as Alice Weidel said in a 2017 interview. Referencing one's own Christian faith is thus a constitutive element in the AfD's self-image. Their external criticism is directed solely against Islam. This is an attitude that is not covered by the above-described categories of religious criticism.Can any additional criteria be found that would enable at least some sort of objective differentiation between "criticism of Islam" and "Islamophobia"? The answer is: "Yes and no." Essential criteria for differentiating between the two can indeed be formulated. For example, a blanket image of "Islam" and "Muslims" is typical of Islamophobia. Where the boundary lies between "criticism of Islam" and "Islamophobia", however, remains controversial in individual cases.

Rhetorical patterns of Islamophobic speakers

The historian Yasemin Shooman points out one aspect that seems helpful in distinguishing between "Islam criticism" and "Islamophobia". The clear identification of the person being referenced is a crucial indicator here. If criticism is levelled at specific persons, for example Muslim organisations or groups, this is different from generalised criticism of "Islam" or "Muslims". The former is legitimate "non-racist criticism of the religious practice of members of a minority," says Shooman.

A further criterion is whether a differentiation is made between Islam and the political ideology of Islamism. Equating the two, often accompanied by assertions that "Islam" is not a religion, but a (political) ideology, is considered by many scholars to be a typical rhetorical pattern of Islamophobic speakers.

In combination with the aspect of a concretely named target, a pattern of reasoning is revealed here in which "Islam critics" claim to have nothing against Muslims as individuals, but to be criticising only the "ideology" of Islam. Islam is thereby denied its status as a religion – and this alone is sufficient for assessing the argument as critical not of religion, but of what is seen as an overall political ideology.

According to this line of reasoning, this ideology must then be called into question for various reasons, which does not necessarily constitute racism against Muslims, however, because only an ideology and not particular people are being criticised. In this case, a homogenised "ideal type of Islam" is construed and applied to all Muslims, regardless of their heterogeneous ideas.

People marked as Muslims would seem in this view to be the opposite of the constructed self envisioned by the AfD. The apparent distinction between a critique of a political ideology and a supposed openness towards its "followers" is therefore difficult to uphold and is likely to be of a strategic nature.

A clear line of demarcation between "Islam criticism" and "Islamophobia" cannot be drawn in this way. And yet, a better understanding of religious criticism can help to refute the assertion of some "Islam critics" that they are only voicing criticism of religion as a basis for their legitimation and motivation.

An objectifiable differentiation of contents into religion-critical or no longer religion-critical would therefore be of benefit to the public discourse. In view of the sometimes arbitrary use of the term "criticism of Islam" in the public debate, this clear distinction should not be underestimated.

Furthermore, the AfD and its representatives should be invited to formulate their position on Islam and Muslims living in Germany more concretely within the discourse. Because the assertion that their critique of Islam is within the bounds of religious criticism does not bear up under expert scrutiny.

Ulrich Paffrath

© Qantara.de 2020

Translated from the German by Jennifer Taylor

Ulrich Paffrath works as a knowledge transfer coordinator at Frankfurt University's Academy for Islam in Science and Society (AIWG). He studied social, political and media sciences at the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf. His main topics are Islam in Germany, research on prejudice, conspiracy beliefs/narratives and Islamophobia/Muslimophobia. He is currently writing his doctoral thesis on negative constructions of Islam and Muslims on the German-language Internet.

Detailed information on the sources used in this article and suggestions for further reading (in German) can be found here.