"And they ill-treated them [believers] for no other reason except
that they believed in Allah" (Al-Qur'an 85-8).
The term "Islamophobia" was first used in print in 1991 and was
defined in the Runnymede Trust Report (the Runnymede Trust
Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, 1997) as "unfounded
hostility towards Islam, and therefore fear or dislike of all or
most Muslims." The word has been coined because there is a new
reality which needs naming - anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so
considerably and so rapidly in recent years that a new item in the
vocabulary is needed so that it can be identified and acted
against.
The term "Islamophobia" is, admittedly, not ideal. It was coined by
way of analogy to "xenophobia" and can be characterized by the
belief that all or most Muslims are religious fanatics, have
violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject such concepts as
equality, tolerance, and democracy. It is a new form of racism
whereby Muslims, an ethno-religious group, not a race, are,
nevertheless, constructed as a race. A set of negative assumptions
are made of the entire group to the detriment of members of that
group. During the 1990s many sociologists and cultural analysts
observed a shift in racist ideas from ones based on skin color to
ones based on notions of cultural superiority and otherness.
Manifestations
In Britain as in other European or Western countries,
manifestations of anti-Muslim hostility can be seen to include such
features as verbal and physical attacks on Muslims in public
places,1 and attacks on mosques and desecration of Muslim
cemeteries. It can be seen in widespread and routine negative
stereotyping in the media and everyday discourse in ways that would
not be acceptable if the reference were, for example, to Jewish or
black people; or in negative stereotypes and remarks in speeches by
political leaders, implying that Muslims are less committed than
others to democracy and the rule of law - the claim in Britain, for
example, that Muslims must choose between "the British way" and
"the terrorist way."2 It can also manifest itself in discrimination
in recruitment and employment practices and in the workplace; in
delay and inertia in responding to Muslim requests for cultural
sensitivity in education, in healthcare, and in protection against
incitement to hatred; and in curtailment of civil liberties that
disproportionately affect Muslims.
Violent language
September 11, 2001, and the days that followed produced strong
feelings amongst non-Muslims as well as among Muslims. When people
feel powerless and frustrated they are prone to hit out with
violent language: "You don't belong here," or "Get out of my
country now; England is for white civilized English people!" are
examples of the kind of violent language that was used in e-mail
messages to the Muslim Council of Britain immediately following the
attacks. These messages are significant, for they expressed
attitudes and perceptions that are widespread amongst non-Muslims
and that are recurring components of Islamophobia.
An alleged factor, some argue, that fuels Islamophobia is the rise
of anti-Western Islamist movements, which have either come to power
outright in some countries (Iran, Sudan, post-Soviet-era
Afghanistan), or else exert a strong influence on government policy
in others (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Many people mistakenly believe
that most Muslims are Islamist, when in fact the Islamist movement
is only a minority position. Perhaps the most important factor
shaping the present wave of Islamophobia, though, is the extremely
large and disproportionate media coverage given to
Islamist-inspired terrorism, like the September 11 attacks, while
relatively little media coverage is given to equivalent acts of
terrorism by other groups or nation-states.
Contextual Factors
Islamophobia is heightened by a number of contextual factors. One
of these is the fact that a high proportion of refugees and people
seeking asylum are Muslims. Demonization of refugees is therefore
frequently a coded attack on Muslims, for the words "Muslim,"
"asylum-seeker," "refugee," and "immigrant" become synonymous and
interchangeable in the popular imagination. In this case, the
common experiences of immigrant communities of unemployment,
rejection, alienation and violence have combined with Islamophobia
to make integration particularly difficult.
This has led Muslim communities to suffer higher levels of
unemployment, poor housing, poor health and higher levels of
racially motivated violence than other communities. For example, in
2003, when the Home Office produced a poster about alleged deceit
and dishonesty amongst people seeking asylum, it chose to
illustrate its concerns by focusing on someone with a Muslim name.3
An end-of-year article in the Sunday Times magazine on "Inhumanity
to Man" focused in four of its five examples on actions by
Muslims.4
A second contextual factor is the skeptical, secular and agnostic
outlook with regard to religion that is expressed in the media,
perhaps particularly the left-liberal media. The outlook is opposed
to all religions, not only to Islam. Commenting on media treatment
of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury remarked
that the Church in the eyes of the media is "a kind of soap opera
… It is both ridiculous and fascinating."5 Ridiculing
religion by the media would appear to be even-handed, but since
Muslims have less influence and less access to public platforms,
attacks are far more undermining. Debates and disagreements about
religion are legitimate in modern society and are, indeed, to be
welcomed, but they need to take place on a symmetrical basis.
A third contextual factor is foreign policy in the UK and most
Western countries, in general, regarding various conflict
situations around the world. There is a widespread perception that
the war on terror is in fact a war on Islam, and that the UK
supports Israel against the Palestinians. In other conflicts too
the UK government appears to side with non-Muslims against Muslims
and to agree with the view that the terms "Muslim" and "terrorist"
are synonymous. These perceptions of UK foreign policy may or may
not be accurate. The point is that they help fashion the lens
through which events are interpreted - not only by Muslims but by
non-Muslims as well.
Negative Impacts
The cumulative effect of Islamophobia, exacerbated by the
contextual factors mentioned above is that Muslims are made to feel
that they do not truly belong in their respective host countries -
they feel that they are not accepted, let alone welcomed, as full
members of society. On the contrary, they are seen as "an enemy
within" or "a fifth column" and they feel that they are under
constant siege.6 Take in Britain for example, a whole new
generation of British Muslims is developing, feeling increasingly
disaffected, alienated and bitter.
A further negative impact of Islamophobia is that Muslim insights
on ethical and social issues are not given an adequate hearing and
are not seen as positive assets. "Groups such as Muslims in the
West," writes an observer, "can be part of trans-cultural
dialogues, domestic and global, that might make our societies live
up to their promises of diversity and democracy. Such communities
can … facilitate communication and understanding in these
fraught and destabilizing times."7 But Islamophobia makes this
potential all but impossible to realize.
"The most subtle and, for Muslims, perilous consequence of
Islamophobic actions," a Muslim scholar has observed, "is the
silencing of self-criticism and the slide into defending the
indefensible. Muslims decline to be openly critical of fellow
Muslims, their ideas, activities and rhetoric in mixed company,
lest this be seen as giving aid and comfort to the extensive forces
of condemnation. Brotherhood, fellow feeling, sisterhood are
genuine and authentic reflexes of Islam. But Islam is supremely a
critical, reasoning and ethical framework… [It] or rather
ought not to be manipulated into 'my fellow Muslim right or
wrong'."8 The writer goes on to add that Islamophobia provides "the
perfect rationale for modern Muslims to become reactive, addicted
to a culture of complaint and blame that serves only to increase
the powerlessness, impotence and frustration of being a Muslim."
9
Open and Closed Views
Race equality organizations and activists over many years have
failed to include Islamophobia in their programs and campaigns. For
instance, why did the Race Relations Amendment Act fail to refer to
anti-Muslim prejudice? In order to begin to answer this question,
it is useful to draw a key distinction between closed views of
Islam, on the one hand, and open views, on the other. Phobic dread
of Islam is the recurring characteristic of closed views.
Legitimate disagreement and criticism, as well as appreciation and
respect, are aspects of open views.
* Whether Islam is seen as monolithic and static, or as diverse and
dynamic
Closed views typically picture Islam as undifferentiated, static
and monolithic, and as intolerant of internal pluralism and
deliberation. They are therefore insensitive to significant
differences and variations within the world of Islam and, in
particular, they are unable to appreciate the existence of tensions
and disagreements amongst Muslims. For example, they ignore debates
about human rights and freedom in Muslim countries and contexts,
about appropriate relationships between Islam and other world
faiths, and between Islam and secularism. In short, debates and
differences which are taken for granted amongst non-Muslims are
neither seen nor heard when they take place within Islam.
Sweeping generalizations are then made about all Muslims, in ways
which would not happen in the case of, for example, all Roman
Catholics, or all Germans, or all Londoners. Also, it is all too
easy to argue from the particular to the general in the case of
Muslims - any episode in which an individual Muslim is judged to
have behaved badly is used as an illustrative example to condemn
all Muslims without exception.
Diversity within Islam, like diversity within other religions, is
multi-faceted and multi-dimensional. Some of the differences that
tend to be ignored or over-simplified in much Islamophobic
discourse pertain to those between Muslims of various countries,
such as between the Middle East and South Asia, or Iranians and
Arabs. Other examples include the difference between Muslims who
are profoundly critical of the human rights records of certain
Muslim countries and those who maintain that such criticism is
merely a symptom of Islamophobia. Other differences that tend to be
overlooked are the ones found between the perceptions and
experiences of women and men, or the older and younger generations,
particularly in the Muslim communities of Western Europe; or the
ones between members of different social classes or the wide range
of political movements and parties. Another important difference is
that between the diverse interpretations of terminologies,
doctrines and injunctions in the Qur'an and Islamic traditions, and
between major strands and paths in the twentieth century, such as
Sufism and Islamism, or movements known as modernism and
revivalism.
A recurring phrase in the Western media nowadays is
"fundamentalism," This is not a helpful term. A brief history of
the term recalls that it was coined as self-definition by a strand
within Christianity and only much later, almost as a metaphor, to
criticize aspects of Islam. It is emphatically not a term which
Muslims themselves ever use for purposes of self-definition, and
the "fundamentals" in Islam to which it claims to refer are of a
different order from those to which it refers in
Christianity.10
* Whether Islam is seen as other and separate, or as similar and
interdependent
Closed views see a total difference between Islam, on the one hand,
and the non-Muslim world, particularly the so-called West, on the
other. Islam is the "other," with few or no similarities between
itself and other civilizations and cultures, and with few or no
shared concepts and moral values. Further, Islam is seen as
hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world, with no common
roots and no borrowing or mixing in either direction.
The alternative, "open" view sees similarities and shared values,
as also incidentally shared problems and weaknesses, and many kinds
of interaction. In the open view it is impossible to assert that,
for example, Islam is "East" and Europe is "West" (or
Judeo-Christian), with no inter-connections or commonalities. On
the contrary, the open view stresses that there are close links
between the three Abrahamic religions. At the same time it
acknowledges that there are significant differences between Islam,
Christianity and Judaism, and that each has its own specific
outlook on what these differences are, and on how they should be
managed.
* Whether Islam is seen as inferior, or as different but
equal
Claims that Islam is different and "other" often involve
stereotypes and views about "us" (non-Muslims) and "them"
(Muslims), and the notion that "we" are superior, civilized,
reasonable, generous, efficient, sophisticated, enlightened, and
non-sexist. "They" are primitive, violent, irrational, scheming,
disorganized, and oppressive. An open view rejects such simplistic
approaches. It acknowledges that Islam is different in significant
respects from other religions and from the West, but does not see
it as deficient or as less worthy.
A perception of the inferiority of Islam includes such examples as
the belief that Muslim cultures mistreat women; that Muslims co-opt
religious observance and beliefs to bolster or justify political
and military projects; that they do not distinguish between
universal religious tenets, on the one hand, and local cultural
mores on the other, and that they are compliant, unreflective and
literalist in their interpretation of scriptures.
* Whether Islam is seen as an aggressive enemy or as a cooperative
partner
Closed views see Islam as violent and aggressive, firmly committed
to barbaric terrorism, and implacably hostile to the non-Muslim
world. Islam was once, said Peregrine Worsthorne in the early
1990s, "a great civilization worthy of being argued with, but now
it has degenerated into a primitive enemy fit only to be
sensitively subjugated."11 Thus, Islam is perceived as a threat to
global peace:
Muslim fundamentalism is fast becoming the chief threat to global
peace and security as well as a cause of national and local
disturbance through terrorism. It is akin to the menace posed by
Nazism and fascism in the 1930s and then by Communism in the 1950s.
12
* Whether Muslims are seen as manipulative or as sincere
Islam means "submission" (not "peace") and it is the aim of Muslims
("those who have submitted") to make the whole world submit. The
teaching seems not to envisage the idea of Muslims as a minority,
except as a temporary phenomenon. The best that non-Muslims - in
Britain that means Sikhs and Hindus, as well as Jews and Christians
- can hope for is that they be treated as "dhimmis," second-class
citizens within the Islamic state.
It is frequently alleged that Muslims use their religion for
strategic, political and military advantage rather than as a
religious faith and as a way of life shaped by a comprehensive
legal tradition. The Observer article which first popularized the
term "Muslim fundamentalism," asserted that Islam had been "revived
by the ayatollahs and their admirers as a device, indistinguishable
from a weapon, for running a modern state." Muslims are assumed to
have an instrumental or manipulative view of their religion rather
than to be sincere in their beliefs, for their faith is
"indistinguishable from a weapon." 13
* Whether discriminatory behavior against Muslims is defended or
opposed
Islamophobia in Britain is often mixed with racism - violence and
harassment on the streets, and direct or indirect discrimination in
the workplace. A closed view of Islam has the effect of justifying
such racism. The expression of a closed view in the media, for
example, gives support and comfort to racist behavior. Islamophobia
merges with crude color racism, since most Muslims are perceived to
have black or brown skins, and also anti-immigrant prejudice, since
Muslims in Britain are perceived to have alien customs,
specifically Asian.
* Whether anti-Muslim discourse is seen as natural or as
problematic
The expression of anti-Muslim ideas and sentiments is getting
increasingly acceptable. They are natural, taken-for-granted
ingredients of the everyday world of millions of people.
It is not only the tabloid newspapers that demonize Islam. There
are routine derogatory references in all the press, in pamphlets
and books. Even organizations and individuals known for their
liberalism and anti-racism express prejudice against Islam and
Muslims. As one correspondent put it: "A deep dislike of Islam is
not a new phenomenon in our society. What is new is the way it is
articulated today by those sections of society who claim the mantle
of secularism, liberalism and tolerance… They preach equality
of opportunities for all, yet turn a blind eye to the fact that
this society offers only unequal opportunities for Muslims."
How Can Islamophobia Be Fought?
To answer this we must examine its causes. Firstly, there is
prejudice; unfortunately, education is not enough to dispel it.
Secondly, there is the smear of terrorism. The third cause is
ignorance of which the hijab issue is a classic example. I wonder
how far Muslims realize that non-Muslims have little understanding
of Islamic distinctiveness. Only grass-roots contact can combat
this. I recently spoke in a mosque at a Christian-Muslim "Meeting
for Better Understanding." The priest and I presented the position
of our respective religions on a specific topic, and these meetings
have proved immensely helpful in building mutual
understanding.
Finally, the fourth cause is the lack of democracy in the Muslim
world. Here is the one issue where critics of Islam have a point.
Most Muslim states are repressive and only a minority are genuine
democracies. In addition, far too many non-Muslim minorities there
are marginalized if not harassed. Even if the average Briton rarely
darkens a chapel door, traditional British sense of fair play will
cause him to view negatively the denial of religious liberty and/or
equality to non-Muslims, especially to Christians.
It is sad that some of the greatest enemies of Islam can be found
in the dictators of Muslim countries. The best solution to the
stagnation of the current Muslim ummah (global nation) and to
Islamophobia itself is to apply true Islamic principles based on
the Holy Qur'an and Hadith. According to the great Muslim thinker,
Muhammed Qutub, the best way to counteract hostility to Islam and
Muslims is through faith. A secular and non- religious approach
will not solve the current crisis, but a solution can be found with
new and brave ideas, regardless of their source, as long as they
follow and adhere to Islamic principles.
Muslims need to rediscover the art of generosity. They should think
of Islam as a garden. The thing about a garden is that all this
truly monumental variety of life exits in symbiosis: nourishing
each other and ensuring the overall survival of the garden. Of
course the garden has to be tended: the weeds have to be cleared,
plants have to be pruned, and we have to make sure that nothing
over-grows - that is, no single interpretation becomes an
overarching, totalitarian ideology so much so that it ends up
suffocating and endangering other plants. It is not for nothing
that the garden is the central metaphor of the Islamic paradise.14