| February, 2006 |
Islamophobia: Meaning, Manifestations, Causes
By Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway *
Download as Word Document (Recomended for printing)
Islamophobia consists of violence against Muslims in the form of physical assaults, verbal abuse, and the vandalizing of property, especially of Islamic institutions including mosques, Islamic schools and Muslim cemeteries. Islamophobia also includes discrimination in employment — where Muslims are faced with unequal opportunities —discrimination in the provision of health services, exclusion from managerial positions and jobs of high responsibility; and exclusion from political and governmental posts. Ultimately, Islamophobia also comprises prejudice in the media, literature, and every-day conversation.[2] Let us consider the following examples:
Who Are the Islamophobes? The countries where these offensive and troubling Islamophobic examples took place are France, Denmark, Israel, and the U.S. Other examples in the article include Germany, Sri Lanka and the UK. The list fails to reflect the fact that Islamophobic incidents exist in every country where there is a Muslim minority. Islamophobia-Watch.com has documented Islamophobic entries under the name of these additional countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. In addition, the perpetrators could be categorized as either individual civilians or officials, including military. There is a problem about determining the Islamophobe in the last example given above; is it only the author, Julie Burchill? How far could Haaretz itself be held responsible for the Islamophobic content? (The original responsibility, in this case, does not pertain to Haaretz but to Burchill herself and The Times. In both dailies, however, the piece was printed verbatim, without asterisks to replace the “f” word. The comments on the article were no less Islamophobic. The question here arises regarding Haaretz’s editorial choice.)
Seventy-Two Vrigins? Julie Burchill was reminded of the “joke” after she noted that “Palestinian cretins felt it entirely necessary to murder innocent Israelis in order to have an orgy in heaven with 72 virgins.” While I can take issue with several points in this venomous statement, I would like to highlight the problem of the “72 virgins” construct and its place in the Islamic worldview. It is a matter of fact that the “72 virgins” construct does not exist either in the Qur’an or in the most authentic of the Hadith compendia. As a person who attends the mosque on a regular basis and has listened to hundreds of Friday sermons, mostly at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, but also in the U.S., Europe, Africa and South-East Asia, I cannot recall even one instance when this construct was mentioned in the mosque. The same applies to the Islamic academic institutions where I taught over the years. As it is in non-Islamic literature rather than in Islamic books that this construct appears, it prompted me to carry out some research regarding the topic. I tracked it to a book by a 9th century Muslim scholar, Al-Tabarani, in his Mu`jam. The conclusion is that this construct does not form part of the Islamic faith, but tends to be often misused by Islamophobes for their twisted reasons.
Incidents on the Rise The examples mentioned above depicting Islamophobia fail to show that Islamophobic incidents are on the rise. Statistics, however, indicate a 200-percent rise in certain places in Europe. The Times notes that in France
[t]he number of hate crimes, most notably against Jews and against Arabs of North African origin, nearly doubled last year, to 1,565 from 833 a year earlier, according to a report to the government by the National Consultative Commission for Human Rights… Acts against people of North African origin totaled 595 in 2004, up from 232 in 2003.[5]
This rise could be attributed to the growing number of Islamophobes and Islamophobic institutions, and the normalization of hostility towards Islam. The ease with which information travels in the age of globalization takes the Islamophobic act from its local context to the international arena, thus creating an impression that there is a universal Islamophobic ethos that haunts Muslims. By drawing attention to the above-mentioned examples, I simply hope that the reader will get a sense of the tragic state of Islamophobia. The content is offensive, not only to Muslims, but to any ethical person. The intensity with which Islamophobia is spreading poses a real danger not only to Muslim minorities, but also threatens the social fabric wherever they live.
Individual versus Institutionalized The perpetrators range from Islamophobic individuals acting “on their own” to institutionalized Islamophobic policies. But, are individual Islamophobes really “on their own”? The answer is, in one sense, Yes. As long as they are not fulfilling governmental orders or institutional plans, then they are “on their own.” On the other hand, those individuals are bombarded by the biased media, which are yoked to the centers of power, with stereotypical images of Muslims; they listen to right-wing, xenophobic politicians who reinforce those stereotypes and call for the expulsion of Muslims, and they read post-Cold War scenarios that portray Islam as the new enemy who replaced Communism — the green menace in place of the red. The list of possible influences could include school curricula, exclusivist theological worldviews that neither accommodate nor engage the “other. Sometimes the line between individual and institutional Islamophobia gets blurred. The following example migh clarify the point:
Forty-eight-year-old Kamal Raza Butt, a Pakistani man who is visiting friends and family in Nottingham [UK], is set upon by a gang of white youths. He is allegedly called “Taliban” and then punched to the ground and later dies in hospital. Two 16-year-old youths are charged with manslaughter, seven others are freed on bail pending further inquiries.[6]
Did the mob act on the spur of the moment? The incident is presented in the media without questioning the motives. The wider context within which the role of the UK in Afghanistan and Iraq, the July 7th attacks in London, and the attacks in Nottingham could be seen as interconnected was not addressed. What motivated the Nottingham attack remains unclear. One thing is certain: if the roots of Islamophobia are not addressed, the problem will persist. Institutionalized Islamophobia, on the other hand, reflects governmental laws or policies. As an example let us consider the case of extreme secularism in France. It was used to pave the road for an Islamophobic law[7] which prohibits the display of religious symbols, effectively targeting and banning the wearing of headscarves by Muslim schoolgirls. If one accepts the right to display crosses and yarmulkes while denying a Muslim girl the right to wear her hijab (headscarf), then this position is Islamophobic. It reflects the inability of France to celebrate multiculturalism and to see Islam as a positive force that could contribute to the welfare of the society. Rather than accommodating its own Muslim citizens and integrating them into the society according to a multicultural paradigm for coexistence, France opted for an extreme and fundamentalist notion of secularism —proof of a loss of the French ethos that once was based on liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity).
The Case of the Hijab Islamophobic policies target the hijab as a symbol of Islam. The specific government that adopts the banning of the hijab reflects deep-seated antagonism toward Islam. The sad fact is that many countries are following suit. In Germany, the ban on hijab is slated to take effect in August 2006. “Female and male teachers are not allowed to express any worldviews or any religious beliefs, which could disturb or endanger the peace at school … That's why we want to forbid [female] Muslim teachers at state schools from wearing headscarves," said North Rhine-Westphalia schools minister Barbara Sommer.[8] The ban on hijab has also spread to South Asia were two Muslim teachers were suspended from their work at a government school in Badulla in north-east Sri Lanka earlier this year because they wear the hijab. In addition, S. Satchchitanandan, the provincial minister for Tamil education, ordered that the government-run school be renamed the Hindu Girls School — The Tamils are predominantly Hindus, while the Sinhalese are Budhhists. The school has more than 200 Muslim girl students.[9] It is virtually impossible to narrate all the distressing incidents involving the hijab, But if I had the chance to add a picture of a woman with her head covered to help the reader understand the Islamophobic nature of the ban of hijab, I would have used that of the late Mother Theresa, the Roman Catholic nun and founder of the Sisters of Charity. She was modestly dressed with her head covered with a headdress, a hijab if you will!
Pseudo-Political Correctness, Pseudo-Scholars Another type of institutional negative role is the constitutional and legal structures behind which Islamophobes can hide. Attacking Islam and Muslims takes place in the name of the freedom of expression, which is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. This legal structure allows Islamophobic institutions and neo-con pundits who are driven by an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims to malign Muslim leaders and to smear mainstream Muslim organizations. At times, it is calculated Islamophobic statements that are systematically stated in some U.S. media to keep the society polarized and to prevent Muslims from being at home in their own countries. When some right-wing Christian preachers like Jerry Farwell, Billy Graham and Pat Robertson made defamatory statements about Islam,[10] none of them was held accountable; it is not possible to try them and win according to U.S. law. One can contrast this with what happened to their Evangelical colleagues in another part of the world. A state tribunal in Australia [Dec. 17th, 2004] found two Evangelical Christian pastors who conducted a church seminar on Islam guilty of inciting hatred against Muslims. Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott of Catch the Fire Ministries were tried under Victoria's new race and religion hate laws after the Islamic Council of Victoria filed legal action, charging Scott called Muslims demons, liars and terrorists.[11] This trial is good news; people of conscience should help create race and religion hate laws in all countries. An alliance between the various communities is needed to combat all forms of hate crimes including Islamophobia which should be criminalized. In addition, the vilification of Muslims takes place at the hand of pseudo-scholars of Islam who abuse the freedom that the First Amendment grants them. A good example is the case of Daniel Pipes. He began a recent article, “Islamophobia?” in the New York Sun (October 25, 2005), with the following statement:
An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called “Stop Islamophobia.”[12]
Any true scholar of Islamic movements knows that Hizb-ut-Tahrir never advocated suicide attacks against anyone; they are strictly speaking a political movement. They are criticized for their aggressiveness in promoting their political views and — yes — they are criticized for not participating in resisting the Israeli occupation. They do call for reinstituting the Caliphate (i.e. a pan-Islamic polity) system that existed until 1924, a matter which should be left entirely to Muslims to sort out amongst themselves. To outlaw Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Britain would be a clear Islamophobic act and a true violation of the freedom of expression. Such type of Islamophobic pseudo-scholars hide behind politically correct statements to the effect that they do not have a problem with moderate Islam, or with moderate Muslim intellectuals. This was an argument Pipes used on al-Jazeerah TV channel’s Open Forum on May 28, 2005. When asked to mention one moderate Muslim, Pipes named two intellectuals, one from the Sudan and one from Egypt, both of them long dead. Is the message here that there are no moderate Muslims alive, or that moderate Islam is dead? It is unfortunate that President Bush went on to nominate Pipes to the board of the renowned United States Institute of Peace, against the will of the Congress.
Islamophobia and the Palestinian Question While the Palestinian people comprises Jews, Christians and mostly Muslims, a consistently Islamophobic propaganda is being used against the Palestinian people, to prevent them from ending the Israeli occupation. One of the organizations that systematically use crude and vile Islamophobic statements is the Israel Hasbara Committee. Their website features hundreds of Islamophobic articles that aim ultimately at discrediting the Palestinians and their just cause. One of the Israel Hasbara Committee’s featured writers, Michael Anbar, paints an Islamophobic picture of the Palestinian leadership, in which [t]he PLO follows an Islamist policy similar to al-Qaeda. Very much like bin Laden and the Iranian Ayatollahs, Yasser Arafat openly calls for Jihad against Israel and the West, a holy war that nominally obligates all Muslims worldwide to kill infidels, Jews in particular.[13] In a different article, and in what seems to be a slip of the tongue, the Israel Hasbara Committee, reveals its true character through the following statement: War is dirty, whether it is on the battlefield or in the propaganda world. It is time to use the weapon of relentless repetition.[14] Only enemies of peace would continue to be against the end of the Israeli occupation. To be against the establishment of a Palestinian state could be described as an essentially Islamophobic position.
Concluding Remarks Though the Islamophobic examples used in this article are contemporary, Islamophobia itself is not new. The Crusades and, later on, the Inquisition in Spain reflect a very problematic historical relationship with Jews and Muslims. The Catholic Church in its Nostra Aetate[15] has called for toleance and fellowship among peoples of all faiths. How much of the old hatred has it been able to eradicate as it celebrates its 40th year? As with the advent of any new terminology that describes a specific phenomenon, it takes time to connect both. The phenomenon that Islamophobia describes is not uncommon, and is as old as Islam itself. The case of Islamophobia is just like that of anti-Semitism,[16] where discrimination against and the persecution of the Jews took place for many centuries before the term “anti-Semitism” was coined. I would argue that Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are rooted in xenophobic Eurocentrism which was and still is a barrier in fostering a multicultural world not dominated by nationalism and national interests. Other paradigms should replace the existing world order which has already caused so much destruction at the turn of the 21st century in Islamic lands. I would like to conclude this article by quoting excerpts from the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s address to the Department of Public Information (DPI) seminar, “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding,” in New York, December 7th, 2004:
An honest look at Islamophobia must also acknowledge the policy context. The historical experience of Muslims includes colonialism and domination by the West, either direct or indirect. Resentment is fed by the unresolved conflicts in the Middle East, by the situation in Chechnya, and by atrocities committed against Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. The reaction to such events can be visceral, bringing an almost personal sense of affront. But we should remember that these are political reactions — disagreements with specific policies. All too often, they are mistaken for an Islamic reaction against Western values, sparking an anti-Islamic backlash… …[I]slamophobia is at once a deeply personal issue for Muslims, a matter of great importance to anyone concerned about upholding universal values, and a question with implications for international harmony and peace. We should not underestimate the resentment and sense of injustice felt by members of one of the world’s great religions, cultures and civilizations. And we must make the re-establishment of trust among people of different faiths and cultures our highest priority. Otherwise, discrimination will continue to taint many innocent lives, and distrust might make it impossible to move ahead with our ambitious international agenda of peace, security and development.[17]
******************************
[1] http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp Reported on 19/9/2005 (Shirin Aguiar-Holloway, in “Islamaphobia is New Slavery”, paraphrasing Hamza Yusuf’s statement to a gathering of Muslim representatives at the House of Lords in the UK) [4] http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Briefs/6408.htm (August 27, 2005) [7] Law 2004-228 of March 15, 2004, signed by President Jacque Chirac. [11] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ Posted Dec. 18th, 2004. [15] Declaration on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions NOSTRA AETATE. was proclaimed by POPE PAUL VI. on October 28, 1965 [16] Semites originally meant the descendents of Shem (Arabic=Sam), comprising Arabs (including Arab Christians and Muslims), and other Semitic peoples as well. Now, the term is used mainly to refer to Jews (i.e. Judeophobic or anti-Judaism). "New Anti-Semitism", on the other hand, refers to criticism of the State of Israel, which is portrayed as the ultimate Jew. This category could be used to silence legitimate criticism. Israel is a country that occupies other lands and other peoples; this results in direct violations of basic human rights. Israel also faces the choice of either being Jewish or democratic; so far Israeli laws have discriminated systematically against its non-Jewish citizens. Would such description fall under new anti-Semitism?
|
||||||||||||
