ISLAMOPHOBIA
AN OPPOSITION TO PEACE
Table of Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Research Methods ................................................................................................................. 7
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Expert: Tariq Ramadan ........................................................................................................................... 15
The Role of Control .................................................................................................................................. 21
Religious Aspect ........................................................................................................................................ 28
The Logic of Evil ....................................................................................................................................... 32
International Organizations ..................................................................................................................... 43
Case Study: Afghanistan and the Burning of Qur’ans .......................................................................... 48
Case Study: Anti-Muslim Discrimination in Myanmar (Burma)......................................................... 57
Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims, Islamophobic Film ................................................................ 65
Relevance to Canada................................................................................................................................. 72
Solutions ..................................................................................................................................................... 81
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 94
Reference List ............................................................................................................................................ 97
1
Preface
Peace will be achieved in the world when acts of discrimination, bigotry, prejudice and
ignorance are replaced by the values of tolerance, justice, respect and understanding. This refers
not only to living in a world where all human beings are equal, but it also means that accepting
one another’s differences is just as important. The global population is made up of differences;
there are different cultures, races, traditions, politics, histories, religions and spiritualties, and the
list is immeasurable. The beauty of differences is that their existence acts as a field for common
ground. For example, the difference between one another’s religion is, in fact, a source of
connection and similarity. Religion acts as a universal tool to search for hope, faith, and
something to believe in. For some, religion is a way to understand, accept and find peace in the
surrounding world. However, the differences between religions and the roles they play is also a
reason for conflict and dispute in the world. Religion can be used as a cause to discriminate
against a group of people and create division between cultures.
Currently, discrimination against Muslim people is a major global issue. Anti-Muslim
ideology has been present throughout history, but has grown and been profoundly affected in the
past decade due to events such as 9/11 (Allen, 2010, p. 14). This cultural racism is more recently
known as Islamophobia, which is defined as a “hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or
culture” (dictionary.com, 2013). Negative perceptions and assumptions about the Islamic Faith
have become very prominent and this mindset has been adopted by much of Europe, North
America and Australia, thus creating an evident separation and obvious tension between the
“Western” and “Muslim” worlds. These two worlds have become integrated and influenced by
each other and therefore cannot be geographically defined. However, for the purpose of this
paper, the Western World refers to developed, mainly democratic and powerful countries that are
2
ruled by non-Muslims (such as the United States, France, Great Britain, Germany, Canada, etc.)
and the Muslim World refers generally to countries from the Middle East and North Africa that
have very important Muslim populations, and are strongly affected by Muslim culture (such as
Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.). Islamophobia reduces Muslim people to a global
underclass (Rab, 2008), treats Muslims as a race rather than people with a common belief, and
creates a mindset in which Muslims are considered as “others” and can never be accepted outside
of their own society; they become alienated. The negative attitude about the Islamic faith is
formed from ignorance and intolerance. Built off of misconceptions, this is an attempt of the
Western World to control an unknown, foreign belief and culture by classifying all Muslims into
one category. This creates a division between Muslims and non-Muslims. This also has a serious
impact on religious as well as cultural dignity and identity (Ihsanohlu, 2010, p. 12).
Although Islamophobia is a problem in the Western World, it is a major global issue
because it is a Western ideology that targets the non-western, Muslim part of the Earth. The
negative sentiment received is reciprocated into an anti-Western attitude as well; it is an obvious
reaction to take offense when one’s religion is made to be inferior and one’s culture is
demonized. This creates tension, fear, hate and division between two parts of world that could
otherwise enrich each other. The unfair prejudice towards Muslims, especially towards those
living in Western Society, is known globally. The image perceived of Islam in the West is
important to the followers of Islam around the world because everybody is so connected in this
era of globalization. The majority (almost two thirds) of people from Muslim Societies believe
that Muslims around the world are not treated as equal citizens and the rights of Muslim people
living in the Western World are important to 87% of people from Islamic communities. The
Muslim world strongly believes that it is important that Muslims of the West be equal partners in
3
the society, accurately portrayed in the media and legally protected citizens who are fairly
treated. In addition, Muslims strongly feel that symbols of Islam are not be honoured and
respected and not to be desecrated. This proves that the tarnishing of the image of Muslim people
and Islam, as well as the intolerance in the Western world is not solely a problem for those who
are trying to integrate, such as immigrants, but it creates resentment all around the globe.
Islamophobia is a reality we face today because it is a representation of contemporary
racism. In immigrant communities, Muslims face challenges such as rejection, violence,
unemployment and alienation (Sajid, 2005). It is becoming impossible for immigrants to
integrate with ease into Western communities that are fueled with prejudice. In fact, surveys
report that Muslims are among the most undesirable neighbours, following drug addicts and
homosexuals (Gallup, n.d.). Muslims have been isolated and categorized as belonging to a
culture that will not try to “fit in”, goes against Western values and is different in too many ways
to integrate even if they were to make an effort. Furthermore, Islam has been labelled as a
religion that is fueled by violence and oppression. By using these misinterpretations of an entire
faith, many stereotypes have been formed such as that all Muslims are brown skinned, wear
turbans and hijabs (or other headwear), are of lower intelligence and have a higher fertility rate.
These stereotypes have been used to characterize all Muslims and to identify them as the
ultimate “others” and those they should therefore be treated differently. Consequently, Muslims
of the West are treated unfairly and experience racial and religious discrimination more than any
other minority (Gallup, n.d.).
Islamophobia has led to much discrimination and many attacks on Muslims and Islam.
Burning the Qur’an, banning the hijab and burqa, arson on Mosques, racial profiling, prohibiting
the construction of Mosques with minarets, anti-Islamic subway-ads, political campaigns based
4
on religious hatred and speeches delivered for the purpose of depicting Muslims as a threat are
just several examples of Islamophobic discrimination. Many Sikhs have even been attacked
simply because people automatically assume they are Muslims because they wear turbans and
often have long beards (Wagner, 2012); this shows the enormous extent of racial profiling and
bigotry against people who are different. These are major examples and do not represent the acts
of Islamophobia that happen every day just because someone is Muslim. In France, statistics
show that Muslims feel aggressed at least once every three days and that mosques are vandalised
every three weeks (Saunders, 2013). Muslims have become outsiders from Western society
because they are perceived to be carriers of a foreign culture and mentality that do not want to
integrate and are thought to be visually identifiable. Negative connotations about Muslims have
not simply become normalised, but they have become expected. This suggests that the
dichotomy between being non-Muslim and Muslim has been internalized into becoming the
same as superior and inferior, “us” and “them”, belonging and foreign, good and bad, civilised
and uncivilised, accepted and unaccepted.
Islamophobic actions, although unjustifiable and racist, are results of how Muslim people
are seen around the world. Islamophobic sentiment is based on certain myths about Islam and the
behaviour of Muslims. The reasons for this prejudice and fear were first addressed in the
Runnymede Report, a British Research project, in 1997. It was concluded that Islamophobic
thinking is focused around closed views about the Muslim population: immovability, separation,
and inferiority, perception as a violent and manipulative enemy, silencing, and normalization
(Ansar, 2013). Islam is seen as immovable, a monolithic block that is unresponsive to any
surrounding changes. It is “clearly” separate from Western culture; the perception is that there
are no common values or traditions. Muslim people are seen as uncivilised, sexist and irrational
5
people who would therefore be inferior to Western Society. Islam is most commonly seen as an
aggressive and violent enemy that only evokes a clash of civilisations. Instead of a religion, it is
often thought of in political terms as being manipulative. These ideas that categorize all Muslims
under certain assumptions are used to justify the prejudice and discrimination that fuels
Islamophobia. Lastly, the closed-minded views allow for any hostility towards Islam and its
followers is seen as normal and expected (Runnymede Trust, n.d. [Brochure]).
It is a serious problem to think negatively of someone just because of preconceived notions about
their religion. Evidently, Islamophobia is a form of racism. There are three levels of cultural
racism: interpretation as an exception, then defamation, demonization and incitement, and thirdly
actions, violations, restrictions and discriminatory practice (Shaker, 2010, p. 84). Islamophobia is
present under all three categories; therefore it is not just a “phobia”, but it is a major problem in
our world and an excuse for racism in the twenty first century. Islamophobia is not just an
opinion; it is the reason that an entire population has been centered out, resulting in actions of
discrimination. The resentment towards Muslim people and the returning sentiments creates
much strife in the world because difference is seen as a threat. The peace of the world depends
on harmony between these differences, and is opposed by bigotry such as Islamophobia; this is
well explained in the following quote:
“…diverse cultures should complement and enhance one another. Tolerance,
stability and prosperity are nurtured only when nations and cultures communicate
and respect each other.”
(Ihsnaglu, 2010, p. 11)
This quote represents the core problem posed by Islamophobia. The clear attempt to create a
separation between the Western and Muslim world opposes any progress towards attaining
6
global peace. Co-operation between religions, learning from them and forming respect instead of
finding problems, making assumptions and acting upon prejudice will make our world a much
more welcoming place. Eliminating Islamophobia from the Western world will greatly improve
relations with the Muslim world. Anti-Muslim and anti-Western sentiments are tightly linked; if
one becomes more positive, the view will then be reciprocated, therefore opening the doors for
further co-operation and positive enrichment to our multi-cultural planet.
7
Summary of Research Methods
This paper is an effort to understand and analyse the increasing global issue of
contemporary Islamophobia. There is an enormous amount of tension between the Western and
Muslim worlds. Muslim people have been demonized and this has led to prejudice and
discrimination. Because anti-Muslim ideology is such a current problem, almost every single
source used is recent, coming from the past decade. In order to link Islamophobia to current
events, many newspaper articles were used in the writing of this paper. The articles were
retrieved online from a large variety of news companies such as The Guardian, BBC, and The
National Post. Mostly Western-based media was utilized as research which was very effective
because this provides a clear portrayal of Western views on the Muslim world. However this also
became a difficulty while analysing research because many articles are biased due to the
Islamophobic mindset that is so often amplified by the Western media. When referring to
specific events, it was important to accumulate research from many different sources in order to
be able to differentiate between biased opinions and actual facts. Many other resources were
utilized to obtain detailed research concerning the global issue. Because Islamophobia is
becoming increasingly normalised, there has been extensive analysis on the issue. Therefore
many research projects, documents and various books were used as well such as Islamophobia
and the Politics of the Empire by Deepa Kumar and The Myth of the Muslim Tide by Doug
Saunders that provided much factual-based content that is proof of the prevalence of
Islamophobia in the world today. Shakil Choudhury’s book, the Brown Book, was very useful
because it connects the perspectives of Muslim people from both Canada and from Pakistan. The
author, Choudhury, was also interviewed at an early stage in the writing of this paper to provide
an introductory perspective on the detrimental effects of Islamophobia and how he has in fact
8
been exposed to it. While gathering information it was very useful to listen to the speeches and
read pieces written by people who are on either side of the issue. Whether the information was
factual or opinion-based, it was important to understand the perspective of both those who
promote anti-Muslim ideology and those who are fighting Islamophobia. For example the works
of Deepa Kumar and Pamela Geller were both utilised because each of their arguments are
evident in demonstrating one-sided arguments. However, gathering research from expert Tariq
Ramadan was just as essential because he provides a very non-biased and critical analysis of the
issue by targeting both the Western and Muslim world showing the causes and effects of
Islamophobia. It was important to use a large variety of sources and methods to accumulate
research because there are so many aspects and different views concerning anti-Muslim
ideology.
9
Background
“…After 9/11, negative sentiment about Islam and Islamophobia have
transformed from a fear of Muslim extremists to a hatred of Islam as a religion,
and by extension, to the everyday activities of Muslims”
(Elver, 2011)
Since the events of 9/11 in 2001, Islamophobia has increased in the Western World because of
the fear created by the terrorist attack, mainly in the United States. Anti-Muslim sentiment was
present long before 2001; in fact it even dates back to the time of the Ottoman Empire (Kumar,
2012, Chapter 1). However, the general consensus is that “9/11 just gave them [members of
western society] reason to do it more open” (Herd, 2006). The terrorist attack has negatively
affected Muslim immigrants in North America and Europe, but it has also has proven to be very
consequential to Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The War on Terror
imposed by the USA has been the cause of extremely detrimental effects on the image of Muslim
people. This war created fear in the eyes of the American people, making them believe that
Muslims are a legitimate threat to their safety, therefore making it a common Islamophobic
belief that all Muslims are associated with terrorism. This is not only manifested in the
immediate reaction to 9/11, but in the resulting political action and the lingering resentment that
provoked much discrimination.
Even though former President Bush insisted that this was not a war on Muslim people or
the religion of Islam, the United States used the already existing Islamophobia to fuel their War
on Terror and gain support. American anti-Islamic feelings that were already present were
manipulated into a greater fear and this ideology then began to spread to other Western Societies.
10
This propaganda uses fear and resentment to target the Muslim world and creates an opportunity
for further “Western power and manipulation” (Mahboob, 2013). Islamophobia is closely linked
to the war on terror because it is the lens which the Western world uses to see Muslims today.
The immediate and direct connection between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Islam has brought on
the Islamophobic belief that all Muslim are terrorists. In fact, the term “religious extremist” is
slowly being replaced with Islamist or even simply Muslim (Rab, 2008). This is accurately
demonstrated in the following quote: “The configuration of both religious violence and terrorism
as exclusively Muslim enterprises has fuelled ever-growing Islamophobic attitudes throughout
the world.” (Sturgeon, n.d.). This quote accurately represents the relationship between
Islamophobia and terrorism. For instance, more than half of the children in Australia are under
the impression that Muslims are indeed terrorists (Saunders, 2012). Due to similar prejudice,
Islamophobia has increased significantly. Muslims have been named the enemy within and the
enemy on the outside. After 9/11, there was a sense of huge panic, primarily in the United States,
resulting in laws and policies that were in fact Islamophobic. Immediately following the attacks,
1200 Muslim Americans were questioned (Kumar, 2012, p. 142), under the pretense that they are
guilty by association. It turns out that not even one of the Muslims that were rounded up had any
links to the attacks. They were simply being blamed because of their religion. Not long
afterwards, around 8000 men of Muslim faith were “interviewed” by the government of the
United States; again they were being questioned to trace links to 9/11 and again, the questioning
was unsuccessful (Kumar, 2012, p. 142). This shows how the government started to play a huge
role in anti-Muslim sentiments; they racially profiled citizens of their own country just because
they were of a certain origin or religion. The following year, the investigations that found
Muslims guilty for just being Muslim continued. A new policy was formed stating that male
11
immigrants above the ages of 16 must become registered. However, it did not apply to all male
immigrants; for example, people coming from England or France were not included under this
policy. This applied only to immigrants coming from a selected list of twenty five countries;
these countries were all Muslim-majority or situated in the Middle East. (Kumar, 2012, p. 142143). Over 83,000 immigrants had to register and more than thirteen thousand were deported.
The government insisted that this was all preventative towards terrorism, and not directed at
Islam, but still for some reason the people assumed to have connections to terrorism were also
Muslim. This “action to prevent terrorism” did not stop in 2003 either. Every Middle Eastern
person who had overstayed their visa was targeted. The reason behind this inquiry directed
specifically at a population of Muslim-majority was that they may have knowledge about
terrorist activities that was acquired from their home country. Many people were sent away by
plane, leaving everything they had built in their life. They were forced to leave their homes and
families. However, the majority of these victims were charged under immigration law rather than
anything related to terrorism in the Middle East. (Kumar, 2012, p. 143). The mindset applied by
the government that Muslims are “guilty until proven innocent” as stated by Deepa Kumar
(2012) clearly spread into the minds of Americans as well. In 2004, the amount of hate crimes
inflicted on Muslims increased by more than double the amount from 2003 (PP, 2005).
The rise of Islamophobic thinking triggered by 9/11 was not solely present in the United
States. This is an increasing problem in many Western countries. For example in Australia antiterror laws have been put in place that are both discriminatory and racist and instill prejudice
toward Muslims:
“Islamophobia is encouraged by the Howard-Bush claims that they are engaged
in a ‘war of civilizations’ against Muslims. Islamophobia is growing rapidly in
12
Australia in that it is now not uncommon to see white male Australians abusing
Muslim women (wearing the Hijab or headscarf) in buses, on beaches and on the
streets of Australia’s big cities… It should be noted that insulting or harassing
Muslim women wearing the hijab is not an offence in Australia, as this
considered part of the Bush-Howard mission of ‘liberating’ Muslim women”
(Hasson, 2005)
This shows the negative image that has been developed by Western populations about
Islam as a religion. In many European countries, it is said that Islamophobia is becoming an
accepted point of view. The growing intensity has been recognized by Amnesty International;
their view is that “European governments must do more to challenge the negative stereotypes
and prejudices against Muslims fuelling discrimination especially in education and employment”
(Amnesty International, 2012). The report says that instead of confronting the growing issues,
politicians have been using anti-Muslim bigotry to attract voters. Furthermore, it has been
reported that there is discrimination against Muslims in the sense of employment, prohibition of
religious head wear and clothing, banning important architectural components in the construction
of mosques and very prominent displays of Islamophobic attitudes. This discrimination was not
prompted by 9/11, but following the attacks it developed even further. After 9/11, there was
tremendous support and sympathy generated by Europe towards the United States. (Golino,
2002, p. 62). Many European politicians around the time following the terrorist attacks publicly
showed their support for the US War on terrorism, such as Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Silvio
Berlusconi (Golino, 2002, p.63-64). The citizens of the EU had the same mindset: “Polls taken
a few weeks after 11 September showed that 65 percent of German citizens supported their
country’s participation in U.S.-led military action. In France and Britain support was even higher
13
at that time. This was significant in light of European citizens’ preference for non-military
solutions and their opposition to many previous cases of U.S. military intervention.” (Golino,
2002, p. 62). Even though 9/11 was not the trigger for bigotry against Muslims in the West, it
certainly had a profound influence on the increase of Islamophobia.
Islamophobia has also had a tremendous effect on the Muslim world due to the War on
Terror. It was also supported due to the fear the West has of Muslims. For example, Pakistan has
been suffering from many terrorist attacks since the United States was attacked and therefore has
faced much destruction and tragedy. Even though the United States continues to remind the
Western world that terrorism is still a major threat (an extreme exaggeration used to gain support
for the war), the people who are more threatened by terrorism are in fact people in the Muslim
World (Danios of LW, 2012). Before American military intervention, Iraq and Afghanistan had a
relatively low level of problems with terrorism. In 2002, Iraq was a victim of thirteen terrorist
attacks. This number becomes extremely dwarfed the following year with 225 attacks and at the
peak of the war, it reached 3,968. The same situation occurred in Afghanistan where the amount
of terrorist attacks jumped from three to 450. (Danios of LW, 2012). These statistics prove just
how costly the war on terror has been. Although it was a response to 9/11, it has been nourished
by anti-Muslim ideology.
Since the War on Terror and therefore since 9/11, the belief, fear and threat of Islamic
terrorists actually created more Islamic terrorism. Prejudice such as this is dangerous not only
because it is unfair, but because it allows for justification of actions. The Western world expects
terrorism in the Muslim world. There is an excuse for it. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001
has much influence on Islamophobia. It has become more socially accepted, resulting in the
terrible profiling of Muslim people. Instead of becoming less and less potent as our world
14
becomes more and more connected, the fear of Muslims has unfortunately increased
significantly. Following 9/11, the Western world has feared Islamic terrorism, and as a result, the
categorization of Muslim people as negative attributes of society has been tolerated. Currently,
the common fear of Muslim people is that they are connected to terrorism across the world. It is
no longer Muslim extremists that are feared, but it is the global Muslim population in general,
hence proving the legitimacy of Islamophobia.
15
Expert: Tariq Ramadan
Due to the increasing level of Islamophobia, there has also been more attention directed
towards discrimination against Muslim people. Consequently, many activists have emerged in
order to address this issue, one being Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan was named among one the most
influential people in the world today in 2004 by the Times (Crumley, 2004) and he continues to
have an impact today. Currently, he works at Oxford University as a professor of Contemporary
Islamic studies and teaches at the Oxford Faculty of Theology as well. He is also very active in
his studies around the entire world. In Qatar he is a visiting professor at the Faculty of Islamic
Studies and the Director of the Research Centre of Islamic Legislation and Ethics, he is a guest
professor at the University of Malaysia Perlis, and is heavily involved in research out of
Doshisha University in Japan. He is also the President of the European Muslim Network, situated
out of Brussels (Ramadan, 2004).
This man has become a global spokesperson regarding all issues concerning Islam and
Muslim people, including Islamophobia. Tariq Ramadan is often a guest speaker at conferences
and has been interviewed many times. He is frequently invited to give lectures around our globe
about his studies on theology, ethics, social justice and culture . His ideas are provocative,
enabling high level discussions about Islam in contemporary society. Ramadan has written
several books that are published in many different languages. Some of his more recent
publications include Islam and the Arab Awakening (2012), The Arab Awakening: Islam and the
New Middle east (2012), The Quest for Meaning, Developing a Philosophy of Pluralism (2010),
and one of his most-discussed and well-known What I believe (2009) (Ramadana, 2004).
16
In Geneva, Ramadan majored in French and Western Philosophy and then became a high
school teacher. He then changed his path entirely and studied an intensive course on Islam in
Cairo. This was important to him as he came from a Muslim background. He was also aware of
the increasing negative media attention directed at Islam (RWR, 2011). Tariq Ramadan has a
very unique point of view due to his multi-faceted educational background. His juxtaposing
educational training not only enables him to present legitimate arguments that counter each
other, but also results in a controversy over his ideas. Having vast amount of knowledge about
both the Western and Islamic worlds, Tariq Ramadan holds a position in which he can navigate
and negotiate between both spheres. He is often referred to as the “mediator” because he
advocates for both the Western and Muslim world.
Ignoring the neutrality in his expansive views, Ramadan has been continuously accused
of being a traitor to both his home in the western world and to his origins in Egypt and the
Muslim World. The consequences of these accusations have been extreme. Firstly, Ramadan’s
grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Therefore, connections have been
assumed that link the professor with terrorism and radicalization (RWR, 2011). In 1995, he was
banned from France for unsubstantiated links to terrorist organizations. Fortunately this ban only
lasted for half a year. However, from 2004 to 2010, Tariq Ramadan was also banned from the
United States of America. The reasoning behind this lengthy ban is that he donated to Palestinian
charities that were associated with Hamas. Ramadan defended himself by denying any
connections to Islamic extremism in anyway. Ironically, he is also banned from parts of the
Muslim World due to his criticism on the lack of democracy in the existing governmental
systems in the Muslim countries of Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya and Syria
(RWR, 2011).
17
Regardless of the controversial accusations, Professor Ramadan’s ideology and work has
been important to our understanding of Islamophobia in the West, specifically regarding our
views of immigrants and Muslim citizens. His analytical work and well-constructed concepts
help to understand and develop achievable solutions.
Tariq Ramadan’s philosophy is working towards a “new we” (Ramadan, 2006). This is
most accurately presented in his manifesto and speeches. From his point of view, Islamophobia
is not due to clash of civilizations, but a clash of perceptions. In the West, Muslims tend to be
alienated and in Muslim countries, it’s the opposite. In the Western World, there is a negative
attitude towards Muslim immigrants because they are perceived as bringing a religion and
culture that contradicts Western values. In response, the targeted Western Muslims immigrants
feel that the West is trying to repudiate their Islamic values (YouTube videoa, 2012. Interview on
Clash of Civilisations). Tariq Ramadan believes this creates binary thinking; a mindset of us vs.
them and a need to feel superior to the designated “them”(YouTube videob, 2012. Interview on
Literalism and Dogmatic Minds). In the Western World, Muslims have dubbed as the outsiders,
the others, them, and those that do not belong. Contrary to what one might think, as time has
passed, more Muslims have settled into the West and negative images of Islam have grown.
Consequently, Islamophobia has further developed. Through interviews, Ramadan established
that Muslims are now consciously aware of being Muslim (YouTube videoc, 2011. Interview
from Press TV). He professes that Islam is now a global religion. He believes that the Western
world fights this concept by directing negative attention towards immigrants from Islamic
countries, even those that have been settled as Western Muslims for generations. Islamophobia is
fueled by ideas about Muslim immigrants not integrating into Western society and therefore do
not belong. Ramadan believes that this is just an excuse or validation. It is the Western mindset
18
that is not accepting to integration and refuses to move beyond to develop pluralism (YouTube
videod, 2012. Interview on Integration and Pluralism). Tariq Ramadan, however, believes that
most Muslims are integrated in Western society according to his philosophy of the “Three L’s”
(YouTube videod, 2012. Interview on Integration and Pluralism). He considers someone part of
society once they abide by the law, can speak the language and are loyal to their new country.
Ramadan also recognizes a Muslim immigrant’s situation. Not only is it easier to distinguish
someone who is Muslim, but this visible identity is associated with violence, extremism,
terrorism and simply being foreign (YouTube videob, 2012. Interview on Literalism and
Dogmatic Minds). Ramadan says that the reasoning behind this fear is related to the concept of
an “identity crisis”. The identity crisis goes both ways and consequently, is the source of modern
Islamophobic problems.
In the west, immigrants are a source of economic development. However, despite their
contribution to economic growth, it is also thought that immigrants may destroy the host country
due to differing value systems. This presents the idea of cultural resistance. Western countries
fear that negative change will occur simply by introducing the “others” (being Muslims or other
immigrants) to their communities. This also creates identity problems for the immigrants.
Muslim immigrants are troubled by competing goals. Muslim immigrants want to keep their faith
and culture to be a “good” Muslim. Muslims also want to feel a part of their new home and may
lose some cultural aspects from their home and replacing them with Western culture (YouTube
videoe, 2011. Speech: What I Believe).
Besides analyzing the causes of tension, Tariq Ramadan also has an opinion that offers
solutions. His ideas can be captured and understood in the following quote, “In the name of our
19
common values, let us accept that we are coming from different routes, but we have a common
future” (YouTube videoe, 2011. Speech: What I Believe).
Ramadan suggests that it is important to recognize and understand that there are
differences, as well as fears from both sides. He believes that it is important move onward to the
concept of pluralism, inclusivity, and the appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism.
Ramadan believes that the West’s greatest possible solution of is to conquer the divisive
mentality of “us” vs. “them” and start viewing Muslim people as integrated citizens that belong
to the community (YouTube videoe, 2011. Speech: What I Believe). However, his suggestions do
not rely solely on the western world, but also upon the Muslim communities. Muslim immigrants
need to take up the challenge of opposing Islamophobia and “stop allowing themselves to be
victimized” (YouTube videoe, 2011. Speech: What I Believe). He thinks that the Muslims
themselves, can have the greatest influence against anti-Muslim sentiments. He urges the Muslim
communities to stop accepting the status quo of minority citizenship. Muslims must develop an
understanding of their potential role in eradication Islamophobia (YouTube videod, 2012.
Interview on Integration and Pluralism). They must also become involved in the issues and not
tolerating discrimination.
Tariq Ramadan demonstrates the role he believes Muslims must play in order to find a
solution by the “Seven C’s” (YouTube videod, 2012. Interview on Integration and Pluralism). His
first point is that Muslim communities must have confidence. They must believe that they have a
role to play in society and that their viewpoints have value. Consistency is also important; if
foreign influences are to earn value, they must be dependable and persistent. Communication is
key. Muslim immigrants must listen and respond to fears and prejudices , for example. Ramadan
stresses the idea of contribution. To be involved in societal issues and be able to add to the
20
society demonstrates that one truly is part of the community. He also brings up the point of
creativity; that showing expression through culture (for example arts and literature) will
encourage tolerance because it will represent a reflection of the immigrants as being part of the
new culture. The ability to contest is also one of Ramadan’s important points. He believes that
for Muslims to truly move past the stages of integration, they must apply and utilize their right to
disagree rather that always being content and accepting. They must be active citizens in order to
truly show the loyalty towards their country because it shows they are thinking about what is best
for this country. Finally, Ramadan says that in order to succeed, Muslims must exhibit
compassion. This will allow for forgiveness and understanding as truly listening is the only way
to become united and move forward together. The main ideas behind Ramadan’s solutions are
that Muslims need to stop playing the role of victim and stand up against the toxicity of
Islamophobia. Muslims must proactively demonstrate that they belong instead of passively
waiting for the Western society to automatically accept them into their world.
Tariq Ramadan believes that when Muslim people present themselves as those that
belong, and the West accepts their integration, it will remove the mind set of separating “us” and
“them”. Ramadan believes that the best solution to Islamophobia is to move a from a mindset of
“us” and “them” to a modern “we” (Ramadan, 2006). This is important in combatting
Islamophobia because it is his hope that this new ideology will eliminate prejudice and fear and
therefore abolish discrimination.
21
The Role of Control
Islamophobia seems to be a contagious mindset that infects people once they are more
frequently exposed to anti-Muslim opinions. People are exposed to it most often by means of the
media, therefore making it the medium through which Islamophobic ideas are spread. With the
control of knowledge comes the ability to control how that knowledge is perceived, how it is
shared and what knowledge will be available (Mignolo, 2012, p. 24). In this world, the media has
control over what knowledge will be exposed to the majority of people, and what shall not be
exposed. This creates power. Accordingly, the media is in control of Islamophobia. Because
Islamophobia is based on biased attitudes and prejudice, it originates from what people think
they know about Muslims and consequently on the “knowledge” available to people. Hence, it
has power over anti-Islamic prejudice and plays the role of control.
The media connects the world, acting as a key element to globalization. In an era of
globalization, the actions of individuals are much more influential, have a greater impact and
affect much more than just a community (Isanolhu, 2012, p. 11). This creates an environment
where thoughts about Islam are easy to base off of certain individuals. This is wrong because it
causes people to create a negative image of an entire religion after only examining specific cases,
instead of the faith itself. For example, if someone was to search Muslims or Islam on the web,
the related news would involve bombs, terrorism, violence, war, riots, instability, extremism, the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, oppression, tension, negative depictions of developing countries in the
Muslim World and danger. If that is the only exposure one has to knowledge about Muslims,
feelings of fear and discomfort will naturally emerge, creating anti-Muslim sentiment.
Islamophobic mindsets are controlled by the media because the media is such an easily
accessible resource. In Great Britain, 74% of people admit that they do not have much
22
knowledge about Islam and 64% of what is known is learnt from the media (Ansar, 2013). The
major problem with media having the role of control is that over 90% of what is said regarding
Islam and its followers is inaccurate and extremely negative (Ahmed, 2012). To the eyes of the
public, there are evident connections between Muslims and terrorism, which is the main fuel to
the fear displayed by contemporary Islamophobia. Because everybody hears news concerning
Muslims countries that involve unstable governments, terrorist attacks and overall negative
depictions of the Islamic faith, these will be the ideas that shape one’s view on Muslim people.
Even though these news stories are truthful in the sense that the attacks or events did take place,
they cannot define Islam because they are mostly stories of fundamentalists that exploit the name
of their religion. Therefore, they represent only a closed-minded truth for people who refuse to
understand that Islam is a religion of deep values that are in fact accepted in Western society.
Even though the most common Islamophobic fear is that Muslims are terrorists and Islam is a
religion of extremism, the majority of Muslims are opposed to terrorism done in the name of
their faith. Despite this fact, Islamophobia is still backed up by the negative media coverage.
Approximately 88% of articles about Islam encourage the idea that Muslims don’t belong
because Islam is seen as foreign and an anomaly. These negative articles fail to teach the public
that Muslims are in fact part of Western culture and Islam is now a “global religion”.
It is also extremely important to understand that much of what is being portrayed by the
media is propaganda originating from misinformed “experts” that are very anti-Muslim and
being funded by wealthy, conservative individuals and people. The media is simply an outlet and
an amplifier for Islamophobic ideas, making the media the most public voice of the
Islamophobia network (Ali, W., Clifton, E., Duss, M., Fang, L., & Shakir, F., 2011). The
Islamophobia network refers to the group of people and organisations that believe in anti-Muslim
23
prejudice and are the fuel to the propaganda. The Center for American Progress created a
research project to determine the roots of this network and discovered that in the decade
following the 9/11 terrorist attack, over 42 million dollars were donated to fund the promotion of
the anti-Muslim fear, hatred and discrimination (Shakir, 2011). The funders for this initiative
were seven organisations (refer to Appendix A) that are all lead by very right-wing, wealthy
conservative leaders who are known for supporting solely conservative charities: Donors Capital
Fund, Richard Scaiffe Foundations, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Russell Berrie
Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund, Fairbrook
Foundation and Newton and Rachelle Becker Foundations (Ali et al., 2011). The very large
donations are made out towards several different organisations to fund websites, books, reviews,
DVDs, documents, advertisements, etc. that are all created to heighten the fear of the Muslim
threat which results in further escalation of the propaganda. Although the donations are made out
towards a number of organizations, for example the Middle East Forum, the Clarion Fund and
Jihad Watch, the money ends up in the control of a small group of individuals, the public
Islamophobes. This “tight-knit group” includes several people that consider themselves to be
experts on Islam and the supposed war with the West, when in truth their claims are highly
erroneous (Shakir, 2011). This group includes, for example, Frank Gaffrey (who believes that
mosques are seditious), Daniel Pipes (who claims that Muslim customs brought by immigrants
are extremely troublesome), Steve Emerson (who includes genocide as a part of the Islamic
religious doctrine) and Robert Spencer (who claims that traditional Islam is not moderate, nor
peaceful) (Shakir, 2011). The Center for American Progress labels this group as the
“misinformation experts” (2011). The vast majority of the anti-Muslim myths and fears originate
from the claims made by the so-called experts and most are not true or have been extensively
24
exaggerated and magnified out of proportion. The Islamophobic propaganda is then spread by
the “echo chamber” (Ali et al., 2011). This refers to politicians and other organizations such as
ACT! For America which then adopts the “issue” of the Muslim threat and seem to validate it by
making Islamophobic ideas relevant topics. Moreover, the echo chamber includes the right-wing
media which is the most influential voice that emits misinformed messages relaying anti-Muslim
hatred and spreads fear. The media serves as the main “amplifier” (Ali et al., 2011) of the
Islamophobic ideology. Three main perpetrators in the media are Fox News, CBN (the Christian
Broadcasting Network) and National Review. Fox News is very influential and often focuses on
anti-Muslim ideas which legitimizes the Islamophobic misinformation; an example being the
heightened reaction to the Sharia Law. The so-called experts are often featured and make regular
appearances on several programs; this gives them more credibility from the eyes of the public
than they deserve. (Ali et al., 2011). The president of the news company, Roger Ailes is known
to have an anti-Muslim mindset. He is not religious but donates regularly to religious charities;
however, he refuses to donate to anything with Muslim association until the Muslims “disarm
themselves” (Berrier, 2013). This plays on the belief that Muslims in general are directly
associated with terrorism, which is also the concept portrayed by Fox News. In fact, a public
religious research poll indicated that those who trust Fox News are more likely to believe in the
Muslim threat (Ali et al, 2011). CBN is founded by a multi-millionaire, Pat Robertson, who is
also known for promoting anti-Islamic ideas. The same applies to the founder of the National
Review, William F. Buckley Junior who often publishes articles written by the misinformation
experts (Ali et al, 2011). Ultimately, rich and wealthy conservatives donate money to
foundations that provide funding for misinformation experts, otherwise known as Islamophobes,
and their ideas are legitimized because the media supports them and relays their messages to the
25
public. Therefore, the media is in control because it is the reason that the anti-Muslim
propaganda is so widespread and that is seen as credible information.
The manipulation of the media is very consequential. Islamophobia is a serious social
issue that tarnishes the Muslim identity. Besides the United States, Great Britain is an excellent
example, because it is a country where Islamophobia is very present due to the dependence on
media coverage for information about Muslims. Furthermore, the information they are receiving
from the media comes from the Islamophobia network, as previously stated. Around one out of
every two people in Great Britain believes that Muslims are a threat, create problems and are
associated with extremism (Ansar, 2013). Only about one in every four people believes that
Muslim people are willing and able to integrate into the Western world (Ansar, 2013). The
amount of people who see a threat of foreigners is double to the amount that sees a simple desire
to be accepted. This anti-Muslim ideology has many ramifications. Dr. N Ahmed shows the
impacts by saying:
“The predominant narratives about Muslims in our media are overwhelmingly
negative, inaccurate and racist… This has had a devastating social impact,
undermining community cohesion and contributing to a dramatic rise in antiMuslim hate crimes”
(Ahmed, 2013)
By illustrating the detrimental effects, this quote demonstrates the significance of the
issue. Instead of the media, Muslim people should have control over how they are perceived.
This would mean that they are no longer being victimized. People who truly understand the
values of Islam must take control to enlighten the public about their faith, without being
26
overpowered by negative influences from the media. This will allow Muslim people to have
ownership about the image they portray and be involved in how they are perceived.
Islamophobia is built off of negative attention towards Islam. However, if Muslim people play
the role of controlling what attention is directed at their religion, a much more positive image
could be portrayed. Muslims should have more control over how they are illustrated to the
public. The governments also need to have more control so the right of freedom of speech is not
abused and exploited as a method to publicize Islamophobic views. An example of this is the
Danish cartoon that was published displaying Mohammed as a terrorist. However, some
governments are using Islamophobia as a political strategy because the attention in the media has
made anti-Muslim ideas into relevant topics and concerns. Within the governments, Muslim
activists must have a certain level of control as well by being more involved and active. Their
voice must be heard.
Even though the vast majority is, not all media is encouraging anti-Muslim ideology.
Some media is involved in combatting Islamophobia by addressing the issue directly instead of
worsening it. Currently, the people that care most about Islamophobia are Muslims because they
are being so negatively represented to the public. There are several organizations that are set up
to aid in the efforts to improve relations between the Western and Muslim worlds. Examples are
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR Canada and the Cordoba House. There
is obviously a growing population that care about Islamophobia and recognize the threat it poses
between the West and the Muslim countries because there are an increasing number of books,
studies, articles and advocates that oppose Islamophobia. However, the reality is that everybody
should care about the rising levels of Islamophobia, not just those who are directly impacted. In
truth, everybody is a victim because this social issue creates division as well as binary and
27
dogmatic thinking. Even though Muslims are the target of Islamophobia, everybody is affected
because it only fuels the idea of superiority and of the perception of “dangerous outsiders”.
Islamophobia means viewing difference, unfamiliarity and foreignness as a negative aspect and
forgetting that these differences can be enriching. The Western world is a victim of the media’s
control. One can only try to understand something they know; if people are only given
knowledge that feeds fear and intolerance of Muslims, they cannot begin to understand the
positive views.
28
Religious Aspect
Islamophobia is not only the bigotry against Muslim people; it is also a representation of
fear for Islam as a religion. This relates to the fear of the unknown that is ever present throughout
history and current global issues. The fear of Islam stems from its link to extremism and
therefore the Western world automatically connects the religion to terrorism. The opinions of
Islam as a religion for many people who are unfamiliar with it are formed off of the knowledge
they already have, which is gained mostly from the media. As previously stated, the majority of
media postings concerning Muslims are negative, and often they are about terrorism.
Accordingly, people are forming their thoughts of an entire religion based on the actions of
extremists.
Extremism, radicalism, fanaticism and fundamentalism are all words that are emphasized
quite frequently when talking about Islam. It is true that there are many Muslim fundamentalists.
However, it is also true that fundamentalism is not an accurate representation of the Qur’an (Rab,
2008). It is a misrepresentation of religion through manipulation. In Pakistan during the 1980s,
General Zia twisted the religion of Islam in order to remain in power (Choudhury, 2000). He
used the media to promote extremism; he forced it to becoming more normalised in people’s life
due to so much exposure from the State, the media and religious leaders. This had an impact on a
large portion of the population because the messages were adopted into everyday life
(Choudhury, 2000). Another example is Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, a fanatic version of Islam
from the 18th century. They based their beliefs on the literal interpretation of the Qur’an and
killed people who opposed them. More importantly, there are modern day Wahhabis which is
proof of the revival of extremism. However, the Qur’an actually does not support their radical
views of Islam (Rab, 2008). Because of cases like this, the image of Islam as a religion has
29
become damaged and corrupted. There is a major difference between politicized Muslim
fundamentalists, who use religion as a political tool and simply other followers of the Muslim
faith. Instead of being a clash of civilisations that alienates Muslims and calls for so much
discrimination in the West, as most Islamophobes would state, it is a clash between religious
fundamentalism and modernity (Rab, 2008).
An Iranian journalist illustrates the rise of extremism in an article written very shortly
after the attack on the twin towers: “The Muslim world today is full of bigotry, fanaticism,
hypocrisy and plain ignorance -- all of which create a breeding ground for criminals like bin
Laden” (Taheri, 2001). The rise of violence as a result of fanaticism can be seen as a
representation of growing fanaticism in the West (Rab, 2008). Fanaticism opposes what is
perceived as the immortality of capitalism. Even though this practice of ‘Islam’ is not consistent
to the traditional values or religion of Islam, it is extremely powerful. It mobilizes huge amounts
of people and can solidify a nation because it offers unity and therefore hope. This presents a
very tempting proposal, especially to a mass population that suffers from poverty, famine, war
and uneasiness as seen in many Muslim countries. Fanaticism hides underneath the word religion
but in reality it is a true force for violence and power (Intosh, n.d.). It is the reason behind
Islamophobia; the political and extremist aspects of Islam in the Muslim world define the entire
religion of Islam in the West as being backwards, dangerous and threatening.
However, fundamentalism does not represent Islam. It is a religion built off of values and
norms that promote harmony with one’s self, and with the world. The basic values of Islam are
morality, protection of life, basic needs, education, the right to earn a living and establishing a
family (Akgunduz). There are other aspects of the religion that have an impact on how one lives
their life. Muslim people find that important qualities are modesty, simplicity and frugality. They
30
have a deep respect for the society in which they belong and should therefore put much effort
into contributing to their community. There is a beautiful quote from the Qura’an that represents
this: “should I die, let my community live, for I have an everlasting life in my community”
(Akgunduz). Greed is something frowned upon, as well as complaint because contentment is
very important. Justice in the sense of innocence and freedom from guilt is also extremely
valued. Finally, Islam is about self-awareness, peace and forgiveness. (Akgunduz). There are a
many universal themes throughout. Even so, this religion is viewed as backwards, foreign and as
having opposing values to the Western world. Islamophobia has only developed because of a
mask of fear covering the true faith of Islam.
The view of the Western world slightly progresses once both perspectives about Islam are
examined. It is recognized that grouping all Muslims together is wrong because it creates
prejudice that then leads to discrimination. The common ground that has been adopted is that not
all Muslims are terrorists, which represent a step towards acceptance, but all terrorists are
Muslims, which represents the ever-existing fear of extremism. Unfortunately, this claim is
extremely false and has only created an extension to religious prejudice. Only 6% of terrorist
attacks from the United States (Danios of LW, 2010) and 1% of attacks on Europe (Ansar, 2013)
come from Islamic terrorists. Terrorism is not a religion, nor does it pertain solely to members of
a certain faith; Islam is a religion and cannot be defined by extremism or terrorism.
A solution to this tarnished Western view of Islam as a religion is to change from a frame
of mind that someone is either a Muslim or a Muslim extremist. This is not how religion works
in our era. People around the world practice their religion with immense variance in the levels of
commitment. There are fundamentalists, and there are not. But in that group of nonfundamentalists, there are many different subgroups. Some Muslims will do Namaz five times
31
daily, some will attend a Mosque regularly, others may only celebrate major celebrations such as
Eid, and others will simply demonstrate Muslim values and beliefs in their everyday life. These
levels of commitment pertain equally to every religion. To solve the issue of the bigotry inflicted
in Islam, an open view must be used to accept and learn about this religion instead of a closed
and binary opinion. But this will not happen automatically. Islamophobic minds will not simply
start to change. Muslim people must share their values to promote a mutual understanding to
move towards the development of tolerance. This way, Islam will be recognized as a religion
with many profound values and can become embraced and accepted in society instead of
attached to threats and fears.
32
The Logic of Evil
In the past decade alone, Islamophobia has increased in legitimacy as a global issue; even
the creation of the word itself is an indication. Although the word Islamophobia has been around
for several decades, it has become more recognized, used in scholarly articles and much more
frequently used by the public. Naturally, new words have been born from this growing idea such
as Islamophobic and Islamophobe, making it even more apparent and obvious. The public has
labelled many politicians and other speakers and writers as Islamophobes, denouncing their
views and accusing them of having simply racist motives. What some declare as Islamophobia,
others defend as working against the threat of radical, political and violent Islam. This is due to a
number of reasons; a large portion of anti-Muslim beliefs are built upon stereotypes of the
Middle East and profiling of Muslim immigrants that result from the tension between the
Western and Muslim worlds, as well as ignorance of Islam as a religion. But there are also facts
that give credibility to the views of Islamophobes, which is why they have acquired enough
support to be taken seriously by the public.
In the 21st century, discrimination and slandering of a specific race in the Western World
is not justifiable simply because of skin colour or religion. There is always a cause for fear or
hatred. There is both social and political reasoning for anti-Muslim ideology and those who
defend this mindset, present credible arguments. This is not an excuse for Islamophobia, nor is it
pardoning racism as a reasonable approach to multiculturalism. However, in order to find a
solution to this growing issue, the Islamophobic perspective must be both examined and
understood. By doing this, the element of bias is eliminated and the reasons for tension are made
clearer. It is said that Islamophobia is merely another chapter in the clash of civilisations between
33
the Western and Muslim world; however, more accurately stated, it is the confusion with regards
to the differences between Western and Muslim culture and the refusal to overcome them.
One of the most well-known voices for anti-Muslim ideology is American blogger
Pamela Geller. Her adversary has even said that “she is the personification of an Islamophobe”
(Geller, 2013). In her book Stop the Islamazation of America, Geller shares her concern that the
religion of Islam is becoming much too powerful in the Western world (Kelley, 2012). To
continue on the point of Islam developing too much of a presence, one may look at Gisele
Littman who writes under the screen name Bat Ye’Ore. She has started a conspiracy theory that
Islam is trying to totally take over and annihilate European culture. Even though she has no
qualifications, she has written about Muslim people oppressing non-Muslim for years and is now
cited in the works of many known “Islamophobes”, such as Pamela Geller (Danios, 2009).
Although Geller is known by many in a very negative sense as being Islamophobic, a large
amount of the public shares her perspective. This was evident during the debate about the
Ground Zero Mosque when Geller became a spokesperson for those who were opposed to its
creation. Her perspective is that building a mosque near the site of the twin towers is equivalent
to “celebrating murder”; it would be an insult to America to support an “Islamic supremacist
mosque” (YouTube videof, 2010. CNN Debate). The fact that she links building a mosque to
murder and supremacist represents the logic behind Islamophobic fear. From the eyes of the
West, the Muslim world is directly connected to danger, and terrorism. This has been immensely
propagated to support the American War on Terror.
Anders Breivick is a Norwegian terrorist who bombed Oslo, killing eight people and then
shot sixty-eight youth at a camp in 2011 (Ali et al, 2011). His goals were highly Islamophobic. In
his manifesto, a 1,500 page document concerning his political views, he expresses his opinion
34
about how the religion of Islam is slowly taking over Europe. He believed that the European
bureaucrats had been forced to trade in all of Europe to the Muslim World in exchange for oil
and Europe is therefore slowly becoming dominated by Islam (Brown, 2011). He sees this as a
major threat because traditionally, Islam has never been seen as a peaceful religion (Breivick,
2011). From here, a very nationalistic point of view is adopted. Breivick believes that although
his crimes were acts of terror, they were a necessity in order to stop the “Muslimization”,
meaning the “Islamic colonization” of Europe (Brown, 2011). The court originally declares him
as insane but Breivick shared that the prosecution did this only to delegitimize his manifesto. On
that point, it must be acknowledged that the supposed “experts” he cites, such as Robert Spencer
and Pamela Geller are not truly experts on the issue but merely writers who are also considered
Islamophobes (Brown, 2011); however, they are people who are trusted by a large portion of the
Western public. Because the court changed their prosecution and Breivick is officially sane, his
Islamophobic views have been taken seriously by many people. He is an example of someone,
even though he is a terrorist, who committed a great evil backed up by logic. He presents the
Muslim World as a great threat to Europe in particular and justifies his acts of terror and
discrimination because they are acts to protect his nation from what is perceived as the ultimate
other, Muslims.
Another reason to create an enemy out of Muslim people is because Islam is seen as
backwards, antagonistic and the obvious outsider to the West. A French politician, Marine Le
Pen uses this as part of her campaign on anti-immigration, using the Muslim population of
France as a scapegoat. She believes that immigrants from the Muslim world are the reason for
high unemployment, factory closures and rising food prices in France (Stop Racism, 2012). This
argument is appealing for many French people because it evokes a certain sense of nationalism
35
and almost one in five people voted for her in the first round of the 2012 election, a record
amount for her party (Wilsher, 2012). However, it mainly encourages fear of immigrants,
specifically Muslims. Le Pen not only creates anti-Islamic mindsets by blaming this population,
she also seeks to eliminate the “problem”. Her perspective is that the differences brought by
Islamic culture cause too much religious tension and that this can be solved by removing them
from society. This politician is in support of the ban on religious headwear in France and would
like to ban public prayer, foreign government financing of mosques and halal food in schools
(Pitt, 2012). Her opinion on Halal food is that: “Millions of French people eat halal food every
day without realising it… It’s a problem because it breaks our law on secularism. This is because
making people who are not religious consume halal food is contributing, due to this consumption
which lacks transparency, to financing a cult…” (Fernandez, 2012). This quote is just one
example of her logic. She sees people who are bringing in the Muslim culture as an imposition
and invasion to her own culture. She voices her opinion by presenting the idea of differences in a
negative fashion, for example she says: “No country in the world… would accept to go through
the fast and sizeable immigration of people who, without a doubt, have a different religion and
culture.” (Fernandez, 2012). This is an illustration of the fear behind Islamophobia. People are
becoming increasingly worried about the supposed “culture clash”; there was a 42% increase in
Islamophobic acts from 2011 to 2012 (Fernandez, 2012). This is representative of the growth in
the “religious tension” Le Pen speaks about. There is a strong basis of fear surrounding the
differences between the Muslim and Western religion and culture which fuels anti-Muslim
ideology and strongly influences Islamophobes.
As stated earlier in this paper, one of the main causes for Islamophobia is because the
Muslim world is seen as unchanging and “backwards” to the Western World. A major
36
characterisation of Islam to others is that it is a religion that oppresses women. The stereotype is
that Muslim women are abused, veiled, powerless, forced into marriage and “victims of a
patriarchal and oppressive religion” (Hassan, 2012). Unfortunately, there is some truth in this
stereotype. For example in Afghanistan, there are severe rules prohibiting women from going out
alone, forcing them to wear a burqa and denying them any education (Chesler & Spencer, 2007).
Robert Spencer took part in writing an article in which he revealed the numerous forms of gender
inequality in the Muslim world. An astounding fact that proves the stereotype is that 90% of
women in Pakistan have been both physically and sexually abused in their own homes (Chesler
& Spencer, 2007). He also writes about the trafficking of women, rape, child brides and sexist
laws (Chesler & Spencer, 2007). Robert Spencer has been labelled as an Islamophobe and his
article is very one-sided in an effort to portray the religion of Islam solely by gender inequality;
however he proves his arguments with many examples that can only be interpreted as feminine
oppression. Other facts that support the idea is that women in the Muslim world are not given
opportunity for education and therefore have lower literacy rates, have no sexual freedom and
have extremely limited opportunity for economic self-reliance (Ali, 2010). This argument is
accompanied by the opinion that Islamophobia is not a serious enough issue to be called a human
rights violation (as it is by many Muslim members in the United Nations) because the Muslim
World practices many seemingly worse violations of human rights, most prominently oppression
and abuse of women (YouTube videof, 2010. CNN Debate).
Another very interesting debate is the controversy with regards to the burqa. Many
countries, France, Italy, Belgium and Spain, have banned religious headwear and face covering
like the burqa because it is viewed as a symbol against women. This law is supposed to protect
women from religious oppression. Farzana Hassan, a Muslim women’s rights activist believes
37
that “The niquab or burqa is a political tool by Islamists who wish to segregate Muslims into
religious ghettos, cut off from mainstream society.” (Bell, 2012). Many people view the burqa
as a symbol of Islam and as a representation of sexism, oppression and the caging in of women.
When connecting the two ideas, Islam is indubitably connected to gender inequality. But the ban
on the burqa is also seen as Islamophobic because in creating the ban you are taking away one’s
freedom of expression through how one dresses; many believe it is equally as oppressive to ban
the burqa as others believe it is to wear one. Women who choose to continue to wear this
religious headwear after the ban quickly became victims of assault, harassment and violence.
Those who decide to still wear a burqa or niquab are left with two choices. First, they can abide
to the ban which would force them to remain inside. This further creates a separation between
Muslim women and the rest of Western society because it prevents any contribution or
involvement in their own communities. The second option is to ignore the ban and continue to go
out. Even though many other citizens do not react to this defiance, there have been reports where
people have tried to rip off the religious headwear and have denied the women of public services
(Chrisafis, 2011). It has brought more attention to the fact that these people are “not accepted in
society”. It is an open demonstration of the rejection of Islamic beliefs. Even though the ban was
intended to protect women from religious oppression, it has in fact lead to an increase in antiMuslim discrimination, creating a heightened Islamophobic response.
Islamic religious oppression has become an extremely important issue and it is not just
utilised as support for anti-Muslim ideology; it is a legitimate concern for those in the Western
society. Because gender inequality has been very nearly abolished in most of the Western World,
and relatively recently, the success of Western women has become exemplary to feminists
around the world (Hassan, 2012). This means that the equality between genders that has been
38
established in Western culture is now becoming the role model. This creates two problems. First
of all it means that these Western concepts are being applied to, for example, Muslim culture
which has different values and a different history. Mahmudu Hasan predicts in his work about
gendered Islamophobia that “Attempts to reject Islam and apply Western models… are bound to
fail in Muslim societies” (Hassan, 2012, p.14). The second problem that arises is the antiIslamic mindset in which the Muslim women are in desperate need of help from the “more
civilised” Western society (Hassan, 2012) which in turn creates discrimination to Islamic people
due to a sense of self-appointed superiority.
By looking at Islamophobia from a social point of view, the problem arises from people’s
fear of a difference in culture and religion compared to Western society; this is both a legitimate
concern and a logical opinion. There are critical differences in culture, for example covering
your face is perceived as proper and religious respect in some Muslim countries but hiding your
face is seen as either hostile or caged from the Western perspective. People who are immigrants
from the Middle East to mainly North America or Europe are the most victimized by
Islamophobia because they are portrayed solely by the fact that they are Muslim and that implies
they bring a foreign culture, which is results in a very negative perception. Many people have a
natural reaction of fear that is furthermore translated into the more severe reaction of
Islamophobia.
Another reason behind Islamophobia is simply ignorance. As previously explained in this
paper, under the section Role of Control, people believe anti-Muslim myths because that is the
information that they are exposed to. The information that is most accessible and easily
understood about Muslims in contemporary society is almost always negative and if that is the
exposure to Islam that people are receiving, it will indubitably result in the creation of an equally
39
negative perception. Most often, the information that is most readily available is misleading
which causes an increase in ignorance due to false or biased information. In his paper concerning
the connection of ignorance to Islamophobia, Douglas Pratt states that “the Western perception
of Islam is dominated by misrepresentation and distorted images, which derive largely from
misunderstanding and ignorance” (2011). Here he addresses the idea that the way people in the
West see Islam is created out mainly out of ignorance. Many of the images seen of the Muslim
World are “contextually loose”, meaning that there is minimal background information (D. Pratt,
2011). The result is that all of the images become generalized and are used to define all of
Muslim people. This leads to inaccurate stereotypes which then begin to govern the entire
perception of Islam and its followers. Another point is that Muslims have become alienated,
meaning they are the “other”. This is an important aspect of the ignorance that plays a role in
anti-Muslim ideology because one simply assumes things and invents a reality pertaining to the
“other” instead of actually understanding them. If more people knew about Islam and understood
the religion instead of simply making assumptions based off of what little information they are
provided, more connections would be made between the West and Islam. Therefore Islam would
not be inherently viewed as the “other”, nor would its followers be consistently alienated.
Anti-Muslim ideology is not only born from social realities, but has also been built from
a political standpoint. The most obvious example is the American war on terror and their
invasion into Iraq. It is universally assumed that the war on terror is targeted uniquely at Islamic
terrorism (Pratt, 2011, p. 3) and the government of the United States can take credit for this. The
American government has caused a wide spread chaos throughout their own nation and more of
the Western World. Once a state of Islamophobia or any variety of anti-Muslimism is created, it
can be used as a justification for war. Directly after 9/11, the Bush government declared a war on
40
terrorism, but it was quickly redefined as a war on Islamic fanaticism (Cole, p. 70). The
American government created a frenzy over the “huge threat” posed by Muslim terrorists to
national security, even creating the term the Green Menace to create the equivalent fear caused
by the Red Menace; this has been dubbed the “New McCarthyism” by author Deepa Kumar
(2012). This increased any prejudice towards Muslim people; the Muslim World was not
oblivious to this and it highly influenced the image of the United States in the Muslim world and
definitely worsened relations with them (Cole, p. 70).
Even though it is still a topic accompanied by debate, many people believe that the
American political force heightened the energy concerning the threat of terrorism to gain support
for an invasion of Iraq and furthermore, control over oil fields. It is also believed that they played
on the already existing prejudice about gender inequality in the Muslim world to wage an
imperialistic and power-seeking war in Afghanistan. However, an Islamophobic reaction was
utilized to move the public with greater capacity for the war in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, the
former secretary of defence for the Bush government told the public that they were “surrounded
by violent Muslim movements” and that this was a serious threat (Cole, p.70). However, one of
these movements was a 200 person gang of people who were Muslim and inhabited a jungle in
the Philippines; this is just one of example of the heightened propaganda to focus on the Muslim
enemy. The publicity about the war on terror increased anti-Muslim sentiment and it had lasting
effects. Five years after the declaration of “war on terror”, over half of Americans feared
Muslims because they believe there are more dangerous extremists in Islam than any other
religion, and these beliefs have only since continued to develop (Goldenburg, 2006). Muslim
extremists were turned into the enemy, but moreover Muslim people became targets of further
discrimination.
41
The logic behind the promotion of Islamophobia is all centered on wealth and oil. The
American government believes that they are not the only country in danger from the threat of
terrorist; they believe terrorism threatens the stability of Saudi Arabia. Rumsfeld declared that “if
radicals get a hold of oil-rich Saudi-Arabia, the US will have an enormous national security
problem” (Cole), which supports the ulterior motives to combatting terrorism since Saudi Arabia
is the largest petroleum exporter and an essential supporter of the hydrocarbon economy in the
United States (Cole). However, the United States gains control over a significant amount of
control of the world’s oil by invading Iraq, as Iraq is the sixth largest net exporter (EIA, 2013).
The war in Iraq seems to be quite advantageous for the American government because it allows
for control over the oil fields as well as military presence geared towards fighting extremism
which protects their own nation as well as Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, the United States benefits
from invading Iraq and used the already-existing anti-Muslim ideology, combined with the
newborn fear of Islamic terrorism, to gain support. Islamophobia was exploited as justification
for a war in the Muslim World.
The people that are Islamophobic or demonstrate any kind of anti-Muslimism are not
simply performing acts of evil for the sake of “evil”; there is reasoning behind their opinions.
Attack and abuse is not an acceptable response, but the initial reason that this happens does
belong to a certain rationale. Islamophobia means the fear of Islam and Islamic people: the fear
that their culture is imposing and gaining a major presence, the fear of society with values so
different from the Western World and the ability to manipulate this fear. Ultimately, hate and
discrimination are not exercised to simply hate and discriminate, there is always reasoning
backing it up. Islamophobes are gaining a bigger audience and discrimination towards Muslim
people is increasing, but this cannot be solved by ignoring why this is happening. The only way
42
forward is to identify the issues that result in Islamophobia and therefore, one must understand
the logic of the problem.
43
International Organizations
In 2009 the United Nations General Assembly formally linked the issue of defamation of
religion to Islam by saying: “The Assembly would… note with deep concern ‘the intensification
of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred’,
including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic
events of 11 September 2001. It would further recognize that, in the context of the fight against
terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred had become aggravating
factors that contributed to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target
groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion ”(UN General Assembly, 2009).
Although this was said in 2009, Islamophobia became an issue addressed by the UN in 2008 by
the Human Rights Council. Although a worldwide attempt to combat all present forms of
discrimination was being discussed, Islamophobia was highly emphasized (UN News Center,
2008). The discrimination against Muslims was called to the attention of the UN by the
Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC). The OIC is an inter-governmental organization,
second largest only to the United Nations, which represents a united voice of the global Muslim
population (OIC) in order to play a role in the mission to achieve world peace. It has established
a ten-year-plan to help obtain the goal of the Muslim World contributing to global harmony, in
which a whole category is devoted to directly fighting Islamophobia. The plan includes making it
clear to the world that help is required on an international basis, emphasizing that Islamophobia
is an issue that must be combatted, creating a sense of co-operation among aiding NGOs, directly
addressing the UN, urging other countries to make preventative laws and creating a unified
dialogue about Islamic values to “empower Muslim countries to fight terrorism” and to monitor
all progress (OIC). These are very important steps to take because they have a wide-range of
44
focus, both on the Muslim World and on the Western World, indicating that a joint effort is a
necessity. The ten-year-plan created by the OIC also involves creating solidarity in the Muslim
World, which will eliminate the view about Islam as out of control, moving towards moderation
and tolerance in the religion, thus eliminating the oppressive aspects, combatting terrorism and
building human rights and stronger governance, which will in turn create a more positive
international reaction to the Muslim World. Therefore, all other topics involved in the ten year
plan are directly connected to stopping Islamophobia and removing tensions with regards to
Muslims. Other initiatives by the OIC are creating a television channel to counter the enormous
amount of Islamophobic media, and performing speeches that target the issue of Muslim
stereotyping. Hence, the actions of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation are an essential
factor towards eliminating anti-Muslim bigotry and promoting peaceful global relationships.
Success of the OIC has already been obtained by involving the United Nations and
determining the need to fight Islamophobia. In consideration that the OIC is the largest voting
group in the non-aligned movement in the UN, and that the majority of members in the Human
Rights Council belong to it, they are a very powerful force on a global level (Bayefski, 2010). In
2008, even though the Western World voted against it, combatting defamation of religions was
voted as the resolution at the Human Rights Council for the United Nations, and Islamophobia
became a primary focus; this in itself is an entirely huge success. Part of the resolution involved
regretting “the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor
Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they
experience” (Alarabiya) not only exposing the issue, but the importance of combatting it. This
mainly anti-Muslim resolution resulted in many speeches that promote cultural differences and
45
interfaith as well as indicate the responsibility of the entire world to face this issue in a united
fashion (UN General Assembly, 2009).
Since then, the United Nations has actively contributed through the UN Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization by creating a publication named Fighting Islamophobia
through Education and hereby promoting the fight against Muslim discrimination through
schools. This recognizes that a way forward towards peace is to raise our youth as tolerant young
leaders (UNESCO). The goal is to help educators identify intolerance and discrimination towards
Muslims in schools, and to suggest how to properly prevent and respond to Islamophobia
(UNESCO). In essence, this will hopefully lead to a future where diversity is valued, intolerance
and discrimination is not accepted and that these understandings are built from an early age.
Since conflicts come from misconceptions, people must have knowledge and understanding
about other cultures, creating true and caring global citizens (UNESCO).
Ultimately, Islamophobia has encountered success concerning the United Nations, not only has it
been recognized, but plans have been made to see it conquered.
Another organization that is fighting Islamophobia is the Islamic Human Rights
Commission (IHRC). Although based out of the UK, it is an organization that is aiming towards
justice on a global level and its members represent different nations such as Malaysia, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Iran and India. According to the chair of the organization, Shajarech, one
of the main reasons it was formed is because eighty percent of the world’s oppressed population
is Muslim, but Muslims are still generalized as the perpetrators, not the victims (Feffer, 2011). It
is believed that this fact would increase Islamophobia because it attached such a negative
connotation to the word Muslim itself. According to the home website, research is essential to
their fight for justice:
46
“Our research work includes submitting reports to governments and international
organizations, writing articles, monitoring the media, cataloguing war crimes and
producing research papers on hate crime, discrimination, the nature of human
rights and so on.”
(IHRC)
With extensive research, they believe that they can initiate solutions to attain their
objectives to promote human rights, truth and justice-based social order, to oppose the abuse of
power, to publicise discrimination, to go against those who carry out the injustice and to work
alongside organisations and people who are working towards similar goals (IHRC). This is a
demonstration to the critics of Islam-orientated organizations that are fuelled by prejudice that
human rights are just as important without religious identification to religion-based
organizations. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has done an excellent job surveying the
public, which is important because it enables tracking of anti-Muslim ideology, but when people
are questioned, it not only raises awareness but it causes people to question themselves and
mentally address Islamophobia as an issue. Besides a research based method, the IHRC has also
confronted Islamophobia from a satirical point of view, an ingenious way to push the public eyes
into seeing discrimination against Muslims as something that is too ridiculous to be tolerated any
longer. In 2003, they held an annual fundraising event that gave out Islamophobia Awards! This
function was meant to be entertaining, but also educational as it presented nominees and
recipients for the most Islamophobic politicians, media, media-personalities and all-round
Islamophobic. This is an effort to raise awareness for the reality of Islamophobia and its success
is shown in how it is brought up in many well-reviewed books that are conveying a similar
message to that of the IHRC. However, it also is a failure because not enough people hear about
47
it; there is virtually no coverage of it through the news, at least on an international basis. It could
prove to be much more effective if it was publicised towards a larger public on a global scale.
Conclusively, the Western World, the Muslim World and the world as a united whole is
prepared to combat Islamophobia. There is a driving force in the Muslim World, the OIC, which
is determined to notify the world that everyone must become involved is a very important factor
because it represents the victims of the issue taking a portion of control, but also indicating that
the rest of the world has responsibilities to fulfil. This means that action is being taken to counter
Islamophobia; even though it has increased in the past decade, the world has understood that
tolerance is too vital to peace for it to be abused. The role of international organizations will
steadily increase as they succeed in spreading awareness and bringing attention to the severity
and legitimacy of anti-Muslim discrimination. By examining the role of these organisations, it is
seen that the world is coming to the conclusion that fighting Islamophobia must be a joint effort
and furthermore, must happen on a global level.
48
Case Study: Afghanistan and the Burning of Qur’ans
Throughout modern history, the people of Afghanistan have been diminished as a result
of conflict. The fact that Afghanistan is a very Muslim country is very important because
Islamophobia has allowed for war and violence to sweep over the nation. Ninety nine percent of
the population is of Islamic faith and the religion plays a very important role in culture and
politics (Afghanistan Culture). There have always been negative opinions and judgements about
Islam from the Western World, but since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it has been even more so
associated with violence, oppression and terrorism. Because Afghanistan is a Muslim country
and it is situated in the Middle East, any problems that exist there are being generalised and used
to define Islam in its entirety when truly only a radical, politicised or militarised Islam should be
of question. For example, the oppression of women under the Taliban Muslim fundamentalists
and concern about terrorism and Islamic extremist groups like Al-Qaida has now begun to
represent Afghanistan from the perspective of the Western World. According to expert on
Islamophobia, Deepa Kumar, there is a widespread opinion that being a Muslim is now seen as
threatening; Muslims are all ticking time bombs and eventually even a moderate Muslim will
“explode” because they are fuelled by a “violent religion” (GRTV, 2010). This means that
Islamophobia is being encouraged by saying that people should be afraid of Muslims because
apparently all Muslim people have the potential and the drive to become radicals due to the
violence and extremism associated with the religion of Islam. Many people who are influenced
by Islamophobia believe that Muslims are devout to their religion and their religion only; for
example, they cannot be patriotic without denying their religion. Kumar also compares this fear
of Islam to the Red Scare during the Cold War (GRTV, 2010). Before, the West fought against
communism, a product of the Soviet Union. She acknowledges the differences but generally
49
believes that now it is a fight against terrorism, hence the war on terror, which is perceived as a
product of Islam and the Muslim World, making Islam and Muslim people from the Middle East
the ultimate enemy. This ideology has had a major influence on American people. With regard to
the war in Afghanistan, this is shown through the statements made by the US government.
“We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” said former president Bush; he
continues this argument in 2002 as well: “We must take the battle to the enemy, destroy his plans
and confront the worst threat” (GRTV, 2010). By addressing the country shortly after the 9/11
terrorists attacks, the anti-Muslim ideology was only being heightened. When the government
refers to “taking the battle to the enemy”, it is easily inferred that they are declaring the Muslim
World and specifically Afghanistan as the threat, demonizing the population. This uses
Islamophobia as justification. When the government of a country creates a serious fear of Islam,
the people will naturally respond to this and see Islamophobia as a form of common sense
(GRTV, 2010). This has caused for much more scrutiny on the Muslim faith and it creates
inferiority out of its followers. This has not gone unnoticed by Afghanistan, a country now
considered a demimonde; they have become among the top countries in the Muslim World to
respond to the given inferiority. Afghani protests have been heavily covered by Western media.
They are currently occupied by the United States and other NATO forces and have consequently
responded directly the foreign presence from the West.
In September of 2010, thousands of Afghani people protested violently in response to
plans of holding an International Burn the Qur’an Day initiated by a Christian Pastor, Terry
Jones (BBC, 2010). Even though burning the Qur’an would insult over 1.5 billion people, Terry
Jones says it is in honour of the ninth anniversary of 9/11 because it sends out a message that
Islam will not be tolerated, which will put a stop to the religion and the brutality (Russell, 2010).
50
He said “We believe Islam is of the devil, that it’s causing billions of people to go to hell. It is a
deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that has been proven many, many times”. This clear
case of Islamophobia enraged the Muslim World. Jones’ plan was cancelled, but even the mere
fact that there was planning sparked an enormous amount of religious tension and protests. In
Afghanistan, rocks were thrown and there was open gun fire during the protests. Afghani people
became increasingly angry not only because of the clear attempt to insult their religion but
because there was not a ban placed on burning Qur’ans, resulting in a postponing of the
Islamophobic plans, not a cancellation. President Karzai of Afghanistan says that “insulting the
Qur’an is an insult to nations” (BBC, 2010). This shows the cultural significance of the Muslim
religion. The protest in Afghanistan began so intensely and so quickly in response to the Pastor’s
plans and continued even after they had been “cancelled”. However, Afghanistan along with the
Muslim World did not plead a case of victimization. The plan about burning the Qur’an was
exposed globally as an example of the detrimental effects of Islamophobia. The following
collection of quotes have all been taken from an article that demonstrates how planning to burn
the Qur’an will not only victimize Muslims, although it is a clear insult to their beliefs, but the
rest of the world as well: (BBC2, 2010)
“By burning the Koran, they cannot harm it. The Koran is in the hearts and minds
of 1.5 billion people. Humiliation of the holy book represents the humiliation of
people. I hope that this decision will be stopped... so that the world can live in
peace and stability and respect of each other”
(Afghan President Hamid Karzai)
51
“The burning of the Koran would be offensive not just to Muslims but to all
supporters of religious freedom and tolerance worldwide.”
(UK Foreign Secretary William Hague)
“We stand here collectively as the world is facing a great threat and danger. What
is being planned by Reverend Terry Jones and his followers... not only wounds
the feelings of the Islamic Ummah [community], but I am also certain the feeling
of the followers of other faiths; and indeed can threaten international peace and
security.”
(Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono)
“This action cannot be justified at any time and certainly is doubly unjustified
coming at the holy month of Ramadan. To my Muslim brothers and sisters, I urge
you to show restraint while we deal with this issue as we continue to build and
strengthen our fortress for religious tolerance and continuing peaceful
coexistence.”
(Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan)
These quotes are all reactions to the Islamophobic plans. It is widely recognized that offending a
particular religion, especially one with such an important population, would have effects that
spread around the globe. Protests and outrage did not solely occur in Afghanistan. The Muslim
52
World had many protests and many in the West were strongly opposed to the plans of the
extreme Islamophobe. However, Afghanistan received a lot of attention from the media due to
several violent protests. This is another method in which Islamophobia is fueled. The majority of
protests were passionate but relatively peaceful; however the Western Media brought attention
mainly to the ones that turned violent. By doing this, many Westerners concluded that
Afghanistan was over-reacting. For example, in many articles, the demonstrations are reported
by comparing the “thousands of Afghans” protesting violently against the plan of “a small
American Church” (Huff Post, 2011). When presented from this angle, the idea that people
whose culture is centered around the religion of Islam quickly resort to violence and brutality is
effectively solidified and supported, aiding Islamophobia. The efforts by Afghanistan to defend
their religion are belittled because they are in response to an individual’s actions. However, it
can then be brought to light that the United States declared an entire war against the Muslim
World and occupied Afghanistan in response to the actions of a single terrorist group. This is
representative of the hypocrisy of the West that is hidden in the shadow of anti-Muslim
perspective, even when Islamophobia is being reported. Afghanistan presented a possible
solution to anti-Muslim ideology by protesting violently and exposing the serious reaction to
insults directed at Islam; however, this was not a successful solution because as previously
mentioned it was used in support of Islamophobic arguments.
In 2011, Afghani flooded the streets in protest yet again because of Terry Jones’
Islamophobic ideas. However, this time his plan was carried out and a Qur’an was burned. This
is a tremendous offense to Muslim people because the Qur’an is the holy book of Islam; this is a
religious hate crime and an abuse of the right to freedom of expression. The pastor is a true
Islamophobe because he believes that it was fair to burn the Qur’an because a mock trial was
53
held that argued both in favour and against the holy book. Naturally since Jones was the judge,
the Qur’an was found guilty. The entire event was televised. The final verdict was that the
Qur’an was charged with training and promoting terrorism, the death, rape and torture of nonMuslims, inciting crimes against women and minorities, and promoting prejudice and racism
towards those who do not follow Islam (DWOC). He also compared the Islamic holy book to
Hitler’s Mein Kampf, written to support the holocaust (DWOC). This is not only incorrect, but it
is an unjust and severely insulting statement. Online polls agreed that burning the Qur’an was a
suitable consequence even though a year prior, resulting religious tension was made extremely
clear. The protests in Afghanistan resulted in chaos. The protests lasted for over a month and
resulted in numerous casualties, including the death of eight UN employees and many protestors
as well (Boone, 2011). The instigator of the chaos, Pastor Jones used the violence as an example
to show why the religion of Islam needs to be stopped. This incident created a huge amount of
tension between Afghanistan and the Western World because it was taken as an enormous insult,
as intended. In response to the anti-Islamic hate crime, anti-Western feelings obviously grew,
and in Afghanistan this is consequential considering that it is occupied by foreign Western
forces.
In 2012, Afghanistan protested yet again over Americans burning the Qur’an. However,
this situation differed from the Islamophobic event issued by Jones. A citizen of Afghanistan
discovered that Qur’ans were being sent to burn at the Bagram Airport; it is unconfirmed
whether any were actually burned before it was stopped. The Qur’ans had been taken from
prisoners held by the US forces and were put into a pile of discarded documents that are
routinely burned (Graham-Harrison, 2012). However, once the soldiers who were supposed to
burn the documents became notified that part of the pile contained Qur’ans, they stopped
54
immediately. But the damage was done and protests began taking place throughout Afghanistan.
An attempt at a solution was issued straight away by NATO but unfortunately failed. NATO
responded quickly and made it as clear as possible that this was a mistake, no offense was
intended and this will be prevented in the future (graham-Harrison, 2012). Nonetheless, the fact
that the Qur’ans were even put into the pile to burn shows disregard towards the importance of
the Islamic faith in Afghanistan. Secondly, the failure of the soldiers to recognize the books is a
sign of pure ignorance to the culture in which the troops are living. NATO attempted to repair
any damage by formally apologizing to the President of Afghanistan, the government and the
people for any offense this caused and made sure that it was understood that all 130 000 troops in
Afghanistan were to undergo training on recognizing and learning how to properly handle the
Qur’an (Graham-Harrison, 2012). The apology was appreciated, but the damage had already
been done, especially since this was the third event in three years that involved burning the
Islamic holy book. Thousands and thousands of Afghani people protested across the country,
targeting not only American offices, but Western embassies in general, proof that the anger was
directed towards the Western World and not just the United States (PShukla, 2012). The protests
were all organized, the majority were violent, and many were attended by over 1000
demonstrators (refer to Appendix B). They were fuelled not only by the people of Afghanistan,
but by the Taliban and the Iranian media as well (PShukla, 2012). The protests were a result of a
Western error and the fact that they were that extreme is significant in showing that Afghanistan
feels as if it has been continuously targeted by religious hatred in the form of anti-Muslim
sentiment.
Even without consideration of hate crimes, Afghanistan has been victimized by the power
of Islamophobia consistently in the past decade. The war brought on by American troops has
55
been justified by anti-Muslim mindsets in the West. Occupying Afghanistan benefits the US for
two reasons. Firstly, it gives the country access to foreign natural gas, a resource that is
becoming increasingly rare. This way, it prevents other countries from obtaining the resource
like Russia, China and Iran. Secondly, it establishes US military power and supports their
modern-day imperialism (GRTV, 2010). One might ask whether this would still happen if
Afghanistan were not a Muslim country and if the exploitation of Afghanistan is enabled by the
fact that it is a Muslim nation. Because of the widespread Islamophobia, certainly aided by the
attacks of 9/11, the United States can justify their presence. If people think they are in danger of
Muslim terrorism, the US will have more support for the war even though many Muslim rights
and civil liberties are being violated (GRTV, 2010). In addition, Islamophobia would imply that
Afghanistan is in need of help from the “superior” West, thus US presence is being justified by
anti-Muslim ideology once again.
The strong and passionate response of Afghanistan to the Islamophobia in the West, as
seen with the highly offensive burning of Qur’ans, is an exemplary case demonstrating how
religious tension is an obvious opposition to peace. Although anti-Muslim mindsets are most
evident in the Western World, the damage does not only affect the Western society. Afghani
society was extremely affected by the distinct and forthright display of Islamophobia because it
turned into a nation-wide spread of chaos and violence. Not only that, but the country has
become a victim of war because of the anti-Muslim mindset of the West. The burning of the
Qur’an is an obvious act of hatred against Islam that was aimed at the Muslim world. This event
opposes any form of religious tolerance. It is not only an insult to the religion and its followers; it
is an insult to any harmony between different faiths. The reaction of Afghanistan shows the
intolerance for religious hate crimes and that even though anti-Muslim ideology is the
56
justification for foreign military occupation in Afghanistan, Islamophobia is not something that
goes unnoticed and dismissed. Afghanistan did not break out in simply calm and peaceful
protests; many were passionate, heated, anti-Western, violent and defiant. Islamophobia clearly
hinders international relationships, creates religious tension and therefore opposes peace.
57
Case Study: Anti-Muslim Discrimination in Myanmar (Burma)
After decades of being under military control, Burma is now under the rule of its first
elected president, Thein Sein. The country is currently progressing towards democracy, but the
stability of the country is at stake due to existing religious tension. Burma is not situated far
from the concentrated Muslim World, but there is still a Muslim presence; the Burmese Muslims
make up the Rohingya ethnic minority. According to the United Nations, Rohingya are among
the most persecuted and discriminated ethnic groups in the entire world. In 1982, the official
Citizenship Act was formed, declaring that only ethnic groups of Burmese origin are granted
citizenship; this denied the Muslim population of Burma citizenship, because they are of
Rohingya descent, even though they have lived in Burma for many generations. This means that
Muslims are not allowed a formal education, do not have access to health care, are under
marriage and family size restrictions and can take no part in the political and economic aspects of
their country (Pitsuman, 2012). Additionally, the Muslims in particular are known to be victims
of slavery and torture. Moreover, the Rohingya do not only face political discrimination but face
discrimination from the civilians as well; the Buddhist majority of Burma has a very negative
view on Islam. They often refer to the Rohingya as “Kalar”, a very derogatory term used to insult
Muslims (AFP, 2012), and are publicly violent and prejudiced towards the minority. It is truly
believed that the Muslim Rohingya do not belong in Burma. This has resulted in extreme
religious, ethnic and communal tension between the Muslim and Buddhist populations of the
nation.
In June 2012, three men raped and then murdered and Buddhist woman. The criminals
were Muslim and this was enough to spark a fire; the violence escalated extremely from thereon.
58
Following the arrest, ten Muslim men were killed brutally by a Buddhist mob that stopped their
city bus. However, the murdered Muslims were completely unconnected to the earlier crime;
their only “crime” was being of the Islamic faith (BBC3, 2012). This example is a very accurate
demonstration of the strength behind the anti-Muslim sentiment in Burma. Like many other
cases, people following Islam are held accountable, punished and hated for actions of individuals
who belong to the same religion. This shows a hate towards the entire religion and blames it for
promoting criminals. Consequently, the Muslim population retaliated, followed by another
violent response from the Buddhists of Burma. As a result, many violent attacks took place.
Because the Buddhist are largely a majority, this transpired into a nation-wide attack on the
Rohingya. Thousands upon thousands of Muslims were displaced and the country declared a
State Emergency for the first time ever, meaning that the military had power over administrative
control (Essa, 2012). At first, the violence subsided, but a very obvious anti-Muslim sentiment
remained. However, violence erupted again in October, due to the buildup of religious tension
(BBC3, 2012). The rage was fuelled by anti-Muslim media and Islamophobic propaganda that
circulated locally (HWR, 2012). Buddhist citizens torched thousands of houses and killed
dozens. Security forces continued to have control over settling the conflict. This was not at all
an adequate solution and proved to be counter-productive; the government, military and police
forces acted in a highly Islamophobic manner. Muslims were made out to be the clear enemy
when the government discriminated them and abused their rights. Security forces were sent to
protect victims of either side of the conflict; however, they raped, arrested at mass, killed, and
fired openly at Muslim civilians. Food supply and valuable items were stolen from Rohingya
houses by the police and the military. The government also made a clear statement on who the
enemy was because thousands of Muslim males were detained; the excuse was that they do not
59
belong in Burma (HWR, 2012). An example of the obvious and intended hate towards Muslims
is the impacts on Sittwe. Sittwe was among the most diverse places in Burma, half of the
population was Buddhist, and the other half Rohinya Muslims; they lived in relative harmony.
However during the violence in October 2012, 10 000 homes in the Muslim neighbourhood were
torched, and the fleeing victims were fired at. The diversity in Sittwe quickly turned into antiMuslim segregation (HWR, 2012). The violence resulted in over 10 000 Rohingya who were
displaced and therefore in need of food, shelter and medical care.
As a result of the danger, many displaced Rohingya Muslims left Burma. Many tried to
enter the neighbouring Muslim country, Bangladesh, but were denied access because Bangladesh
does not want to take in any refugees because it will damage their economy. However, an
estimated 40 000 successfully entered Bangladesh and our now living there, although they
remain unregistered (Essa, 2012). They are still victims of hunger and displacement, but are no
longer being prosecuted for their religion by the government. There was a delayed reaction from
surrounding Muslim countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei and a surprising
unwillingness to contribute. In fact, Bangladesh even ordered several NGOs to stop providing
assistance to the Rohingya so they would not feel welcomed by Bangladesh. However Saudi
Arabia did provide monetary aid towards helping the Muslims of Burma (Essa, 2012). In
addition, the IOC obtained permission to send in aid as well. The lack of support from the whole
world has left the majority of Rohingya homeless and victims of violence and discrimination.
Two different solutions have been presented. Brad Adams, a director at Human Rights
Watch has defended the Muslim population of Burma in saying that “state-sponsored violence
still persecution and discrimination persists… The government should take urgent measures to
end abuse by their forces, ensure humanitarian access and permit independent international
60
monitors to visit affected areas and investigate abuses” (HRW, 2012). This supports the cultural
viewpoint of the Rohingya. They feel as if they truly deserve to be members of the Burmese
nation because they have been present for a significant time in history and have the right to
belong to the society. However, Burma has an opposing solution, one that is extremely antiMuslim. President Thein Sein believes that the only way to eliminate the religious conflict is by
expelling the Rohingya who must then become refugees in other countries and external UN
refugee camps. This represents the Buddhist cultural influences. They are very pro-nationalist
and believe that the Muslim population is not a part of Burma. They feel that they do not belong,
nor should they contribute to society. To counter this, Adams also furthers his pro-Rohingya
solution by suggesting: “the Burmese government needs to urgently amend its citizenship law to
end official discrimination against Rohingya. President Thein Sein cannot credibly claim to be
promoting human rights while calling for expulsion of people because of their ethnicity and
religion.”
The discrimination against Muslims has not subsided since the escalation of violence in
2012 and is currently being led by a nationalist movement called 969. The leader, Wirathu, has
the intention of eliminating all Muslims in Burma and has suggested applying this idea
internationally (Hodal, 2013). The group 969 is being heavily advertised across the entire nation
and the ideology is spreading as well. Dr. Zarni, an activist of Burmese heritage says that there
has always been prejudice towards people with darker skin, as in many other South-East Asian
countries and they are seen as lesser people (Downs, 2013). However, he then continues to say
that the 969 movement is now blaming the darker-skinned Rohingya for the country’s problems.
Burma is the poorest country in the area and the Buddhist national group is spreading
propaganda that this is because all of the wealth is being taken by “Islamic Leeches” (Downs,
61
2013). When a population is facing such dark conditions such as poverty and political and social
strife, people become frightened and a sense of panic takes over. This fear allows for an
opportunity for irrational thinking because it is perceived as a solution to the problems. This is
what is happening in Burma, the already hated Muslim population is now being linked to the bad
living conditions in Burma. This blame has proven to be an effective tool towards moving the
population to an even more anti-Muslim stance. The message is currently being spread across
Burma to “Buy and shop Buddhist” (Hodal, 2013). This is an attempt to harm all successful
businesses run by Muslim people. It may be seen as an attempt to earn wealth back for the
citizens; however it is truly an attempt to further oust Muslim people from Burmese society.
Thus far, 969 has been successful and much of the Burmese population has boycotted stores run
by Muslim people and any products coming from those stores. Furthermore, the vast majority of
the non-Muslim Burmese will not sell a house or land to any Muslim people, nor will they hire
them for work (Pk Defence, 2013). Muslim people living in Burma have described the dramatic
loss of customers at their stores, the terrible reality that their Buddhist friends are abandoning
them and the propaganda and rumours circulating, for example that meat or vegetables purchased
at a Muslim store are poisonous (France24, 2013). Ultimately, the 969 movement has utilized the
fear to manipulate the causes of a major problem in the Burmese society, the nationwide poverty,
as a tool to promote the anti-Muslim sentiment.
Although it is clear that Muslims are being discriminated against, there are still many
questions in regards to the connection of Burma’s persecution of Muslims and Islamophobia.
Anti-Muslim ideology is rooted deep into the history of Burma, but has been escalated in the
modern era. One might begin to draw a conclusion that the sudden rise in the religious
discrimination, and the accepting stance made by the rest of the world is linked directly to the
62
global increase in the Islamophobic sentiment. Firstly, it is known that the Western World has
adopted a mindset that Islamophobia is a justifiable opinion. Many even believe that it has been
encouraged in numerous countries such as the United States and much of Europe. Burma is
opening its doors to democracy for the first time in history and furthermore, it is opening its
doors to the West. By making Muslims the enemy, Burma is supporting the widespread
Islamophobia that exists in that part of the world and therefore joining the Western World
instead of siding with the Muslim world. Their desire to expel the Rohingya can be inferred as a
direct result of the growing Islamophobia in the West; getting rid of a Western enemy may
encourage positive relations with the Western culture and politics. The targeting of Muslims
during the attempts at democratisation are also representative of the roots of Islamophobia.
Whether it be subconscious or not, it is a fact that people perceive Islam as a religion that rejects
Western influences and is incapable of surviving under democracy. Because this is an extremely
recent issue, analysis has not been extensive. However, it can be easily inferred that highlighting
anti-Muslim sentiment is a strategic option chosen by the Burmese government.
Another point to ponder is why is this major violation of human rights and religious
persecution being allowed to happen. Many believe that this is due to the fact that Muslim people
are the victims. Burma does not have to worry that they will be stopped by Western forces
because the reason these Western forces are able to occupy foreign Muslim countries is due to
the fact that they garnered support by using Islamophobia and Islamic terrorism as propaganda.
Firstly, the Rohingya Muslims are not terrorists and as they are a small population, are not
threatening. Secondly, they are the victims in Burma and Islamophobia could not be used to gain
support to occupy this land unless the foreign troops are supporting the “human rights violators”.
Even though Burma is rich in natural gas, foreign militaries who have previously taken
63
advantage of tensions in the Muslim World do not have an excuse or any useful propagation to
have a legitimate reason or sufficient support from their own people. To expand on this point,
Burma is a very valuable economic partner. It is situated in between to rising economic forces,
India and China and it is a country with many resources such as oil and gas. Activist Dr. Zarni
believes that another reason the Western World has been so uninvolved is because of the
potential business relationship that could be formed with Burma (Downs, 2013). It would be very
beneficial from an economic standpoint due to the geographic positioning and the abundance of
natural resources in Burma. It would tarnish any potential relationship if a foreign government
were to point out and blame the Burmese government or military for genocide (Downs, 2013).
Furthermore, the mass killings of Muslims has not received a lot of attention from Western
Media even though thousands of people are being killed and displaced solely because they are
Muslims. Many people believe that this would not happen if it was a different religion that was
being so heavily discriminated against. The international sentiment is anti-Muslim and
Islamophobia has not been discouraged around the world, therefore the killing of Muslim people
is not received on as deep a personal level; it is perceived to be normal and acceptable.
Islamophobia allows for a view where the Muslim World is expected to be violent and full of
persecution.
Additionally, the prejudicial aspect of Islamophobia is most likely heightened as a result
of the religious conflict in Burma. For example, the conflict is in existence because Muslim
Rohingya have so clearly been made to be the “ultimate others”. Other misconceptions are also
proven. The violence in 2012 was a result of the rape of a young woman by Muslim men, which
supports the Islamophobic opinion that Islam is a religion used to oppress women. However, this
crime was not committed in the name of religion. Another example is that the Muslim World is
64
not unified; the Muslims in Burma are being oppressed and some of the Muslim World is
denying any help while other parts are actively contributing. This supports the idea that the
Muslim World as a whole is constantly in a stage of political unrest. Again, this is the opinion of
an Islamophobe and as explained earlier, the unrest is not generated by the religion of Islam.
Ultimately Islamophobia is embedded throughout the entire conflict in Burma.
The anti-Muslim bigotry is a major issue in Burma and should be considered a global
problem because not only are Muslim people being systematically discriminated against, but
they are facing persecution, oppression and are being violently expelled from their homes. This
is a very accurate example of how religious intolerance of any kind, but in this case against
Islam, is extremely destructive towards society. The anti-Muslim ideology in Burma is resulting
in many problems with the country’s political and social stability and more importantly, it is
preventing peace across the nation. If anti-Muslim views did not form such a dominant mindset
and Islam was not seen as something that can be generalized and therefore related to the actions
of individuals, perhaps the men who committed the terrible crime of the rape and murder of
young women would not have been defined by their religion, would have received their sentence
and the rest of the Muslim population would not have become so devastatingly victimized.
65
Case Study: The Innocence of Muslims, Islamophobic Film
The Muslim World is well aware of Islamophobia and the demonization of Muslims,
negative misconceptions of Islam, the discrimination and religious hate it causes. The tension
between the Muslim World and the Western World has been increasing due to Islamophobia and
the retaliation. The Muslim World feels oppressed, controlled and victimized by more developed
countries, for example the United States, and has begun to protest passionately and violently
when anti-Muslim acts and demonstrations circulate the globe. The insults are not taken lightly
because they represent the foreign power, the abuse Muslim people suffer and attacks on the
culture of the Muslim world in which Islam plays such an important role. In 2012, the whole
Muslim World, joined by a few places in Europe and Australia held massive demonstrations in
protest to the release of a highly Islamophobic trailer to a film entitled the Innocence of Muslims.
Although one might assume by the name of the film that it defends Islam, the inference is
extremely incorrect. On the contrary the title was meant to be ironic. The trailer was very
insulting towards the Islamic religion and ridiculed it. In the trailer, the Prophet Mohammed was
depicted as a “womaniser, buff[o]on, ruthless killer and child molester” (DMR, 2012). This
enraged the Muslim World; creating a very extensive outburst through numerous protests (refer
to Appendix C). The film was created by an American Nakoula Bassely Nakoula and therefore
many protests were very anti-Western and more particularly anti-American. Under a pseudo
name of Sam Bacelli, he said that “Islam is a cancer”, confirming his Islamophobic views to the
world and that his film trailer was clearly a very deliberate attack on the Muslim World.
It is believed by many that the whole idea of the movie was a calculated move that was
created with the sole intent of causing turmoil and chaos in the Muslim World, therefore
enabling people to blame them once again for using their religion as a tool for targeting the West.
66
A particularly passionate reporter states that “Nakoula Bassely Nakoula’s movie is a bigoted
piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim World. It ought to be treated with the contempt
it deserves” (Film Blog). Like in many other cases, it is being suggested that the movie was
created for the purpose of causing strife in the world. This would heighten Islamophobia because
of the predicted Muslim retaliation. To an Islamophobe, this was a very purposeful religious
hate crime. It also feeds upon the already existing anti-Muslim attitudes that exist and therefore
promotes Islamophobia in this way as well. There are several arguments why people believe that
the movie was a meticulous and malicious plan. Firstly, the making of the movie was very
secretive and the most Islamophobic sentences were edited in after the filming; the actor’s lips
are not in synch with the lines (Film Blog). In addition to this, the actors claim that they were not
told about the movies true intentions: "The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel
taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled
about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that
were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."
(Coscarelli, 2012). The secrecy of the intentions implies that it was taken into account that there
would be much opposition to this film. Secondly, violent reactions from the Muslim world were
to be expected if the movie insulted the Prophet Mohammed because this was recently
demonstrated. For example, in 2006 there were major protests to the Dutch cartoons that insulted
the Prophet. It is evident that further insult would escalate quickly into angry protests in the
Muslim World. Ultimately, whether the intentions were deeper than simply promoting
Islamophobia or not, the trailer to the anti-Islamic film resulted in widespread protests. It was
perceived as extremely anti-Muslim and therefore it resulted in a passionate response from the
Muslim World.
67
Many religious leaders believed that there was definitely reason to protest for the insult to
Prophet Mohammed, however many Muslim leaders were among those to argue that all
demonstrations should remain peaceful. Afghani religious clerk, K. Saquib, said: “Our
responsibility is to show a peaceful reaction, to hold peaceful protests,” he warned the protestors
against violence, “Do not harm people, their property or public property.” (The Associate Press,
2012). These remarks were made in caution towards the impacts of violent protests due to the
fact that Islamophobes so often use events showing violence, chaos and extremism all done in
the name of Islam to support their arguments. Some protests were peaceful, for example in
Chaman, Pakistan, 3000 students and teachers peacefully protested (The Week Staff, 2012)
against the injustice of religious bigotry. However, this was not reciprocated in the majority of
places. The first violence was seen in Jakarta, Indonesia where rocks were thrown, firebombs
were ignited and many buildings were set aflame and torched (The Associate Press, 2012). In
Tunisia, the demonstrations started out peacefully. However, once the US embassy was
breached, the crowd became extremely violent; American flags were lit and again many things
were set afire. In Sudan, the German embassy was burnt and the British embassy was attacked.
The violence against other embassies besides the United States explains that the anger from the
Muslim World is not simply directed at the country that is home to the creator; the anger is
directed at the entire Western World. This shows that Islamophobia and discrimination against
Muslims that is so common and accepted in the West and the protests were not simply in
response to the film. They were in response to Islamophobia in its entirety, recognizing that the
United States is not the sole perpetrator. These protests were encouraged by the Sudanese
government and they even allotted specific buses to transport the public to protest areas
(Beaumont, P. Byrne, E. & Stephen C. 2012, Sept 14). This is further evidence that the protests
68
were not only a reaction to the insulting film; they were rebellion-type organised demonstrations
defending the Muslim World against attack from prejudice and Islamophobia.
The most violent protests, or at least the most publicized by Western media and
destructive of international relations occurred in Libya and Egypt. In Benghazi Libya, a mob
stormed the US consulate; there was an enormous amount of violence and fire. A US ambassador
and three other American employees were killed. The crowd was so intense and powerful that
the Libyan security forces became too overwhelmed and were not in a position where they could
have prevented the attack (The Associate Press2, 2012). In Egypt, the crowd of protestors
gathered around the US embassy chanting about the Islamophobic film. It began peacefully. But
upon the arrival of political extremists, more troops were called to control the crowd. However,
the American flag was taken down and ripped, and then replaced by a flag very similar to that
used by Al Qaida (The Associate Press2, 2012). These two major protests did not help combat
Islamophobia in any way because now the Muslim protestors are even more so being associated
with violence and a sense of an uncivilised group who has not adapted to Western ways.
However the escalation of the protest also shows the extent of destruction from anti-Muslim
ideology. When implemented on a population that has felt ostracized, made inferior and made an
enemy by the West to the extent the Muslim World has suffered, Islamophobia will lead to
extremely drastic results. Once there is an excuse to expel the oppression through anger, it does
not take much for anger to turn into violence.
It is true that the enragement of the Muslim World was directed at the West in general;
however, the United States was specifically blamed because Nakoula, the creator of the film
lives in America. The American government was given the responsibility of repairing the
relations that were destroyed due to the highly offensive, anti-Muslim creation. Obama and
69
Hilary Clinton created an advertisement that cost around seventy thousand US dollars to convey
a message of apology and deny that the film represented American values towards the Muslim
World. The advertisement was aired from a Pakistani television channel (Morgenstern, 2012).
However the message was rejected; the violence and protests continued. Obama then responded
by saying “I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all
faiths… There is never any justification for violence.” (NBC, 2012). This shows another
solution. When an apology did not succeed, Obama was concerned about the impacts; he did not
want his country to become an excuse for violence and a continuation of these destructive
protests, destructive in the sense of tarnishing the international community. This is a solution to
prevent future problems, but it is also a statement that says retaliation through violence is not a
solution to Islamophobia.
It is very important to look at the different cultural influences of this conflict. For
example, the Muslim World holds the West entirely accountable for the enormous enragement
and violent results from the Innocence of Muslims. A reporter for Guardian UK declared that the
film was a “trigger for an expression of frustration against a perceived monolithic evil for
expressing their misplaced rancour” (Malik, 2012). This is emphasizing the point that because
there is such a negative perception of Islam and its followers around the world, the tension has
only continued to build and this Islamophobic trailer was used as an outlet to direct all of the
anger. The Supreme Leader of Iran, who has power over both politics and religion, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei directs the blame at “Islamophobic policies of arrogance” (The Week Staff, 2012). He
is therefore depicting the resentment towards the West which is well-known for using
Islamophobia as a tool because people are blindly “buying it”. The Muslim World was able to
express their discontentment and to them, the violence was an effort to go against discrimination
70
and Islamophobia. Another interesting perspective is that after Obama’s apology, protestors did
not stop because they wanted to see the creator punished, or at the very least held to a trial. This
is where once again; the Muslim and Western cultures clash. Nakoula could not be held
criminally responsible because of his right to freedom of expression that is very important in
Western culture. The United States refused to limit his free speech which was only seen as an
additional insult. This was also seen in the controversy that YouTube (owned by Google) had to
face. The video was circulated through YouTube so they naturally became a target for directing
blame. However, Google has refused to remove controversial material because the company
strongly values freedom of speech, thought and expression as it is a Westernised company. A
YouTube spokesperson responded to the situation:
“We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables
people to express different opinions. This can be a challenge because what’s OK
in one country can be offense elsewhere. This video-which is widely available on
the Web… is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.
However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have
temporarily restricted access in both countries. Our hearts are with the families of
the people murdered in Tuesdays attack in Lybia”
(Rosen, 2012)
The attacks on Tuesday are referring to the killing of the US embassy members. The fact that this
was mentioned is symbolic of the US power and control because even though the video meets
YouTube guidelines, it was banned not in response to the massive protests and anger, but the
violent impacts faced by the United States in particular. The spokesperson also mentions that
what is accepted in one country is offensive elsewhere; this alludes to the difference of opinion
71
on freedom of speech in the Western and \Muslim world.
The different views about culture show how the conflict concerning the anti-Muslim film
progressed and why it was so extensive. This is very important when examining the effects of
Islamophobia because it is a very accurate example about how Islamophobia does not simply
work in one direction. Evidently the Muslims world is victimized, but with the concept of
retaliation, the West becomes a victim as well. This case is a very accurate example of how in
the twenty first century, when media plays such an important role in connecting our world,
stories travel fast and their destinations have no limits. The release of the film instantaneously
resulted in protests that spread contagiously through the Muslim world. In fact, those boundaries
were even broken as the protests became worldwide. Clearly Islamophobia only adds to already
existing tension and only leads to separation. In order to achieve unity, prejudice and religious
hatred must not be tolerated and eventually eliminated entirely. One man shared his anti-Muslim
views and a major portion of the world became divided and opposed in retaliation. The dangers
of Islamophobia are far too extensive for the discriminatory mindset to be accepted.
72
Relevance to Canada
“Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as an
official policy. By so doing, Canada affirmed the value and dignity of all
Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or
their religious affiliation.”
(CIC, 2012).
This is a quote from the Canadian government, emphasizing the importance of
multiculturalism to Canada as a nation. This is a country where people feel that they can expect
their differences in culture and beliefs to be not only tolerated, but accepted and welcomed,
encouraging a powerful sense of belonging. On a global scale, Canada is recognized as a safe
and embracing country, a very good reputation. Whereas other countries with important
immigrant populations have been called melting pots, Canada is referred to as a mosaic. There
are over 200 different ethnicities that call Canada home and the multiculturalism in terms of
minorities and diverse faiths is ever-increasing (CIC, 2010, 2011). Unlike other countries in the
Western World, Canada views multiculturalism as enriching and a source of great pride, as
opposed to a destruction of original culture (CIC, 2010, 2011). Following numerous and varying
Christian faiths, Islam is the next most identified religion in Canada according to a 2001 census,
and it has been projected that the Muslim population will only continue to grow (Census, 2001).
There are many Muslim communities in Canada, and many citizens believe that they are
enriching. However, Canadians are not different from the rest of the West; there is Islamophobia
in what some would call the most tolerant country in the West. Canada too fears, discriminates
and fosters much prejudice towards its Muslim population, with equal, if not worse sentiments
towards the Muslim World.
73
One of the most obvious ways to expose the discrimination of such a multicultural
country is by recognizing how even Muslim citizens are victimized. However, it is also essential
to understand what preventative measures have been taken. For example in March of 2013,
graffiti was found on the wall of a Mosque that was highly anti-Muslim. It was seen as so
inappropriate that the exact sentences were not given to the inquiring media but it is known that
there were threats and comments specifically denouncing the Islamic religion. However, a
specialized police unit was assigned to investigate and the graffiti was covered up as soon as
possible before any of the public could see it (CTV Kitchener, 2013). This is proof of two
aspects about Islamophobia. Firstly, it proves the existence of religious hatred among Canadian
citizens. But it also proves that these crimes are not being tolerated which is seen in how quickly
it was reacted to. Notwithstanding, the fact still remains that anti-Muslim offences are being
committed in Canada. The graffiti in Guelph is not the only one. Many Mosques have been
vandalized or been used as a stage to offend Muslims. The Gatineau Mosque was vandalized
four subsequent times with very negative phrases about the Muslim god Allah, becoming such an
issue that Prime Minister Harper made a public statement of condemnation (Steele, 2012).
Mosques appear to be the major recipients of Islamophobia, which makes sense because it
represents how it is not fear of specific individuals, it is fear of a foreign religion and all of the
concerning prejudice.
After receiving a hate letter, a London Imam, Jamal Taleb says: “Whenever something
happens overseas, especially related to the Muslim faith, we get something by phone or by
mail… [t]hey tell us, ‘We don’t want you here, you’re a stranger, and we want you to be out of
the country’.” (LCM, 2012) This demonstrates the Islamophobic mindset of grouping all
Muslims together, fearing that events from across the world are linked to Muslims in Canada.
74
When people say “we don’t want you here”, they are openly connecting all Muslim people to the
Muslim World, believing that everyone belongs to the same “monolithic block” even when these
people are members of Canadian society. There have been innumerous incidents concerning
Mosques that are discriminatory or purposefully offensive towards Muslims, and not all have
been called hate crimes, but the intent is obvious.
Another interesting view in Canada’s involvement in anti-Muslim ideology is the
approach the government is taking with regards to the burqa controversy that has had a major
impact on many other western countries. The government has settled on declaring that women
must not wear any religious face covering during citizenship oaths because “Allowing a group to
hide their faces while they are becoming members of our community is counter to Canada’s
commitment to openness, equality and social cohesion” (National Post Staff, 2012). Minister
Kennedy was mainly supported for this decision because he argues by using values of the nation.
Calls of Islamophobia were dismissed because it is not an extensive ban and it has reasonable
defenses such as security against impersonation as well as supporting the openness of Canadian
culture. However, action that is being taken in Quebec is seen as very controversial. Quebec is
attempting to introduce a law (Bill 94) that denies women who are wearing a niquab of public
services, such as seeing a doctor or going to a university class. People are asking where this
could lead to, if following the niquab; other Muslim religious wear will be banned as well.
Instead of making arrangements to accommodate the niquab, a discriminatory and ostracizing
resolution has been set; no other religious symbols are banned. This is being seen as very antiMuslim because it adds to the already existing negative conceptions and prejudice concerning
Muslim religious headwear, it isolates women who do choose to cover their face and it is a clear
display of intolerance. This is not a new topic either; Muslim headwear has consistently been a
75
symbol of Islamic discrimination. In 2007, a young girl was not allowed to play in a soccer
tournament because she was wearing a hijab (CBC News, 2007). However, her own team and
four other teams consequently refused to play. This is another example of Canada’s dual
approach to Muslim discrimination. However, accommodations have been made to abide safety
rules and religious traditions, many Muslim girls participate in sports and wear athletic hijabs;
there are even bathing suits that include head covering.
There are hate crimes performed in Canada, and there is the opinion that Islamic beliefs
are “clashing” with Canadian societies, as well as many efforts being made to eliminate antiMuslim mindsets. But there are also attempts to achieve a balance in between opposing opinions.
However, this is focusing on Muslim Canadian citizens and on an internal level within Canada
only. When looked at from a world viewpoint, Canada quickly resorts to common stereotypes.
Adam Yoon was a Canadian boy who grew up in London, Ontario. As a teenager, he converted
from Christianity and became a devout Muslim (Freeze, C. Hui, A. & Ha, T., 2013). He was
friends with two Canadians who were found dead after taking part in a terrorist attack in Algeria
that was linked to Al-Qaida. Yoon was arrested in Algeria before the attack because of his own
links to terrorism. However, because the link between high-school students in London and
terrorists is their conversion to Islam, the religion is now being scrutinized and blamed for this
tragedy which is an example of prejudicial ideas controlling the placement of blame. In reality,
most of the local mosques are saying that they knew nothing about the three young radicals. In
the news reports concerning the young men, they concentrate heavily on their conversion to
Islam. The comparison is between a “fun-loving” Yoon to a man that was consumed by religion,
linking his numerous prayers throughout the day to his extremism (Freeze, C. Hui, A. & Ha, T.
2013, April 3). This is a sign of ignorance because it is an important part of Islam to do Namaz
76
prayers. This is a very serious news story and a tragedy, but Islamophobia is present due to the
major focus on the fact that they converted to Islam. There are theories that conversion itself,
not conversion to Islam, can significantly contribute to extremism and terrorism because of the
need to prove oneself (Freeze, C. Hui, A. & Ha, T. 2013, April 1). Muhammad R. Heft, the
leader of an organization that helps people who have converted says “If you’re getting ostracized
and rejected by both communities, you can become bitter and isolated,” he said. “During that
kind of vulnerable period of time, they’re susceptible to more radical teachings or brain washings
on the Internet,” (Bell, 2013). He is suggesting that in the case of conversion, people are often
feeling judged by both their old faith and their new faith, making them easy targets for
propaganda from extremist groups. He says that it is not the religion of Islam that lead to
extremism but is guessing that it grew from the influence of certain individuals and/or minor
groups. However, in the case of “homegrown” terrorism in Canada, it is not the home
community that is being inspected and judged, it is the religion of Islam. Dictated by
misconceptions, Muslim communities are receiving the blame for individuals who abused the
Islamic faith.
Referring to another incident of homegrown terrorism, is that of Omar Khadr, a Canadian
security expert, Scott Newark, has declared that Canadians should be wary specifically of
Islamist immigrants because they are a national security problem (Hume, 2012). Instead of
suggesting that all immigrants be more carefully examined, he suggests that only people coming
from the Muslim World should be put under closer examination because they could be linked to
terrorism. This is a very-American view on immigration because it is a parallel to the action
taken by the US on immigrants from the Middle East after 9/11 as previously discussed in the
background section of this paper. Even though this is an obvious example of grouping a certain
77
faith together, he defends himself by saying “We need to think hard about what I would call
'Islamism', the political Islam that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in integration that is
intolerant and unyielding and absolutely committed to eradicating Western values” (Hume,
2012). However, by assuming that all people immigrating from the Muslim World are political
Islamists, not only is a sense of prejudice exposed, but Islamophobia is brought into
consideration because he says that everyone from the Middle East is a perpetrator of the
problem, when in reality many people are being oppressed by them.
Terrorism is a very legitimate fear and it is heightened by the much news coverage of
Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East. It is a very serious issue. However, Islamic
extremism is not a problem in Canada, nor are the vast majority of Muslim Canadians a threat to
society. According to Canadian’s the tension arises because of people’s view on religious and
political interests of Islam (Gallup). The mindset of connecting to terrorism to Islam in general
and not specifically Islamic extremism (or that of any religion) is very detrimental to the Muslim
population because it makes Islam appear in a very negative way; this only adds to the religious
and cultural tension. Those people who are Muslim and embrace their religion in a nonfundamentalist and non-politicized fashion (the majority of the followers) are the people who are
calling these incidents Islamophobic. They are already known as the “foreigners” or “others”
even when they are integrated into society, but when more negative aspects are directly and
publically connected to their religion, it is seen as highly offensive. However, an interesting
perspective is that of the Muslim Canadian Congress. They believe that labeling anyone who has
negative opinions about Islam as Islamophobes will in no way contribute to reducing antiMuslim discrimination and in fact result in further hate crimes. Their perspective is that using the
78
term Islamophobia victimizes the Muslim community which delegitimizes the issue of antiMuslim discrimination.
Research shows that Canada is among the most tolerant countries with regard to
religion because the most integration is shown (Gallup). When categorized into isolated,
tolerated and integrated, over one third of Canada shows integration, meaning “integrated
individuals go beyond a ‘live-and-let-live’ attitude and actively seek to know more about and
learn from others of different religious traditions. They believe that most faiths make a positive
contribution to society. Furthermore, integrated people not only feel they respect people from
other faith traditions, but they also feel respected by them.” (Gallup). This is a fact that strongly
supports Canada’s multiculturalism because such a significant population is going farther than
just accepting others. However, prejudice is still a subconscious thought and continues to play a
role in the minds of Canadian. Because prejudice is not something that people will openly admit
to when they are taking to action to discriminate, anti-Muslim ideology can be analysed by
looking at the social comfort levels of people. Prejudice towards Islam is different from open
Islamophobia but it is still anti-Muslim. Canadians believe that society is mainly inclusive and
open, but there is still unfair treatment towards people of Muslim faith. For example, research
shows that although Canadians are comfortable with having a Muslim boss or teacher, they
would feel much more comfortable with someone in a position of authority who is non-Muslims
(Hamdani, 2005, p. 15). Multicultural marriages are also an example. Although Canadians are
open to having family members by marriage who are Muslim, they feel much more comfortable
with different multicultural marriages such as Jewish or Chinese (Hamdani, 2005, p. 16). The
conclusion is that Canadians are open and tolerant of people of different faiths and cultures, but
there is more “uneasiness” about Muslims in particular. Unlike in the United States, Muslim
79
people and Islam have not been victims of major and severe hate crimes. However in Canada,
especially following 9/11, Muslim people were victims of assault and slander, and the vandalism
of Mosques is not uncommon (as discussed earlier) (Hamdani, 2005, p. 20). However, overall
Muslim people are well-accepted into Canada and enhance the welcoming culture.
If Islamophobia were to increase and become a more prevalent and serious issue in
Canada, the country’s reputation on a local and international level would be harmed (Owieda,
2012). Canada is seen by the world and its own population as very accepting of diversity, and as
a country that is empowered by multiculturalism. Muslims are not being openly discriminated
against and hate crimes are performed by a very small portion of the public. There are many
workshops in Canada that emphasize tolerance and encourage diversity in Canada. These are
made to eliminate the ever-existing prejudice. Luckily, prejudice often is not displayed on a
public level and Muslims are seen as belonging to Canadian society. However, Canada can
become more involved in combatting Islamophobia on an international level. Their success in
multiculturalism can be used as an example. But, instead of critics focusing on denying true
Islamophobia in Canada, they could confront the idea that it is serious problem in our world and
much of the existing tension is of direct result. Canada has the potential to be seen as a world
leader in combatting Islamophobia. But in doing this, it is important to target not only the most
severe cases, but also any form of anti-Muslim ideology. In no way is Canada seen as a hero
against Islamophobia, but it is in a much better position to progress towards eliminating Muslim
discrimination because of the large population that supports integration, and the countering
responses that individuals have to any anti-Muslim discrimination, like five soccer teams of
female youth refusing to play when accommodations were not made for all players. Due to the
fact many Canadians are Muslims, and most other Canadians are accepting, Islamophobia is not
80
conquering the mind of the population. But nonetheless, it exists in this country which is
representative of how anti-Muslim influences are consuming on an international level.
81
Solutions
Islamophobia is evidently a serious and legitimate issue in the world. It has been in
existence for centuries, however has become extremely magnified in the modern era. The global
opinion of Islam is extremely negative. It is believed that Muslim people are violent terrorist,
inferior to Western people, primitive, unresponsive to change in the world, and use politics to
control their religion. This is an important problem because Islamophobia justifies the
defamation of religion and is destructive towards any relations between the Western and Muslim
Worlds. As author of the Brown Book (a non-fiction book highlighting Islam in the
contemporary world), Shakil Choudhury, points out in an interview that everybody is a victim of
Islamophobia, not solely those who are being discriminated against. He elaborates on the fact
that anti-Muslim ideology tears people apart, and ultimately harming everyone. Differences in
religion are an excellent opportunity for enrichment and have the potential to promote interfaith
cultures and therefore a more accepting and tolerant world. On the contrary, Islamophobia uses
differences in religion to turn people against one another and discriminate. It has become a
justification for the violation of human rights, for war and violence and for religious hatred.
Clearly, it is detrimental towards building a sense of global harmony. Solutions must be sought
out to prevent the impacts of Islamophobia from causing more harm. To remove the prejudicial
environment created by anti-Muslim sentiment, we must embark on a joint journey of developing
and applying solutions together. Even though they are seemingly opposite, both the Muslim and
the Western worlds must make an effort towards combatting Islamophobia. Because it has been a
global issue in the past and continues to be a problem in the present, it is essential that the goals
of any potential solutions are to plan for a future that does not include Islamophobia.
82
Firstly, it is proposed that efforts to change the tide of Islamophobia are best spent on the
future generation of our world; rather than battle against a generation of people who have
developed an opinion throughout their entire lifetime. We have an opportunity to promote an
environment among youth where being Muslim is no longer perceived as a negative. Youth are
the members of society who have control over the future of the world. It is, therefore, essential
that they learn to become empowered by diversity and tolerance. If we promote positive Muslim
mindsets, the leaders of tomorrow will create a future where Islamophobia will eventually
become non-existent. By teaching young people about diversity, empathy and acceptance as well
as emphasizing their necessity, these concepts will become normal values of the global
population. This solution is already being implemented and so far has proven to be very
effective. Examples include UNESCO, as mentioned earlier and the Forum of European Youth
and Student Organisation (FEMYSO). FEMYSO is performing a youth study called
“Combatting Islamophobia through Intercultural and Interreligious Work” that invites young
people to take action. Their successes so far in relation to the young people involved are as
follows: the creation of a strong network of young Muslims involved in tackling Islamophobia,
familiarisation with concepts of human rights, non-formal education, interfaith and interreligious
dialogue and youth empowered designs of projects to further the understanding of the issue and
how it can be solved (FEMYSO, 2011, p. 7). They believe that the best methods to counter
Islamophobia are to generate greater youth participation, adopt an interreligious approach and
perform action through research of both the media and culture (FEMYSO, 2011, p. 8). These
methods ensure that in the future there is a powerful representation to counter anti-Muslim
ideology. In a conference-type event, the youth worked with FEMYSO to create
recommendations to counter the issue for the council of Europe. They include:
83

Creation of forums for discussion and co-operation.

Awareness-raising for the protection of freedom of religion and belief

Education to promote tolerance and non-discrimination and develops educational
materials and tools to counter Islamophobia (develop guidelines for teachers and
educators)

Gathering of specific data on Islamophobia and anti-Islam acts/hate crimes by public
institutions

Taking legal actions against perpetrators and have wide media coverage when it happens

Encourage NGOs to conduct field work to convince victims to report Islamophobic acts
(FEMYSO, 2011, p. 9)
Evidently, youth are willing to adopt a new interfaith mindset and are capable of
recognizing and contributing towards efforts to solve the problem of Islamophobia. This
indicates that the generation that will determine the future of the globe has already proven the
desire to be active in countering the discrimination against Muslim people.
Not all youth will take active initiative in directly combatting the issue, but they too must
be educated on the topic. Accordingly, this calls for the need for the educators of youth to be role
models in fighting Islamophobia and therefore they too, must fully understand the importance,
the causes and the effects of the issue. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
has responded to this need and partnered with the Council of Europe and UNESCO to develop a
document that establishes a set of guideline to counter Islamophobia through education.
Although intended for role models in the education system such as teachers, principals and
educational policy makers, it is recognized that these guidelines can be applied to many different
84
leadership positions as well, for example the members of NGOs. In this document, it highlights
the importance of promoting interfaith diversity, but formerly recognizes that to eliminate
Islamophobia, the stereotypes and negative attitudes aimed at Muslims specifically must be
addressed. It is also said that these guidelines are essential to be applied by teachers even if there
are no Muslims at their school because the goal is to develop students that can positively
contribute to a society enriched by diversity and a society that values tolerance (OSCE, 2011).
This is demonstrated in the following quote:
“While teachers cannot be expected to resolve the political and social
tensions among communities, they can have a central role in shaping the
attitudes and behaviours of young people. The actions and approaches
adopted by teachers and school administrators can be crucial in
promoting respect for diversity and mutual understanding, both in
schools and in society.”
(OSCE, 2011, pg. 13)
Ultimately, the educators of youth play an equal part in creating a future where
Islamophobia does not exist. Evidently, it is essential that the teachers and other role models of
youth must be able to understand what discrimination looks like. The most severe displays of
discrimination towards Muslim students are often also crimes, such as open threats, vandalism of
destruction of property and assault. However, the discrimination that is most present on the
schoolyard may often be interpreted as regular bullying (which should be addressed anyways).
This would include excluding, name-calling, derogatory comments, and jokes about religion. But
these seemingly minor actions demonstrated by a child can easily develop into racism and
translate into creating an Islamophobic mindset (OSCE, 2011). The document introduces several
85
different approaches that teachers are encouraged to take that will help promote a diverse and
more open environment. Firstly, the OSCE emphasizes the human rights-based approach that
ensures all students understand that they have the right to be treated as equal individuals no
matter what religion they follow. Secondly, teachers should create lessons about important
values like acceptance in a way that the students are actively participating, for example
community events, because they are more likely to comprehend the message. The guidelines also
suggest that there are open discussions in the classroom that address the stereotypes of Muslims
and that the discussions then lead to understanding the negative impacts of religious profiling.
However, the teacher must be able to answer to controversial questions. It is also suggested that
more classes are taught about religions around the world, including Islam, so they are informed
in a safe, respectful, non-biased and prejudice-free environment. Finally, the OSCE encourages
teachers to monitor the progress and problems with regards to the overall perception of Muslim
people in their classes. However, even though these approaches promote an atmosphere where
tolerance is valued, there will still be cases of discrimination in varying levels. It is important for
the position of authority, be it a teacher or administrative member, to respond. The guidelines
created suggest that the proper response is to react immediately, explain the problem, listen to
the victims and ensure them that there story is valid and take further action (OSCE, 2011). Most
importantly, this must be applied to all forms of discrimination and not just that directed towards
Muslims because the goal is to promote the idea of a tolerant society. This is a very effective
solution because it focuses on establishing role models that understand Islamophobia and how to
prevent it which further translates into the leaders of tomorrow, meaning youth, being educated
about anti-Muslim discrimination and the importance of tolerance as well.
86
Both ideas presented concerning education are essential towards building a future
with a positive environment for all members of society. However, these solutions are a method to
eliminate Islamophobia with the next generation. It is extremely important to at least lessen the
amount of prejudice about Muslims that is currently present. It is essential that the division
between Muslim people and Western society is not so distinguished and communities become
more unified. This is a solution that must be carried out by Muslim people who have immigrated
to the Western world. They must confront the stereotype that people who follow the religion of
Islam are dominated by their faith, refuse to integrate into Western society and that they are
unresponsive to change and furthermore, they must prove that this religious profiling is untrue.
Previously addressed in the section on expert, Tariq Ramadan, it is essential that Muslim
immigrants show their integration by becoming active members of the community. It will better
the present situation of prejudice towards Muslim people if the stereotypes are proven wrong. To
do this, Muslim immigrants must be very active in their society and show a willingness to
contribute to their communities so that they are not only showing that they belong, but it will
also be perceived that a substantial effort is being made to integrate. The term perceived is
essential to this solution to Islamophobia because the prejudice towards Muslim immigrants is
not truly based on individual people, but it is based on the perception of the group seen as the
“others”. By creating a presence through positive participation in their community, a new image
will be created to portray Muslim people in the West that focuses on the fact that they are
accepted members of the society, rather than simply foreigners. There are simple ways for this to
happen, for example, Muslim foundations organizing or attending large community events will
present the image that they are more involved. Contributions to the community are always
perceived in a very positive manner. The Muslim communities must also be more involved in
87
Western media. Due to the fact that most of Islamophobic propaganda is delivered by the media,
it is essential the Muslim people have more control over how they are being portrayed and
consequently they will receive more control over how they are perceived. This can be achieved if
more Muslim writers sent in pieces to mainstream media, for example newspapers and
magazines. It is important that they are reaching out towards the mainstream media because it
will add a new perspective to the information that is being presented. Becoming present in
mainstream media has a very different effect than sending in a piece to, for example, a Muslim
community newspaper. In this case, the article will most likely be dismissed because it will be
seen as defending “the others”. The same article would be perceived as more credible in a
mainstream newspaper because it will not be seen as being directed towards Muslim people only,
and therefore a Muslim perspective instead of a general perspective. Ultimately, it is important
for Muslim immigrants to extend their identity to being more than a Muslim or foreigner; by
actively contributing to their society, Muslim immigrants will not simply be defined by their
religion or origin, but by their integration and positive contributions.
There have also been attempts to combat Islamophobia in the Muslim World as well.
This is important because it shows that Muslim people will not accept a diminished status and
will not tolerate the demonization of their religion. This was exhibited in many countries such as
Afghanistan and Libya during the protests against the Qur’an burning and the anti-Muslim film.
In fact, the Muslim world has already played an important part in countering Islamophobia when
it was formally addressed at the UN Human Rights Council in 2008. The Muslim World believes
that the proper solution is to make Islamophobia illegal and any instigators of anti-Muslim events
are to be punished. Part of this solution also includes directing much media coverage at the
punishment of Islamophobes. This is seen as an option for preventing Islamophobia because it
88
eliminates the acts of religious hate and discriminatory demonstrations that fuel the issue.
Essentially, the illegality of it would prevent people from expressing their anti-Muslim views and
therefore less people would be exposed to it and/or become subject to propaganda. The aspect of
the punishment would be effective because it results in clearly sending out a message that
discrimination towards Muslims is unacceptable and will not be permitted. This is also aided by
the fact that the punishment is publicised. The wide-spread media attention would transfer into a
mindset that Islamophobia is a very serious offense and would trigger thought about the
atrocities it induces. In many ways, this is a solution that would greatly help decrease the amount
of anti-Muslim attacks that produce more Islamophobia. Despite this fact, making Islamophobia
illegal has disadvantages that seem to outweigh the advantages and therefore it is a highly
questionable solution. For example, this solution has not been implemented thus far because it
would deny people the right to freedom of speech, thought and expression, something that is of
utmost importance in many Western Cultures. This would result in extreme anger and debate.
The fact that the Muslim World wants this solution may also lead to an opportunity for
Islamophobes to gain support. By this, it is meant that they could use the anger of those whose
right was just removed and are now subject to public punishment if they try to defend it because
it could be seen as proving that the Muslim World is oppressive, does not believe in the rights of
individuals and is fueled by violence (hence the publicised punishment). However, the Muslim
World must still contribute to countering Islamophobia. In 2008 when the global issue was
recognized by the UN at the Human Rights Council due to the focus on Islamophobia
emphasized by the Muslim world, many critics in the West pointed out that this was hypocritical
due to the fact that there are so many human rights violations in the Muslim World, as well as
many evident problems. In fact, there are several legitimate points that support Islamophobic
89
fears such as extremism and terrorism, the politicisation of Islam, the oppression of women and
the violation of human rights. These are all things that do exist in the Muslim world and make
the population seem intellectually inferior and non-responsive to the progress of the rest of the
World. In order to combat Islamophobia, the Muslim world must achieve greater stability, show
more control and effort to oppose violent extremism and the abuse of the religion of Islam and
furthermore, change for the better by improving the status of the oppressed, like women and
homosexuals by placing more importance on human rights. By causing an interior shift, a shift in
how the Muslim World is viewed will also take place and Islamophobes will have less
legitimacy to support their arguments.
The world is in desperate need of a method to solve Islamophobia because it is increasing
rapidly and must be stopped. An anti-Muslim mindset has become a justification for the violation
of human rights, for war and violence and for religious hatred. Not only this, but it demonizes
over 1.5 billion people who are followers of Islamic faith and are therefore under the oppression
of discrimination. In addition, Islamophobia must be opposed because it creates an enormous
separation between the Muslim and the Western Worlds even in the era of globalization. This
causes very significant amounts of tension and creates an opportunity for future outbursts either
to promote or respond to the discrimination of Muslims. It is important that everybody takes part
in the solution. Due to the fact that Islamophobia centers on pitting the West against the Middle
East, co-operation will be the most productive way to achieve a solution because it better
guarantees that the solution will be aimed globally and will not become one-sided or antagonistic
to the perceived opposition. However, Islamophobia does not have one specific or easy solution
because of the complexity of the issue. It concerns the irrational fear of Muslim people that
creates discrimination and prejudice but it is also a reflection of the many problems that are
90
happening in the Muslim world. More importantly Islamophobia is not a disease that can simply
be cured; it is a mindset that is dominates the thought process of individuals. In order to combat
against Islamophobia, the greatest solution is education. Education will provide accurate,
respectful and non-biased information that will be much more credible than the common
stereotypes and generalisations that create negative attitudes aimed at the religion of Islam and
its followers. Education will promote a society where people truly care about diversity. But just
because one is taught information about the true values of Islam and is taught about the
importance of religious tolerance, it does not mean that prejudice will no longer be present in
their mind. Islamophobia can be a subconscious negative perception of the Muslim population
that lingers even after extensive education that combats it. By continuing to expose how the
detrimental impacts of Islamophobia are harmful to everyone and how religious profiling is
unjust, perhaps eventually even those who subconsciously judge Muslims will begin to
understand how Islamophobic discrimination truly is. Only when everybody begins to care can
Islamophobia truly be solved. It is not up to simply the Muslim World to confront the issues that
support anti-Muslim ideology; it will not be solved if only the Western World develops a better
understanding of Islam, nor will the battle against Islamophobia be won if the world is depending
on Muslim immigrants to integrate and connect the two “opposite” worlds. The combined efforts
of everyone are the only true solution to Islamophobia.
91
Conclusion
Islamophobia is a very important issue in our world today because at a point in time
where equal treatment is beginning to become so heavily valued, it is an example of how a group
of people can still be hated due to prejudice and fear. Islamophobia demonises an entire faith and
an enormous global population of over 1.5 billion people. The discrimination that is directed
towards Muslim people is atrociously accepted in the twenty first century and has even become
normalised in many societies. Political leaders are openly blaming Muslim people for the
problems of their nation, as seen in Burma and France, they are being physically and verbally
assaulted for defying a ban that goes against the human right to religious freedom and wearing a
head veil in public, the Qur’an is being held on trial for very close-minded and false accusations
and many more obvious acts of hatred are being directed at Muslim people and the faith of Islam
for the simple fact that it is seen to be so foreign. Muslim people are considered as outsiders in
all cultures but their own. They are alienated and the entire population is therefore diminished
into being a global underclass. Islam has become defined by the false misconceptions that it is
profoundly linked to terrorism, war and oppression. However, in reality Islam is a religion than
many people embrace as a faith that encourages tolerance, peace and generosity. Muslim people
have become victims of racial profiling, resulting in the perception that all Muslim people are
more likely to become radicals than those who follow another religion, that they all have a very
anti-Western views and are therefore threats, that they do not attempt to integrate into Western
society and that they belong to a primitive, barbaric and uncivilised world in the Middle East.
Even people who are considered to be accepting and tolerant and who value diversity admit that
they feel more uncomfortable around Muslims than many other minorities in the West. The
presence of Muslim people in the West is also perceived from two different and conflicting
92
viewpoints. First of all, people believe that they are not included in society, resulting in the
alienation and ostracization of Muslim people. However to oppose this view point, Muslim
people are not welcomed because it is thought that they are slowly beginning to dominate the
world. Overall, being Muslim has developed into a symbol of carrying a foreign culture and
therefore foreign values that seem backwards and anti-Western. The many negative
misperceptions of Islam and its followers have been heavily amplified by the media and shared
around the world. After 9/11, Islamophobia began to increase because the attack was so
publically and extensively linked to the religion. The anti-Muslim mindset has been present for
centuries but the terrorist attacks in 2001 have proven to be the trigger event for Islamophobia in
the modern world. The major focus on the negative stereotypes of Islam and the heightening of
prejudice toward Muslims has resulted in the fact that Islamophobia is no longer simply a
mindset; it is now a tool as well. The widespread negative attitude has been utilised by Western
governments to gain support to go against the Middle East, an important area of the Muslim
world. There are many people who do not believe that Islamophobia is a legitimate issue.
However, the discrimination and hatred because of someone’s religion is clearly a problem. For
Islamophobia to be resolved in the near future, people need to be educated about Islam and
interfaith diversity so that ignorance is not an excuse for racial profiling. People need to
understand the importance of tolerance and acceptance. Multiculturalism is truly an enriching
aspect to any society because it adds new traditions, customs and culture. However, the Muslim
culture brought by many immigrants is perceived as invasive, imposing and threatening. People
must understand that religion is not defined by the actions of radical individuals, nor can it define
an individual. Most importantly, it must be made clear that terrorism as not religion. Although
ultimately, this all leads specifically to the bigotry of Muslim people, Islamophobia harms the
93
entire world; everyone is a victim. Islamophobia separates the West and Muslim worlds and it
separates individuals as well. It creates opponents out of fellow global citizens. Islamophobia
tears people and countries apart. It is the reason for the vast amount of religious tension in the
world which has led to so much conflict, therefore opposing world peace. Even though many
consider anti-Muslim ideology to be a problem that solely creates conflict in Western society, it
is truly a global issue because it deeply and negatively influences any relations between the
Western and Muslim World. Islamophobia creates the idea of dividing people into the categories
of “us” and “them”. This counters any promotion of a unified world and therefore is a major
issue due to the fact that it so greatly hinders world peace.
94
Appendix
THE FUNDERS
THE AMOUNT
THE RECIPIENTS
$20,768,600
Investigative Project on
Terrorism (IPT), Middle East
Forum (MEF), Clarion Fund
(Clarion), David Horowitz
Freedom Center (Horowitz)
Richard Scaife foundations
$7,875,000
Counterterrorism & Security
Education and Research
Foundation (CTSERF), Center for
Security Policy (CSP), Horowitz
Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation
$5,370,000
MEF, CSP, Horowitz
Russell Berrie Foundation
$3,109,016
IPT, CTSERF, MEF
Anchorage Charitable Fund
and William Rosenwald
Family Fund
$2,818,229
IPT,CTSERF, MEF, CSP, Clarion,
Horowitz
Fairbook Foundation
$1,498,450
IPT, MEF, CSP, Jihad Watch,
Horowitz, American Congress
for Truth
Newton and Rochelle
Becker foundations
$1,136,000
IPT, CTSERF, MEF, CSP, Clarion,
Horowitz, American Congress
for Truth
Total
$42,575,295
Donors Capital Fund
Appendix A
Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/26/304306/islamophobia-network/
95
Appendix B
Retrieved from http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/afghan-response-2012-koranburning-incident
96
Appendix C
Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/map-muslim-protests-aroundworld/56865/
97
Reference List
Afghanistan Culture. (n.d.). Afghanistan Religion and Beliefs. Afghanistan Culture. Retrieved
from http://www.afghanistan-culture.com/afghanistan-religion.html
AFP. (2012, Aug 17). Moderate voices speak out against Islamophobia. Democratic voice of
Burma. Retrieved from http://www.dvb.no/uncategorized/moderate-voices-speak-out-againstislamophobia/23357
Ahmed, N. M. (July, 2012). British Media Creating a Deepening a Religious and Racial Divide,
Public Service Europe, Retrieved from http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2235/britishmedia-creating-a-deepening-religious-and-racial-divide
Akgunduz, A. (n.d.) Norms and Values in Islam, Rector of the Islamic University of Rotterdam,
Retrieved from http://islam.uga.edu/norms_values.html
Alarabiya. (n.d.). UN rights body passes Islamophobia Resolution. Muslimophobia. Retrieved
from http://www.muslimophobia.com/news.php?nid=28
Ali, A. H. (2010, March 8). International Not-All-Women’s Day. International Herald Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/international-notall-womens-day/
Ali, W. Clifton, E. Duss, M. Fang, L. Keyes, S. & Shakir, F. (2011, Aug. 26). The Roots of the
Islamophobia Network in America. Fear, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2011/08/26/10165/fear-inc/
Allen, C. (winter, 2010). Contemporary Islamophobia Before 9/11: A Brief History. Arches
Quarterly, 4(6), 14-22. Retrieved from http://www.thecordobafoundation.com
Amnesty International. (2012). Muslims Discriminated Against for Practicing their Faith,
Retrieved from http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/muslims-discriminated-against-demonstratingtheir-faith-2012-04-23
Ansar, M. (January, 2013). Islamophobia and the Muslim civil rights crisis. ABC Religion and
Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/01/29/3678693.htm
Bayefski, A. (2010). Islam Hijacking the UN Human Rights Council [Speech]. Hudson Institute
Washington DC. [YouTube video]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZTQylcnjF8
BBC. (2010, Sept 10). Protests against US Koran-burning sweep Afghanistan. BBC News South
Asia. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739
BBC2. (2010, Sept 10). In quotes: Koran-burning threat. BBC News US & Canada. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11257925
98
BBC3. (2012, Oct 26). Q&A: Unrest in Birma’s Rakhine state. BBC News Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18395788
Beaumont, P. Byrne, E. & Stephen C. (2012, Sept 14). Controversial film sparks protests and
violence across the Muslim world. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/islam-film-muslim-protests
Bell, S. (2013, April 2). Desire to fit in with Muslim community can puch bitter and isolated
converts to jihad: experts. National Post. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/02/desire-to-fit-in-with-muslim-community-can-pushbitter-and-isolated-converts-to-jihad-experts/
Bell, S. (2012, Jan). Widespread support for burka ban, Jason Kennedy says; Muslims salute
minister for minister for ‘courageous’ move. National Post. Retrieved from
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/widespread-support-for-burka-ban-jason-kenney-saysmuslims-salute-minister-for-courageous-move/
Berrier, J. (2013, March). ADVANCE EXCERPT: Upcoming Ailes Biography Reveals Fox’s
Islamophobia Goes Straight to the Top. Media Matters for America. Retrieved from
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/18/advance-excerpt-upcoming-ailes-biographyreveal/193090
Breivick, A. (2011). A European Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from
http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf
Brown, A. (2011, July 24). Anders Brievick is not Christian but Anti-Islam. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jul/24/norwayanders-behring-breivik-beliefs
Boone, J. (2011, April 1). UN staff killed in Afghanistan amid protests over Qur’an burning. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/01/un-staff-afghanistanmazar-sharif-killed-quran
CBC News. (2007, Feb 25). Muslim girl ejected from tournament for wearing hijab. CBC News.
Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/02/25/hijab-soccer.html
Census. (2001). Population by religion, by province and territory. Government of Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm
Chesler P. & Spencer, R. (2007). The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam. Los Angeles:
David Horowitz Freedom Center. Retrieved from
http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/ViolentOpp.pdf
Chrisafis, A. (2011, September). France’s Burqa Ban: women are ‘effectively under house
arrest’. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/19/battle-forthe-burqa
99
Choudhury, S. (2000). The Brown Book. 20-25. A New school publication.
CIC: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2012). Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive
Citizenship. Govenrment of Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp
CIC: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2010, 2011). Annual Report on the Operation of the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Government of Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/multi-report2011/part1.asp
Cole, J. 9 (n.d.). Islamophobia and American Foreign Policy. ACMCU. 70-99. Retrieved from
http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/docs/ACMCU_Islamophobia_txt_99.pdf#page=70
Coscarelli, J. (2012, Sept 12). This is the Absurd, Islamophobic Video That Sparked Violent
Protests in Libya and Egypt. New York Magazine News and Features. Retrieved from
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/09/innocence-of-muslims-terry-jones-video-sparkedprotests-libya-egypt.html
Crumley, B. (2004). Tariq Ramadan. Time Lists. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1970858_1970909_1971700,00.ht
ml
CTV Kitchener. (2013, March 7). Hate crimes unit called in to investigate graffiti on Guelph
mosque. CTV News. Retrieved from http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/hate-crimes-unit-called-in-toinvestigate-graffiti-on-guelph-mosque-1.1185883
Danios. (2009, Sept. 10). Bat Ye’or: Anti-Muslim Loon with a Crazy Conspiracy Theory Named
“Eurabia”. Loon Watch. Retrieved from http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/anti-muslim-loonwith-a-crazy-conspiracy-theory-named-eurabia/
Danios of Loon Watch (LW). (January, 2010). All Terrorists are Muslim… Except the 94% that
Aren’t, Loon Watch, Retrieved from http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-aremuslims/
Danios of Loon Watch (LW). (2012). Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslims… And
Why America is to Blame, Loon Watch, Retrieved from
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/most-victims-of-islamic-terrorism-are-muslims-and-whyamerica-is-to-blame-for-it/
DMR, Daily Mail Reporter. (2012, Sept 15). The man who set the Middle East ablaze hides his
face in shame: Californian filmmaker behind Mohammed movie interviewed by police. Mail
Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203663/Nakoula-BasseleyNakoula-Interviewed-police.html
Downs, R. (2013). Is Burma’s Anti-Muslim Violence Led By “Buddhist Neo-Nazis”? The Vice.
[Interview with Dr. Muang Zarni]. Retrieved from http://www.vice.com/read/is-burmas-antimuslim-violence-led-by-buddhist-neo-nazis
100
DWOC Dove World Oureach Centre. (n.d.). International Judge the Koran Day… and the
execution: burn it! Dove World Outreach Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.doveworld.org/blog/2011/03/international-judge-the-koran-day-%E2%80%A6-andthe-execution-burn-it
EIA. (2013, April). Iraq: Country Analysis Brief Overview. Independent Statistics and Analysis,
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/countries/countrydata.cfm?fips=iz
Elver, H. (September, 2011) 10 Years after 9/11: Islamophobia in the West. Today’s Zaman.
Retrieved from http://www.todayszaman.com/news-256367-10-years-after-911-islamophobia-inthe-west-by-hilal-elver*.html
Essa, A. (2012, Aug 14). In Burma, violence against Muslim minority stumbles into the
spotlight. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/burma-violence-muslim-rohingyarefugees
Feffer, J. (2011). Interview with Islamic Human Rights Commission. Foreign Policy in Focus.
Retrieved from
http://www.fpif.org/articles/interview_with_the_islamic_human_rights_commission
FEMYSO. (2011, May). Combating Islamophobia through Intercultural and Interreligious Work.
FEMYSO. Retrieved from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Training/Study_sessions/2011_FEMYSO.pdf
Fernandez, B. (2012, Dec). France’s Le Pen Battles Islamonazi Occupation. Loon Watch.
Retrieved from http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/marine-le-pen/
Film Blog. (n.d.). Innoncence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/sep/17/innocence-ofmuslims-demonstration-film
France24. (2013, May). 969: the three digits that are terrifying Muslims in Burma. France 24
International News. Retrieved from http://observers.france24.com/content/20130503%E2%80%98969%E2%80%99-digits-terrifying-muslims-burma
Freeze, C. Hui, A. & Ha, T. (2013, April 3). Old classmate of the accused in Algeria plot became
increasingly isolated, former co-worker says. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-arrested-in-algeria-had-changed-excolleague-says/article10733295/
Freeze, C. Hui, A. & Ha, T. (2013, April 1). Canadians’ alleged role in Algeria plot stokes
Ottawa’s fears of homegrown terrorism. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-alleged-role-in-algeria-plot-stokesottawas-fears-of-homegrown-terrorism/article10656172/
101
Gallup. (n.d.). Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West. Gallup World.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslimsentiment-west.aspx#2
Geller, P. (2013, March 25). Muslims, Leftists Plot Against Free Speech. Atlas Shrugs. Retrieved
from http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/03/pamela-geller-wnd-columnmuslims-leftists-plot-against-free-speech.html
Golino, L. (2002). Europe, the War on Terror and the EU’s International Role, 8(2), 61-64,
Retrieved from http://watsoninstitute.org/bjwa/archive/8.2/911/Golino.pdf
Goldenburg, S. (2006). Islamophobia worse in America now than after 9/11, survey finds. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/10/usa.religion
Graham-Harrison, Emma. (2012, Feb 21). Nato apologize for Afghan Qur’an burning. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/21/us-nato-apologiseafghan-quran-burning
GRTV. (2010). Islamophobia and War on Afghanistan. Global Research TV. [video of Deepa
Kumar]. Retrieved from http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/08/islamophobia-and-war-afghanistan
Hamdani, D. (2005, March). Triple Jeoppardy: Muslims Women’s Experience of Discrimination.
Toronto: Canadian Council of Muslim Women. Retrieved from
http://www.ccmw.com/publications/triple_jeopardy.pdf
Hasan, M. (2012). Feminism as Islamophobia: A review of misogyny charges against Islam.
Intelectual Discourse, 20(1), 55-78. Retrieved from
http://www.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam/article/view/192/214
Hassan, G. (December, 2005). The Rise of Islamophobia in ‘White Australia’, Global Research.
Retrieved from http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rise-of-islamophobia-in-white-australia/1485
Herd, S. (2006). Scorched by the Scourge of Post-9/11 Racism [Interview]. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14587965/ns/us_news-9_11_five_years_later/
Hodal, K. (2013, April). Buddhist monk uses racism and rumours to spread hatred in Burma. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/buddhist-monkspreads-hatred-burma
Huff Post. (2011). Afghanistan Quran-Burning Protests Turn Violent. Huffington Post. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/afghanistan-quranburning_n_711943.html#s137604&title=Canada
HRW. (2012, Aug, 1). Burma: Government Forces Targeting Rohinya Muslims. Human Rights
Watch. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/31/burma-government-forcestargeting-rohingya-muslims-0
102
Hume, J. (2012, Dec 18). Security expert says Canada should keep eye out for ‘Islamist’
immigrants. Toronto Sun. Retrieved from http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/18/securityexpert-says-canada-should-keep-eye-out-for-islamist-immigrants
IHRC. (n.d.). About IHRC. Islamis Human Rights Commossion. Retrieved from
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/about-ihrc/about-us
Ihsanohlu, E. (winter, 2010). Islamophobia and Terrorism: Impediments to the Culture of Peace.
Arches Quaterly, 4(6), 11-13. Retrieved from http://www.thecordobafoundation.com
Intosh, M. (n.d.). Islamic Fundamentalism: Religious fanaticism to reinforce the state, Retrieved
from http://internationalist-perspective.org/IP/ip-archive/ip_15_islamic.html
Islamophobia. (2013). In dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com
Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West, (n.d). Gallup. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentimentwest.aspx#1
Kelley, L. (2012, June 28). Book Review: Stop the Islamazation of America by Pamela Geller.
The Kelley Comment. Retrieved from http://larrykelley.com/2012/06/28/book-review-stop-theislamization-of-america-by-pamela-geller/
Kumar, D. (2012). Islamophobia and the Politics of the Empire. Chicago: Haymarket Books
London Community News (LCM). (2012, Sept 24). Local Mosque receives hate mail. London
Community News. Retrieved from http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/newsstory/1359342-local-mosque-receives-hate-mail/
Mahboob, A. K. (February 2013). How the Western Leaders Terrorized Muslim World using
Fake Clash of Civilisations. The People’s Voice. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14587965/ns/us_news-9_11_five_years_later/
Malik, N. (2012, Sept. 18). Sudan’s hashtag-free protests over Innocence of Muslims. The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/sudanprotests-innocence-of-muslims
Mignolo, W. (winter, 2012). Islamophobia and Hispanophobia: How They Come Together in a
Euro-American Imagination, Arches Quarterly, 4(6), 24-38. Retrieved from
http://www.thecordobafoundation.com
Morgenstern, M. (2012, Sept 20). US Embassy spends $70K on ads denouncing anti-Muslim
film for Pakistani TV. The Blaze. Retrieved from
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/20/u-s-embassy-spends-70k-on-ads-denouncing-antimuslim-film-for-pakistani-tv/
National Post Staff. (2012). Niqabs, burkas must be removed during citizenship ceremonies:
Jason Kennedy. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/niqabsburkas-must-be-removed-during-citizenship-ceremonies-jason-kenney/
103
NBC News and wires services. (2012, Sept 15). Obama: US has ‘profound respect for people of
all faiths’. World News NBC. Retrieved from
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13877580-obama-us-has-profound-respectfor-people-of-all-faiths?lite
OIC. (n.d.). Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.oicoci.org/home.asp
OSCE. (2011). Guidelines for educators on countering intolerance and discrimination against
Muslims. Addressing Islamophobia through education. Poland: Agencja KARO. Retrieved from
http://www.osce.org/odihr/84495?download=true
Owieda, A. (2012, March). Islamophobia in Canada. Canadian Muslim Forum. Retrieved from
http://www.fmccmf.com/index.php?id=136&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=25&cHash=0856f0f250
Pk Defense, Pakistan Defense. (2013) Burma’s Bin Laden Spearheads 969 Campaign Urging
Boycott of Muslims. Pakistan Defence. Retrieved from http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinafar-east/250127-burmas-bin-laden-spearheads-969-campaign-urging-boycott-muslims.html
Pitt, B. (2012). Marine Le Pen calls for ban on Muslim and Jewish headwear. Islamophobia
Watch. Retrived from http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobiawatch/2012/9/21/marine-le-pen-calls-for-ban-on-muslim-and-jewish-headwear.html
Pitsuman, F. (2012, Aug 9). Suu Kyi must not ignore the Rohingya. Newstraitstimes. Retrieved
from http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/suu-kyi-must-not-ignore-the-rohingya-1.122681
Pluralism Project (PP). (2005). Post-9/11 Hate Crime Trends: Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews
in the US, Retrieved from http://www.pluralism.org/reports/view/104
Pratt, D. (2011). Islamophobia: ignorance, imagination, identity and interaction, Islam and
Christian-Muslim Relations. 22(4), 379-389
PShukla, I. (2012, March 2). The Afghan Response to the Koran Burning Incident. Institute for
the study of war. Retrieved from http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/afghanresponse-2012-koran-burning-incident
Rab, A. (2008). The Rise of Religious Fanaticism among Muslims and the Direction for True
Islamic Revival. Retrieved from http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-Rise-of-ReligiousFana-by-Abdur-Rab-081211-87.html
Rosen, R. (2012, Sept 14). What to Make of Google’s Decision to Block the ‘Innocence of
Muslims’ Movie. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/what-to-make-of-googles-decision-toblock-the-innocence-of-muslims-movie/262395/
Russell, L. (2010, July 31). Church plans Quran-burning event. CNN US. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/index.html
104
Sajid, A. (2005). Islamophobia: A New Word for an Old Fear. The Palestine-Israel Journal,
12(2&3). Retrieved from http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=344
Saunders, D. (2012). The Myth of the Muslim Tide, Canada: Random House Inc.
Shaker, H. (winter, 2010) Will Europe Surrender to Selective Racism? An Interpretative Model
of a Worsening Phenomenon. Arches Quarterly, 4(6), 84. Retrieved from
http://www.thecordobafoundation.com
Shakir, F. (2011, Aug. 26). 42 Million dollars from seven foundations helped fuel the rise of
Islamophobia in America. Politics, Think Progress. Retrieved from
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/26/304306/islamophobia-network/?mobile=nc#
Steele, A. (2012, Jan 5). Harper condemns Gatineau mosque attack. CBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/01/05/ott-gatineau-mosque-vandalismgraffiti.html
Stop Racism. (2012). Marine Le Pen: The threat of radical Islam. Stop Rasicm and Hate ,
Collective. Retrieved from http://www.stopracism.ca/content/marine-le-pen-threat-radical-islam
Sturgeon, E. (n.d.). Definitions and the Domino Effect: Religious Violence, Islamophobia and
Tariq Ramadan. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/836503/Definitions_and_the_Domino_Effect_Religious_Violence_Isl
amophobia_and_Tariq_Ramadan
Taheri, A. (October, 2001). Islam Can’t Escape Blame for September 11, Wall Street Journals
OpEd, Retrieved from http://www.revelations.org.za/Islam.htm
Tariq Ramadan. (2004) Biography. Retrieved from http://www.tariqramadan.com/
Tariq Ramadan. (2006). Manifesto for a new we. Retrieved from http://www.tariqramadan.com/
The Associate Press. (2012, Sep 17). Anti-Islam film sparks violence in Asia. CBC News.
Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/17/anti-islam-muhammad-filmviolence.html
The Associate Press2. (2012, Sept 11). U.S. official killed in Libya protest over anti-Islam film.
CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/11/cairo-embassyprotest.html
The Runnymede Trust. (n.d.) Islamophobia: A Challenge for us all. [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
The Week Staff. (2012, Sept 17). The worldwide protests against anti-Islam film Innoncence of
Muslims. By the Numbers. The Week. Retrieved from
http://theweek.com/article/index/233439/the-worldwide-protests-against-anti-islam-filminnocence-of-muslims-by-the-numbers
105
UNESCO. (n.d.) Fighting Islamophobia in Schools. UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/in-focus-articles/fighting-islamophobia-inschools/
UN General Assembly. (2009, Nov 12). Third Committee Approve Resolution aimed at
‘Combatting Defamation of Religion’. Department of Public Information. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm
UN News Centre. (2008). Human Rights Council takes up racism and defamation of religions.
United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28137&Cr=human+rights&Cr1
Wagner, R. (August, 2012). Institutionalized Islamophobia in the West. The Nation. Retrieved
from http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/14Aug-2012/institutionalized-islamophobia-in-us
World Religion Watch (RWR). (January, 2011). “What I believe” by Tariq Ramadan. Retrieved
from http://www.world-religion-watch.org/index.php/book-reviews-on-relevant-religious-andcultural-issues/344-what-i-believe-by-tariq-ramadan%20jan%2018%202011
Wilsher, K. (2012, April). Marine Le Pen scores stunning results in French presidential election.
The Guradian. Retrived from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/22/marine-le-penfrench-election
YouTube. (2012). Tariq Ramadan: Clash of Civilisations? [YouTube video a] [Interview of Tariq
Ramadan]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-z0_3Y_U
YouTube. (2012) Literalism and Dogmatic Minds. [YouTube videob] [Interview of Tariq
Ramadan]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4_ZwZD6R8E&feature=endscreen
YouTube. (2011). Tariq Ramadan: What are the causes of Islamophobia in the EU? Press TV.
[YouTube videoc] [Interview of Tariq Ramadan]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3cIk5IqPYA
YouTube. (2012). Tariq Ramadan: Integration and Pluralism. [YouTube videod] [Interview of
Tariq Ramadan]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBxh19ZLgCI&feature=endscreen
YouTube. (2011). Tariq Ramadan- What I believe. [YouTube videoe] [Interview of Tariq
Ramadan]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLdmXawtL-Q
YouTube. (2010, July 17). Round 2: Ground Zero Mosque Debate, Pamela Geller vs Ibrahim
Ramey, MAS aka Muslim Brotherhood. CNN. [YouTube videof]. [Broadcasted Debate].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWy_jptgcwo