Articulations of Islamophobia: from the extreme to the mainstream?

ABSTRACT

This article will examine the construction and functions of, as well as relationship between, the diverse and changing articulations of Islamophobia. The aim is to contribute to debates about the definition of Islamophobia, which have tended to be contextually specific, fixed and/or polarized between racism and religious prejudice, between extreme and mainstream, state and non-state versions or undifferentiated, and offer a more nuanced framework to: (a) delineate articulations of Islamophobia as opposed to precise types and categories; (b) highlight the porosity in the discourse between extreme articulations widely condemned in the mainstream, and normalized and insidious ones, which the former tend to render more acceptable in comparison; (c) map where these intersect in response to events, historical and political conditions and new ideological forces and imperatives and (d) compare these articulations of Islamophobia in two contexts, France and the US.

KEYWORDS:

• Islamophobia
• anti-Muslim racism
• liberalism
• France
• US
• terrorism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The report elaborated eight “distinctions” which could lead to the unfair treatment of the Muslim community, including that Islam is seen as: a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change; lacking values in common with other cultures; as inferior to the West; as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist and as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism.

2 See also Steve Garner and Saher Salod's empirical study of the racialization of Muslims. (Garner and Selod 2015).

3 See for example this statement from the National Alliance’s Billy Roper:

The enemy of our enemy is, for now at least, our friends. We may not want them marrying our daughters, just as they would not want us marrying theirs. We may not want them in our societies, just as they would not want us in theirs … . But anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill jews is alright by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude. (SPLC 2001)

4 Falwell declared: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle … I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen’” (SPLC 2001).

5 The US State Department issued the following statement following the January 2015 attack: “Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion is, and I know there are very heated personal opinions about this, we absolutely support the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish things like this … That’s what happens in a democracy. Period” (Klapper January 13, 2015).

6 A similar trend has also been witnessed in the UK. Spiked!’s campaigns in which anti-racists, feminists and LGBT activists, “safe spaces”, “no platforming”, the Rhodes Must Fall campaign, the attack on Charlie Hebdo and ISIS’s destruction of Palmyra, are placed on the same continuum, if not equated, based on a shared inclination towards particularism, being “offended” and censorship (O’Neill, November 28, 2015) Not only are anti-racists, feminists and LBGT activists seen as abusing the liberal rights and equalities bestowed upon them by progressive liberalism, through their particularism, identity politics, political correctness, anti-racism, anti-imperialism and multiculturalism, they invited Muslims and their illiberalism and intolerance into “Our” society, and continue to defend them.