The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 102: Monday 17 October 2005

One Hundred Days Since 7/7: Islamophobia

ONE HUNDRED DAYS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA

THE BACKGROUND

In the background of the debate about al-Qaeda terrorism are a number of different fears and hatreds pulsing in the white/non-Muslim community. There is racism (against South Asians, Afro-Caribbeans and Arabs). There is a widespread and deep-rooted fear of, and hostility to, immigrants. And there is Islamophobia - fear and hatred of Muslims for being Muslims. All these social disorders inter-relate and are mutually reinforcing.

DEFINITION

The seminal work in defining Islamophobia is the Runnymede Trust report of 1997, 'Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All' (summary pdf):

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.

4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.

5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.

6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.

7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

On the other hand, the Runnymede 'Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia' also defined a possible 'open' approach to Islam:

1) Islam is seen as diverse and progressive, with internal differences, debates and development.

2) Islam is seen as interdependent with other faiths and cultures – (a) having certain shared values and aims (b) affected by them (c) enriching them.

3) Islam is seen as distinctively different, but not deficient, and as equally worthy of respect.

4) Islam seen as an actual or potential partner in joint cooperative enterprises and in the solution of shared problems.

5) Islam seen as a genuine religious faith, practised sincerely by its adherents.

6) Criticisms of ‘the West’ and other cultures are considered and debated.

7) Debates and disagreements with Islam do not diminish efforts to combat discrimination and exclusion.

8) Critical views of Islam are themselves subjected to critique, lest they be inaccurate and unfair.

There are certain problems with using the term 'Islam' in this (ironicaly) rather monolithic fashion, not the least of which is the tendency, even amongst those non-Muslim liberals arguing against Islamophobia to speak of the relationship between 'the West' and 'Islam', as though these were entirely separate and distinct concepts.

Leaving behind these complexities, let us turn to the portrayal of Muslims in Britain since the 7/7 bombings.

HATE SPEECH

Part of the reaction in the white, non-Muslim Establishment has been one of barely-disguised contempt and hatred. The Daily and Sunday Telegraph have perhaps been the foremost purveyors of this brand of anti-Muslim racism. The immediate reaction of Charles Moore, former Telegraph editor, was to condemn those who warned of a backlash against British Muslims: 'the truth is that the backlash only threatens because the terror strikes.' (Media Review, 9 July)

Moore quoted violent verses from the Qur'an, and asked whether these were now seen as metaphorical in Islam, as the violent verses in the Torah/Old Testament were now seen as metaphorical in Christianity.

We see once again the dangers of speaking in monolithic terms of 'Islam' and 'Christianity'. The violent portions of the Old Testament are not seen as particularly 'metaphorical' by, for example, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, an armed, avowedly Christian group that has carried out atrocities in the region for over a decade, in an effort to impose the Ten Commandments. (We discussed the LRA in the Media Review on 3 August.)

'CHRISTIANIST'

If we discussed the LRA in the same terms we discuss similar groups inspired by the Qur'an rather than by the Christian Bible, that last sentence would run something like this: 'The violent portions of the Old Testament are not seen as particularly "metaphorical" by, for example, the LRA, a Christianist terrorist group that has carried out atrocities in the region for over a decade.'

For an actual example of discrimination in the media, see these two reports from the Observer (possibly the most liberal newspaper on social issues in Britain). (This is taken from the Media Review, 25 September.) These two short pieces appeared, just as they are printed below, one above the other on page 21 of the newspaper:

Lord's Resistance Army rebels killed in bloody gun battle

'Ugandan troops killed 15 rebels from the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in a gun battle in remote southern Sudan, the military said. For 19 years the cult-like LRA has terrorised isolated communities on both sides of the border, uprooting 1.6 million people in northern Uganda alone and triggering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.'

Algerian rebels kill 10

'Al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist militants have killed 10 people, including seven soldiers, in separate ambushes in Algeria, newspapers reported yesterday. The attacks came a week ahead of a national referendum on a partial amnesty aimed at rebels fighting for a purist Islamic state.'

Assuming the accuracy of the reports, why are the Algerian militants 'Islamists', but the LRA not described as 'Christianist'? Why are the Algerian militants described as fighting for 'pure Islam', when the LRA are not described as fighting for 'pure Christianity'? Why are there two references to Islam (as well as one to al-Qaeda) in relation to the Algerian militants, but no reference at all to Christianity in relation to the LRA (they are instead described as 'cult-like')?

These short reports encapsulate, in around 100 words, the poisonous assumptions which skew reporting, and deepen public fear and hatred of Islam.

If the mainstream media were discussing an al-Qaeda equivalent group to the LRA, no one would think of describing it as 'avowedly Muslim'. Instead it would be referred to as 'Islamist', fighting for 'pure Islam', or as 'Islamic extremists' (in other words, more Muslim than those who do not carry out atrocities). Why is this so?

Because it is assumed that the core of Islam is violence and intolerance and hatred, just as it is assumed that the core of Christianity is peace and tolerance and love. But these are both selective interpretations of what is in the respective scriptures. As we have shown at length in past Media Reviews, the Christian Bible contains much that sits awkwardly in the standard view of Jesus.

Similarly, there are non-literalist or 'liberal' interpretations of the Qur'an, including of Qur'anic law.

MORE 'CHRISTIANISTS'

Defining 'terrorism' as the use or threatened use of force for political, religious or ideological purposes, the killing of abortion doctors as a protest against abortion, and as an intended service to a Christian God, is correctly defined as terrorism. Yet anti-abortion terrorists who kill doctors on the basis of their interpretation of Christian texts, or the LRA are never referred to as 'Christian terrorists', despite their clear self-identification and motivation/ideology.

This term would never been used because of the offence that would be given to ordinary, law-abiding people who identify themselves as Christian. Because of the implication that such lawless violence is inherent in the Christian religion.

The reason for avoiding the term 'Islamic terrorism' is not that al Qaeda does not derive from a strand of Islam (it does) or that those who carry out these kinds of atrocities are not devout believers in their own interpretation of Islam (it appears they are).

Just as the reason for avoiding the term 'Christian terrorism' is not that the anti-abortion bombers or other US terrorists do not derive from a strand of Christianity (see this interesting FBI report), or that those who carry out these kinds of atrocities are not devout believers in their own interpretation of Christianity (it appears they are).

The reason for avoiding such terms is that they stain the reputation of millions of people who have nothing to do with political violence. In Britain, using the term 'Islamic terrorism' or even 'Islamism' reinforces the idea that violence is inherent in Islam, and adds to already high levels of fear and hatred directed at the Muslim minority. It tends to increase the already serious levels of violence against South Asians and visible Muslims.

NOT LISTENING

The British mass media has performed some extraordinary manoeuvres in relation to Islam, and in relation to British Muslim communities, in the past 100 days. In the first weeks after the 7/7 bombings, London reporters flooded the Leeds suburb which three of the 7/7 bombers came from. Those journalists did their job conscientiously, and reported the feelings of the Muslims they encountered.

Time and again, the Muslims of Beeston repeated that the causes of the terrorist attack were to be found in the brutal nature of British foreign policy. This view was recorded, but effectively ignored. Commentators preferred to debate multiculturalism and/or the 'preachers of hate'.

The views of the Muslim elite fared little better. The central recommendation of the Muslim taskforce (brought together by Tony Blair) that there be a Royal Commission investigation into the 7/7 bombings, with a particular focus on the causal role of British foreign policy, was barely reported, let alone supported by the mainstream media.

There have been gems in the flood of fear and ignorance. But there has been very little sustained effort to try to see the world through the eyes of either the conservative (older) Muslim 'leadership' or the militant (younger) Muslims drawn to the message of al-Qaeda, which is not so much a strategic vision as a bizarre and distorted means of asserting dignity and self-respect in the face of powerlessness and suffering.

Without such an imaginative effort to see the world through our enemies' eyes, we have no hope of finding a way to defuse the human bombs.

If we do make that effort, we discover that doing the right thing - acting against injustice - is also the safe thing, the thing that can reduce the risk from al-Qaeda.

Having seen the world through the eyes of those Muslims drawn to al-Qaeda, we must also remember the huge, diverse body of Muslim opinion which is revolted by bin Laden's fanaticism and brutality. The debate around terrorism is surrounded by all kinds of fears in the white/non-Muslim community. Overcoming fear and hatred, and appreciating the diversity of Islam, are going to be critical challenges if we are going to being to solve the al-Qaeda problem.

And then we can begin to deal with the much greater problem of Western state terrorism.

JNV welcomes feedback

This page last updated 17 October 2005