Understanding Islamophobia
Islamophobia must be studied as part of a broader process through which societies construct images of the 'Other' and subsequently transform those images into socially meaningful categories.
Introduction
Islamophobia has become an increasingly prominent subject of political, academic, and media debate in Europe. Its growing visibility has coincided with the rise of far-right and populist movements, intensified debates over immigration and multiculturalism, and recurring controversies concerning the place of Islam and Muslims in European societies.
Norway experienced an extreme and devastating manifestation of far-right violence in the terrorist attacks carried out by Anders Behring Breivik on 22 July 2011. Breivik’s ideological hostility toward multiculturalism, immigration, Islam, and the Norwegian Labour Party demonstrated, in the most horrific manner, that extremist constructions of the “Other” could have consequences extending far beyond political rhetoric.
Yet dramatic events alone cannot explain the intellectual and cultural processes through which hostility toward a particular group develops.
One of the central difficulties confronting historical and anthropological inquiry is identifying the formative ideas from which a complex social phenomenon emerges. A phenomenon such as Islamophobia cannot be understood merely by examining its contemporary manifestations. We must also ask how particular representations of Islam and Muslims were historically constructed, transmitted, modified, and eventually incorporated into broader political and cultural discourses.
This is not a simple undertaking. Social phenomena rarely have a single origin. They develop through the interaction of political, economic, historical, psychological, and cultural forces operating over different periods of time.
The first problem, therefore, is one of definition.
What Do We Mean by Islamophobia?
The term “Islamophobia” has itself been the subject of considerable debate. Is “phobia,” a term associated with psychology, appropriate for describing what is fundamentally a social and political phenomenon? Does Islamophobia refer primarily to fear of Islam, hostility toward Muslims, religious prejudice, cultural stereotyping, racialisation, or discrimination?
There is no simple answer.
Whatever the limitations of the terminology, however, the concept has come to describe a recognisable cluster of attitudes and practices involving negative generalisations about Islam and Muslims, including suspicion, hostility, prejudice, exclusion, and, in some cases, discrimination.
An important distinction must nevertheless be maintained from the outset: criticism of Islam is not in itself Islamophobia.
Religions, ideologies, philosophical systems, and political doctrines must remain open to criticism. A critical examination of Islamic theology, history, institutions, or political movements is fundamentally different from reducing Muslims as an enormously diverse collection of human beings to a homogeneous group possessing fixed and inherently negative characteristics.
It is precisely at this point that the concept of the stereotype becomes important.
Social Construction of Stereotype
Ideas do not emerge in a vacuum. They are produced within particular historical and social environments, and those environments influence both how societies perceive themselves and how they imagine others.
Cultural images can disappear as the circumstances that produced them change. They can also survive for generations, gradually becoming stereotypes reproduced through education, literature, political discourse, popular culture, and the media.
Once deeply embedded within a culture, stereotypes can acquire the appearance of common sense. Their social importance does not depend upon their being empirically true. It derives instead from the extent to which they are accepted and reproduced.
Societies have historically constructed images of both the “friend” and the “enemy.” Prolonged conflicts can play an especially important role in producing such representations. Historical rivalries between European nations, for example, generated mutually hostile cultural stereotypes that often survived long after the circumstances in which they originated had changed. Similar processes can be observed in the long and complicated history of Greek-Turkish relations.
The stereotype is powerful precisely because it simplifies.
Rather than confronting the complexity of a society, religion, or civilisation, it reduces that complexity to a small number of supposedly permanent characteristics. A vast and internally diverse human community can consequently be represented through a few words: irrational, violent, backward, fanatical, threatening.
Such representations resist historical change because they treat cultures as essentially static.
Walter Lippmann and World in Our Heads
One of the earliest influential modern discussions of stereotypes appeared in Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion, published in 1922.
Lippmann recognised a fundamental problem of modern social existence: the world is too large and complicated for individuals to experience directly. Human beings therefore interpret reality through representations, categories, and mental pictures.
In his discussion of “stereotypes as defense”, Lippmann went beyond the simple proposition that stereotypes are inaccurate beliefs. He recognised that they can become part of an individual’s broader conception of social reality.
This has profound consequences.
When a stereotype becomes embedded within a person’s worldview, challenging it may be experienced not merely as correcting a factual mistake but as threatening an entire structure through which that individual understands society.
Here we encounter one of the central problems in studying prejudice: the distinction between the world itself and the world as we imagine it.
Human beings do not always distinguish clearly between objective reality and their representation of that reality. When a representation is repeated sufficiently often and reinforced socially, it can acquire the authority of an established truth.
This theoretical insight provides an important foundation for examining Western representations of Islam and the Middle East.
Edward Said and Representation of The Orient
No modern intellectual examination of Western representations of the Arab and Islamic worlds can easily avoid engagement with Edward Said’s Orientalism, published in 1978.
Said wrote before “Islamophobia” became widely established as a term in contemporary political discourse. His concern was broader: he examined the intellectual and cultural mechanisms through which the “Orient” had been represented within important traditions of European scholarship, literature, and political thought.
For Said, Orientalism was not simply a collection of inaccurate statements about Eastern societies. It constituted a discourse through which knowledge about the Orient was produced and organised, historically intertwined with structures of political power and European imperial expansion.
One of Said’s most important contributions was therefore to shift attention from a seemingly simple question: Is this particular representation of the East accurate?
To a more fundamental series of questions: Who produces knowledge about the Other? Under what historical circumstances? Through which institutions? And within what relationships of power?
These questions remain relevant to the study of Islamophobia.
Certain representations criticised by Said the notion of the East as static, irrational, culturally inferior, fundamentally different from the West, or incapable of historical transformation can still be detected in some contemporary discourses concerning Islam and Muslims.
There is therefore reason to examine continuities between elements of historical Orientalist representation and contemporary Islamophobic discourse.
Such continuity, however, should not be overstated.
Orientalism cannot by itself explain modern Islamophobia. Contemporary hostility toward Islam and Muslims has developed within a much more complex environment shaped by postcolonial migration, national identity, economic insecurity, international conflicts, Islamist terrorism, security policies, demographic change, populist politics, and transformations in mass and digital communication.
Rather than describing Orientalism simply as the “father” of Islamophobia, it may therefore be more accurate to regard Orientalist representations as one component of the historical repertoire of images through which Islam and Muslims have sometimes been imagined in the West.
The Runnymede Report
An important institutional attempt to define Islamophobia emerged in Britain with the publication in 1997 of Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, produced by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia under the chairmanship of Professor Gordon Conway and published by the Runnymede Trust.
The report distinguished between “closed” and “open” views of Islam.
The closed view portrayed Islam as monolithic and static, separate from other cultures, inferior to the West, inherently hostile and violent, and primarily political rather than religious.
The significance of this framework lies not simply in whether individual criticisms of Islam are justified or unjustified. Its deeper concern is with the intellectual process through which an extraordinarily diverse religion and hundreds of millions of people are transformed into a single undifferentiated entity.
The difference is fundamental.
To criticise a particular Islamic doctrine, political movement, historical practice, government, or religious institution is to make a proposition that can be examined and debated.
To claim that “Muslims” as a whole possess an inherent and permanent characteristic is to engage in an entirely different intellectual operation: the construction of a stereotype.
Europe and Rise of Far Right
In an earlier Norwegian-language article published through the University of Oslo, I discussed what I regarded at the time as insufficient academic attention to the far right.
Others raised similar concerns. Some argued that the extensive academic and political focus on radical political Islam had, at times, overshadowed the need for equally serious examination of far-right extremism.
There is some merit in this argument, although it cannot by itself explain the subsequent growth of far-right politics. A more difficult question concerns Europe’s understanding of itself.
Modern European societies commonly define themselves through ideals associated with democracy, rationality, human rights, pluralism, and political tolerance. Yet democratic institutions do not automatically immunise societies against racism, political extremism, or hatred.
European intellectual traditions have historically used concepts such as “barbarism,” “savagery,” and “backwardness” to classify societies beyond Europe. A difficult question therefore arises when forms of intolerance emerge from within societies that understand themselves as liberal and democratic:
From Soviet Threat to “Islamic Threat”
Beginning in the final decades of the 20th century, far-right and populist political movements became increasingly visible in several European countries. Their development coincided with growing political debates over immigration, multiculturalism, national identity, and Islam.
At roughly the same historical moment, the Cold War order was collapsing.
This produced a provocative hypothesis: had the disappearance of the “Soviet threat” created an ideological space in which an “Islamic threat” could become the new organising image of an external enemy?
The hypothesis is intellectually interesting, but it should be treated cautiously.
Historical sequence does not necessarily demonstrate causation. The end of the Cold War did not automatically transform Islam into a replacement enemy, nor can the complex development of European attitudes toward Muslims be explained through a single geopolitical transition.
Nevertheless, the historical coincidence deserves investigation.
The final decades of the 20th century witnessed the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the end of the ideological confrontation between capitalism and Soviet communism, and profound changes in the international political order.
During roughly the same period, Islam became increasingly prominent in European public debate.
The Salman Rushdie controversy, debates over the hijab, conflicts in the Middle East, immigration, integration, and the political emergence of Islamist movements all contributed to the growing visibility of Islam as a subject of public controversy. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent “war on terror” transformed the scale and intensity of these debates.
The question of Islam increasingly moved beyond specialist academic and political circles and entered everyday public discourse.
Globalisation and Acceleration of Stereotypes
These developments coincided with globalisation and an unprecedented revolution in communication.
The modern citizen became capable of witnessing distant events almost instantaneously. Later, social media transformed citizens from passive consumers of information into active producers and distributors of images, interpretations, arguments, rumours, and political narratives.
This produced a striking paradox.
Never before have human beings possessed so many opportunities to encounter other cultures and learn about one another. Yet the same technologies have created extraordinarily efficient mechanisms for spreading stereotypes, fear, conspiracy theories, and hatred.
Information has become globalised but so has prejudice.
The speed of communication has therefore not necessarily produced a corresponding increase in understanding.
Beyond the Question of Fear
A serious analysis of Islamophobia must consequently move beyond the literal meaning of “fear of Islam”.
The phenomenon must be studied as part of a broader process through which societies construct images of the "Other" and subsequently transform those images into socially meaningful categories.
This does not mean treating every criticism of Islam as prejudice. Nor should Muslims be represented merely as passive objects of Western discourse. Muslim societies, political movements, institutions, and individuals possess their own histories, conflicts, responsibilities, and forms of agency.
The analytical challenge is precisely to avoid replacing one stereotype with another.
A critique of stereotypical representations of Muslims should not produce an equally stereotypical representation of “the West”. Neither Islam nor the West constitutes a single mind, culture, political project, or historical experience.
The central questions are therefore not simply:
What do Europeans think about Islam? or Why do some people fear Muslims?
The deeper questions are:
How are collective images of the Other constructed?
Under what historical circumstances do such images become socially persuasive?
Which institutions reproduce them?
How do legitimate political or religious disagreements become transformed into generalisations about entire populations?
And, perhaps most importantly:
At what point does a cultural stereotype cease to be merely an idea, and begin to shape social behaviour, institutional practice, and political action?
Understanding that transformation is essential if we are to understand Islamophobia not merely as a word, but as a historical and social phenomenon.
[The writer, Salim Nazzal, is a public intellectual and writer. He has authored 30 books covering cultural and social issues, in addition to novels, plays, and poetry. He is the President of the European Palestinian Cultural Forum. This essay is based on a lecture delivered at the Mosaic Cultural Centre in Oslo in 2017.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language to Translate in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic
