Islamophobia

1.
Islamophobia The Racial State Week 12 Dr Alana Lentin a.lentin@uws.edu.au Tuesday, 14 May 13

2.
Overview Origins & Deﬁnitions of Islamophobia? From Orientalism to the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ 9/11 and after: ‘War on our doorsteps’ Producing threat The mainstream and the extreme Tuesday, 14 May 13

3.
Cooking while Muslim Tuesday,14 May 13 Yesterday’s news: A Saudi student living in Michigan was questioned in his home by FBI agents after neighbours saw him carrying a pressure cooker and called the police. Talal al Rouki had been cooking a traditional Saudi Arabian rice dish called kabsah and was carrying it to a friend's house. According to reports in a Saudi newspaper on Friday, the FBI are increasingly vigilant about 'pressure cooker' home-made bombs after the Boston bombers used one to make an explosive.

4.
‘Somewhere out there is the Muslim that the British government seeks. Like all religious people he (the government is more likely to talk about Muslim women than to them) supports gay rights, racial equality, women's rights, tolerance and parliamentary democracy. He abhors the murder of innocent civilians without qualification -‐ unless they are in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. He wants to be treated as a regular British citizen -‐ but not by the police, immigration or airport security. He wants the best for his children and if that means unemployment, racism and bad schools, then so be it. He raises his daughters to be assertive: they can wear whatever they want so long as it's not a headscarf. He believes in free speech and the right to cause offence but understands that he has neither the right to be offended nor to speak out. Whatever an extremist is, on any given day, he is not it. He regards himself as British -‐ first, foremost and for ever. But whenever a bomb goes off he will happily answer for Islam...’ Gary Younge, The Guardian, 30 March 2009 Tuesday, 14 May 13

5.
Origins & Definitions Tuesday,14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

6.
Origins & Definitions Origins Tuesday,14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

7.
Origins & Definitions Origins Runnymede Trust (1997) Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

8.
Origins & Definitions Origins Runnymede Trust (1997) ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.’ Runnymede Trust (1997) Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

9.
Origins & Definitions Origins Runnymede Trust (1997) ‘unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.’ Runnymede Trust (1997) Criticisms and responses Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

10.
Origins & Definitions Origins Runnymede Trust (1997) Criticisms and responses ‘Racialisation does not depend on biology to produce 'races'; rather it sees the construction of collective identities as a product of social processes. lt does not follow that just because Muslims are not a 'race’, or there is yet no Muslim gene, their subjugation is not racism.’ Sayyid (2012) Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Origins: Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims. Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are represented. i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism. 2. Runnymede Trust Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 - ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy discussions. The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia: • Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities • Islam does not share common values with other major faiths • Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational. • Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism. • Islam is a violent political ideology. 3. Criticism and responses

11.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism Tuesday,14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

12.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism A ‘violent hierarchy’ Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

13.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism A ‘violent hierarchy’ Being Muslim as political Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

14.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism A ‘violent hierarchy’ Being Muslim as political ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the aﬃrmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ Sayyid (2012) Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

15.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism A ‘violent hierarchy’ Being Muslim as political Orientalist attitudes Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

16.
Eurocentrism & Orientalism The Orient is seen as separate, eccentric, backward, silently diﬀerent, sensual, and passive. It has a tendency towards despotism and away from progress. It displays feminine penetrability and supine malleability. Its progress and value are judged in terms of, and in comparison to, the West, so it is always the Other, the conquerable, and the inferior. Paraphrased from Orientalism (Said, 1978) Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. A ‘violent hiererchy’ Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia really describes. For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the West and Islam.’ Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e. asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West. That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc. It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to dominate culturally, economically and militarily? 2. Being Muslim as Political Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for various reasons. Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being Muslim has a political signiﬁcance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today). Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is, the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’ But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its

17.
“Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and ‘identities’ into what they are not: shut-‐down, sealed-‐oﬀ entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-‐fertilization and sharing.” Edward Said (2001) The Clash of Civilizations Tuesday, 14 May 13

18.
“Huntington is an ideologist, someone who wants to make ‘civilizations’ and ‘identities’ into what they are not: shut-‐down, sealed-‐oﬀ entities that have been purged of the myriad currents and countercurrents that animate human history, and that over centuries have made it possible for that history not only to contain wars of religion and imperial conquest but also to be one of exchange, cross-‐fertilization and sharing.” Edward Said (2001) The Clash of Civilizations Tuesday, 14 May 13

19.
“There’s a definite urge -‐ don’t you have it? -‐ to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until its gets its house in order’... They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs -‐ well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.” Martin Amis (2006) Amis vs. Eagleton Tuesday, 14 May 13 The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what some see as the ‘dark ages’. While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism. [SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW] The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e. it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of the victims were Muslims. Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’s comments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalised minority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.

20.
“There’s a definite urge -‐ don’t you have it? -‐ to say, ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until its gets its house in order’... They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs -‐ well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.” Martin Amis (2006) Amis vs. Eagleton Tuesday, 14 May 13 The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what some see as the ‘dark ages’. While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism. [SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW] The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e. it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of the victims were Muslims. Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’s comments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalised minority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.

21.
9/11 and after:‘Wars on our doorsteps’ Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Personalising security As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’. Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser peoples.’ On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a victim at any time. The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create ‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us at any moment - not the nation, but us personally. For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat. e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in being vigilan for the ever-present threat. This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race - Foucault). Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how

22.
9/11 and after:‘Wars on our doorsteps’ Personalising security Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Personalising security As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’. Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser peoples.’ On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a victim at any time. The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create ‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us at any moment - not the nation, but us personally. For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat. e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in being vigilan for the ever-present threat. This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race - Foucault). Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how

23.
9/11 and after:‘Wars on our doorsteps’ Personalising security Policing terror Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Personalising security As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’. Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser peoples.’ On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a victim at any time. The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create ‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us at any moment - not the nation, but us personally. For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat. e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in being vigilan for the ever-present threat. This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race - Foucault). Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how

24.

25.

26.
9/11 and after:‘Wars on our doorsteps’ Personalising security Policing terror Domestic enemies: ✦ Dr Haneef ✦ Talha Ahsan & Babar Ahmed Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Personalising security As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’. Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser peoples.’ On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a victim at any time. The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create ‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us at any moment - not the nation, but us personally. For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat. e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in being vigilan for the ever-present threat. This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race - Foucault). Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how

27.

28.

29.
Producing Threat Post-‐secular anxiety: Cartoons, Minarets & Schools Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Post-secularism: Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one. But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate between Church and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particular religious tradition. e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian. Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism - religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religious symbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example). The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims in postcolonial societies, as well as with an intensiﬁcation of transnational political alliances between Muslims across the world (cf. Sayyid). Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the Camden Mosque affair. A. Cartoons: Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004. Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including ‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by several newspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo). Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘the right to offend is far more important than the right to offend.” Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were

30.

31.

32.

33.
Producing Threat Criminal tendencies: ‘Asian grooming gangs’ and ‘Sydney rape gangs’ Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Asian Grooming gangs: Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families. Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition, others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be preyed upon so easily. Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual abuse which is rife in every community: Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’. Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK (e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal. [Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be a white person this time."’ Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be

34.

35.
Producing Threat Criminal tendencies: ‘Asian grooming gangs’ and ‘Sydney rape gangs’ ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: “Please, God, don't let it be a white person this time”.’ Joseph Harker, The Guardian, 6 May 2013 Tuesday, 14 May 13 1. Asian Grooming gangs: Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families. Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition, others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be preyed upon so easily. Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual abuse which is rife in every community: Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’. Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK (e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal. [Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be a white person this time."’ Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be

36.

37.
The mainstream &the extreme ‘I am not condoning the slaughter in Norway or anywhere... But the jihad-‐loving media never told us what antisemitic war games they were playing on that island. Utoya Island is a Communist/Socialist campground, and they clearly had a pro-‐Islamic agenda... The slaughter was horrific. What these kids were being taught and instructed to do was a different kind of grotesque. There is no justification for Breivik's actions whatsoever. There is also no justification for Norway's antisemitism and demonization of Israel.’ Pam Geller, Atlas Shrugged Tuesday, 14 May 13 Link to the crisis of multiculturalism. Explain Breivik case - Norway at risk of Islamicization supported by tolerant multiculturalist liberal left (who had to be killed). Explain Geller - Stop Islamicization of America - first comes to light in protests against ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Funds pro=Israel campaign on buses in San Francisco, aimed against Muslims as uncivilised as opposed to Israel and the West as civilised. Geller openly endorsed the ideas behind Breivik’s attacks. But Geller may be considered to be more on the fringes. Although Breivik’s actions were not condoned by many of the detractors of multiculturalism, many came out in favour of his ideas. Breivik’s ‘manifesto’, A European Declaration of Independence, quoted from many mainstream authors/ journalists (including Melanie Philips - author of Londonistan, strident opponent of immigration and ‘Islamification’ as well as arch Zionist). Also influenced by right-wing blogger Bat Ye’Or. Titley and Lentin: Breivik should be seen as a symptom of European/western racism. His ideas are not made in a vacuum; they fold out of a logic in which the enemy is everywhere and western culture is at risk of imminent demise. Nevertheless, unlike terrorists and terrorist suspects, Breivik is seen as lone wolf, a pariah, utterly disconnected from other political processes - the war on terror, the construction of

38.
Tutorial Questions Should we be allowed to ‘laugh at’ another’s religion? Should there be a distinction between Islamophobia and other racisms? Do you think it’s fair to say that there is a ‘global war on Muslims’? Tuesday, 14 May 13

Islamophobia

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Islamophobia

Recently uploaded

Islamophobia