BY: W. Shadid, 20-6-2008

In the last four decades, the hostile attitude towards Islam and Muslims in the West has been often classified as Islamophobia or as anti-Islamism. In official (inter) national reports and in scientific publications as well, the two concepts have already became well established. As neologisms both terms have been developed in analogy with the existing phenomena of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, respectively. The former implies an excessive pathological fear of strangers cq. of Muslims and Islam, while anti-Islamism can be described as a hostile prejudiced attitude, psychological and physical violence, discrimination and exclusion of the groups concerned. Although the semantic of both concepts reflects the content of the phenomena, the term anti-Islamism is preferred. It reflects the dynamic and conscious character of the antipathy and hatred against Islam and its followers, unlike Islamophobia which is more a psychological and pathological fear of the religion.

A much heard misconception is that apart from the existing historical prejudices against Islam, anti-Islamism in the West has mainly begun to emerge after the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. However, as early as 1992 Van Koningsveld and undersigned have extensively discussed this phenomenon and predicted its growth in their book ‘De Mythe van het islamitische gevaar’ (The myth of Islamic danger). They argued that its growth will be facilitated by the existing darns in the legislation which made it acceptable to classify cultural and religious hostilities as ‘Freedom of expression’, as opposed to other condemnable ideologies that are directly and explicitly based on xenophobia and racism. These darns made it possible to classify some punishable forms of racist behaviour under the umbrella of ‘cultural hostilities’, while the contents and consequences of both types of behaviour remained relatively similar.
The authors of the above-mentioned book also predicted that based on the prevailing image of Islam in those days, the ideology of anti-Islamism can easily win supporters, even among those who strongly reject xenophobia as such. Furthermore, they predicted that anti-Islamism as an ideology can initiate a broad political movement in which big differences of opinion can exist even concerning the policy towards foreigners and immigration in general. If prominent politicians and scientists also begin to contribute systematically to the spreading of such hostilities against Islam, the development of an institutional type of anti-Islamism can increase considerably. Unfortunately, this view became nowadays a reality in the Netherlands, that can be noticed by the emergence of political movements like that of the MP’s Wilders and Verdonk, and that of Fortuyn, a former leader of another political party a couple of years ago.
In fact, all (extreme) right-wing political parties in Western Europe make use of the same ideological package of ant-Islamism. The ‘Monitor Racisms en Extreemrechts’ [Racism and Extreme Right] in the Netherlands in which a separate chapter is devoted to Islamophobia in 2006, showed that the frequency of anti-Muslim expressions in the Netherlands surpassed that of anti-Semitism, though the latter has also increased. A comparable conclusion is also drawn in the report of the European Committee on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of 2008 that devotes a separate chapter on Islamophobia as well. In her report the Committee stresses the fact that Muslims in the Netherlands are subjected to and suffer from stereotyping, stigmatization and sometimes racist political jargon. Similar conclusions have been made in relation to the situation of immigrants in other countries of the European Union, such as Belgium, Germany and France and in scientific research reports as well.
These and other scientific studies in the West clearly indicate that anti-Islamism is not a fiction, but has unfortunately become an institutional reality. If nothing is done against these developments, the instability in society and ethnic conflicts will increase significantly. Therefore, (local) governments should take their responsibility to formulate effective measures against anti-Islamism and xenophobia. However, an appropriate approach begins with the recognition of the existence of the phenomenon of anti-Islamism in the country, and by debating its causes and consequences as well. As anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism should be also criminalised and made punishable, as prominent Dutch persons of Jewish background increasingly stress the resemblance between the two phenomena. The denial of the existence of anti-Islamism in general and the rejection of the findings presented in the above-mentioned European reports, will only lead to its increase and to further polarization and radicalization. Over time, anti-Islamism as a form of modern racism may become directed towards other (religious) groups and ideologies in society.
The recommendations of the ECRI offer adequate measures in order to realise a decrease in the phenomenon. In its report on the Netherlands the Committee requests Dutch authorities to publicly and vigorously condemn all manifestations of anti-Muslim sentiments in politics, not to support debates which mainly aim at increasing polarization in society around Muslim issues; not to formulate policy measures which directly or indirectly discriminate against Muslims and to make use of all possible occasions to stress the avoidance of generalizations and associations of Muslim with terrorism in public debates and the media. Finally, and to my opinion, is it necessary that all social institutions such as schools, churches and trade unions, as well as ordinary citizens should publicly condemn ant-Islamism. The achievement of peace, mutual respect and social equality in society is everyone’s responsibility.

Prof.dr. W. Shadid is professor of intercultural communication. For more info: see page “About”