Transcripts/Citations

Islamophobia is…more than hate crimes

On January 29, 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette entered the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City, while Muslims were gathered in prayer.  He shot and killed six people, and injured 19 others.  At the time, the shooting was the most fatal¹ act of political violence in Canada since 1989.  And it was widely recognized across the country as a heinous act of Islamophobia. 

Islamophobia² is defined as the unfounded fear and/or hatred of Islam or Muslims, leading to violence and systemic discrimination. 

But massacres in mosques are just the tip of the Islamophobia iceberg.

After the shooting, negative attitudes and suspicion toward Muslims remained high.  Anti-Muslim hate crimes³ actually shot up across Canada.  The mosque was voted down in a town referendum in its bid to build a cemetery to bury their dead. All of this, and yet most Canadians still dismissed Islamophobia as a serious problem.

Islamophobia also includes skewed media representation.  The CBC spent only 5 minutes covering the mosque shooting the night it happened.  And the day after, the Globe and Mail dedicated a mere side column on the front page.  And generally, studies show [in Canada & USA] that violence committed by Muslims is covered much more than violence against Muslims.

This helps perpetuate state practices that both over-police Muslims and under-protect them.  Less than a year after the mosque shooting, Public Safety Canada said that “violent Islamist ideology” is still the greatest threat to Canada, reinforcing perceptions of Muslims as terrorists.  But far right extremists and White supremacists are responsible for many times more acts of violence⁴.  And yet the label of terrorist is reserved almost exclusively for Muslims, not just in the media but the legal system⁵ as well.  While the Quebec mosque shooter wasn’t even charged with terrorism, Muslims have been convicted of terrorism without actually injuring a single person⁶. 

Incidents like the Quebec mosque shooting are enabled by a whole deeper iceberg of policies and practices.  To really understand and address Islamophobia, we have to look beyond incidents of mass violence, to what lies underneath the surface.

Islamophobia is…perpetuated by mainstream media

Our news media exists to help us get a sense of our communities, and the world at large. It does this by looking at the infinite number of things that are happening around the globe, and chooses what to report, how to report, and how much to report. 

This means that all media, even when it’s just straight reporting of facts, is political.

But Islamophobia¹ informs our mainstream media, meaning that the picture it’s creating is distorted.  This image is one that reinforces unfair biases about Islam and Muslims. 

An academic study on Canadian mainstream media confirms that violent acts committed by Muslims get far more news coverage than violent acts by White supremacists and right wing extremists, even though the latter have been responsible for more deaths².  So even though Muslim political violence has taken only two lives in Canada since 1960, the media is giving us a different story – leaving us in Canada always worried about the next act of so-called ‘jihadi terrorism’.

And it’s not just in the amount of coverage, but the type of coverage.  Take these two front pages of the Globe & Mail – on the left, taken the day after the Boston Marathon Bombing; and, on the right, the day after the Quebec mosque shooting.  The Quebec mosque shooting happened in Canada, and was more fatal³ than the Boston Marathon bombing – but the headlines would have you believe another story.  And so, our mainstream media doesn’t just deliver us the facts, it also strongly influences how we feel about the facts – in this case, by suggesting that Muslim lives aren’t as important as non-Muslim ones.

Now, take this ‘terrorism timeline’ put together by Global News after the Quebec mosque shooting.  The only other incidents mentioned on there are ones by Muslims – including one that wasn’t even carried out.  The timeline doesn’t include some more fatal acts of violence, like the murder of three RCMP officers by right-winger Justin Bourque, or the murder of 14 women at L’École Polytechnique by Marc Lépine.  So when people say that “all terrorists are Muslim” it’s because, well, we only call something ‘terrorism’ if it was committed by Muslims.

We rightly expect the mainstream media to be a truth-teller.  But, Islamophobia and other biases mean that this isn’t the case.  Islamophobia in media leads us to over-estimate the threat of Muslim violence, and under-estimate the threats against Muslims⁴.  This contributes to more Islamophobia.  It’s a vicious cycle. 

We need to rely on more honest sources of analysis and knowledge⁵.  At the same time, we also have to hold our mainstream media to account, for perpetuating unfounded stereotypes about Muslims and Islam.

Islamophobia is…the myth of the Muslim ‘terrorist’

When the word ‘terrorist’ is mentioned, there is one image that primarily comes to mind: a Muslim.

In fact:

• The vast majority of global violence is not committed by Muslims¹.
• And the vast majority of Muslims aren’t involved in any militant activity².

And yet, somehow, this stereotype of the Muslim terrorist lives on.  Why?

Because differences in how violence by Muslims is represented tilts the scales.  This ensures that the image of the ‘Muslim Terrorist’ persists – in spite of reality.

In the media, acts of violence committed by Muslims are covered disproportionately³ and differently⁴.

In the law, Muslims are more likely to be charged and convicted of ‘terrorism’⁵, and receive higher sentences – even when they haven’t actually committed any acts of violence⁶.

Muslim violence is also represented as having a different root cause than non-Muslim violence.  Consider the differing treatment of two otherwise similar attacks.  

Rehab Dughmosh, a Muslim woman, waved a golf club and a knife around in a Canadian Tire, causing no serious injuries. But she was convicted of four counts of terrorism and sentenced to 7 years in prison, as an “ISIS supporter” – despite being diagnosed with ‘schizophrenia’.  Contrast that with the case of Mark Phillips, who attacked an immigrant family with a baseball bat because he mistook them for Muslims, calling them “ISIS”. Phillips broke the father’s ribs. But he was given a conditional discharge and spent no time in prison, because his attack was chalked up to “marijuana-induced psychosis.”  

In other words, the default assumption when Muslims commit violence is that they are agents of a global terrorist movement.  When it is non-Muslims, however, we dismiss violent acts as resulting from individual psychological issues.

When Muslims commit violence, these acts are considered to be part of a larger pattern, even when they happen in entirely different contexts – so that the murder of Coptic Christians in Egypt, for example, is portrayed as part of the same phenomenon as a suicide bombing at a pop concert in England⁷.   

Incidents of white supremacist violence, on the other hand, are treated as isolated events.  For example, after a deadly attack on a mosque in England, a Security Expert on CBC News said that a similar attack was unlikely to happen in Canada – even though the Quebec mosque shooting had happened just a few months before.  

Ironically, the War on Terror has taken many times more civilian lives than has so-called ‘terrorism’ itself⁸.  And yet, ‘terrorism’ still receives much more public attention and condemnation.  This obscures the reality. Around the world, a greater portion of political violence is actually perpetrated by Western states than by Muslim individuals or groups⁹. 

If Muslims in the West are over-represented in anything, it is in being doctors¹⁰. And yet, the stereotype that sticks about Muslims is that of the ‘terrorist’.

This myth that Muslims are violent enables violence against Muslims, and others.

This occurs at the interpersonal level:

• With the Quebec mosque shooting,

• the 100+ active White supremacist groups¹¹ across the country – including ones that are lethally armed, and 

• regular anti-Muslim hate crimes and protests

And it also occurs at the state level: 

• globally, in a devastating War on Terror, and

• domestically, in draconian counter-terrorism measures¹² – measures that have also been used to target Indigenous land and water protectors, environmentalists, and other dissenters.

In Canada and the US¹³, a person is actually far more likely to be killed for being Muslim than by a Muslim so-called ‘terrorist’.  But the biased representation of Muslims ensures that most believe the exact opposite to be true.

Islamophobia is…gendered

Patriarchy is a global force and there is no society with full gender equality¹. 

But the dominant representation of Muslim women is that they are especially oppressed – by their religion and the men in their communities.  This misrepresentation, or stereotype, is used to justify forms of violence that claim to save Muslim women but harm them instead.  This contradiction is known as Gendered Islamophobia².

For example, the most frequent victims of Islamophobic hate crimes in Canada are Muslim women³.  This is compounded for Black Muslim women who also experience anti-Black racism⁴.

And yet, the media focuses almost exclusively on the persecution of Muslim women by their own communities.  So-called ‘honour crimes’ – which are extremely rare in North America⁵ – are heavily reported on.  Incidents in which Muslim women have been attacked or killed with racist intent, however, receive much less attention⁶.

Academic research shows how North American media perpetuates the stereotype of the oppressed Muslim woman, while downplaying Muslim women’s agency as well as violence against non-Muslim women.  For instance, the Globe and Mail devoted more coverage to the tragic Shafia murder case alone, than to the widespread problem of fatal violence against Canadian women as a whole⁷.

These stereotypes also underlie laws, like Canada’s ‘Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices’ Act⁸.  This law adds extra punishments for certain so-called cultural practices stereotypically associated with Muslims – like so-called honour killings, forced marriage, and polygamy – even though these are already illegal in Canada.  As legal experts note, this law actually makes women less safe; if they report their abuse, their family members might be criminalized or deported – and so they are more likely to stay silent.

Niqab and hijab bans similarly claim to protect Muslim women.  But such bans violate Muslim women’s freedom to choose what they wear.  They also lead to further stigmatization and marginalization of Muslim women, by preventing their full economic and social participation.

Our foreign policy is also shaped by gendered Islamophobia, like when politicians justified the war in Afghanistan as a mission to save Muslim women.  Of course, women aren’t actually liberated by the destruction of their societies.  

Resisting Gendered Islamophobia means recognizing that Muslim women are not passive victims waiting to be saved – but that, like women everywhere, Muslim women also resist the violence and oppression they experience⁹.

It means recognizing that Islam is, for many women, a resource for liberation¹⁰

Resisting gendered Islamophobia means always going back to a fundamental feminist principle: listen to what Muslim women themselves are saying – about the clothes they wear, about the violence they experience, and about the forms of solidarity they need.

Islamophobia is…the myth of shariah takeover

Many of us have likely heard of ‘shariah’.  And this is probably some of what comes to mind [images of stereotypes about shariah].

If so, it’s no surprise. In the context of Islamophobia¹, shariah inspires a lot of fear.  But this fear is rooted in ignorance.  In fact, many US law makers working to ban ‘shariah’ can’t even say what it is!

So let’s look at the actual facts.  What we’ll see is that the Big Bad Shariah we hear about is far from the bogeyman it’s made out to be. 

To start with – what is referred to as ‘shariah law’ isn’t actually a book of law at all.  It isn’t a single code of rules, but a diverse body of legal interpretations by scholars.  Historically, shariah rulings were meant to be specific to their context, and there was a general respect for different schools of thought². 

Shariah is stereotyped as patriarchal.  But historically, shariah provided stronger protections for women’s rights³ than European laws did.

And what about all the hand chopping and stoning?  Historically, criminal punishment was just one tiny part of shariah, and was mostly used to deter crime.  For example, in 500 years of the Ottoman Empire there was only one recorded case of execution for adultery.  In 17th and 18th century United States, on the other hand, over fifty people were sentenced to death for sexual crimes. 

And what about those scary ‘fatwas’⁴ we hear about?  In reality, fatwas aren’t ‘death sentences’ but non-binding legal opinions by Islamic jurists.  They can be about anything – big or small, public or private. For example, giving to charity, or fighting poverty, or ending war, or environmental conservation.

Well, that was the past.  But what about today?

Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan self-identify as Islamic states. But while Saudi Arabia only permitted women to drive in 2018, Pakistan elected a woman Prime Minister in 1988.  Clearly, ‘shariah’ can mean vastly different things in today’s world. 

But what about all of the executions in Saudi Arabia and Iran?  While both countries claim to be applying shariah, their use of the death penalty actually violates the traditional limits imposed by shariah.  Just as the 2000 people sitting on death row in the United States don’t necessarily reflect the spirit of Western law, Iran and Saudi Arabia’s executions don’t represent shariah as a whole.

To understand law in Muslim countries today, however, we can’t just look at historical shariah but must also consider the legacy of colonialism.  Europeans imposed standard laws across their colonies, and many of these laws survived the official end of colonial rule.  The criminalization of same-gender sex in many countries today is one example of this.  The single biggest influence on legal and political systems around the formerly-colonized world – whether Muslim or not – is this colonial history.

All that said, should we be worried about a shariah takeover today?  One of the basic principles of shariah is to respect the existing laws of the land⁵. So Muslims in Canada practicing shariah do so by following Canadian law, and following religious guidance on personal matters, such as praying, eating, dressing and giving to charity. 

So no, shariah isn’t a threat to North American legal or political systems – at least not from Muslims, that is.  Ironically, some of the most regressive interpretations of shariah are being advanced by conservative politicians in order to justify Islamophobic policies [eg. niqab bans, bans on adoption from Muslim countries].

Islamophobia?  Now that’s something to be scared of!