Muslim Persecution of Christians: A Centuries Old Tradition

The one glaring fact concerning the persecution of approximately 100 million Christians around the world today is that the overwhelming majority of it is being committed by Muslims of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political circumstances: Muslims from among America’s allies (Saudi Arabia) and from its enemies (Iran); Muslims from economically rich nations (Qatar) and from poor nations (Somalia and Yemen); Muslims from “Islamic republic” nations (Afghanistan) and from “moderate” nations (Malaysia and Indonesia); Muslims from nations rescued by America (Kuwait) and Muslims from nations claiming “grievances” against the U.S. (fill in the blank __).
This fact is underscored in Open Doors’ recent 2015 World Watch List—a report that highlights and ranks the 50 worst nations persecuting Christians. It finds that “Islamic extremism” is the main source of persecution in 40 of the top 50 countries—that is, 80 percent of the nations where Christians are persecuted are Muslim. As for the top ten worst countries persecuting Christians, nine of them are Muslim-majority—that is, 90 percent of nations where Christians experience “extreme persecution” are Muslim.

Still, considering that the 2015 World Watch List ranks North Korea—non-Islamic, communist—as the number one worst persecutor of Christians, why belabor the religious identity of Muslims? Surely Christian persecution is not intrinsic to the Islamic world, but is a product of repressive regimes and other socio-economic factors—as the North Korean example suggests and as many analysts and media maintain?
Here we come to some critically important but blurred distinctions.   While Christians are indeed suffering extreme persecution in North Korea, these fall into the realm of the temporal and aberrant.  Something as simple as overthrowing the North Korean regime would likely end persecution there overnight—just as the fall of Communist Soviet Union saw religious persecution come to a quick close.
In the Islamic world, however, a similar scenario would not alleviate the sufferings of Christians by an iota.  Quite the opposite; where dictators fall (often thanks to U.S. intervention)—Saddam in Iraq, Qaddafi in Libya, and ongoing attempts against Assad in Syria—Christian persecution dramatically rises. Today Iraq is the third worst nation in the world in which to be Christian, Syria fourth, and Libya 13th.
The reason for this dichotomy is that Christian persecution by non-Muslims (mostly communists) is often rooted in a particular regime.  Conversely, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that regime or ruler.  It is part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam—hence its tenacity; hence its ubiquity.
Moreover, atheistic communism is a relatively new phenomenon—about a century old—and, over the years, its rule (if not variants of its ideology) has greatly waned, so that only a handful of nations today are communist.
On the other hand, Muslim persecution of Christians is as old as Islam. It is a well-documented, even if suppressed, history.
To further understand the differences between temporal and existential persecution, consider Russia. Under communism, its own Christians were grossly persecuted; yet today, after the fall of the USSR, Russia is again reclaiming its Orthodox Christian heritage (and is prominent among Western nations for showing support for persecuted Christians).
North Korea—where Kim Jong-Un is worshiped as a god and the people are shielded from reality—seems to be experiencing what Russia did under the Soviet Union. But if the once mighty USSR could not persevere, surely it’s a matter of time before tiny North Korea’s walls also come crumbling down, with the resulting religious freedom that former communist nations have experienced. (Tellingly, the only countries that were part of the USSR that still persecute Christians are Muslim, such as Uzbekistan, ranked #15, “severe persecution,” and Turkmenistan, ranked #20, also “severe persecution.”)

Time, however, is not on the side of Christians living amid Muslims; quite the opposite. The histories compiled by objective, medieval Muslims make abundantly clear that century after century of religious persecution and discrimination is responsible for transforming territory that in the seventh century made up half of the Christian world—Egypt, Syria, Turkey, North Africa—into what is today casually called the “Muslim world.”
One example: in Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi’s (d. 1442) authoritative history of Egypt—which was a major center of Christianity before Islam invaded—anecdote after anecdote is recorded of Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, enslaving their women and children. The only escape then—and even today, as groups like the Islamic State make clear—was for Christians to convert to Islam.
After recording one particularly egregious bout of persecution, where reportedly some 30,000 churches in Egypt and Syria were destroyed, the pious Muslim historian concludes: “Under these circumstances a great many Christians became Muslims.”
In short, Muslim persecution of Christians exists in 40 nations today as part of a continuum—or “tradition”—that started nearly 14 centuries ago.  As I document in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (where al-Maqrizi’s anecdotes are referenced, pgs. 39-41), the very same patterns of Christian persecution prevalent throughout the Muslim world today are often identical to those from centuries past.
A final consideration: North Korea, the one non-Muslim nation making the top ten worst persecutors list, is governed by what is widely seen as an unbalanced megalomaniac; conversely, the other nine nations are not dominated by any “cults-of-personalities” and are variously governed, including through parliamentarian democracies (Iraq), republics (Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria), Islamic republics (Afghanistan, Iran), one-party states (Eritrea), and monarchies (Saudi Arabia, ranked 12).
The common denominator is that they are all Islamic nations.
Thus, long after North Korea’s psychotic Kim Jong-Un has gone the way of the dodo, tens of millions of Christians and other “infidels”—short of a miracle, either from Western intervention or true Islamic reformation—will continue to suffer extreme persecution, till what started in the seventh century reaches fruition and the entire Islamic world becomes “infidel” free.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube and LIKE it on Facebook.
Filed Under: Daily Mailer,

Iran: Persecution of Christians as bad as ever, despite President's promises

Persecution of Christians in Iran is as bad as it was three years ago, in spite of the pre-election promises of the president, according to a new report.
Christians continue to be arbitrarily arrested and interrogated because of their faith. Some face "severe physical and psychological torture" during detention, and simple prayer or Bible study meetings are regarded as political activities that threaten the national security of Iran, the report says.
Churches can be closed down if they use the national language, Farsi, and Christians are regularly given long prison sentences and beatings. The worst punishments are reserved for those who convert to Christianity from Islam, when they are caught gathering in their informal house churches, and for their pastors.
Two all-party parliamentary groups, Christians in Parliament and International Freedom of Religion or Belief, joined forces to investigate the persecution of Christians in Iran.
The report details the case of one man sentenced to death simply for questioning some of the tenets of Islam on social media. Sadeq Saba, editor of BBC Persian, told the inquiry: "I hear from some people that the reason the regime is taking such a tough line against people like him is because a lot of people are becoming disappointed with Islam as a religion because of what the regime is doing."
Many cases are kept secret, but more than 90 Christians were known to be behind bars in Iran at the end of 2014. Raids and arrests in Christian homes are common, and recently a 12-year-old boy was physically abused during such a raid.

Related

One woman told the inquiry by video link of how she asked three men who raided her house what they had done to deserve the treatment: "Are we murderers? Thieves? Criminals? The man swore at me. He said it would be better for me to be a murderer or a thief than a Christian or a Jew."
Christians disappear for weeks at a time while they are interrogated. They are held in solitary and questioned nightly, for hours at a time, beginning just after midnight. A key goal of the security services is to find and remove any New Testaments from the homes of Christians. Detainees are sometimes told they must to convert to Islam or their families will be killed.
Mohammed Zamir, a church leader in the UK for expat Iranians, said at the launch of the report at the House of Commons yesterday that hundreds of thousands of Iranians were converting to Christianity and it was out of control of the authorities. "They are responding to evangelism and they are responding to the message and they are converting to Christianity, literally in masses."
He said he witnessed a recent baptism of a woman who two years ago had been a devout Muslim. She had begun to question Islam after watching an item on the news about the arrest of dozens of Christians, the confiscation of their Bibles and closure of their churches. She was intrigued to know what it was about Christianity that made the authorities "so frightened". Her search for the answer to this led to her conversion.
The conservative MP David Burrowes and Baroness Berridge, co-chairs of the inquiry, say in a joint letter in the report that they had hoped the election of Hassan Rouhani in August 2013 would soften the regime's harsh treatment of religious and ethnic minorities. Sufis and Baha'is also suffer severe persecution.
"Sadly, we have been disappointed that his positive promises and moderate language have not translated into any meaningful improvement. The persecution remains as severe today as it was in 2012." That was when Christians in Parliament produced their first report on the issue.
They are calling on the Government to put pressure on the Islamic Republic to improve the plight of Christians and other minorities.

France faces 'unprecedented' terror threat, say officials

Paris (AFP) - The threat of a jihadist attack in France has reached a level "without precedent" and new attacks are inevitable, according to top counter-terrorism officials.

"The threat is permanent," said one high-level official in the defence ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Not one day goes by without an alert, the discovery of a network trying to send people to Syria or Iraq, or an intervention (by the security services).

"The number of targets has exploded. There are two or three thousand, maybe four thousand, people identified or suspected of evil intentions."

Nor are they all amateurs, the source added -- many are highly educated. "They are pros, not drop-outs," he said.

Defence ministry specialists say the jihadists "use the best encryption and concealment techniques" and that security services are "playing catch-up".
"Every time we get our hands on a network, we see they are each using seven or eight SIM cards, changing them constantly. And the most cunning don't go near phones at all -- they use messengers."
The biggest concerns relate to the estimated 200 individuals who have returned from training or fighting in areas held by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

"They have lost all inhibitions about violence," said another top counter-terrorism official, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

Security services place them under the tightest possible surveillance, but resources are limited and the authorities are also painfully aware that militants may wait years before acting.

That was the case with the Kouachi brothers who carried out the attack on Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in January.

They had long-standing links to jihadist networks in Paris, and one had travelled to Yemen for training back in 2011, but they had gradually fallen off the radar of security services after laying low for several years.

- Deadly competition -
Officials also fear that competition between militant groups may drive them to ever-more brutal acts.
"Al-Qaeda needs to restore its prestige and will try to compete with IS with complex and major actions," said the official.
He highlighted the threat from an Al-Qaeda sub-group known as Khorasan, which is still thought to be planning a major airline attack.
One of Khorasan's key members is a French explosives expert, David Drugeon, who is thought to have survived an attempted assassination by a US drone strike last year.

That compares with the more conventional military threat posed by IS, the official said, "which is in the process of training commandos and sending them onto our territory with high-quality equipment".

Since the attacks in Paris in January that left 17 dead, France has been on the highest possible alert with thousands of police and troops deployed at sensitive sites, such as media headquarters and synagogues.

But counter-terrorism officials say this will do little to prevent an attack.

Unveiling new surveillance laws on Thursday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the jihadist threat was "constantly evolving," emanating as much from groups based abroad as from individuals present on French soil.

"The problem is not to know if there will be a new attack," said Valls. "It is to know when and where."

By Michel Moutot

Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia In The World...(continued..)

Addressing Islamophobia by Bringing People Closer Together
Proportions of the general populations in these three countries are reluctant to have Muslims as neighbors. This reluctance manifests itself in people's decisions of whether or not to live in diverse communities. However, individuals living in mixed communities might be most open to those different from themselves, and least likely to be Islamophobic.
The general populations in France (49%), Germany (51%), and the U.K. (48%) are most likely to say they live in a neighborhood generally comprised of people who share their ethnic and religious backgrounds. Significant percentages of each population, though, say their neighborhoods are made up of a mix of people, including those who share their ethnic and religious backgrounds and others who do not. Specifically, 40% of French, 38% of German, and 43% of British respondents say they live among diverse neighborhoods. Muslims in France (74%), Germany (53%), and the U.K. (54%) are more likely to say they live in diverse neighborhoods than mostly homogenous ones.
Gallup studied more closely what types of neighborhoods people in each of these three European countries say they would live in if they could.

• In France, people are most likely to want to live in neighborhoods with a mix of people of varying religious and ethnic backgrounds, regardless of where they currently live. Fifty-two percent of those who live in a more homogeneous community would prefer a diverse neighborhood, and 80% of those who currently live in a more diverse neighborhood or local area would want to stay in such a neighborhood.

• In the U.K., people are more apt to prefer a community similar to the one in which they currently reside. Specifically, 55% of those who live in a mostly homogenous neighborhood now would prefer to live in that same type of situation, while 80% of those who live in a diverse neighborhood currently would prefer that if they could live in any neighborhood in the country.

• Those in Germany who live among people of mostly similar religious and ethnic backgrounds are somewhat split between wanting to live in a mostly homogenous neighborhood (42%) or in a more varied one (48%) if they could chose anywhere in the country to live. Those who already live among people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds, though, are much more likely to say they would choose the same type of neighborhood (74%) than to reside among mostly similar people (19%) if given the choice.

In Germany, France, and the U.K., though, Gallup found that isolated individuals are more likely than tolerant and integrated people to say they live among people with mostly similar religious and ethnic backgrounds. Integrated (70%) and tolerant (65%) people are more likely than isolated individuals (49%) to say they live in more diverse neighborhoods.

Data reported from 2008

Additionally, isolated respondents in Germany, the U.K., and France are more likely than tolerant and integrated respondents to say they would not like Muslims as neighbors. The same holds true when considering whether they would want immigrants or foreign workers as their neighbors.

Data reported from 2008

Isolated people in France, the U.K., and Germany are more likely than their tolerant and integrated counterparts to say women who wear the hijab are a threat to European culture. Conversely, people are more likely to say the wearing of the hijab is an enrichment to European culture as they move from isolated to tolerant to integrated, as measured by the Religious Tolerance Index.

Data reported from 2008

People who are isolated (38%) are more likely than those who are tolerant (22%) or integrated (15%) to say Muslims are sympathetic to al Qaeda. Those who are isolated (29%) are also more likely than tolerant (13%) or integrated (6%) people to agree that others with different religious practices than their own threaten their way of life.
Within key Western societies, there are genuine negative perceptions, prejudices, and discriminations targeted against Muslims. Seeing Muslims as not loyal, voicing prejudice against Muslims, and avoiding Muslims as neighbors are all symptoms of Islamophobia that exist in the West. However, these feelings do not characterize Western countries. They are generally shared by a subset of the general population, though they exist in substantial enough numbers to draw both attention and concern. The very existence of Islamophobia is something to be addressed. The degree to which individuals expressing Islamophobia have particular views of Muslims in their communities, Muslims globally, and Islam as a religion is genuine and quantifiable with measurable outcomes.
Survey Methods

^[1] Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matthew Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and Faiz Shakir, "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2011), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf

^[2] Alejandro J. Beutel, "Data on Post-9/11 Terrorism in the United States" (Washington, D.C.: Muslim Public Affairs Council, 2011), available at http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-Post-911-Terrorism-Data.pdf

^[3] Charles Kurzman, "Muslim-American Terrorism Since 9/11: An Accounting" (Chapel Hill, NC: Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, 2011), available at http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/documents/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_Since_911_An_Accounting.pdf

^[4] Please refer to the Gallup Muslim-West Perceptions Index: Inaugural Findings report for methodology.

^[5] Please refer to the Gallup Muslim-West Perceptions Index: Inaugural Findings report for methodology.

^[6] Data appear in Abu Dhabi Gallup Center report Measuring the State of Muslim-West Relations: Assessing the "New Beginning," page 35.

^[7] Results are based on face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults in each country in the regions listed, aged 15 and older, from 2008 through 2010.

Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia In The World

Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim. The term entered into common English usage in 1997 with the publication of a report by the Runnymede Trust condemning negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and dread directed at Islam or Muslims. While the term is now widely recognized and used, both the term and the underlying concept have been criticized.
The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are still debated. Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism. Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the September 11 attacks, while others have associated it with the increased presence of Muslims in secular nations

Debate on the term and its limitations

At a 2009 symposium on "Islamophobia and Religious Discrimination", Robin Richardson, a former director of the Runnymede Trust^[9] and the editor of Islamophobia: a challenge for us all,^[10] said that "the disadvantages of the term Islamophobia are significant" on seven different grounds, including that it implies it is merely a "severe mental illness" affecting "only a tiny minority of people"; that use of the term makes those to whom it is applied "defensive and defiant" and absolves the user of "the responsibility of trying to understand them" or trying to change their views; that it implies that hostility to Muslims is divorced from factors such as skin color, immigrant status, fear of fundamentalism, or political or economic conflicts; that it conflates prejudice against Muslims in one's own country with dislike of Muslims in countries with which the West is in conflict; that it fails to distinguish between people who are against all religion from people who dislike Islam specifically; and that the actual issue being described is hostility to Muslims, "an ethno-religious identity within European countries", rather than hostility to Islam. Nonetheless, he argued that the term is here to stay, and that it is important to define it precisely.^[11]
The exact definition of Islamophobia continues to be discussed with academics such as Chris Allen saying it lacks a clear definition.^[12] Johannes Kandel, in a 2006 comment wrote that Islamophobia "is a vague term which encompasses every conceivable actual and imagined act of hostility against Muslims", and proceeds to argue that five of the criteria put forward by The Runnymede trust are invalid.^[13] In an article published in the June 2013 edition of Standpoint, Douglas Murray argued that "the term 'Islamophobia' is so inexact that - in so far as there is a definition - it includes insult of and even inquiry into any aspect of Islam, including Muslim scripture."^[14] When discrimination towards Muslims placed an emphasis on their religious affiliation and adherence, it has been termed as Muslimphobia, its alternative form of Muslimophobia,^[15] Islamophobism,^[16] antimuslimness and antimuslimism.^[17][18][19] Individuals who discriminate against Muslims in general have been termed Islamophobes, Islamophobists,^[20] anti-Muslimists,^[21] antimuslimists,^[22] anti-Muhammadan,^[23] Muslimphobes or its alternative spelling of Muslimophobes,^[24] while individuals motivated by a specific anti-Muslim agenda or bigotry have been described as being anti-mosque,^[25] anti-Shiites.^[26] (or Shiaphobes^[27]) and anti-Sunni (or Sunniphobes).^[28]

Fear

As opposed to being a psychological or individualistic phobia, according to professor of religion Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, "Islamophobia" connotes a social anxiety about Islam and Muslims.^[29][30] Some social scientists have adopted this definition and developed instruments to measure Islamophobia in form of fearful attitudes towards, and avoidance of, Muslims and Islam,^[31][32] arguing that Islamophobia should "essentially be understood as an affective part of social stigma towards Islam and Muslims, namely fear" (p. 2).^[32]

Racism

Several scholars consider Islamophobia as a form of racism.^[33] A 2007 article in Journal of Sociology defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism and a continuation of anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism.^[34] Similarly, John Denham has drawn parallels between modern Islamophobia and the antisemitism of the 1930s,^[35] so have Maud Olofsson,^[36] and Jan Hjärpe, among others.^{[33][37][38][39][40]}
Others have questioned the supposed relationship between Islamophobia and racism. Jocelyne Cesari writes that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness, and anti-Semitism."^[41][42] Erdenir finds that "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism ...”^[43] and Shryock, reviewing the use of the term across national boundaries, comes to the same conclusion.^[44] On occasion race does come into play. Diane Frost defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim feeling and violence based on “race” and/or religion.^[45] Islamophobia may also target people who have Muslim names, or have a look that is associated with Muslims.^[46] According to Alan Johnson, Islamophobia sometimes can be nothing more than xenophobia or racism "wrapped in religious terms."^[47]
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) defines Islamophobia as the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them (ECRI 2006). Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion".^[4] It has also been defined as "fear of Muslims and Islam; rejection of the Muslim religion; or a form of differentialist racism" (Helbling 2011).^[4]

Proposed alternatives

The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede was also criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism." He also states that strains and types of prejudice against Islam and Muslims vary across different nations and cultures, which is not recognized in the Runnymede analysis, which was specifically about Muslims in Britain.^[48] Poole responds that many Islamophobic discourses attack what they perceive to be Islam's tenets, while Miles and Brown write that Islamophobia is usually based upon negative stereotypes about Islam which are then translated into attacks on Muslims. They also argue that "the existence of different ‘Islamophobias’ does not invalidate the concept of Islamophobia any more than the existence of different racisms invalidates the concept of racism."^[49][50]
In a 2011 paper in American Behavioral Scientist, Erik Bleich stated "there is no widely accepted definition of Islamophobia that permits systematic comparative and causal analysis",^[51] and advances "indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims" as a possible solution to this issue.
In order to differentiate between prejudiced views of Islam and secularly motivated criticism of Islam, Roland Imhoff and Julia Recker formulated the concept "Islamoprejudice", which they subsequently operationalised in an experiment. The experiment showed that their definition provided a tool for accurate differentiation.^[52]

Origins and causes

History of the term

One early use cited as the term's first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad.^[53][54] Writing in French, they used the term islamophobie. Robin Richardson writes that in the English version of the book the word was not translated as "Islamophobia" but rather as "feelings inimical to Islam". Dahou Ezzerhouni has cited several other uses in French as early as 1910, and from 1912 to 1918.^[55] These early uses of the term did not, according to Christopher Allen, have the same meaning as in contemporary usage, as they described a fear of Islam by liberal Muslims and Muslim feminists, rather than a fear or dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims.^[54][56] On the other hand, Fernando Bravo Lopez argues that Dinet and ibn Sliman's use of the term was as a criticism of overly hostile attitudes to Islam by a Belgian orientalist, Henri Lammens, whose project they saw as a "'pseudo-scientific crusade in the hope of bringing Islam down once and for all.'" He also notes that an early definition of Islamophobia appears in the Ph.D. thesis of Alain Quellien, a French colonial bureaucrat:

For some, the Muslim is the natural and irreconcilable enemy of the Christian and the European; Islam is the negation of civilization, and barbarism, bad faith and cruelty are the best one can expect from the Mohammedans.

Furthermore, he notes that Quellien's work draws heavily on the work of the French colonial department's 1902-06 administrator, who published a work in 1906, which to a great extent mirrors John Esposito's The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?.^[57]
The first recorded use of the term in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1923 in an article in The Journal of Theological Studies.^[3] The term entered into common usage with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997.^[58] Kofi Annan asserted at a 2004 conference entitled "Confronting Islamophobia" that the word Islamophobia had to be coined in order to "take account of increasingly widespread bigotry".^[59]

Contrasting views on Islam

The Runnymede report contrasted "open" and "closed" views of Islam, and stated that the following eight "closed" views are equated with Islamophobia:

1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. It 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. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims 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 and normal.^[60]

These "closed" views are contrasted, in the report, with "open" views on Islam which, while founded on respect for Islam, permit legitimate disagreement, dialogue and critique.^[61] According to Benn and Jawad, The Runnymede Trust notes that anti-Muslim discourse is increasingly seen as respectable, providing examples on how hostility towards Islam and Muslims is accepted as normal, even among those who may actively challenge other prevalent forms of discrimination.^[62]

Identity politics

It has been suggested that Islamophobia is closely related to identity politics, and gives its adherents the perceived benefit of constructing their identity in opposition to a negative, essentialized image of Muslims. This occurs in the form of self-righteousness, assignment of blame and key identity markers.^[63] Davina Bhandar writes that:^[64]

[...] the term ‘cultural’ has become synonymous with the category of the ethnic or minority (...). It views culture as an entity that is highly abstracted from the practices of daily life and therefore represents the illusion that there exists a spirit of the people. This formulation leads to the homogenisation of cultural identity and the ascription of particular values and proclivities onto minority cultural groups.

She views this as an ontological trap that hinders the perception of culture as something "materially situated in the living practices of the everyday, situated in time-space and not based in abstract projections of what constitutes either a particular tradition or culture."
In some societies, Islamophobia has materialized due to the portrayal of Islam and Muslims as the national "Other", where exclusion and discrimination occurs on the basis of their religion and civilization which differs with national tradition and identity. Examples include Pakistani and Algerian migrants in Britain and France respectively.^[65][66] This sentiment, according to Malcolm Brown and Robert Miles, significantly interacts with racism, although Islamophobia itself is not racism.^[67] Author Doug Saunders has drawn parallels between Islamophobia in the United States and its older discrimination and hate against Roman Catholics, saying that Catholicism was seen as backwards and imperial, while Catholic immigrants had poorer education and some were responsible for crime and terrorism.^{[68][69][70][70][46]}
Brown and Miles write that another feature of Islamophobic discourse is to amalgamate nationality (e.g. Arab), religion (Islam), and politics (terrorism, fundamentalism) — while most other religions are not associated with terrorism, or even "ethnic or national distinctiveness."^[66] They feel that "many of the stereotypes and misinformation that contribute to the articulation of Islamophobia are rooted in a particular perception of Islam", such as the notion that Islam promotes terrorism — especially prevalent after the September 11, 2001 attacks.^[71]
The two-way stereotyping resulting from Islamophobia has in some instances resulted in mainstreaming of earlier controversial discourses, such as liberal attitudes towards gender equality^[63][64] and homosexuals.^[72] Christina Ho has warned against framing of such mainstreaming of gender equality in a colonial, paternal discourse, arguing that this may undermine minority women's ability to speak out about their concerns.^[73]

Links to ideologies

Senior scientist at the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities, Cora Alexa Døving, argues that there are significant similarities between Islamophobic discourse and European pre-Nazi antisemitism.^[63] Among the concerns are imagined threats of minority growth and domination, threats to traditional institutions and customs, skepticism of integration, threats to secularism, fears of sexual crimes, fears of misogyny, fears based on historical cultural inferiority, hostility to modern Western Enlightenment values, etc.
Matti Bunzl has argued that there are important differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism. While antisemitism was a phenomenon closely connected to European nation-building processes, he sees Islamophobia as having the concern of European civilization as its focal point.^[74] Døving, on the other hand, maintains that, at least in Norway, the Islamophobic discourse has a clear national element.^[63] In a reply to Bunzl, French scholar of Jewish history, Esther Benbassa, agrees with him in that he draws a clear connection between modern hostile and essentializing sentiments towards Muslims and historical antisemitism. However, she argues against the use of the term Islamophobia, since, in her opinion, it attracts unwarranted attention to an underlying racist current.^[75]
The head of the Media Responsibility Institute in Erlangen, Sabine Schiffer, and researcher Constantin Wagner, who also define Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism, outline additional similarities and differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism.^[76] They point out the existence of equivalent notions such as "Judaisation/Islamisation", and metaphors such as "a state within a state" are used in relation to both Jews and Muslims. In addition, both discourses make use of, among other rhetorical instruments, "religious imperatives" supposedly "proven" by religious sources, and conspiracy theories.
The differences between Islamophobia and antisemitism consist of the nature of the perceived threats to the "Christian West". Muslims are perceived as "inferior" and as a visible "external threat", while on the other hand, Jews are perceived as "omnipotent" and as an invisible "internal threat". However, Schiffer and Wagner also note that there is a growing tendency to view Muslims as a privileged group that constitute an "internal threat", and that this convergence between the two discources makes "it more and more necessary to use findings from the study of anti-Semitism to analyse Islamophobia". Schiffer and Wagner conclude,

The achievement in the study of anti-Semitism of examining Jewry and anti-Semitism separately must also be transferred to other racisms, such as Islamophobia. We do not need more information about Islam, but more information about the making of racist stereotypes in general.

The publication Social Work and Minorities: European Perspectives describes Islamophobia as the new form of racism in Europe,^[77] arguing that "Islamophobia is as much a form of racism as anti-semitism, a term more commonly encountered in Europe as a sibling of racism, xenophobia and Intolerance."^[78] Edward Said considers Islamophobia as it is evinced in Orientalism to be a trend in a more general antisemitic Western tradition.^[79][80] Other note that there have been a transition from anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism to anti-Muslim racism,^[81] while some note a racialization of religion.^[82]
According to a 2012 report by a UK anti-racism group, counter-jihadist outfits in Europe and North America are becoming more cohesive by forging alliances, with 190 groups now identified as promoting an Islamophobic agenda.^[83] In Islamophobia and its consequences on young people (p. 6) Ingrid Ramberg writes "Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion.". Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University calls Islamophobia "the new anti-Semitism".^[37]
Mohamed Nimer compares Islamophobia with anti-Americanism. He argues that while both Islam and America can be subject to legitimate criticisms without detesting a people as a whole, bigotry against both are on the rise.^[84]

Multiculturalism

According to Gabrielle Maranci, the increasing Islamophobia in the West is related to a rising repudiation of multiculturalism. Islam is widely regarded as the most resistant culture against Western, democratic values and its Judaeo-Christian heritage. Maranci concludes that "Islamophobia is a ‘phobia’ of multiculturalism and the transruptive effect that Islam can have in Europe and the West through transcultural processes."^[85]

Islamophobia: Understanding Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the West

Researchers and policy groups define Islamophobia in differing detail, but the term's essence is essentially the same, no matter the source:
An exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from social, political, and civic life.^[1]
Islamophobia existed in premise before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but it increased in frequency and notoriety during the past decade. The Runnymede Trust in the U.K., for example, identified eight components of Islamophobia in a 1997 report, and then produced a follow-up report in 2004 after 9/11 and the initial years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The second report found the aftermath of the terrorist attacks had made life more difficult for British Muslims.
In a 2011 meeting, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, as well as the League of Arab States, a key partner, identified Islamophobia as an important area of concern. Gallup developed a specific set of analyses, based on measurement of public opinions of majority and minority groups in multiple countries, to guide policymakers in their efforts to address the global issue of Islamophobia.
Research shows that the U.S. identified more than 160 Muslim-American terrorist suspects and perpetrators in the decade since 9/11, just a percentage of the thousands of acts of violence that occur in the United States each year. It is from this overall collection of violence that "an efficient system of government prosecution and media coverage brings Muslim-American terrorism suspects to national attention, creating the impression - perhaps unintentionally - that Muslim-American terrorism is more prevalent than it really is." Never mind that since 9/11, the Muslim-American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent nearly two of every five al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening the United States^[2] and that tips from the Muslim-American community are the largest single source of initial information to authorities about these few plots.^[3]
Islamophobia affects more than a small fringe group of Muslims. Through various research vehicles and global polling efforts, Gallup has collected a wealth of data detailing public opinion about various aspects of respect, treatment, and tolerance relative to Muslims worldwide. This brief serves as a snapshot of opinion and thought displayed by people from multiple countries, regions, and communities - findings that chronicle perceptions associated with Islamophobia globally.
Several elements can affect the interactions and degree of respect between Muslim and Western societies. Differences in culture, religion, and political interests may shape one population's opinion toward the other. Definitions of Islamophobia tend to attribute fear or hatred of Muslims to their politics or culture, and to Islam and the religiosity of Muslims.
When asked where they think tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds originate, answers vary. Those in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) nations and in the U.S. and Canada equally cite religion and political interests as the primary cause of tensions. Sub-Saharan Africans more often cite religion than politics, while Europeans say political interests are the driving force behind Muslim-West tensions.

Data reported from 2008^[6]

Religion and culture outpace politics across all regions surveyed as the root cause of tension between Muslim and Western worlds. This is significant in discussions about Islamophobia, considering political interests can vary and change while cultural and religious differences are more ingrained within populations.
Recent examples of Islamophobia exist within several countries. In late 2009, the largest party in the Swiss parliament put to referendum a ban on minaret construction. The government opposed the ban, citing harm to the country's image - and particularly Muslims' views of Switzerland. Nearly 60% of Swiss voters and 22 out of 26 voting districts voted in favor of the ban, leading to cries of Islamophobia by leaders in countries such as Pakistan and organizations such as the United Nations.
In the month following the referendum, Gallup asked a representative sample of Swiss adults a series of questions about the issue specifically and Muslim rights in general. Most Swiss say that religious freedom is important for Swiss identity. About one-third agree that there is an irresolvable contradiction between liberal democracy and Islam. However, the Swiss are more likely to disagree (48%) than agree (38%) with that statement. Rather, 84% say it is possible for a Muslim to be a good Swiss patriot. When asked if those in the Swiss Muslim community have reason to believe they have been discriminated against in the wake of the minaret ban, two-thirds (68%) say no. Furthermore, most Swiss say they do not believe that the recent belief that Switzerland was being seen as willing to infringe on the rights of its Muslim minority in the wake of the referendum on minarets has harmed Switzerland's reputation in the international community.
Despite a very public debate on the banning of a religious symbol of Islam, much of the Swiss population did not believe that the Swiss Muslim community should feel discriminated against.
In 2008, Gallup asked representative samples from a subset of majority-Muslim countries about public perceptions of fair treatment of Muslims in the U.S., France, Britain, and China. While about one-third of this subset say that Muslims living in each of those countries are treated as equal citizens regarding their rights and freedoms, about one-quarter of respondents say these Muslims are not. About 40% of this subset of majority-Muslim countries say they don't know how these four countries treat their Muslim residents. The notion that Muslims in these countries are treated unfairly supports the idea that Muslims in general believe that unfair treatment of Muslims - a component of Islamophobia - does exist in Western societies.
......to be continued