Those who discriminate against Muslims are playing directly into the hands of IS
Anti-Muslim hatred leads people directly into the hands of IS recruiters and aggravates the very issue of radicalisation that we are trying to avert. The more people act out of fear and cause Muslims to be ostracised in our society, the greater the chances of them turning to extremism.
If all Muslims are approached as if they were extremists, with hostility and hatred, they may indeed develop such extremist views in order to defend themselves from this treatment.
Recent figures show that anti-Muslim hate crimes are up by 70 per cent. These crimes vary from cyber-bullying to extreme violence, but it appears that women, particularly those who are identifiably Muslim through their clothing, are targeted more frequently than others. As a result, many Muslims feel under attack and vulnerable in their own country, something that should surely be avoided in a liberal democratic state like ours.
Those who discriminate against Muslims are doing exactly what IS want. As hate crimes are committed, Muslims are cornered into looking elsewhere for protection, identity and solutions. This vacuum leaves Muslims vulnerable and thus more open to extremist exploitation.
IS propaganda is specifically designed to target those who are unfulfilled, defenceless or aggrieved. As Quilliam’s Charlie Winter has put it, IS ‘sell themselves as champions of social justice, law, order and defiance in the face of the ‘oppressor”. Hate crimes and anti-Muslim bigotry push people into a state that makes them more open to IS propaganda and, therefore, more vulnerable to radicalisation.
Hate crimes affect not only the current generation but also our children. We know environmental factors play a key role in growing up for young people. As hate crimes surge, the next generation is increasingly exposed to views that incorrectly paint all Muslims as extremists. This may cause Muslim children to grow up vulnerable to radicalisation, defensive about their faith, and less likely to integrate into British society. This defence can quickly turn to offence as more radicalising triggers present themselves.
Moreover, hate crimes hinder the public image of counter-extremism by unintentionally creating the façade that Islam, rather than Islamism, is being opposed. Counter-extremism tackles radicalisation and extremism as phenomena and is opposed to those who commit or support ideologically-motivated intolerance, violent or otherwise, to further political aims.
If Muslims are being attacked for their faith rather than Islamists challenged for their bigotry, we reduce ourselves to the very intolerance we are trying to fight. This is why human rights are so important to counter-extremism.
Rather than acting out of hate, those concerned about extremism should respond in more constructive ways:
1. We should defend the right for freedom from discrimination and the rights for people to practise their own religion or wear religious attire. We are all entitled to these freedoms, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexuality.
2. We must stop confusing the religion of Islam with the political ideology of Islamist extremism. That way, when we challenge extremists, we will not cause prejudice or impair anyone’s right to practise their faith.
3. When faced with extremism, whether Islamist, far-right or others, we should challenge it just as we would challenge bullying or racism. Preventing extremism is not a job solely for the government or security forces to uphold, but rather a role for everyone to engage in.
4. As TellMAMA identifies, we should engage with cross-cultural exchange and dialogue amongst all cultures, irrespective of faith differences. This will not only make our nation more open and accepting of varied backgrounds, but will also mean that Muslims can play a constructive role in challenging the extremism in their communities.
As a result of these constructive actions, people will feel increasingly at home in their own nation and IS propaganda will have less of a foothold. Critically, these actions are not only useful for combatting extremism; they are also vital components of life in Britain that are worth defending.
Therefore, as anti-Muslim hatred diminishes, so will the perceived need for it.
Jonathan Russell is a political liaison officer and Rachel Bryson is a researcher, both at Quilliam
Want to read more posts like this? Then *sign-up to Look Left* and make sure you have the facts to rebut right-wing spin
76 Responses to “Comment: anti-Muslim hatred is a self-fulfilling prophecy”
Richard Abbott
Wrong comment thread, you tool.
Funny though.
steroflex
I am merely stating what the Koran al Karim repeats like a chorus. The people who cover up (Kufarim) the Truth as revealed to the Prophet are doomed to eternal Hellfire.
In fairness, Mohammed, the Prophet, was, according to several Hadith, determined to stress that neither he nor any other human was the eternal judge.
I am not sure how many Salafs have actually read the Hadith though…
Me? As I said, I am a catholic and we have our own theories and dogmas.
steroflex
” Most mosques and Islamic instruction derive from Salafist sources these days.”
How do you know this?
Richard Abbott
Sorry – just got around to reading this – funny. I carry a Canadian Passport, but am not originally Canadian. I have lived in many countries and currently I do not reside in Canada. No doubt that I have lived among people of more cultures and races than you have – also no doubt that I have contributed more to society in general – both intellectually and financially. This I know.
I am quite happy dealing with people face to face on any subject – I have a reputation for being rather confrontational – I rather enjoy it.
I expect that you are not as you are more interesting in developing insults rather than making a salient point or a coherent reply to anyone else’s point. You can’t do that too often to peoples faces without ending up annoying someone with a short fuse who will ‘take you around the back for a good kicking’. I expect that you are an individual that lacks the stones to discuss these kind of issues in person with people who oppose you.
You use a fake profile name – I use my real name. That tells me all I need to know about your moral courage. Flat. Zero.
Have the spine to use your real name. You are either ashamed of your name or ashamed of having your views associated with your name. Weak and afraid, bereft of any claim to moral or intellectual high ground, little boy, Kriegar the magnificent! Ahhhh – you make me laugh and that is a good thing.
As to the rest of your personal diatribe – ho hum. It tells me more about you that you have revealed to me about myself. But that is the point of therapy isn’t it? I hope you have found some measure of internal peace now.
Eoireitum
No answer….here’s a few for you to consider. Ottoman Empire 19th and 20th century, slavery in the 19th century (Libya/sub-Sahara) – to which we might pit a ‘christian’ form of colonialism. Are you saying that Germans killed for reasons of adherence to a particular christian sect? Everyone, imho, seemed to despise the Jews – so I’m not sure who the 20 million you are referring are – and whose deaths are inspired by christian dogmatic disagreements (amongst themselves or other faiths)?
Sorry to insist but I have a feeling that the Christians got over their religious wars by the early 18th century – whereas islam is still working it through…..