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
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
76 Responses to “Comment: anti-Muslim hatred is a self-fulfilling prophecy”
Mick
Hey, Genius. Your hated borders ensure the survival of all your precious poor people!
Borders keep out criminals, borders avoid wars by keeping legally recognised demarcation lines (mostly). Borders help keep the census relevant by stopping masses of unknowns – any unknowns – from coming in and swamping the services which the disadvantaged need to survive. Open borders means fewer citizenship rights and no social security in the free for all.
No borders means a law of the jungle financial system, whereby all commodities, from houses to jobs to consumer goods to financial services – will only be monopolised by the very rich, the only ones to afford ANYTHING in the ruined economy. EVERYTHING will be scarce with instant millions coming in.
I could go on. THAT’S why the Tories are back and you’re not the ruler. But then, you know that your system would reward the rich at the expense of the poor!
Left wing turnip.
Mick
Islam is what Muhammad decreed in the Koran and by Muhammad’s life story and manifesto, the Hadith. That’s what Sharia is.
The sects we know now – especially the Sunni and Shi’tes – only came about by gangland wars in Muhammad’s family for the succession! Wuhabbism and other later sects only deign to recreate Muhammad’s original savagery by the book, word for word and atrocity by atrocity.
Mark
Yes, so by that view, Wahabbism is the main problem. I’ve been around long enough to realise that religions take what they want from scriptures and often discard lots. We know that from Christianity and Judaism. What we don’t really know, right now, is what “Islam” is. I’m sure the nice family down the road have theirs, and would reject ISIS etc, but others don’t and Wahabbism (and to an extent Salafism) seems to crop up time and time again.
So maybe dump “Islamism” and concentrate on Wahabbism? Or as I say, can a Sufi be an “Islamist”?
Does anyone (Quilliam?) have a breakdown of sects that terrorists have originated from?
TN
Stop yelling and learn to spell you retard.
Mick
Yes, people have been known to selectively harvest texts but the main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam was/is a warrior’s religion, while Christianity was for the peaceable.
In the Koran, there’s no mention of love, the Golden Rule or praying for the salvation of others. Instead, only repression of the Other. Indeed, the Muslim books contain literal exhortations to actually persecute Christians and kill Jews. (Muhammad actually said to two fans, in the book of Tabari, to ‘Kill every Jew under your power.’ Muhammad killed Jews himself, for example in the Quarayza Massacre of 627.)
In Islam, there’s not much to twist, as the principle of Islam is to punch outwards and establish caliphates based on Sharia barbarism.. Muslims can only tell themselves that constant war on the unbeliever is only when they face extermination, etc. But with Christ, it took the huge control freaks of the Roman Catholic Church to twist his own orders for there to be no organised religion.