LDMF Fringe Meeting at Liberal Democrat Spring 2007 conference in Harrogate

Kashmir: present and future prospects

Harrogate International Centre

Queens Suite 6

18.15 Saturday 3rd March
Second Draft European Parliament Report.
A Review, Update and Consultation with EU Rapporteur Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne MEP.

Islamophobia in the Western Media — Myth Or Reality

Who is to blame for “Islamophobia”: Non-Muslim western media or Muslims?

It is all too easy for the public, non-Muslim and Muslim, to be swayed by heated emotion, hate and prejudice. With sophisticated tools such as propaganda and mass media we have witnessed in modern history how western democracies and Muslim countries have horrifically stereotyped entire races, nations and ethnic groups.

After all it was Napoleon Bonaparte who identified a problem when he stated “authoritarian government required not to speak is silent ... but representative government required to speak LIES with impunity.”

Since September 11th attacks and before, some western nations have deluded their public about the need for pre-emptive military attacks, invasion and occupation of so-called third world nations in the name of peace and security, whereas at the same time certain “Muslim grouping” have deluded their public in the belief of the inevitable “clash of civilisations and the need to Islamise the entire world”

No doubt, the rise of the cynical use of propaganda in 20th century opened the door to the justification for colonialism, racism and fascism. These were the vital tools that turned even a neutral individual into an ardent supporter of what would otherwise be viewed as an outrageous injustice or crime.

The rise of a pattern western neo-fascism against Islam within so-called Western Democracies and the media assisted rise in a small band of “Islamic fascist” has brought to an all new high of hate and violence with the targeting of innocent Muslim communities across the western world after 11th September 2001.

Shouldn’t we be concerned that this new wave of western led prejudice and hate against the entire Islamic community brings back memories of secular democracies upholding racist laws or segregating communities as witnessed by groups such as Sub continental Indian, African and now Muslims/Arabs?

Since the attacks on the U.S., extremist groups have targeted Islamic communities in Britain. Muslims have been intimidated, their places of worship vandalised, 10 pigs’ heads have been left outside a mosque in Exeter and an Afghan taxi driver has been beaten to paralysis.

These tensions have not been helped by the British and foreign media, which have used value-loaded and inaccurate language, portraying Osama Bin Laden as a “Muslim fanatic” and Islam as a dangerous religion rooted in violence and irrationality.

The tensions have been further exacerbated by the media’s avoidance of context in relation to Arab anger in the Middle East.

Islamic Public Relations

It is evident that Islamic public relations have failed during the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

1. There have been significant statements from various “Islamic“ organisations which have been extraordinary and ineffectual.

   Moderate Muslim countries like Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey and UAE (to name a few) and the normal bogey men of the Muslim world Yasser Arafat, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and even certain USA classified Terrorist groups have all issued ground breaking statements condemning the U.S. attacks. Unfortunately due to the sheer mass of stories coming out of the attacks on the U.S. the statements have been relegated to the inner pages of newspapers and the end of news programmes.

2. At the same time spokesmen for Muslim communities and groups have unfortunately portrayed the "wrong" image on television and in other media.

   The “wrong” images are exemplified when both Christians and the Jews appear in the media and they personify “calm, collected, intelligent and above all reasonable and tolerant” versus the typical the Muslim, wearing Islamic attire (robes, hijab, beard etc) and speaking broken inflammatory English and appear alien and anti-Western.

3. In the early days of the tragedy it was important for Muslims to identify themselves with the mass of Western community by emphasising similarities rather than differences especially through “that most Western of mediums” — television.

   There are more similarities than differences between people regardless of race, creed and colour. In the face of division it is these aspects of common humanity, which should be cultivated, but it is these very aspects, which are difficult to transmit via television by our Muslim spokespersons.

4. As a medium television does not lend itself to emphasising common humanity beyond simple appearance and speech — the two very factors which the Muslim spokespersons neglected.

   An example of successful media appearance was that of Muhammad Ali proclaiming his pride as a Muslim. His appearance had a profound effect on people’s opinions because he is an American (Western) symbol. Immediately all Muslims regardless of appearance become more tangible and Western - they are no longer “the other” but part of the Western community.

5. Television is about how you look, how you speak and very rarely about what you think and how you feel. It is a one-way communication, there is no chance of dialogue.

   Muslims should consider their appearance on TV because TV is a shallow medium which distorts people’s opinions due to its technical limitations.

   It is an unfortunate fact that people are scared of what they don’t understand or recognise. They need to be led to the realisation that a man wearing a turban and a robe is still just a man and someone they trust and recognise must lead them to that realisation.

6. Muslims should be themselves and proud of their culture and traditions but they must be aware that on television people judge you on first appearances, on looks and speech, not on your character.

   While it is incumbent on the media to present Muslims in an unbiased light it is also important for Muslims to do the best they can for themselves by choosing the most appropriate people, both spiritually but also physically, to transmit their messages and differences through the television screen.

Islamophobic concepts propagated in and by the Media

Use of emotive language to justify concepts linked to racial and religious identifiers has been prevalent in the media and contributed to racial/religious tensions as the following examples demonstrate.

1. Osama Bin Laden and his followers have been described at various times as &ldquot;Muslim Fundamentalists&rdquot;, &ldquot;Muslim Extremists&rdquot;, &ldquot;Muslim Terrorists&rdquot; and &ldquot;Muslim Fanatics&rdquot;. The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with any of these terms.

   The Irish Republican Army are not called Catholic terrorists. The Ulster Freedom Fighters are not called Protestant terrorists. America’s White Aryan Resistance are not Christian terrorists. South Africa’s AWB were not Calvinist terrorists.

2. In keeping with this tradition atrocities committed by groups claiming an Islamic affiliation should not be described as attacks by Muslim terrorists. The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with Osama Bin Laden or at least explain that Bin Laden’s beliefs fall well outside the scope of Islam.

   The hijackers in the U.S. were never more than mere terrorists - anything else attempts to explain madness and props it up with the terrorist’s own crutch of ideology.

   Bin Laden is nothing more than a cult leader who attempts to legitimise his violence through religion. Linking his actions to religion only buys into his legitimisation.

   The media called David Koresh the leader of a Branch Davidian cult - not the leader of a Christian group.

   Shoko Asahara, whose AUM cult has been linked to sarin gas attacks on the Japanese subway, has always been described as a cult leader - not the leader of a Buddhist fringe group despite the fact that Asahara said he wanted to teach Japan the "true teachings of Buddha".

   Koresh and Asahara were fanatics and madmen who the media located outside of the bounds of their respective religions. Bin Laden however is located within his religion despite the fact that his interpretations of the Koran differ from the dominant orthodoxies.

3. The media should drop the word fundamentalist in conjunction with Muslim, Islamic, Bin Laden etc.

   Describing Bin Laden and his followers as Muslim fundamentalists buys into the idea that Islam at its most basic level is about jihad, violence, irrationality and madness.

   Bin Laden's interpretation and teachings are not fundamentalist. In fact they ignore the fundamentals of Islam, which seeks to create a just and loving society under God — just like Christianity and Judaism.

   Bin Laden and other leaders of his ilk are not "Muslims" and they are certainly not "Fundamentalists"; they are fantasists and fanatics.

   The media interpret Bin Laden’s distorted imaginings as "true Islam" whereas other religious cults with charismatic leaders are regarded as beyond the scope of Judaism and Christianity. American TV evangelists are derided as fraudsters but Bin Laden is regarded as a true representative of Islam.

4. The media has consistently explained the suicide bombers' actions and motivations in relation to Islamic texts, most notably the Koran with associated negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims.

   This use of the Koran ignores the fact that all religious texts are open to interpretation and indeed similar passages encouraging martyrdom and holy war can be found in Jewish texts and the Christian Bible.

   The crusaders and their leaders used the Bible to legitimise a holy war on Islam with the belief that if they died in battle they would be martyrs and go to heaven.

   Thomas Aquinas formulated the idea of a &ldquot;Just War&rdquot; and God himself ordered massacres in Jericho and the cities of Canaan. However when Christians commit atrocities newspapers and the media do not look for possible explanations in the Bible.

5. Arab = Muslim = Arab

   The media has collapsed the categories Arab and Muslim into each other.

   Stories about the attacks have been consistently accompanied by pictures of, and comment from, Arab Muslims. The effect has been to collapse a racial group into a religious group.

   All Arabs are not Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arab.

   Portraying Muslims and Arabs as one and the same is inaccurate and dangerous because it provides a racial basis for hatred, which extends past the boundaries of a religion. It allows extremists to identify "Muslims" purely by perceived racial characteristics.

“Its all in the language — stupid” — Legitimisation by the media of Islamophobic acts and injustice to muslims

We tend to forget that Islamophobia is perpetrated at two distinct levels, one is demonising Muslims and the second is legitimising acts of injustice on the demonised Muslims.

Mitigation of injustice to Muslim community and the denial of Islamophobia in the media has been successfully articulated through the use of euphemisms, that is the substitution of mild, polite, sugary, evasive or roundabout words for more direct and honest ones.

Here are some familiar examples:

Targeted killing	=	Assassination/murder by death squads/extra-judicial killing/execution
Collateral damage	=	Civilian casualties
Killed in crossfire	=	Shot by soldiers or snipers
Respond	=	Attack
Settler	=	Illegal settler
Areas	=	Communities/neighbourhoods — the implication here is that people who live in “areas” are less civilised than those who live in communities or neighbourhoods.
Suburbs	=	Illegal settlements
International community	=	The West?
A divided city	=	A city with 99.8% Muslims/Arabs
Disputed territory	=	Illegally occupied territory
Provocative act	=	Criminal act according to international law

LDMF Debate: What can Muslims do to counter the Islamphobic Media

It is the press' duty and burden to ensure that it is impartial and accurate and acts sensibly.

The right to speak to thousands and even millions of people is linked to a responsibility to speak justly and without prejudice.

Prejudice, be it deliberate or unintentional, makes journalism into propaganda and transforms a journalist into a demagogue.

The language and images that the media have used in conjunction with ideas of Muslims and Islam have been value-loaded and lack context. While the world moves on and new ideas develop we still use the same words, in relation to Islam, that we used 10 and 20 years and even 30 years ago.

If we cannot change the words and the symbols how can we hope to change and better the future for the millions of innocent Muslims?

Debating Points:

1. To what level is Islamophobia prevalent within the Liberal Democrats and do our spokespersons consciously or subconsciously propagated it in the media?
2. What can the LDMF do to assist proactive counteraction of Islamophobia within the Liberal Democrats?
3. How can Muslims calmly, intelligently and proactively counter Islamophobia in the media?