Breaking the Veil: Unmasking Stigma Against Islam in the West

By Hichem Karoui

"In Breaking the Veil: Unmasking Stigma Against Islam in the West," author and activist Hichem Karoui delves into the pervasive stereotypes, discrimination, and devaluation faced by Muslims in Western societies. With an unflinching and thorough examination, Karoui confronts the deeply ingrained prejudices that have led to widespread Islamophobia. Drawing on personal experiences and extensive research, he dismantles misconceptions and exposes the damaging impact of systemic biases on individuals and communities. Through compelling narratives and insightful analysis, this book challenges readers to confront their preconceptions and consider the long-lasting effects of stigmatisation. Breaking the Veil offers a sobering exploration of the urgent need for empathy, understanding, and solidarity in breaking down barriers between cultures and combatting prejudice. This is an essential read for anyone seeking to engage with social justice and human rights issues in today's world.

representation in the US Congress and EU parliament, are using theories such as Great Replacement and Identity Threat to target Islam, Muslims, and migrants. These falsehoods fuel Islamophobia and Xenophobia, deceiving people with their harmful narratives. Social scientists would concur that Identity Threat encompasses several key aspects that directly impact Muslim minorities in the West:

1. Stereotyping: Negative stereotypes about a particular social group can lead to feelings of devaluation and stigma among its members, resulting in an identity crisis.
2. Discrimination: Facing discrimination based on one's social identity (such as race, gender, or religion) can create an identity threat, as individuals may perceive their group as being unfairly treated or marginalised.
3. Underrepresentation: When a social group lacks visibility and recognition in specific contexts like the workplace or media, its members may experience identity threats due to a lack of acknowledgement of their group's contributions and value.
4. Devaluation of group competence: Undervaluing a social group's perceived competence can lead to identity threats as its members feel that their abilities and achievements are not respected.
5. Questioning of group morality: When the moral behaviour of a social group is called into question, its members may feel threatened.

Overall, these tactics are used by far-right groups to sow division and promote discriminatory attitudes towards specific communities.Thus,

How can Western nations with non-Muslim majorities, hyper-visible, hyper-represented, and hyper-empowered, experience an identity threat? That's the question! With such deplorable arguments, they are fighting Islam and Muslims from inside the democratic system! The present research contributes to the debate.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Global East-West LTD
• Release date: Jan 26, 2024
• ISBN: 9798224985814

Hichem Karoui

Writer /Journalist/ Senior Researcher Published over 30 books and counting, (translations not included). Authored co-authored, edited, and published hundreds of daily/ weekly/ monthly briefings, reports and analyses, peer-reviewed articles, monographs, and books, about MENA region and international politics. Participated in many international conferences, either on the panel, as a member of the organizing team, or as a journalist.  Has been involved with the media since his early career, thus serving in different posts: reporter, investigation journalist, copy editor, cultural journalism, political journalism, editorialist, and Executive Editor.  Translated several books/documents. Also reviewed translations for publishers. Member of several academic boards.  Veteran columnist and commentator for the media.  Ranking in the top 10%of Authors by all-time downloads on Social Science Research Network.

Book preview

Breaking the Veil: Unmasking Stigma Against Islam in the West

Hichem Karoui

Global East-West for Studies and Publishing

Copyright © [2024] by [Hichem Karoui]

All rights reserved.

Global East-West For Studies and Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

First Printing, 2024.

Contents

Epigraph

Foreword

1.Introducing the Problem: Freedom of Expression or Hate Speech?

2.Historical Perspective

3.Cultural Perspective

4.Socio-Political Perspective

5.Legal and International Perspective on Incitement to Hatred

6.Epilogue: Lessons and Recommendations

Bibliography

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant … The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

Foreword

The stigmatisation of Islam and Muslims in the West is a pressing issue that demands our attention. It is disheartening to witness acts such as the Quran burning, which not only disrespect the holy book followed by nearly two billion people but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Muslims. The intentional desecration of religious texts fuels hatred and animosity and further alienates Muslim communities, creating a dangerous divide between individuals of different faiths. Additionally, the portrayal and caricature of the Prophet Muhammad in Western media have fuelled this stigmatisation fire. These depictions are often offensive and derogatory, painting an inaccurate picture of a religion that promotes peace and tolerance. Such actions not only insult the deeply held beliefs of Muslims but also contribute to the narrative that Islam is inherently violent or incompatible with Western values. This prejudice against Muslims is unjustified and denies individuals their right to practice their faith without fear of persecution or discrimination.

Another aspect of stigmatisation faced by Muslims in the West revolves around women who choose to wear hijab as an expression of their religious beliefs. The hijab has unfortunately become a symbol of oppression for many who do not understand its significance within Islamic culture. Women who don this traditional headscarf are often labelled submissive or oppressed simply because they choose to exercise their religious freedom. In a Muslim-majority society, this is unimaginable. Such stigmatisation undermines women's autonomy while disregarding their agency in making personal choices regarding their bodies and identities. Many Muslim-majority nations have expressed their outrage. People can express themselves as long as they do not violate the law. But the problem consists either in the absence of a law punishing the desecration of religious beliefs or its non-enforcement when Islam is involved, which reveals double standards.

Muslims do not seek the impossible but rather justice and tolerance. Western politicians have been able to safeguard Jewish and LGBT people by enacting laws that punish provocateurs. They should be able to respond favourably to their Muslim residents who want to be treated similarly to other minorities. Moreover, there is little doubt that burning the Quran or drawing derogatory depictions of the Prophet Muhammad will incite violence and hate. Those who accept and defend such offences as « free expression » act unethically in the eyes of millions of Muslims worldwide and recently even to the UN Human Rights, which voted for protecting religious beliefs in a famous resolution that unfortunately was rejected by the US and its Western allies.

Western far-right organisations, some of whom have representatives in the US Congress and the EU parliament, use the infamous theories of Great Replacement and Identity Threat to attack Islam, Muslims, and migrants. Nothing is more deceptive than these lies that propagate Islamophobia and Xenophobia. Social scientists will agree with me that the main characteristics of Identity threat include the following, all of which apply to Muslim minorities in the West:

Stereotyping: Negative stereotypes about a specific social group can cause members of that group to feel devalued or stigmatised, leading to an identity crisis.

Discrimination: Experiencing discrimination based on one's social identity, such as race, gender, or religion, can lead to identity threat because individuals may believe their group is being treated unfairly or marginalised.

Underrepresentation: When a social group is underrepresented in specific contexts, such as the workplace or the media, members of that group may face identity threats as a result of a lack of visibility and acknowledgement of their group's contributions and value.

Devaluation of group competence: When a social group's perceived competence is undervalued, members of that group may face identity threats because they believe their group's abilities and achievements are not being acknowledged or respected.

Questioning of group morality: When a social group's moral behaviour is questioned, members of that group may feel threatened, even though they are not directly accountable for the group's activities.

How can Western nations with non-Muslim majorities, hyper-visible, hyper-represented, and hyper-empowered, experience an identity threat? With such deplorable arguments, they are fighting Islam and Muslims from inside the democratic system! The present research contributes to the debate. Instead of engaging in behaviours that generate hostility and division among communities, we aim to take these provocations seriously and promote dialogue, tolerance, interfaith conversation and understanding.

Dr Hichem Karoui

1

Introducing the Problem: Freedom of Expression or Hate Speech?

image-placeholder

…The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. J.S. Mill: On Liberty.

The burning of the Quran in Sweden and similar provocations in France and, previously, in other Western countries have sparked outrage among Muslims worldwide. The debate is whether these acts are considered freedom of expression or "hate speech », stigmatising Muslims with potentially tragic and violent consequences. To address this topic objectively, this research will focus on the historical, cultural, socio-political, and legal-international aspects.

***

Repeated Provocations

In recent years, one of the most controversial and provocative acts against Muslims has been burning the Quran, Islam's holy book. This act of desecration deeply offends Muslims and exacerbates tensions between different religious groups. The burning of the Quran is often seen as a deliberate attempt to incite hatred and discrimination towards Muslims, further fuelling Islamophobia.

Similarly, the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad in France and Denmark has sparked outrage among Muslims worldwide. According to Islamic tradition, any visual representation of the Prophet is irreverent. The publication of these caricatures by some European media outlets has been seen as an attack on Islam and a disregard for Muslim sensitivities.

These acts violate freedom of religion and perpetuate negative stereotypes about Islam and its followers. Anti-Muslim behaviour and policies have occurred in various countries in Europe. According to the Open Society Foundations, Islamophobia in Europe manifests itself through individual attitudes and behaviours and the policies and practices of organisations and institutions.¹ Such behaviour and policies include physical or verbal attacks on property, places of worship, and people, especially those who display a visible manifestation of their religious identity, such as women wearing the hijab or niqab.² Policies or legislation also indirectly target or disproportionately affect Muslims and unduly restrict their freedom of religion, such as bans on wearing visible religious and cultural symbols, laws against facial concealment, and bans on building mosques with minarets.³

In France and Germany, two EU countries hosting the majority of European Muslims, NGOs and activists are warning of rising anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia.⁴ Lawmakers have called on the European Commission to quickly appoint the EU coordinator to fight anti-Muslim hatred and step up efforts to tackle discrimination across the Union.⁵

The European Commission now has an anti-Muslim hatred coordinator. Ms Marion Lalisse was named the European Commission's new Coordinator for Combating Anti-Muslim Hatred on February 1, 2023. Ms Lalisse will collaborate with Member States, European institutions, civil society, and academia to improve policy responses to anti-Muslim prejudice.⁶

Establishing a novel position within the European Commission to address the escalating issue of Islamophobia across the continent is a noteworthy advancement. There exists a comprehension of the matter at hand. Nevertheless, this is inadequate. The inquiry pertains to the extent of influence the anti-hatred coordinator possesses to modify or propose legislation that effectively reconciles the principles of unrestricted expression and the promotion of reverence for Islam and the Muslim community. Does it solely serve as a bureaucratic and marketing mechanism without substantive authority?

The issue at hand is essential, and its successful resolution depends on how it is approached. We're not just referring to a few isolated individuals here and there but to a sizable portion of the world's population. Moreover, it should be noted that Muslim minority communities in any given country are neither isolated nor easily deprived of their access to supportive resources abroad. Muslims across the globe exhibit a sense of unity and mutual assistance. This theological principle holds significant persuasive power. This phenomenon can be attributed to the synchronous reactions observed across multiple nations when groups and individuals perceive Islam to be under threat.

Muslim population's steady growth

As of 2020, there were approximately 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide, making Islam the second-largest religion after Christianity.⁷

The largest Muslim populations are found in Pakistan (240,760,000), Indonesia (236,000,000), India (200,000,000), and Bangladesh (150,800,000).

About 20% of Muslims live in the Arab world, while around 62% of the world's Muslims reside in the Asia-Pacific region, stretching from Turkey to Indonesia.

Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world, mainly due to Muslims having more children than other major religious groups. According to the Pew Research Center, the global Muslim population will grow significantly in the coming decades. By 2030, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by about 35%, from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion.⁸

By 2050, the Muslim population is projected to reach nearly 2.8 billion, constituting about 30% of the world's population, up from 23% in 2010.⁹

This growth is mainly due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups.

The annual growth rate of Muslims is expected to be considerably higher than the rate for the world as a whole. In 2010-2015, the expected Muslim growth rate was 1.8%, while the rate for the world's population was 1.1%.¹⁰ Both rates are expected to decline over time. In 2045-2050, for example, the annual growth rate of Muslims is projected to be about 1%, while it will be 0.4% for the world.¹¹ This is not a development Europe could afford to omit or neglect, given the worldwide reactions to some anti-Muslim behaviour protected by leaders abusing the freedom of expression principle. According to various projections, Europe’s Muslim population is expected to grow by 63% between 2010 and 2050, while Europe’s non-Muslim population is expected to decline.¹²

However, Muslims are forecast to increase modestly as a share of Europe’s population, from 6% in 2010 to 10% in 2050.

Figure 1. Source: Pew Research Center.

Figure 1. Source: Pew Research Center.

The Pew Research Center report titled Europe's Growing Muslim Population¹³ presents three scenarios for the Muslim population in Europe from mid-2016 to 2050:

1. **Zero migration scenario**: If all migration into Europe were to stop immediately and permanently, the Muslim population would still rise from 4.9% (25.8 million) in mid-2016 to 7.4% by 2050. This is because Muslims are younger and have higher fertility rates than other Europeans.

2. **Medium migration scenario**: If refugee flows were to stop as of mid-2016 and recent levels of regular migration continue, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe's population in 2050.

3. **High migration scenario**: If the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 continues indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (mostly Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe's population by 2050.

The Problem: Feelings of Oppression Among Muslim Minorities in the West

Political authorities have established numerous discriminatory policies or legislation aimed explicitly at Muslims. Numerous Western nations have seen criticism about their treatment of Muslim minority populations, with certain countries being perceived as exhibiting more significant levels of oppression due to their policies, incidents, or prevailing public mood. The aforementioned countries encompass France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Hungary, Switzerland, and Sweden.

1. France has encountered much criticism about its stance on secularism and its implementation of regulations prohibiting full-face coverings in public areas.¹⁴ These restrictions have been observed to disproportionately impact Muslim women who adhere to the practice of wearing niqabs or burqas. Recently, a series of prominent incidents have occurred involving the apprehension or imposition of penalties on French Muslims for donning religious attire in public, including the niqab or burqa. Moreover, discussions about the extent of religion's involvement in the public sphere and events like the Charlie Hebdo attacks have given rise to feelings of strain and prejudice.¹⁵

2. Belgium has enacted regulations prohibiting facial coverings in public spaces, mirroring the measures established in France. The imposition of these prohibitions has garnered criticism due to concerns that they may disproportionately affect Muslim women who choose to wear niqabs or burqas.¹⁶

3. The Netherlands has witnessed extensive discussions surrounding matters on Islam and immigration, accompanied by instances of far-right political factions and people openly voicing anti-Muslim attitudes and sentiments.¹⁷

4. Denmark has also enacted regulations prohibiting the use of facial coverings in public areas. This measure has been perceived as specifically affecting Muslim women who choose to wear niqabs or burqas.¹⁸

5. Hungary has faced allegations of engaging in discriminatory practices against its Muslim minority. In 2016, the Hungarian government enacted legislation that effectively prohibited the establishment of additional mosques within the nation's borders.¹⁹ The administration has also seen criticism about its management of asylum applicants, some of whom self-identify as adherents of the Islamic faith.²⁰ The Hungarian Islamic Community (MIK) has expressed its disapproval of what it perceives as xenophobic measures implemented by a local mayor with ultra-nationalist tendencies. The municipality of Ásotthalom, situated on the border with Serbia, has implemented regulations prohibiting the construction of mosques, the practice of using a muezzin for the call to prayer, and the wearing of garments such as the niqab and the burkini.²¹

6. Switzerland has a historical record of harbouring anti-Muslim sentiment, which has occasionally resulted in implementing discriminatory measures. In 2009, a referendum was held in Switzerland wherein 57.5 % of the participating voters decided in favour of prohibiting the construction of minarets within the nation's borders. The administration has faced criticism for handling asylum seekers, a significant proportion identifying as Muslim.²²

7. The Swedish government has encountered various challenges, leading to strained relations with its Muslim minority. One of the primary concerns pertains to the emergence of far-right political factions, exemplified by the Sweden Democrats, which exhibit notably more unfavourable attitudes towards Muslims and individuals with non-Swedish names than supporters of other political parties in Sweden. Consequently, there has been a rise in the prevalence of anti-Muslim sentiment and discriminatory practices. Another concern pertains to managing individuals seeking asylum, a significant proportion identifying as Muslim.²³ Instances of human rights breaches at Swedish federal asylum centres have been documented. Moreover, a series of occurrences involving the burning of the Qur'an in Sweden has given rise to domestic discussions on the concept of freedom of expression while simultaneously exacerbating diplomatic strains between Sweden and Muslim nations on a global scale.²⁴

It is imperative to acknowledge that public attitudes and government actions might vary within each country, and individuals' and communities' perceptions of oppression or tolerance may diverge.

Double Standards

Isn't the protection of the Jews a protection of Judaism?

In certain nations, when Muslims seek legal safeguards for their religious beliefs, they are often told that the state adheres to secularism. Our primary focus is on safeguarding the rights and well-being of individuals rather than prioritising the protection of specific religious beliefs or practices. This phenomenon is seen in France, where Islam is the second most practised religion, following Christianity. However, it is worth noting that a historical precedent exists for safeguarding Judaism, given its integral role in shaping the Jewish identity. And even if some scholars, like Satlow,²⁵ propose a non-essentialist approach to Judaism, we still may ask them: what would the Jews be without Judaism? Would they