“Muslim fanatics plot to hijack Royal Wedding…”[1], reads the headline of the Daily Mail. The paper claims, “They plan a ‘forceful demonstration’ with thousands of protesters set to burn the Union Flag, images of the Crown, and effigies of the bridal couple”, all of which will be symbols of Britain in this Royal ceremony. The fanatics in question are a small number of Muslim men who belong to the group, ‘Muslims Against Crusades’, and who have not themselves attracted “thousands of protesters” in any demonstration they have taken part in. The article provides three images connected to these men, one of the images shows a member of the group, another shows a previous protest where a giant poppy is in flames on the ground and the third image is taken from the group’s website where the words, “HARRY THE NAZI”, “BEST MAN IS A NAZI”, are clearly visible. Beneath this picture, the article states: “Police are anticipating violent clashes as the Right-wing English Defence League have given notice that they intend to protest against the Muslim hardliners.” Whilst the group of Muslim men are fanatics, the English Defence League (EDL) is given legitimacy and a degree of credibility by merely referring to them as “Right-wing”. Indeed, the final image shows a protest from the EDL which in the caption states: “counter-protest”, positioning the protest as a response to, as it reads, “the Muslim extremist” group and again no descriptive term precedes the words “English Defence League”. Two other images accompany the article, one of the wedding couple and another of a stream of union flags. These represent what ‘Muslims Against Crusades’, or more generally, what “hardline Muslims” are against: Britain. The article continues: “Almost 5,000 Met officers will be deployed to combat disorder on April 29.” The article makes no mention of any other possible disturbances; disorder, here, is directly linked to “Muslim fanatics”.
Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism remains pertinent as the Muslim threat lingers in the background, threatening to “hijack” the “wedding celebrations.” From referring to the group of men by their organisation, as the article continues, it points to the more generalised threat of “hardline Muslims” as the paper positions ‘them’, Muslims, against symbols of Britain through its imagery: the poppy in flames and the Union flags. All of which establish the divisive notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ and the tendency to portray Muslims against ‘the West’, frameworks central to Orientalist commentary. Said’s Orientalism forms the basis of understanding the preferred stereotypical representations attributed to Muslims. These representations construct a link between terrorism and Islam in a way that of “no religion, culture or ethnic group except Islam and its societies, has it been said that terrorism is, after a fashion, endemic.”[2] It is necessary to contextualise the reporting of Muslims from the outset for one cannot overlook the involvement of Western powers in the world of the ‘Orient’, whether this be in the form of military invasion and occupation in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, or through continued support for oppressive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, including Israel. When reporting on Islam/Muslims, self representation on the part of the ‘Orient’ is not a priority for the mainstream media as ‘experts’ are in abundance to highlight the inherent flaws of the ‘Orient’, suggesting that more often than not, individuals who sing from the same hymn sheet as media corporations themselves are given a platform to represent ‘moderate Muslims.’ To some extent, instead of reporting the ‘War on Terror’, the mainstream media have championed it, thus, establishing an environment where Islamophobic trends can thrive.
Orientalism today
Said’s influential notion of Orientalism can be revisited to explain the frameworks from which Muslims are represented. Orientalism can be seen as being at the core of the stereotypical representations of Muslims that we see in the mainstream media today. Said proposes: “The general basis of Orientalist thought is an imaginative and yet drastically polarized geography dividing the world into two unequal parts, the larger, “different” one called the Orient, the other, also known as “our” world, called the Occident or the West.”[3] The distinction between ‘our’ world and ‘their’ world and the media’s portrayals of these two supposedly incompatible worlds, constantly pits ‘us’ against ‘them’. Therefore, the ‘us versus them’ framework is flawed from the beginning because it makes gross generalisations of an entire religion and indeed an entire region into one indifferent and homogeneous people, whether it be the so called ‘Muslim world’ or ‘the West’, though “Muslim societies have not institutionalised their imaginaries about Western societies to the extent that the latter have done of Islam”[4]. Indeed, the “most significant accomplishments of Orientalism is the construction of ‘an Orient’. The depiction of a single ‘Orient’, or a single Muslim ‘Middle East’ which can be studied as a cohesive whole”[5]. Thus, through the media’s insistence on providing stereotypical representations of the Orient, “the sense of Western power over the Orient is taken for granted as having the status of scientific truth”[6] and so the two polarized worlds, ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, bring forth a certain understanding of that ‘world’. Karim explains: “A bearded ‘middle-Eastern-looking’ man wearing a black cloak and turban can trigger an entire series of images of a fanatical religious movement, of airplane hijackings, of Western hostages held helpless in dungeons, of truck bombs killing hundreds of innocent people, of cruel punishments sanctioned by ‘Islamic law’ and of the suppression of human rights – in sum, of intellectual and moral aggression.”[7] Stereotypical depictions of Muslims that are repeated become familiar in the mind of the viewer or reader as an accurate and true portrayal of Muslims albeit constructed for us by the media as they become “stereotypes embedded in the Western collective imagery”[8].
To some extent, Orientalism in practice is “filtering through the Orient into Western consciousness”[9] through stereotypical portrayals that reaffirm ‘our’ suspicions and anxieties towards the ‘Muslim world’. Fundamentally, “Orientalism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient”[10], in other words, “making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling in it, ruling over it”[11]. Orientalism, then, “is a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”[12] The idea of any self representation from the Orient is not entertained due to the Orient’s inability to define itself. To speak of self representation, something that Said talks of in relation to colonized peoples is relevant because after all, “the Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies”[13]. Though the Middle East and North Africa are no longer colonized, as such, by Western nations, the West is still highly influential in this part of the world. Indeed, as Childs and Williams explain: “although colonial armies and bureaucracies might have withdrawn, Western powers were still intent on maintaining maximum indirect control over erstwhile colonies, via political, cultural and above all economic channels, a phenomenon which became known as neocolonialism.”[14] Orientalist representations in the West serve the purpose of maintaining this status quo, upholding “a Western sense of superiority and hegemony over the Muslim world.”[15] Acknowledging the West’s hand in the affairs of this part of the world allows one to see how and why Orientalism is still relevant today. This Western sense of superiority can be identified in mainstream reporting of Muslims today, where in many instances the Orient is seen as, in Said’s terms, “something one judges (as in a court of law), something one studies and depicts (as in a curriculum), something one disciplines (as in a school or prison), something one illustrates (as in a zoological manual). The point is that in each of these cases the Oriental is contained and represented by dominating frameworks.”[16]
These frameworks not only “represent the Orient and Islam as an object for investigation and control”[17], but they position the West as culturally superior to the Orient. Said elaborates: ”to have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it. And authority here means for “us” to deny autonomy to “it” […] since we know it and it exists, in a sense, as we know it.” Perhaps one could consider this denial of autonomy in terms of the absence of self representation from the Orient juxtaposed with the presence of figures who make statements about the Orient and for the Orient in the mainstream media, “every commentator or expert a potential secretary of state”[18], in the words of Said. Indeed, when it comes to debating Islam and terrorism, “authorities can be cited for it readily, references can be made to it, arguments about particular instances of Islam can be adduced from it – by anyone, not just by experts or by journalists.”[19] Perhaps one could consider this as the blueprint of Orientalism that very much still exists today.
Post‑9/11 Islamophobia
The British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as “dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims”[20]. Islamophobia in the media is not something that suddenly came to exist post‑9/11, on the contrary, “this anti-Muslim discourse in Britain preceded 9⁄11 and emerged, in particular, in the wake of the Rushdie affair.”[21] The Runnymede report on Islamophobia, which “powerfully illustrated the vehemence with which Islam and Muslims were negatively stereotyped both in the press and the broadcast media”[22], was published in 1997, however, what 9⁄11 did do, though, was give “further impetus to Islamophobic trends in the media.”[23] Indeed, “within hours of the horrific acts of 9⁄11, the Bush administration framed the struggle against terrorism in absolutist terms that painted the world black and white and ignored all shades of grey.”[24] The impact of this was that the framework of ‘us versus them’ that already existed in the media was now evidently confirmed by the attacks and could be amplified to a greater extent, both as a justifiable reaction to the attacks and a root cause for the attacks. “Since 9⁄11 this division has been the defining characteristic of global affairs”[25], a division steeped in “the notion of ‘Orientalism’ as a distinctive and pervasive ideology of the Orient as Otherness”[26]. The mainstream media exploited the deep empathy felt towards the victims of 9⁄11, including dozens of whom were Muslims, by promoting old ideas of Islam as medieval and dangerous whereby “Muslims are ‘Othered’ in a mediated world where simplistic notions of good and evil peoples find currency.”[27]
The events on, and indeed the drastic measures taken after 9⁄11 by Western leaders, Bush and Blair in particular, have meant that “it has become a cliché to say that the attacks of 9⁄11 ‘changed everything’”[28], despite the fact that for many, “9/11 simply made overt a worldview that had long been present but little acknowledged”[29]. To some extent, the media circus that surrounded the events of 9⁄11 and the Bush administration’s determination to hunt down the perpetrators wherever it may lead them, even if somehow to Iraq where there was no connection to the attacks, was perhaps guilty of beating the drums of war in line with ‘official’ government sources who had pre-existing motives, as it is now known, to invade Iraq. Conveniently missing from the analysis in the mainstream media was any possible link of the attacks on 9⁄11 to the US’ continuing support for the terrorism of the Israeli régime in their military occupation and Zionist expansion in Palestine, or to Bill Clinton pounding Afghanistan and Sudan with cruise missiles in 1998, or of what many in the Middle East and North Africa deem to be the “imperialist intrusion of the West”[30]. Indeed, “terror itself became the enemy, rather than a weapon used by an enemy, firmly shutting the door on any discussion of root causes or motivations.”[31] 9⁄11 was instead reported as though ‘they’ declared war on ‘the West’ for reasons unknown to ‘us’ and as a result, it seems “a confrontational political situation has been created, pitting “us” against “Islam.”[32]
Malcolm et al. state in “Woolmergate” that representations of Islam and Muslims have “become more homogeneous and more heavily focused on religion and terrorism post‑9/11”[33]. Supporting the idea that Islam and Muslims are demonized is the fact that in Britain “on September 11 itself the Muslim Council issued a press release”[34] condemning the attack, “on 13 September a meeting of Muslim organisations convened by the Council issued a statement”[35] also in condemnation of the attack and then on “29 September the Council convened a meeting of leading Islamic scholars and mosque leaders that condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms”[36] yet “these responses were either ignored or heavily downplayed by significant sections of the press”.[37] Perhaps this “demonstrates how stories will only be selected if they fit with an idea of who Muslims are.”[38] The exclusion of these voices is significant because what is apparent today is the notion that Muslims must speak out against the actions of fellow Muslims in order to prevent the tarnishing of the image of Islam. However, as Richardson vehemently argues: “To engage with the argument, even to argue that ‘Islam condemns terrorism, Islam condemns murder and killing of innocents, etc. ‘not only contributes to the general relationship between Islam and terror via their collocation, it also grants a certain credibility to the racist argument: it suggests, albeit implicitly, that both sides are ‘debatable positions’. Clearly, to still be having such a debate is offensive: it is offensive because it is part of this “relentless insistence – even if it is put in the form of a debate – that [the Muslim] faith, culture[s] and people[s] are seen as a source of threat” (Said, 1997: xxi).”[39] Therefore, even in less obvious negative articles or broadcasts about Muslims, when a supposed Muslim representative condemns the actions of other Muslims, often by deeming their actions un-Islamic, the platform is set for a debate on the credibility of his or her claims, as though there is always the other more radical Islamic side of the argument that is missing from the discussion. “Add this to the complete marginalisation of those Muslims condemning the attacks and you have a fictional Muslim community that sits comfortably within the established norms of Islamophobic expectation.”[40]
The mainstream media consistently use words such as ‘Jihadists’ and ‘Islamists’ when referring to Muslim terrorists. The frequency of which these words are used in relation to actions of Muslims is problematic because when non-Muslims commit acts of terrorism, they cannot be labelled ‘Jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’, and therefore to some extent these words are cunningly used by the media when referring to Muslims because they are mentioned heavily in conjunction with the words ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’ in a way that strengthens the link between Islam/Muslims and terrorism/terrorists. This is not to say that other groups, such as the Irish, are not labelled terrorists, but that perhaps the frequency of news stories about Muslim terrorists being higher than other groups of people grants persuasive weight to the demonisation of Islam as a religion committed to terrorism. In other words, as Said explains: “there is a process by which various identities in alignment end up by fusing completely with each other: the terrorist with Islam, communism, and whatever other undesirable identities we wish to foist on him, the opponent with all the desirable qualities which, one assumes, fit around ‘us’ like a perfect body stocking.”[41] Perhaps one could also argue that words like ‘Islamist’ and ‘Jihadist” are used even as substitutes for the word ‘terrorist’, particularly by politicians who are more careful to label a Muslim as a ‘terrorist’ than tabloid newspapers would be. The recent revolution in Egypt provides an example of such rhetoric as politicians talk of the ‘Islamist threat’ that could come to power in Egypt in regards to the Muslim Brotherhood. One could question whether there is any distinction between an ‘Islamist threat’ and a ‘terrorist threat’ in the minds of those who use such words and those who come to such conclusions. On the other hand, if the ‘Islamist threat’ is instead the possibility of totalitarian rule, then this begs the question why it took a people’s uprising for the mainstream media to recognise and inform the audience that the Mubarak régime was in fact a totalitarian régime long before Western leaders publicly supported the calls of the Egyptian people. If the Mubarak régime was not an ‘Islamist threat’ then perhaps the suggestion is that an ‘Islamist’ ruling power would be worse than the previous régime. Labelling a group of murderous people as ‘Islamists’ only attributes negative connotations to Islam.
In the Tabloids: Stereotypes
“Islam and Muslims are represented and thereby ‘made known’ to us via, amongst other sites, the pages of newspapers.”[42] Negative representations of Islam and Muslims are particularly rife in today’s tabloid newspapers where “Muslims are marked out and rhetorically ‘Other-ed’”[43] as “Islam is ‘news’ of a particularly unpleasant sort”[44].
In 2006, The Sun published an article headlined, “Hate demo over cartoon”[45], about a group of men protesting against a Danish newspaper’s publication of unpleasant images depicting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Beneath the headline, a picture of a group of men holding placards is captioned: “Hate… London Muslim mob’s vile messages over cartoon”. The opening sentence reads: “THEIR eyes are full of hate and their banners call for a new 7/7 terror attack.” The reader is positioned to associate Muslims with the words, ‘hate’, ‘Muslim mob’, ‘vile’ and ‘terror attack’ just by seeing the headline, the picture and caption, and the opening sentence, with no indication of what allegiances the men hold, other than that they are Muslims, and with no knowledge of how many protesters there actually are. Perhaps this works to blur the boundaries of the views of this “mob” and the views of ‘normal’ Muslims. The generalising of Muslims is then corroborated by the use of the possessive pronoun, “their”, in the opening sentence. For obvious reasons, the word ‘our’ is not used, but a more suitable way of phrasing the sentence would perhaps be to state, “The men’s eyes…” or even, in keeping with The Sun‘s outlook, “The mob’s eyes…” By stating, “THEIR eyes are full of hate”, the subjects of the article (the group of protesters), having been identified thus far only as Muslims, become less isolated and more representative of ‘them’, the Muslims. In the heading, the word ‘Hate’ is used to describe the demonstration while the cartoons are not described and in the picture caption, the word ‘vile’ is used to describe the messages on the placards while again no description precedes the word “cartoon”. The article fails to adequately explain the protesters’ anger. Indeed, whilst the placards are later described as “provocative”, in the entire article, the words “row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons” are the most evaluative of the debate surrounding their publication. The second picture shows two placards, one reads: “Democracy go to hell”, the other, “Europe: your 9⁄11 will come”, and the caption to this picture states: “Threat… demonstrators warm of a 9⁄11 style response to newspaper cartoon ‘insults’”. Here, the unspecified number of Muslims are represented as against the West as the placards pictured denounce democracy and warn Europe.
The quotation marks around the word “insults” question the Muslim response and suggest their anti-Western views on show at the protest exist regardless of any injustice they feel has been inflicted upon them and helps to build a “particular image of Islam, by portraying it as a threat to the West, and to the global liberal values and tenets of the modern world.”[46] Furthermore, the article says the protesters “screamed their hatred towards Europe” and that “Shouts of “We adore Osama Bin Laden” rang out from a small section of the crowd”. A small section of an already small crowd, perhaps. The editor, Paul Thompson, fails to inform the reader of the number of protesters. The article suggests that Muslims “are allied with ‘Them in the Muslim world’ and not ‘Us in the West’”[47], thereby establishing the divisive Orientalist notions of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ in two incompatible worlds as Islam is constantly depicted “as that with which the West is radically at odds”[48]. The article says: “The protesters were whipped into a frenzy”, “Onlookers were shocked by the ferocity of the demo” and talks about “Three Transit vans full of […] colleagues […] parked out of view of the protesters ready to reinforce the dozen officers”. Only to then state: “Despite the banners the demo was peaceful.” Directly beneath this statement is a picture of protesters chanting, described in the caption as, “angry Muslim fundamentalists”. The picture does not enlighten the reader on the size of the demonstration as three individuals fit into the frame of the picture which covers their shoulders and faces giving no approximate indication of how many people are behind them. An onlooker, “who moved to the UK from Syria 13 years ago”, is quoted saying the views of the protesters “did not represent the views of mainstream Muslims”, as are the Muslim Council of Britain, who condemn the language used in the protest. However, directly beneath this, the article states: “The demo in London followed similar protests across the world”, and mentions Jakarta in Indonesia where “Violence flared”. The peaceful demonstration in London, as described by The Sun, is now equated with the violence in Indonesia.
Moreover, the claim of “similar protests across the world” is supported only by a mention of preachers addressing worshippers and “Muslim leaders” who “vowed revenge”. The article then directs attention to Jordan where the editor of a paper “was fired after he ran the cartoons”, and then to Lebanon where the article ends by quoting an unnamed Palestinian refugee who apparently said, “We will not be satisfied with protests. The solution is the slaughter of those who harmed Islam and the Prophet.” The Sun outweighs the condemnation coming from the Muslim Council of Britain with more ‘radical’ voices from different parts of the world. Perhaps it can be said that “what is happening in the media is that they are seeking out those with the loudest voices who fit their own agenda rather than fitting the agenda around the more significant voices”[49]. Even though the references amount to two individuals, a refugee from Lebanon and a “preacher” from Palestine, the way the article ends with an array of references to different locations in the ‘Muslim World’ gives credence to the idea that the views of the protesters in London are in fact not isolated and that Islam and Muslims are a global threat. “It also has the effect of homogenising Muslims, linking hostilities abroad to Muslims in Britain”[50] and brings into question the credibility of the statements given in the article by those Muslims who have condemned the protesters’ views.
The Sun also published an article in 2007 titled: “A rough guide to world justice”[51]. The article begins by stating: “THE Foreign Office want Brits to find out more about local laws abroad, so they are less likely to find themselves in trouble when they travel”. It compares a list of punishments to different crimes with the punishments that would be given here in Britain. Beginning with Indonesia, the article claims: “A typical sentence for possession of cannabis in the strictly Muslim Banda Aceh region is 11 years jail and ten strokes.” It then focuses on Iran where “drug smuggling is punishable by up to 100 strokes of the cane in a public beating”. It refers to “Islamic Somalia” where, the article states, “cannabis use is punished with whipping.” On “Drunknness”, the article again cites “Islamic Bandeh Aceh, Indonesia”, where “40 strokes with a rattan cane is typical punishment for drinking in public. If the victim faints before they have had all the lashes, the rest are administered when they are conscious again.” This is compared to “on-the-spot fixed penalty” fines in Britain. A comparison is then made between Ohio, America, and Saudi Arabia. The article states that in Ohio, “drink-drivers are forced to walk around with placards proclaiming their guilt” whilst in Saudi Arabia, “drinking will earn you between 30 and 120 strokes of the cane.” Lenient punishments in the West (Britain, Ohio) are compared to what the article suggests are harsh punishments in Saudi Arabia, in “Islamic Bandeh Aceh” and in “Islamic Somalia”.
The article goes on to state that “under Sharia Law in Iran and Saudi Arabia, blasphemy is punished by death, as is apostasy”. The editor, Martin Phillips, then relates this to the Danish cartoon publications which, in his words, “incited rioting around the world, death threats to the publishers, and calls for jihad – holy war.” And so the article continues, after (knowingly) misleading the reader into believing jihad means holy war, the editor mentions punishments in Iran on three further occasions, Saudi Arabia on three more occasions, Turkey, Malaysia and Nigeria. On theft, the article states that in comparison to Britain, “Elsewhere around the globe, they tend to mete out somewhat tougher justice. Under Sharia law, repeated theft is punishable by amputation”, Nigeria and Iran are highlighted. On infidelity, the article reads: “INFIDELITY isn’t a crime in this country, which is perhaps as well because it is given as the cause of one in five divorces.” A strange way to justify why it is not a crime. Nonetheless, the article then refers to an incident in Iran where a man and woman were stoned to death and continues: “Under Islamic law a male convict due to be stoned is buried up to the waist with his hands tied behind his back, while a female is usually buried up to her neck”, no explanation of the conditions of Sharia Law or whether it is implemented correctly in the countries mentioned is given. In comparison to the amputations in Saudi Arabia which the editor states are “administered by anaesthetic”, whipping in the Bahamas is more casually described; “the Navy’s cat‑o’-nine-tails is back in use.”
The article scrutinizes punishments handed out in Muslim majority countries and compares them with punishments in Britain and America, highlighting trivial punishments in Ohio on two occasions. The underlying theme of the article is clear, “‘We’ are civilised, reasonable, generous, efficient, sophisticated, enlightened, non-sexist […] ‘They’ are primitive, violent, irrational”[52]. Stereotypical representations of barbaric Muslims are promoted as “images of ‘medieval barbarism’ continue to dominate the struggle over representations of Islam”[53]. The article that is supposed to prevent Brits from getting into trouble abroad, becomes an attack on Sharia Law as the editor assumes Brits’ holiday destinations are likely to be Indonesia, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The oppression of women is a stereotype often attributed to Islam and Muslims. Indeed in one article by Trevor Kavangh of The Sun, titled: “Islamophobia… or cold, hard truth?”[54], the editor makes a string of comments against Islam that “make it evident that covering Islam is not interpretation in the genuine sense but an assertion of power. The media say what they wish about Islam because they can.”[55] Kavanagh states: “Muslim men are entitled to beat their wives”, “Women appear rarely and, when they do, are covered head to toe. The rest are under virtual house arrest, living behind closed doors in ignorance and isolation”, “such barbaric treatment of women has been imported and thrives here.” Evidently in this article, “the twin obsessions of oppressed Muslim women and violent Muslim men find clear expression”[56] but what is more, these sweeping generalisations and repeated stereotypes support Said’s argument that “in many instances “Islam” has licensed not only patent inaccuracy but also expressions of unrestrained ethnocentrism, cultural and even racial hatred, deep yet paradoxically free floating hostility. All this has taken place as part of what is presumed to be fair, balanced and responsible coverage of Islam.”[57]
When domestic violence involving a Muslim is reported, indeed whenever a story arises involving Muslims, tabloids often make a point of ensuring that the individual mentioned in the article is described as Muslim, often from the outset in the headline. If “the widespread use of one’s religious adherence becomes a vital and necessary factor in describing any individual or group that is featured in a news story”[58], then Muslims will continue to feel targeted “until we are informed that Jewish Israeli guards have opened fire on the West Bank or that Roman Catholic Basque separatists are focusing their terrorist activities on the Spanish tourist trade”[59]. Indeed, it seems it is less important or necessary to identify other individuals by stating their religion or, if it is necessary to identify people by faith, if they are atheists. The tabloids often report domestic violence when a Muslim is not involved by describing the attacker as mentally unstable in a way that deems them on the periphery of society, isolated and unenlightened individuals. “Brute kills second wife…”[60], “Confused pensioner stabs wife…”[61], “Knife maniac slashes wife’s throat…”[62], “Jealous hubby…”[63], to name but a few examples. Furthermore, the fact that individuals are identified as Muslim enables the supposed binary opposition of ‘Muslim culture’ and ‘Western culture’ to be pitted against each other. Indeed, Kundnani states: “It is right that the specific justifications which Muslim men use to legitimise violence against women is exposed. But this should not be done in such a way that combating violence against Muslim women is seen as fighting against a culture, while combating violence against white women is seen as a fight for rights.”[64] Unfortunately, domestic violence when involving Muslims provides further impetus for stereotypical representations of violent and oppressive Muslims who are incapable of adapting to Western lifestyles to be presented.
A Daily Mail article in 2009 is titled: “Muslim man sentenced to life in jail after killing his German-born wife because she was ‘too independent’”[65] The words “too independent” are the words of the prosecutor however the headline, after identifying the man as Muslim, gives the impression that these words are the words of the Muslim man, thus Muslim men are placed in opposition to liberated women and to gender equality, promoting stereotypes of violent and oppressive, backward and primitive Muslim men whom women exist under. The article labels the man in the opening sentence as “A Muslim asylum seeker”, but then later claims: “He returned home to Turkey in 2003, where he performed his mandatory military service”. This is dubious as he is able to serve in the military in Turkey even though he is seeking protection from prosecution from this very country. Perhaps the label asylum seeker fits into the overall argument of the article that European values are superior to those of Muslims coming to Europe from primitive societies in the ‘Muslim World’. This idea is apparent when the article reads: “The case has pulled into sharp focus the cultural differences between Western values and the estimated three million Muslim immigrants living and working in Germany.” Perhaps the suggestion being that the actions of the Muslim man are inherent in the culture of the Orient. Indeed, “Islam has always been seen as belonging to the Orient, […] to be looked at first of all as if it were one monolithic thing, and then with a very special hostility and fear.”[66] What is more, the article makes gross generalisations about Muslims by placing the values of “three million Muslim immigrants living and working in Germany” in opposition to “Western values”, thus “reducing them all to a special malevolent and unthinking essence. Instead of analysis and understanding as a result, there can be for the most part only the crudest form of us-versus-them.”[67]
The Daily Mail, who “in the 1930s […] was an ardent admirer of Nazi Germany and Mosley’s Blackshirts”[68], published a similar article in 2010 headlined: “Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife”[69]. Again, the paper seeks to show the conflict of the West and Islam/Muslims as it claims: “Media reports claimed the woman, who has borne one of his ten children, wanted to live a more ‘western’ lifestyle and was allegedly attacked after telling her husband.” No source is provided for these “media reports”. It continues, “Adam is alleged to have shouted a verse from the Koran at his wife as he beat her.” The article then presents the verse as saying, “’As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.’” The article justifies presenting Islam as barbaric by (wilfully) falsely interpreting the verse to portray a particular image of Islam. Indeed, in 2008, Peter Osborne of the Daily Mail wrote in a rallying cry against the rise of Islamophobia in Britain that such texts “end up sharing the same warped interpretation of a great religion as Osama bin Laden and the violent extremists they denounce”[70], pity his own paper failed to take heed.
The articles discussed, through making gross generalisations about millions of Muslims and portraying Islam itself as a cause for domestic violence, express “an unquestioned assumption that Islam can be characterized limitlessly by means of a handful of recklessly general and repeatedly deployed cliché’s”[71] whereby “violence, the cunning of Muslims and the irrationality of Islam continue to be key stereotypical argumentative themes – or topoi — useful in derogating Islam.”[72]
A more positive story comes from the Daily Star, headlined: “MY MUSLIM PALS SAVED OUR BACON”[73]. The opening paragraph reads: “A CAFÉ boss ordered to remove an extractor fan because the smell of her sizzling bacon might offend passing Muslims can carry on frying.” But the article explains: “when Bev appealed, she was backed by her own Muslim customers – and now she has been told she can keep the fan open.” A quote from the Café boss is separated from the rest of the article and highlighted as it reads: “We had lots of support from the Muslim community who were infuriated by what happened.”
Perhaps the article was a response to Richard Peppiatt, a Daily Star reporter who resigned earlier in the month of the article’s publication because of the newspaper’s anti-Muslim propaganda. “The reporter, who was once made to dress up in a burqa, now accuses the paper of inciting racial tensions and Islamaphobia”[74]. Also, the article refers to Islam when explaining why the café boss had to remove the extractor fan by stating: “Islam forbids eating bacon.” However, the fact that the smell of bacon is not offensive in Islam, or indeed any reference to Islam in the actions of the Muslims and the eventual positive outcome of the story is not mentioned. Perhaps revealing of the idea that “in less negative reporting contexts, the ‘Muslim-ness’ of Muslim social action is omitted”[75] as the paper quotes the café boss and deems it “a victory for common sense”.
In the Tabloids: Un-British Muslims
“Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘fundamentalist’, ‘jihad’ – these words resonated in the USA, Europe and around the world after the catastrophes of 11 September 2001.”[76] The affiliation of Muslim with terrorist is well established and a regular occurrence still today, however, I would argue that though “terrorism now unifies coverage within the orientalist global construction of Islam”[77], the next phase of derogating Muslims is well under way and is in no way coincidental, but rather an expected and logical development of Islamophobia in the mainstream media. The coverage given to radical Muslim voices by the mainstream media that has portrayed a particular image of Muslims through “indiscriminate prejudice that tarnishes every Muslim irrespective of social, ethnic or cultural orientation”[78] has bred fertile ground to promote the tabloids’ next agenda: if it is not to get ‘them’ out, then to highlight ‘their’ difference and Muslim values as an affront to British values, as though, through the classic Orientalist standpoint, the two cannot coexist because Islam belongs to the Orient, and the Orient’s world is incompatible with the Occident’s (or the West). I describe this agenda as a logical development from Islamophobia in the media because ultimately, “what people read, see and hear in the media influences and shapes their opinions about Islam and Muslims”[79], the rise of far-right factions such as the English Defence League, who have an explicit anti-Islam agenda, perhaps to some extent corroborates this. Indeed, Kundnani states: “Those who were once abused as ‘Pakis’ are now also abused as ‘Muslims’. What had before been interpreted as a problem of Asians living in separate cultures has, since 9⁄11, been taken to be a problem of Muslims living by separate values.”[80] Certainly in the debates around immigration, the central protagonists in the narrative of the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ seem to be Muslims as “the loyalty of Muslims and the security of Britain are constantly being questioned”[81], often in relation to one another. The mainstream British media present “Islam out of control – a threat like communism, best contained.”[82] Thus, much like the reaction to the ‘red scare’, the divisive notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ resonates and “we have a growing genre of stories that focus on the incompatibility between Islamic and British values – a ‘clash of civilisations’”[83]. Kundnani explains: “in the cacophony of voices that make up this new media-driven ‘integration debate’, it is Muslims who are routinely singled out: it is their cultural difference which needs limits placed on it; it is they who must subsume their cultural heritage within‘Britishness’; it is they who must declare their allegiance to (ill-defined) British values.”[84] Consequently, “from being something out there, Islam – or rather, the material invariably associated with it – is turned into an orthodoxy of this society. It enters the cultural cannon,”[85] and mainstream media coverage now focuses on the failure or inability of Muslims to integrate into British society.
Richardson refers to “an ‘ideological square’ of prejudiced talk and text”[86] that is adopted in broadsheet newspapers when Muslims are reported negatively. He argues that this consists of a “processes of: separation, differentiation, and negativisation.”[87] Richardson’s ‘ideological square’ revolves around “negative ‘Other’ presentation and simultaneous positive ‘Self’ presentation and is dominated by a twin process of ‘division and rejection’ of Muslims (‘Them’) from ‘Us’.”[88] This strategy, however, can also be identified in tabloid reporting of Muslims.
Fergus Shanahan of The Sun published an article titled: “No-go zone for Muslim fanatics”[89], about “Islamic radicals” who are “turning parts of Britain into menacing no-go areas.” The columnist claims: “our mainly Christian society is being swept aside as Islam stakes its claim to be our main religion” and that “mosques have been springing up from leafy suburbs to rough estates.” The article continues: “Christianity has sculpted the fabric of our society, from our carols and cathedrals to our laws and language.” Here, the negative ‘other’ presentation is identifiable as Islam is portrayed as “a threat to Christendom or even as a threat to reason and rationality”[90], and in accordance with Richardson’s ‘ideological square’, a positive ‘self’ presentation is given through ‘our’ rich cultural inheritance underpinned by Christianity of carols, cathedrals, laws and languages. A metaphorical space is established merely by portraying ‘our own’ space as organised and historical, in contrast to the space of Islam, which is intolerant and invading. Indeed, the article vows: “Islam is an uncompromising religion. In its most extreme form it can be deeply unpleasant in its treatment of women, who can be denied education, forced into marriage and murdered for refusing a male relative’s order.” Despite the fact that the columnist assumes “a simple correlation between the Islamic faith and the oppression of women, ignoring the complexities of culture”[91], the workings of the ‘ideological square’ can be observed as he explains the composition of the cultural space of Islam and attributes negative social value on it as he then states, “Such barbarism has no place in Britain. Yet every day more people arrive here who believe in it.” The stereotype of barbaric Muslims is evident and the suggestion seems to be that Britain must thus not allow these people (Muslims) to be here.
There is a clear indication of division and rejection as Shanahan states that Islam “is not the historic religion of this nation”, again distancing ‘them’ from ‘us’. Moreover, “it not only obviously serves to distance ‘Us’ British, ‘Our’ opinions, ‘Our public domain from ‘Them’ and ‘Theirs’, it also acts to symbolically divide British Muslims from the semantic domain ‘British’”.[92] The article says, “The surge of Islam has been the flip coin of uncontrolled immigration”. Again pointing to the alien threat of Islam as it passes our borders from outside, the article privileges a “simple dichotomy between the superiority of (supposedly homogeneous) British values and the alien threat of Muslim values.”[93]
An article in the Daily Mail also contributes to the growing trend of stories about the increasing (unwelcome) presence of Muslims in Britain, headlined: “Will Britain one day be Muslim?”[94] The article, which is explicitly about Muslims in Britain, represents these Muslims with a single picture, that of angry protesters, with one holding a placard warning Europe of another 9⁄11. The caption: “Militants: Threats to end our freedoms blithely ignored”. Indeed,often accompanying articles about Muslims are pictures of unnamed Muslim men in groups, such pictures show, as Said artiuculates: “No individuality, no personal characteristics or experiences. Most of the pictures represent mass rage and misery, or irrational (hence hopelessly eccentric) gestures. Lurking behind all of these images is the menace of jihad. Consequence: a fear that the Muslims (or Arabs) will take over the world.”[95] The representation of Muslims here is negative and one that continues the tendency to portray Islam and Muslims in opposition to “our freedoms”. The editor, Ruth Dudley Edwards, mentions five Muslims sentenced to life in prison for a bomb plot and then states: “first and second generation immigrants – responded to the tolerance of the British people by trying to kill as many of them as possible.” The article cites the actions of a few, instead of the majority of law-abiding Muslims in the country, in order to aid its principle argument, “the enemy within”, in Edwards’ own words, is invading, polluting and destroying ‘traditional’ British society. Indeed, “People who had been British citizens, occasionally labelled ‘coloured’ or ‘black’ or ‘Pakistani’, are now an ‘enemy within’.”[96] The workings of the ‘ideological square’ can be observed through the positive ‘self’ representation of (excessively) tolerant Britain and the negative ‘other’ representation of, in Edwards’ words, “the threat that radical Islam poses to the British way of life – and, indeed, to European civilisation”.
Edwards continues: “Yes, Islam may be a great religion. But in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in Europe, they will threaten our values such as freedom of thought and speech (…) The danger of ending up like those poor, despotic and medieval Islamic states in which millions live miserably is a prospect that Christians, Hindus, moderate Muslims and non-believers should be uniting to prevent.” Here, Edwards “is specifically attempting to draw the reader’s attention to ‘Islam’, using the religion as an explanatory factor in the agency or motivation of the actors in the article”[97]. Instead of questioning individual motives of ‘fanatics’, the editor cites a fictitious “fundamentalist version” of Islam. Indeed, “coverage has moved from an avoidance of the articulation of motives – in which terrorists are simply ‘bad people’ – towards locating and detailing Islamic beliefs as the source of the problem.”[98] Furthermore, instead of informing the reader “that Muslims in Britain are extremely heterogeneous”[99], by referring to a “fundamentalist version” of Islam and also referring to “moderate Muslims”, the article suggests “that people of Muslim heritage can be divided into two contrasting groups: good/bad, ‘moderate’/‘extremist’”[100], or ‘fundamentalist’ in this case. This is significant because it is “distinguishing between ‘good Muslims’ and ‘bad Muslims’, on a direct analogy with the good nigger/bad nigger distinction that was once an explicit hallmark of racism in the United States.”[101] Indeed, “the media frequently give the impression that there is a single, homogeneous ‘Muslim community’ in Britain”[102], but not without reason, as Said explains: “The result has been a gross simplification of “Islam,” so that numerous manipulative aims can be realized, from the stirring up of a new cold war, to the instigation of racial antipathy, to mobilization for a possible invasion, to the continued denigration of Muslims”[103].
Orientalist commentary can also be deduced from the text as it harks back to stereotypical notions of the medieval ‘Muslim World’ and by doing this, identifies a space, in accordance with Richardson’s ‘ideological square’, that is fundamentally different from and hostile to ‘our’ space that values “freedom of thought and speech”. The article continues: “Muslim hotheads have overplayed their hand by blowing people up, rioting in their neighbourhoods or broadcasting hate-filled speeches which alienate them from the host society.” Overplayed their hand or overstayed their welcome, here, the clear division and rejection of Muslims can be inferred from the text as the general term, “Muslim hotheads”, aligns all Muslims with “blowing people up”, thus, with terrorism, the use of the term “host society” further distinguishes ‘us’ from ‘them’. The article’s use of language is ‘to the point’, it mentions “their neighbourhoods”, suggesting ‘we’ are already surrendering parts of Britain to ‘them’ and disassociates this space as ‘ours’ as a result, ultimately answering its own question in the headline, Britain will one day “be Muslim”. The article warns: “The enemy may be a minority but he is within, armed and dangerous and we have to deal with him”, promoting “the notion that Britain is suffering from the tyranny of a culture imposed by a minority”[104].
In January, 2011, Leo McKinstry of the Daily Express wrote an article in response to Baroness Warsi’s claims that “Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” and is seen by many as normal and uncontroversial”[105]. McKinstry states in his article: “What she calls “islamophobia” is a perfectly rational concern about the behaviour of a significant section of the Muslim population here, which due to the collapse of our borders is now three million strong and growing.”[106] The growing influx of Muslims in Britain is largely attributed to immigrants entering the country from outside, “the impossibility of either ‘white-Muslim’ or ‘non-white Englander’ form central presuppositions of these texts”[107] that stigmatise immigration. The article continues: “When she complains about “isolation” she does not acknowledge that far too many Muslims have refused to integrate into our society. instead, they have pursued an aggressively separatist agenda, refusing to show respect for (…) traditional British customs” Here, “Muslims as fellow citizens is taken to be conditional on their prior acceptance of British values”[108]. The stereotypical portrayals of Islam that have deemed the religion incompatible with Western society have meant that in many instances, “their Islamic-ness is used to divide ‘Them’ from ‘Us’.”[109] Indeed, Richardson explains: “The hallmark of good Muslims, in this demonology, is not so much that they are ‘decent’ or ‘law-abiding’ (…) but that they do not seek to apply their faith to social and political affairs, do not criticise British foreign policy on Iraq and Israel/Palestine, do not wear Islamic dress in public spaces, (…) The convenient consequence of this demonology is that ‘good Muslims’ are remarkably hard to find.”[110] Consequently, aspects of a British Muslim’s life are seen through a lens which views “Muslim cultural difference as cultural deviance and, increasingly it seems, as cultural threat.”[111] British Muslims are thus caught up “in a push towards what is called ‘integrationism’, but which really means ‘assimilation’ (Fekete, 2006; Werbner, 2007; Wilson, 2007)”[112] of ‘British culture’ because their Islamic way of life is almost seen as arrogance and a betrayal of ‘Britishness’. “From this perspective, ‘Muslim extremists’ are repositioned as simply ‘extremely Muslim’.”[113]
McKinstry states: “the language of victimhood comes easily to the followers of islam yet all too often they are the real oppressors, as has been shown in the appalling incidence of Muslim sex gangs preying on white girls in the north of england. Similarly the grim catalogue of forced marriages, “honour” killings and domestic violence demonstrates the brutal misogyny of islam, as does the enforcement of such grotesque dress codes as the burka. that primitive garment should have no place in an open, modern society.” In accordance with the ‘ideological square’, the negative ‘other’ presentation is apparent through the stereotypical representations of “brutal” Islam and a positive ‘self’ presentation is provided by describing ‘our’ space and society as “open, modern”. McKinstry demonstrates the full spectrum of stereotypical Orientalist affirmations: sex driven, violent, oppressive, backward Muslim men and Islam as barbaric, the antithesis of modernity. Such Orientalist ideology, or “self-righteous pontification about what makes ‘us’ worth protecting and ‘them’ worth attacking”[114], has “ been used relentlessly to manipulate public opinion into supporting neo-imperial adventures in the Middle East”[115] by the media and policy makers alike, indeed a “frightening testimony to what might be lurking in the minds of policy-makers”[116]. The ‘intelligent manipulation of the masses’, to use a phrase coined by the American public relations officer Edward Bernays, has been mobilized to further “the notions about bringing civilisation to primitive or barbaric peoples”[117]. The article goes on to state: “From welfare to education, the apparatus of the civic bureaucracy is geared towards the demands of the ever rising number of immigrants, now running at more than 500,000 every year, most of them from Asia and Africa. Meanwhile the British taxpayers who have to pay for this whole racket find themselves marginalised.”
Having singled out Muslims throughout, perhaps as no more than “strangers and intruders, bearers of an alien and polluting culture”[118], the article points to welfare and the taxpayer, positioning the reader as a member of the “host society” and thus the taxpayer, and the immigrants, or Muslims, as the two have been talked of in conjunction with each other, as the ungrateful beneficiaries of the taxpayer. Indeed, there is an increasing volume of stories about Muslim ‘fanatics’ who ‘hate’ the West and ‘hypocritically’ live off ‘state handouts’. Such texts entail, as Richardson states, a “prejudicial argument in which Muslims are homogenised and vilified (under both broad and specific negative accusations) in order to facilitate the success of the (…) principal argument – ‘We should keep them out’.”[119]
Currently, there is an obsession in the tabloids with a handful of Muslim men who spout violent language in unsavoury demonstrations, the men and their leader, Anjem Choudary, belong to the banned ‘Islam4UK’ group which transformed into ‘Al Muhajiroun’ and ‘Muslims Against Crusades’, which was the group behind the protests against the Danish cartoons mentioned earlier in this essay. Whatever the name of the group, the same men seem to be regularly quoted and given coverage in the tabloid press, often linking them with figures such as Abu Hamsa, “the Islamophobe’s perfect caricature.”[120] The vast coverage given to these men is problematic because in the same way that reporting of the so called ‘War on Terror’ convinced Westerners “that Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Saddam Hussein epitomize Islam”[121], in this moment, when attention is more intensely focused upon the Muslim population in Britain, these men through their presence on a daily basis on tabloid front pages, come to represent British Muslims as though their views and actions are wholly representative of the majority of Muslims in Britain.
The tabloids’ and the mainstream media’s failure to represent Muslims in all their diversity both in Britain and globally is dangerous because it “establishes a framework radically limiting knowledge of Islam.”[122] This lack of knowledge, as a result, perhaps in “Britain’s undoubtedly Islamophobic environment […] contributes to and reinforces the disadvantage and discrimination experienced by many Muslims”[123]. Stories about how much money these men receive weekly and monthly from benefits are common place, the message of such articles and indeed McKinstry’s article is clear, “’They are already here’, and ‘we are supporting them through Social Security benefits’. It’s hard to find a more negative representation of British Muslims.”[124]
Consuming News
Richardson states: “British Muslim communities are over-represented in the poorer, less well educated, disempowered sections of British society. Consequently, the reporting resources of élite British broadsheet newspapers will not be ‘wasted’ by attempting the appeal to such an audience.”[125] Though Richardson is referring to broadsheet newspapers, perhaps the same could be said for tabloid newspapers as they “adopt a White outlook in their reporting, imagining and positioning their readers as White readers and talking to them about Muslims rather than assuming they are talking to Muslims.”[126] Consequently, “because this is a ‘ratings issue’, the racialised (racist?) outcomes of profit orientated audience segmentation are not problematised let alone interrogated.”[127] There is no surprise, then, that Orientalism finds a voice in today’s mainstream media as, one could argue, anti-Muslim press is institutionalized and “deliberate Western vilification of Islam, many Muslims reason, is nothing more than cultural imperialism”.[128] Indeed, Said explains: “the media are profit-seeking corporations and therefore, […] have an interest in promoting some images of reality rather than others. They do so within a political context made active and effective by an unconscious ideology, which the media disseminate without serious reservations or opposition.”[129] The mainstream media in Britain has notoriously been guilty of repeating government propaganda, as with the case of the lies about ‘weapons of mass destruction’, indeed, “journalists are marshalled by capitalism, manipulated by powerful social/political élites”[130] and therefore, “it is incumbent upon the users of media to act as citizens, rather than merely as consumers of news, by challenging journalists to provide reporting that questions the dominant frames.”[131] Instead of investigative journalism that exposes falsehood for what it is, the ‘unconscious ideology’ of the mainstream media presents Islam in a way that serves the audience and culture at large by not being in confrontation with the public’s general understanding of ‘Islam’. Hence, repeated “stereotypes are the currency of negotiation”[132] when covering Islam, ensuring a consistent Orientalist narrative that has “contributed to a tragic distortion of Islam and of devout Muslims around the world.”[133]
Because of this, the war reporter and photographer Guy Smallman says, “It is perhaps easy to understand why British Muslims feel completely disenfranchised from our domestic news services.”[134] Indeed, British Muslims “are now being emotionally and psychologically affected by watching Westerners vilify and belittle Islam”[135] from the “bloodless view of the Iraq conflict, concentrating on the technological ‘shock and awe’”[136] where “the West does not seem concerned to even account for the Iraqi civilian deaths while they are careful to count their own losses”, to the “silence about inconvenient facts, (…) to present Islamic fundamentalism and Western governments as if they belong to two completely separate and unconnected worlds”[137]. It is important that news consumers are aware that journalists who work for tabloid newspapers that often echo the warmongering élite, and thereby become the fear-mongering opinion formers, belong “to a power with definite interests in the Orient, and more important, that one belongs to a part of the earth with a definite history of involvement in the Orient”[138]. Indeed, “what distinguishes the honourable exceptions from other journalists is, above all, the equal value they place on life, wherever it is. Their ‘we’ is humanity.”[139] The key ideologue that continues to be instrumental in the portrayal of Islam is Orientalism and perhaps grasping this would help ‘us’ (humanity) to understand how the media, perhaps, increasingly is becoming “’weaponised, transformed from channels of understanding to tools of violence.”[140]
Towards a conclusion
For as long as Orientalism continues to be the dominant framework from which Muslims are reported, Islamophobia will only increase, and this is problematic “not only for Westerners who come away with a poor understanding of the Muslim world but for Muslims as well.”[141] Muslims have gradually had their religion scrutinized with increasing malice, from stereotypical Orientalist representations and the homogenising of an entire faith into one culture, to perhaps the beginnings of a hijacking of Islam where ‘radical’ voices or violent upheavals come to represent what Islam is. Such representations, then, amplify the divisive notion of ‘us versus them’ that we have today. What is more, an attempt to adequately explain ‘Muslim anger’ is missing from the narrative presented to the audience of the mainstream media in order to further Orientalist assertions of “Islam as violent and aggressive, firmly committed to barbaric terrorism, and implacably hostile to the non-Muslim world.”[142] The increase in volume of stories about Muslims in the tabloid press has enabled old stereotypes to be recycled and amplified, all of which have contributed to a tragic misunderstanding and fear of Islam. “Pure misinformation, repetition, an avoidance of detail, an absence of genuine perspective”[143], these tendencies on the part of the media only intensify Islamophobic trends and contribute to an Orientalism that still exists. The disturbing development in the tabloid press of articles targeting British Muslims and routinely questioning their loyalty to Britain suggests that the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ framework that Said highlights as well as the positive ‘self’ presentation and the negative ‘other’ presentation that Richardson draws on, are of central importance to tabloid articles which base their reporting of Muslims around this divisive strategy.
Just as important as it was to establish Orientalism as the basis from which stereotypical portrayals of Muslims take root, it is equally important to mention the possible beginnings for the decline of Orientalist stereotypes, one hopes. Indeed, during the completion of this essay, events in the world of the ‘Orient’ seem to have taken a turn for the better as calls for democracy sweep across the Middle East and North Africa. As one Daily Mail article reads: “as fireworks burst overhead, what pleasure it was to be here, part of a singing, drumming, hooting, shrieking and often tearful scrum of exuberant humanity – the majority younger than 30.”[144] The editor, Richard Pendlebury, is describing the scenes in Tahrir Square, “beside the mighty Nile”, as he puts it. Pendlebury writes: “They had seen what their Western contemporaries took for granted and wanted it too.” The Orient is aligned with us, as oppose to against us. Tony Blair described Egypt as the ‘the heart of Islam’ at the Iraq Inquiry and a contrasting image emerges against one of misery, despair and medieval barbarism that have been relentlessly used to describe the world of the ‘Orient.’ Instead, we have a progressive image of youth as the article describes the revolution as “a very modern uprising, sparked on social networking sites, which the old guard could not suppress.”
The Orientalist stereotypes that plague our mainstream media seem, belatedly, inaccurate and contrived. Ironically, it is the Orient rising up against Western backed regimes that fit into the frameworks that were so cunningly managed to represent him. Indeed, an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reads, “the Orientalists who emphasized the contradiction between Arab and Islamic culture and democracy are afraid to admit their failure.”[145] The ‘Arab Spring’ and its eventual outcome would be a topic that could be taken further to contribute to the ever-growing material on Said’s Orientalism. The events only demonstrate further that the practice of Orientalism is deeply manipulative and inaccurate in truth, and, without doubt, contributes significantly to Islamophobia in the British tabloids.
Nadeen Fayaz
@NazzyCR7
[1] CAMBER, R. 2011. Muslim fanatics plot to hijack Royal Wedding by burning effigies of Kate and William along route of the procession. Daily Mail. [online]20 April 2011. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378527/Royal-Wedding-Muslim-fanatics-plot-burn-effigies-Kate-Middleton-Prince-William.html [Accessed on: 27 April 2011].
[2] SAID, E.W. 1988. Identity, Negation and Violence. New Left Review. p.49.
[3] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.4.
[4] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.118–119.
[5] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.6.
[6] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.46.
[7] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.118.
[8] ELGAMRI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broadsheets: The Impact of Orientalism on Representations of Islam in the British Press. Ithaca Press. p.21.
[9] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.6.
[10] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.3.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.1–2.
[14] CHILDS, P., WILLIAMS, P. 1997. An Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory. Prentice Hall. p.5.
[15] SAIKAL, A. 2004. Islamic Perspectives on the New Millennium. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p.19.
[16] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.40.
[17] YEGENOGLU, M. 1998. Colonial fantasies: towards a feminist reading of Orientalism. Cambridge University Press. p.14.
[18] SAID, E.W. 1988. Identity, Negation and Violence. New Left Review. p.57.
[19] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.149.
[20] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede Trust.
[21] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.29.
[22] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infidel Within: Muslims in Britain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p.24.
[23] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infidel Within: Muslims in Britain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p.25.
[24] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.188.
[25] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.190.
[26] DONNAN, H. 2002. Interpreting Islam. SAGE. p.20.
[27] POOLE, E., RICHARDSON, J.E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.6.
[28] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.190.
[29] Ibid.
[30] LAWRENCE, B,B. 2000. Shattering the myth: Islam beyond violence. Princeton University Press. p.xiii.
[31] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.189.
[32] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.40.
[33] BAIRNER, A., CURRY, G., MALCOLM, D. 2010. “Woolmergate”: Cricket and the Representation of Islam and Muslims in the British Press. 34(1). London.
[34] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urban Fears and Global Terrors: Citizenship, multicultures and belongings after 7/7. Routledge. p.58.
[35] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urban Fears and Global Terrors: Citizenship, multicultures and belongings after 7/7. Routledge. p.58–59.
[36] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urban Fears and Global Terrors: Citizenship, multicultures and belongings after 7/7. Routledge. p.59.
[37] Ibid.
[38] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.101.
[39] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.43.
[40] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.5.
[41] SAID, E.W. 1988. Identity, Negation and Violence. New Left Review. p.53.
[42] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.33.
[43] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.231.
[44] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.144.
[45] THOMPSON, P. 2006. Hate demo over cartoon. The Sun. [online]06 February. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article36799.ece [Accessed on 13 April 2011].
[46] ELGAMRI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broadsheets: The Impact of Orientalism on Representations of Islam in the British Press. Ithaca Press. p.ix.
[47] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.231.
[48] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.155.
[49] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.5.
[50] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.97.
[51] PHILLIPS, M. 2007. A rough guide to world justice. The Sun. [online]03 August. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/261876/A‑rough-guide-to-world-justice.html [Accessed on: 15 April 2011].
[52] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede Trust. p.3.
[53] DONNAN, H. 2002. Interpreting Islam. SAGE. p.52.
[54] KAVANAGH, T. 2008. Islamophobia… or cold, hard truth? The Sun. [online]13 July. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kavanagh/1417495/Kavanagh-Islamophobia-or-cold-hard-truth.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].
[55] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.142.
[56] GOTTSCHALK, P., GREENBERG, G. 2008. Islamophobia: Making Muslims the Enemy. Rowman & Littlefield. p.54.
[57] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.xi.
[58] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.3.
[59] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.3–4.
[60] PATRICK, G., TAYLOR, A. 2011. Brute kills second wife who cheated. The Sun. [online]25 March. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3489962/Man-killed-second-wife-to-cheat-on-him-after-earlier-attack-on-first-wifes-lover.html [Accessed on 17 April 2011].
[61] HILL, P. 2011. Confused pensioner stabs wife to death in Kendal, Cumbria. Mirror. [online]20 February. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/02/20/confused-pensioner-stabs-wife-to-death-in-kendal-cumbria-115875–22935881/ [Accessed on 17 April 2011].
[62] McTAGUE, T. 2010. Knife maniac slashes wife’s throat and stabs her mum in East London. Mirror. [online]13 August. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/13/knife-maniac-slashes-wife-s-throat-and-stabs-her-mum-in-east-london-video-115875–22483947/ [Accessed on 17 April 2011].
[63] COLES, J. 2010. Jealous hubby’s Taser door trap. The Sun. [online]03 December. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3259296/Jealous-hubbys-Taser-door-trap.html [Accessed on 17 April 2011].
[64] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.40.
[65] HALL, A. 2009. Muslim man sentenced to life in jail after killing his German-born wife because she was ‘too independent’. Daily Mail. [online]21 August. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207931/Muslim-asylum-seeker-sentenced-life-jail-killing-wife-independent.html[Accessed on 17 April 2011].
[66] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.4.
[67] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.8.
[68] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urban Fears and Global Terrors: Citizenship, multicultures and belongings after 7/7. Routledge. p.62.
[69] HALL, A. 2010. Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife. Daily Mail. [online]02 December. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335024/Muslim-imam-Sheikh-Adam-lectures-non-violence-arrested-wife-beating.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].
[70] OSBORNE, P. 2008. Is post-war Britain anti-Muslim? Daily Mail. [online]04 July. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031769/Is-post-war-Britain-anti-Muslim.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].
[71] SAID, E.W. 1997. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. London: Vintage. p.li.
[72] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.14–15.
[73] LAWTON, J. 2011. MY MUSLIM PALS SAVED OUR BACON. Daily Star. [online]31 March. Available at: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/183828/My-muslim-pals-saved-our-bacon/ [Accessed on: 17 April 2011].
[74] LEWIS, P. 2011. Daily Star reporter quits in protest at tabloid’s ‘anti-Muslim’ coverage. Guardian. [online]04 March. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/04/daily-star-reporter-quits-protest [Accessed on: 17 April 2011].
[75] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.231.
[76] HARIK, J.P. 2005. Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism. I.B.Tauris. p.7.
[77] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.102.
[78] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.9.
[79] ELGAMRI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broadsheets: The Impact of Orientalism on Representations of Islam in the British Press. Ithaca Press. p.ix.
[80] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.30.
[81] AHMED, S. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.172.
[82] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.189.
[83] LEWIS, J., MASON, P., MOORE, K. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.65.
[84] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.26.
[85] SAID, E.W. 1997. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. London: Vintage. p.149.
[86] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.xx.
[87] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.232.
[88] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.xx.
[89] SHANAHAN, F. No-go zone for Muslim fanatics. The Sun. [online]. Available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/fergus_shanahan/688513/Columnist-Fergus-Shanahan-Green-debate-Global-warming-Nuclear-power.html [Accessed on: 20 April 2011].
[90] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.172.
[91] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.40.
[92] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.113.
[93] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.39.
[94] EDWARDS, R.D. 2007. Will Britain one day be Muslim? Daily Mail. [online]05 May. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452815/Will-Britain-day-Muslim.html [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].
[95] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.287.
[96] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.31.
[97] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.120.
[98] LEWIS, J., MASON, P., MOORE, K. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.65.
[99] PETLEY, J., RICHARDSON, R. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.xvii.
[100] Ibid.
[101] RICHARDSON, R. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.160.
[102] PETLEY, J., RICHARDSON, R. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.xvii.
[103] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.xviii.
[104] KHIABANY, G., WILLIAMSON, M. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.190.
[105] KIRKUP, J. 2011. Tory chief Baroness Warsi attacks ‘bigotry’ against Muslims. The Telegraph. [online]19 January 2011. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8270294/Tory-chief-Baroness-Warsi-attacks-bigotry-against-Muslims.html [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].
[106] MCKINSTRY, LEO. 2011. BARONESS FARCICAL AND A NASTY LITTLE INSULT TO EVERY ONE OF YOU. Express. [online]23 January 2011. Available at: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/224825/Baroness-Farcical-and-a-nasty-little-insult-to-every-one-of-you [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].
[107] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.114.
[108] KUNDNANI, A. 2007. Integrationism: The Politics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). London: SAGE. p.39.
[109] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.113.
[110] RICHARDSON, R. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.160.
[111] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.232.
[112] KHIABANY, G., WILLIAMSON, M. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.189.
[113] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.13.
[114] SAID, E.W. 1988. Identity, Negation and Violence. New Left Review. p.60.
[115] KHIABANY, G., WILLIAMSON, M. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.187.
[116] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.163.
[117] FANON, F. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Pluto Press. p.xi.
[118] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infidel Within: Muslims in Britain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p.96.
[119] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.132.
[120] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamophobia in the Media since September 11th. University of Westminister. p.5.
[121] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.181.
[122] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.55.
[123] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infidel Within: Muslims in Britain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p.394.
[124] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.137.
[125] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.36.
[126] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.229.
[127] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.36.
[128] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.185.
[129] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.142.
[130] RICHARDSON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. p.233.
[131] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.127.
[132] FOWLER, R. 1991. Language in the news: discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge. p.17.
[133] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.172.
[134] ITV. 2010. The War You Don’t See (December 15 2010).
[135] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. p.184.
[136] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.193.
[137] KHIABANY, G., WILLIAMSON, M. 2011. Pointing The Finger: Islam and Muslims in the British Media. Oneworld Publications. p.182–183.
[138] SAID, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. Penguin Books. p.11.
[139] PILGER, J. 2005. Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs. Vintage Books.
[140] PINTAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Tauris. p.193.
[141] SAHA, S,C. 2004. Religious Fundamentalism in the Contemporary World: Critical Social and Political Issues. Lexington Books. 184.
[142] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede Trust. p.3.
[143] SAID, E.W. 1981. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. Routledge: London. p.40.
[144] PENDLEBURY, R. 2011. Mubarak’s gone – we have won! The Mail’s Richard Pendlebury reports from Tahrir Square. Daily Mail. [online]13 February 2011. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356192/Hosni-Mubaraks-gone-weve-won-Richard-Pendlebury-reports-Tahrir-Square.html [Accessed on: 27 April 2011].
[145] MUSTAFA, M. 2011. The Orientalist blindness. Haaretz. [online]13 February 2011. Available at: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-orientalist-blindness‑1.343042 [Accessed on: 25 April 2011].
Gata Malandra
Latest posts by Gata Malandra (see all)
- Event: World Crew Battle UK By Swatch — October 11, 2017
- Knowledge Session: Who Was Manco Inca? — May 4, 2017
- Video + Letra: Illmani ‘Saber es Poder’ — February 3, 2017
