Islamophobia: The Stereotyping and Prejudice Towards Muslims Since 9/11
nicolas.brooklier
The United States has a long history of discrimination and prejudice that has led to a lot of struggles and negativity for a lot of groups. Currently, our nation holds discriminatory attitudes and practices towards many minority communities. A lot of this can derive from ethnic, religious, racial, and gender prejudices that set our nation back. Ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 (the day our nation was under attack), the Muslim community has been under strict scrutiny when it came to people’s fears and paranoia. After the terrorist attacks, Muslims across the nation were immediately looked down upon and many even saw themselves being watched by the American government. During this time (War on Terror), America was essentially seeing a rise in Islamophobia (dislike/prejudice against Islam/Muslims) that would eventually hurt community relations, and scrutinize innocent Muslim Americans. Now with the continued War on Terror (fight with ISIS), America sees itself heading in the same direction with negative Islamic attitudes, as well as outrageous political bans. In order for terrorism to cease and Islamophobia to end America (the government and the rest of non-Muslim society) has to be in more effective community relations with Muslim communities to ensure prosperity, security, and freedom for all is obtainable.
After the 9/11 attacks, many blamed the whole religion of Islam for preaching destruction and violence, without even considering that these hijackers (terrorists) were extreme radicals. In the Times article, “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam,” author Karen Armstrong explains that the the very word Islam is related to a longing for peace (Armstrong, 2011). When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in the 9/11 attacks (Armstrong, 2011). However, American society does not tend to see this peaceful side of Islam, but rather mostly sees the skewed version of it from radicals. There are those in American society who see a correlation between terrorism and Islam, yet they fail to understand the idea that there are people who misinterpret scripture and take it to the extreme. Some of these extreme radicals who skew the religion of Islam (to tailor their need to kill innocent in order to get their point across) are considered fundamentalists. Fundamentalists of any religion are the one’s who take the idea of warfare and self-defense to the extreme (making them radical) without even considering a peaceful option (such as Islam proclaims). As Armstrong notes, it would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam (Armstrong, 2011). From already knowing that the many American citizens see Osama Bin Laden (mastermind of 9/11) as a representation of Islam is disturbing, and is the kind of mindset that leads to prejudice, discrimination, and scapegoating of millions of Muslims who wish to cause no harm.
The religion of Islam is often unfairly presented as hateful and violent, which leads to a lot of prejudice and hatred towards Muslims in America. Currently, Americans are tending towards less favorable views of Islam which has led to a lot of negativity in U.S. communities (Zaal, 2015). According to the Council on American Islamic Relations, civil rights violations targeting Muslims in the workplace, at religious institutions, and in schools have escalated (Zaal, 2015). Sadly, many Muslims have overall been looked down upon, and have often been seen as second class citizens. The media is also a big factor in spreading Islamophobia, that includes spreading fear across the nation. Hundreds of images (media) portray Arabs as violent and barbaric (Zaal, 2012). These inaccurate depictions sometimes lead to people taking part in hate crimes against Muslims. Hate crimes against Arab and Muslim Americans have even increased dramatically in the months and years following September 11, 2001 (Cavendish, Disha, King, 2011). Many of these anti-Islamic attitudes showcases people acting in physical and psychological harm, with many Muslims often in fear for their lives. The threats of burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11 suggest that stereotypes portraying Arabs and Muslims shows that’s negative attitudes towards Muslims is still consistent in American society (Cavendish, etc, 2011). In the eyes of many non-Arabs, a relatively large concentration of Arabs or Muslims may trigger fears of terrorism or mass violence (Cavendish, etc, 2011). Gallup polls have even indicated that almost a quarter of Americans singled out Arabs as being suspicious (Cavendish, etc, 2011). This suspicion that a lot of Americans have would mean that many would want Muslim (Middle-Eastern) people to be consistently watched and checked, as if they can never be trusted. 58 percent of Americans favored a requirement that Arabs have a special and more intensive screening process at airports (Cavendish, etc, 2011). This would mean that Homeland Security officials (TSA) could have Muslim people step aside, which increases racial profiling and prejudice. The animosity towards Muslim people is a huge problem that creates divides in our society and often discriminates (and persecutes) people, which leads to frustration on both sides.
Currently, different political leaders are pushing stereotypes forward. Right now we see some political (presidential) candidates who want to create more barriers for Muslims in our country and around the world. When these negative labels and stereotypes are compared to the actual radicals (of any religion or background) who wish to cause harm and destruction, those radicals can actually use the stereotypes to their advantage. When looking at Trumps ban on Muslims entering the U.S., it’s not only morally wrong to prevent a certain group from coming in, but it can also backfire on our nation. While Trump assumes that stopping Muslims from entering the U.S. would boost domestic security, experts say such rhetoric bolsters the message of extremist groups like ISIS, and ultimately increases animosity and potential retribution attacks against the U.S. (Salhani, 2015). If we ban a specific group of people, its very likely that we will see negativity and retaliation brought onto the United States. Even though Trumps plan only calls for banning Muslims who are currently trying to come into the U.S, it still will lead to a harsh divide (lot of problems) since many of them are political refugees trying to find safety amidst chaos. If a country (America) denies them (based on fear that terrorists will hide within the refugee population), refugees would likely have to turn back and be in the midst of danger; which might lead to being brainwashed to join the terrorists cause. ISIS often gains support by convincing vulnerable youths prone to ideological radicalization that the west is against Islam and the Muslim way of life (Salhani, 2015). Statements like Trump’s latest only reinforce that perception and potentially influences people who are susceptible to ISIS propaganda (Salhani, 2015). By creating these divides with Muslims in our community and around the world, we ultimately make social barriers which might point these people to going in the direction of radicalism.
Discrimination and prejudice is all too common to the United States. Many people of different backgrounds have seen various types of discrimination that have led to a lack of trust and truly understanding one’s culture/background. All American citizens need to realize that our nation is one big melting pot (all sorts of backgrounds coming together) and that there’s no room for stereotyping and prejudice. In some ways, when we hear of a terrorist attack, we automatically think of Islamic people who hold the ideology of seeing America being in ruins (destroyed). However, American society doesn’t realize that these radicals (extremists) can come from any background or religion. As non-Muslim American citizens approach this serious topic of terrorism, they often find themselves fuming in negativity towards Muslim communities. This type of hatred only slows down the process of integration for millions of Muslims who are innocent and believe in American values. Scapegoating Muslims also feeds into the negativity that terrorists groups (like ISIS) preach, which could ultimately make them stronger if Islamophobia persists. Its up to our nation to create more community alliances with Muslims in the U.S. and abroad so that they can feel less persecuted against. America is the land which should symbolize safety and security for anyone, no matter what background he or she comes from.
References
Armstrong, K. (2001, September 23). The True, Peaceful Face of Islam. TIME.
Disha, I., Cavendish, J. C., & King, R. D.. (2011). Historical Events and Spaces of Hate: Hate Crimes against Arabs and Muslims in Post-9/11 America. Social Problems, 58(1), 21–46.
Salhani, J. (2015, December 8). Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Exactly What ISIS Wants. Think Progress
Zaal, M. (2012). Islamophobia in Classrooms, Media, and Politics. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(6), 555-558.
http://www.telequran.com/quran-learning-blog/wp content/uploads/2012/03/muslim-prayer-1.jpg
http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Picture-125.png
http://www.onyxtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Islamophobia-Onyx-Truth.jpg
http://www.lastmiracle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/islam_america.jpg
http://media.namx.org/images/editorial/2014/09/0902/n_dado_isis/n_dado_isis_500x279.jpg
http://s.ngm.com/2015/03/syrian-refugees/img/syrian-refugees-opener-615.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120831080458-tsa-security-story-top.jpg
In the year 1997, two heavily armed men entered a Southern California bank and began their reign of terror. Armed with automatic weapons, body armor, and ski masks, the two individuals forced their way into the bank and created a chaotic scene in order to get their money. As Los Angeles Police Officers responded, many of them were outgunned as they didn’t have the proper resistance (weaponry) to take on the suspects at large and protect the civilians around them (Orlov, 2012). With responding patrol officers only armed with semi-automatic rifles and 12 gauge shotguns, they were for a long time losing the battle that ended in dozens of officers and civilians injured. From this day that put all of North Hollywood, California in panic mode, police departments started providing semi-automatic rifles (M-16’s) to patrol officers, as well as increasing their use of Special Weapons and Tactics Teams (SWAT) (Orlov, 2012). This sense of ramping up increases in military like models has somewhat divided the country regarding whether to militarize our nations police forces or to demilitarize them. Some argue that equipping police across the country with military graded equipment leads to a totalitarian state with too much power and control of the government/ authorities, while others argue that equipping our police force with whatever they need is essential for the safety and protection of our communities; especially faced with an ever changing threat from those who wish to cause harm to civilians. Despite the appropriate increase of militarization to the combat criminals who pose as lot of risk, paramilitary group been seen to cause a lot of harm with their aggressive tactics; often leading to frustration within the community they are meant to serve. Thus, the militarization of police should not be used immediately, but rather only be used in dire situations.
Ever since the Drug War era and the War on Terror, America’s law enforcement agencies have ramped up militaristic approaches and have led to a warrior ethos philosophy for officers. With a moral panic spreading across cities looking to put a stop to the selling and use of illicit drugs, the government stepped up its funding towards law enforcement hoping to create a deterrence. With many of these law enforcement agencies stepping up its presence in communities across the country, they created more specialized units; trained to handle the problems with strict guidelines of power and enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Agency and many other federal and local agencies put more funding and focus towards units that would rely on a forceful tactic of element and surprise to counter-act crimes (mostly dealing with drug offenses). These specialized unites (SWAT) would often force their way into homes (with body armor, assault rifles, flash-bangs, and a determined mindset to ravage these houses) of suspected drug users and dealers. More communities across the country (mostly poor minority communities) are experiencing heavily armed SWAT teams raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night, often just to search for drugs (ACLU). These police officer’s mindsets of a warrior mentality are often linked with the governments philosophy of “tough on crime.” However, for a lot of these cases the offender didn’t even present a violent offense. Last year (nationwide) police arrested 1.6 million nonviolent drug offenders (Stamper, 2011). Some of these non-violent drug offenders were taken into custody from SWAT teams assaulting their homes. The mere fact that these people presented no danger (based on intelligence gathering) make these dramatic invasions of the home unnecessary, as well as creates a traumatic experience for the people inside. In very shocking cases of SWAT team raids gone wrong, communities see that wrong houses are hit, as well as innocent people and family pets are shot and killed by the police raiding the homes. (Stamper, 2015). Problems like these where you have non violent offenders facing up against heavily armed men breaking down their doors, along with innocent people/pets getting killed creates an image of a public-safety institution (the authorities/police) at war with it’s own people.
The year 1997 also brought along an updated program, known as the 1033 program (created under the National Defense Authorization Act). This program essentially allowed for the United States Department of Defense to transfer military-grade gear to civilian law enforcement agencies across the country because of the Iraq and Afghanistan war winding down. Through this program, agencies (including ferguson-area authorities) were able to acquire heavy body armor, semi-automatic rifles, armored vehicles (MRAPS and BearCats), grenade launchers, riot gear, tear gas, wet weather gear, and blankets (Fox & Cook, 2014). Through this increase in military style equipment, law enforcement agencies starting using them on a daily basis in order to maintain law and order on city streets. Even though officers use a lot of the equipment for their own safety (officer safety), they have been seen to use it incorrectly and inappropriately. As the Ferguson events were unfolding, the whole area had been on high alert which prompted authorities to shown in force. However, the only problem was many of the protests at the beginning were peaceful and really only needed a uniformed police presence (without the military gear and warrior mindset) to monitor their constitutional rights of free speech, as well as the right to assemble peacefully. After this chaotic scene of what seemed like the people vs. the police, the Department of Justice released their report on the Ferguson Police Department. The DOJ expressed that the police agency had handled the situation in the wrong manner (Reilly, 2015). They described that scene where police snipers were on top of armored vehicles, pointing their weapons at the crowds of peaceful protesters (Reilly, 2015). Many in the community saw these officers as attempting to intimidate and threaten the public they are meant to serve (Reilly, 2015). It’s very hard to understand that the men and women who swore to protect and serve are the same one’s seen on images and video’s already in confrontational tactical positions, as if they are ready to strike protesters (who want to freely express their opinions so that society can advance) at a moments notice. Police are meant to diffuse situations and have taken on the role of solving problems that get in the way of peace. However, recently in our history we have seen those in police uniforms escalating confrontations with their equipment, tactics, and demeanor (Baker, 2011). By playing the role of a warrior in the streets, it really hinders the chance to build ties with the communities they are meant to serve.