Islamophobia is also a racist project

Islamophobia includes far more than mere "fears or hatred towards the Muslims" or "fears and misconceptions" directed towards this religion and its followers.

"Why is a woman black on the cover of your book?" Asked a middle-aged woman from South Asia, after completing a lecture at a Michigan event. The woman who asked me this question was a Muslim, just like a young lady on the cover of my book American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear, which is a mismatch in the way it is perceived and mistakenly perceives Muslim identity, beyond, and even in Muslim American communities.

The narrow racial framing of Muslim identity, deeply entrenched in American imagination and, most notably, today, not only approaches the rising tide of anti-Muslim hatred that we now understand and know as Islamophobia - it is indeed an integral part of it. Islamophobia in the United States is largely a racial project, driven by a leading discourse that was a fuel for European supremacy, and today it is moving popular views and a state policy that seeks to preserve its domestic descendants, the superiority of whites.

Race and racism are the central themes for any understanding of Islamophobia, as brilliantly explored by an expert in sociology and author Erik Love, and they are in many ways merging with the progress of the collective endeavor of Islamophobia in the United States, and beyond the borders of this country. Although racism is a central theme, not only is it in the game - Islamophobia is anchored in an orientalist backlash that precedes the creation of a formative American racial enterprise and its modern form, and a prolonged war on terror that extends through formal law and politics.

Islamophobia is far more than a mere "fear or hatred of the Muslims" or "fears or incompetences" directed towards this religion and its followers, and this prevalent definition strives for fixation on an explicit or irrational spirit, and, too often, on the activity of private actors. The role of the state, and its vast network of agencies and agents, and fluid exchange and interaction between the state and the system, is crucial to understanding Islamophobia.

Islamophobia is also a law, explicitly listed in linguistic formulations, and hidden in seemingly neutral terms intended to discriminate, fixed by the state seal of approval that obliges the state apparatus to comply with the message that Muslim identity is a precondition for a terrorist threat, and Islam is a civilization layer to which must confront or be distorted in a form that fits the state.

Approaching the definition and framework for understanding Islamophobia, in its complexity, allows it to appreciate its numerous legs, and the ways in which these arms are crossed with other forms of racism and fanatism, and which are expanded through law and politics, and reach the colors of the perspective not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims and everyone and all those who are conditioned by American Islamophobia, which prevails today.

From 1790 to 1952, the American Naturalization Law required a white color of the skin as a precondition for naturalized citizenship, and until the Ex Parte Mohriez decision of 1944, the Muslims were regarded as a separate racial group that was not only unbecoming but members of this religion considered to be the civilization contrast of whiteness.

The expressions that triggered the formative legal view that Muslims were blabbering and oriented Islam as the opposite of whiteness "were re-launched" after the September 11th attack. The moment that triggered the dark period after the attack, which enabled the rise of Islamophobia in the form known to us today, was led by the creation of the Ministry of Homeland Security and the launching of a war on terror.

That's why ideas and pictures, distorted narratives and misconceptions that spill onto the surface after September 11 and direct Islamophobia today are sown and legally sealed with Orientalism, which must be understood as the mother of modern Islamophobia. In short, any discussion of Islamophobia must precede the synopsis of Orientalism and the definitions of Islamophobia founded in the system that preceded it.

American Orientalism is, in large part, the White Supransacist project in co-operation with the Negative Movement and the idea of ​​American excellence (Manifest Destiny) in the function of determining the standards of whiteness and defining citizenship (both formal and material), and giving an answer to the existential question in the context: who are we (like Americans) and who are we?

This is a question that responds to the heart of the presidential slogans and immigration policies, Samuel Huntington's bestseller, and the prolonged war on terrorism that provides a driving engine for Islamophobia in today's America. Researching this issue and a multitude of those who seek to find answers to the power of blasphemy, arms, or politics, lead us to a clearer understanding of Islamophobia.

This historical context, combined with its modern complexity, inspired my new definition and framework of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is, above all, based on the assumption that Islam is inherently violent, strange and inflexible - and it is the belief that the expressions of Muslim identity are linked to the inclination to terrorism. In addition to this basic definition, there are also three additional dimensions: 1- private Islamophobia; 2 - structural islamophobia, and 3 - dialectic islamophobia.

In the first place, private Islamophobia includes fear, suspicion and violent attacks on Muslims by private actors. These actors may be individuals or institutions acting in a capacity that is not directed at the state. The killing of three Muslims, American students at Chapel Hill in North Carolina in 2015 by Craig Hick, is a clear example of private Islamophobia, as well as fires being planted in mosques or attacks on well-known Muslims. The acts of private Islamophobia, which often have distorted understanding of Muslims and Islam, are also threats for individuals and institutions thought to be Muslims, although they are not, for example, Americans originating from South Asia or the temples of Sikh.

Structural Islamophobia, the second dimension, is a fear and a suspicion towards Muslims by government institutions. This fear and suspicion is manifested and strengthened through the adoption and advancement of laws, policies, programs, or formal declarations of state agents. Laws like the US Patriot Act or measures to counter violent extremism, the ruthless anti-Muslim rhetoric of President Trump and the campaigns of state congressmen to adopt a sharia law in a specific and diverse manner show structural Islamophobia.

Structural Islamophobia was openly expanded by right-wingers, including the presidents of George W. Bush and Trump, as well as democrats such as President Barack Obama, who set up a surveillance system aimed at opposing radicalization as its distinctive policy to suppress terrorism. Unlike private Islamophobia, structural Islamophobic policies and attitudes are equally driven by rational motives as well as irrational, strategically oriented to promote specific national and international national goals.

Dialectic Islamophobia is a process by which structural islamophobia is shaped, redesigned, and approved views or views on Islam and Muslim subjects. State action gives legitimacy to the prevailing misconceptions and misconceptions of Islam and conveys these harmful ideas through policies under the auspices of the state, such programs or rhetoric.

The law is not just politics, but also set of messages and regulations extended to a wider society, which teach members of society to participate in the project of monitoring, punishing and out-of-court Muslims. We see that this process functions most actively during a period of crisis, such as the period immediately after the terrorist attack, when the incidents of hatred and violence against Muslims and those who are so prevalent in the society.

Extended range of islamophobia

This definition provides an understanding of the epistemological and legal roots of American Islamophobia and its rapid rise over the past several decades. In an equal critical tone, this framework allows for the analysis of Islamophobia because it comes into interaction and merges with other systems of stigma and subordinate position, the most vulnerable among them.

Outside the popular reach, Islamophobia is all from law to hollywood misconceptions, violent attacks on striking Muslims and innocent observers who are wrongly profiled as Muslims. Islamophobia is all this, but more than that. Islamophobia is, above all, a fluidly changing and complex system that can not be reduced to a mere "fear or failure" directed towards Islam and its followers, who occupy a number of different positions in society and experience them differently, and the most vulnerable and disproportionate.

Accountability with Islamophobia requires its placement into the American context that feeds and fosters, endangering the wide belt of the population of potential victims who represent the diversity of a country it's trying to call home - against the combined efforts of the state and elements in society struggling to keep Muslims on the margins.

The rights of many Arabs and Muslims who were detained in the fight against terrorism after the September 11 attacks in the United States were violated, the court decision is in this country.

According to the 2nd Appellate Court, several security officials led by then President George W. Bush, including former FBI Director Robert Mueller and then Justice Minister John Ashcroft, justified the fight against terrorism, violated the rights of many Arabs and Muslims violating the US Constitution.

Ashcroft, Mueller and former director of the James Ziglar news agency, after September 11, 2001, arrested a large number of men in New York and New Jersey, mostly Muslims and Arabs, and violated their rights for months.

This trial was first launched 13 years ago by a non-governmental organization Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), headquartered in New York. CCR lawyer Rachel Meeropol stated in connection with the decision:

"The court took advantage of this opportunity and reminded the people, whether they were citizens or not, human rights, the rule of law must not be sacrificed in the name of a hysteria of national security."