In today’s public discourse, it has become increasingly common to encounter criticisms of Islam framed not as prejudice, but as rational concern—about terrorism, extremism, or global peace. Phrases like “Islam is a threat to the world” or “Islamic books cause terrorism” appear not just in fringe circles, but in mainstream discussions, political speeches, and media commentary. These claims are often dressed up as intellectual honesty or concern for global security. But in reality, they are not neutral critiques—they are ideological statements that contribute directly to the spread of Islamophobia.
To understand how, we must look at how these narratives operate. One core mechanism is the process of othering—a concept central to postcolonial theory, particularly in the work of Edward Said. In his book Orientalism, Said explains how Western representations of the East—especially the Islamic world—are often reduced to stereotypes of irrationality, violence, and backwardness. These portrayals are not just inaccurate; they serve a political purpose: to justify domination, surveillance, and exclusion. When we say “Islam is inherently violent,” we’re not just making a claim about theology—we’re reinforcing a worldview in which 1.9 billion people are cast as a perpetual threat.
Islam is the cause of Islamophobia
Take, for instance, the claim that “Islam is the cause of Islamophobia.” This flips the reality on its head. Islamophobia is not caused by Islam, but by ignorance, political opportunism, and centuries of colonial bias. To blame Islam for Islamophobia is like blaming a bullied student for being bullied. It suggests that the prejudice Muslims face is somehow deserved or understandable, rather than a social problem we need to confront.
This is not merely a critique of theology—it is a political narrative that fuels suspicion and exclusion. Its defenders often insist that they are equally critical of all religions. However, they argue that Christian-majority societies have undergone reform through movements like the Enlightenment, which supposedly weakened the authority of religion and promoted secularism. In contrast, they claim that Muslim societies have not experienced such a transformation, and therefore remain deeply bound to a supposedly regressive theology. They frame their criticism of Islam as an effort to “enlighten” Muslim societies. But this is a classic act of othering. It establishes a civilizational hierarchy where Muslims are positioned as backward, irrational, and in need of rescue—a modern version of the colonial “civilizing mission.”
Even when framed as a theological critique—such as the claim that “only extremists believe in true Islam”—the consequences are deeply social. According to this narrative, the average Muslim is only peaceful because they misunderstand or selectively follow Islam, while the extremist is simply following it more faithfully. This implies that every Muslim carries within them the seed of extremism, and must prove, again and again, that they are not a threat. This suspicion forces Muslims to downplay their religious identity, avoid public expressions of faith, and constantly explain that their beliefs are benign. In short, it creates a climate where Muslims are not judged by who they are, but by how far they can distance themselves from their religion.
What this argument fundamentally misunderstands is how religion functions in society. It treats religion as a static set of doctrines that can be analyzed in the abstract, as if its meaning were the same everywhere. But religious beliefs and institutions do not develop in a vacuum. They take shape in response to concrete historical, political, and economic conditions. In societies living under colonial occupation or systemic oppression—like Palestine—religious identity can become a vehicle for political resistance. In such contexts, the lived experience of dispossession and survival creates favorable conditions for certain theological interpretations to gain traction—particularly those that frame resistance as a religious duty. Groups like Hamas do not rise to prominence simply because of abstract doctrines, but because their particular reading of Islam resonates with the immediate social and political realities of the people. By contrast, in regions like Kerala, India—where Muslims coexist in a pluralistic, democratic, and relatively stable society—Islamic thought has evolved in more liberal and inclusive directions. To understand these differences, one must examine the material realities shaping religious life, not reduce Islam to a single theological essence.
The danger of ignoring this complexity is that it allows critics to define “true Islam” in the most extreme and violent terms, and then apply that definition as a standard to judge all Muslims. But this does not merely misrepresent Islamic theology—it misrepresents social reality. It assumes that people’s beliefs about Islam can be derived from religious texts alone, when in fact they emerge from a complex web of historical, political, and economic conditions. The range of beliefs and practices found in Muslim societies cannot be mapped by citing Islamic legal schools or theological doctrines. It is far more diverse—shaped by colonial histories, class structures, education systems, state policies, and patterns of migration. To define “Islam” without regard for these forces is not just simplistic; it is ideological. It allows critics to flatten the lived experience of nearly two billion people into a single abstract definition, and then use that definition to justify suspicion, surveillance, or marginalization.
Islam is toxic, but Muslims are lovely.
An even more insidious form of Islamophobia appears in statements like “Moderate Muslims support terrorism” or “Islam is toxic, but Muslims are lovely.” These claims construct a false distinction, suggesting that while Muslims as individuals might be tolerable, their religion remains inherently dangerous. In particular, the idea that “moderate Muslims support terrorism” does not usually accuse them of direct violence. Instead, it implies that their silence—or failure to constantly denounce extremism—constitutes a form of passive complicity. In this view, moderation becomes suspicious not because of what it is, but because of what it allegedly fails to do.
This narrative imposes an impossible burden. It demands that Muslims publicly and continuously disavow violence, as if their basic humanity or citizenship depends on it. No other group is asked to account for the actions of individuals they have never met, let alone condemn them on demand. This creates a climate in which Muslims are never simply individuals—they are always positioned as representatives of a suspect collective. To be seen as “good,” they must perform disavowal, distance, and conformity—often at the cost of their own religious or cultural identity.
Underlying this pressure is the same fundamental error discussed earlier: it treats Islam as a singular, fixed ideology that inevitably produces certain outcomes, and then evaluates Muslims based on how far they are perceived to deviate from that essence. It makes belonging conditional—tied not to shared civic values, but to the degree of visible separation from one’s own faith. The result is a quiet but coercive demand for assimilation, in which safety and acceptance are offered only to those willing to erase or downplay who they are.
Statistics
Some arguments use statistics to make similar sweeping claims—such as “statistically, Islamic terrorist attacks are high, hence Islam is a problem.” On the surface, this might seem like an evidence-based statement. But it too reveals a deeply Islamophobic logic. It makes a leap from correlation to blame, implying that because some who commit violence claim Islamic motives, the entire religion is at fault. This ignores the political, historical, and social contexts in which violence occurs—from military occupations to authoritarian regimes to economic despair.
Furthermore, it selectively applies statistics. Far-right extremism, gun violence, and state violence claim far more lives in many parts of the world, especially in the West. Yet few people argue that Christianity, nationalism, or Western political ideologies are inherently to blame. That double standard reveals the underlying bias: it’s not about safety—it’s about who gets labeled a threat.
An even more explicit form of Islamophobia can be seen in statements like “Muslims spread just like how swines reproduce.” This rhetoric is not only offensive but also deeply dehumanizing. Comparing an entire group of people to animals, particularly using derogatory animals like “swine,” is a tool of dehumanization—a tactic used to strip people of their dignity and portray them as less than human. This kind of language evokes fascist, racist tropes about demographic threats and invasion, framing Muslims as an existential danger simply because of their existence. It incites hatred and violence, contributing to the broader Islamophobic climate.
The harm in these narratives isn’t just theoretical. They shape policies and fuel real-world violence. Anti-Muslim hate crimes rise after public figures make inflammatory statements.Travel bans, mass surveillance, and even military interventions have all been justified through the belief that Islam—not specific individuals or ideologies, but the religion itself—is dangerous. This is the real-world cost of casual Islamophobia masquerading as critique.
None of this is to suggest that religious ideas should be immune from criticism. Like any belief system, Islam has internal diversity and debates. It includes progressive, conservative, mystical, and reformist voices. Extremist movements do exist, and they must be confronted. But there is a crucial difference between critiquing specific interpretations of Islam and condemning the religion as a whole. The former is part of healthy discourse; the latter is a form of bigotry.
If we are serious about fighting both terrorism and discrimination, we need a more ethical framework for public discussion. That means rejecting blanket statements about Islam, questioning our own biases, and recognizing that religious violence—across all faiths—is often a product of political, economic, and social forces, not scripture alone.
It also means listening to Muslim voices—not just as victims or suspects, but as thinkers, scholars, neighbors, and citizens. Too often, debates about Islam happen without Muslims in the room. That absence distorts the conversation and makes it easier to dehumanize.
In this moment of global tension and rising xenophobia, we are faced with a choice: to simplify or to understand. To reduce or to reach out. To blame, or to build. If we choose to see Islam not as a threat but as a rich, complex tradition—as human as any other—we might finally begin to confront both extremism and prejudice with the seriousness they deserve.
Reductio 
Leave a comment