Table of contents:

 Abstract

 Introduction

 6 roles of Islam-phobia

 Bush’s view of world before 9/11

 Axis of evil

 Role of ISIS in post 9/11:

 Conclusion
 Abstract
Despite numerous sources suggesting that Islam phobia is becoming both increasingly
prevalent and societally acceptable in the contemporary world, there remains a lack of
textual sources that consider either the phenomenon itself, or its manifestations and
consequences. There is no authoritative text that attempts to understand or contextualize
what might be seen to be one of the most dangerous prejudices in the contemporary
climate. The incidence of Islam phobia, and the magnitude of the phenomenon and its
consequences, is one that warrants a greater investigation in the world today. This book is
both academically and socially relevant and necessary.

Introduction:
What is Islam-phobia?

Islam phobia means acts of fear or hostility towards followers of Islamic religion. This
unjustified fear has contributed immensely to discrimination of Muslims across the globe.
It is a base point for seclusion of Muslims in the political arena and affiliate social classes
in the society. The phenomenon is characterized by a distinct presumption of crime or
guilt through association. Hate crimes are also a common characteristic of this condition.
Numerous evils related to Islam phobia are prevalent and even tolerated in different parts
of the modern United States. This is in contrary to the perceived progress against human
discrimination made by the nation in the past few years. The United States has waged a
war against racial discrimination as well as discrimination by faith (Islam phobia and
Anti-Americanism Book Excerpts, 2012). Nevertheless, it seems to tow backwards in
eradicating the effects of Islam phobia in the nation. Islam phobia reference to this
phenomenon was advanced by the thesis formed by F. Fukyama and S. Huntington
(Khan, 2009). Their thesis was in linkage to the pending clashes of civilizations between
the west and the Islamic dominants. The tragic occurrence of September 11thcontributed
intensely to the viewing of Islamic religion with suspicion. It fueled a slew of prejudice,
suspicions, hate crimes, as well as fear against the Muslims (Diversity Training Series:
Educating Chicago's Law Enforcement on the City's Many Religions, 2006). The tragedy
of this phenomenon led to differed people perceptions and believes about the Muslims.
Some of the unquestioned perceptions by non-Muslims were:
 The Islam Religion portrays a monolithic culture and it is relentless to accept emerging realities
in the society.

 Islamic religion has completely different values in comparison with other faiths and cultures.

 Islam is considered inferior as perceived by the west. It is deemed to have barbarism traits,
archaic, and relatively irrational.

 Islam religion supports various acts of terrorism and general violence in the society.

 Islamic religion is a violent ideology in the political arena.

These pre-assumptions about the Islamic society have made all criticism towards American
policies, made by Muslims, be ignored. In many circumstances, Muslims are considered “anti-
Semitic” or “reactionary”. The Main American associations for Muslims are often looked upon or
viewed in suspicion. What’s more, various irrational excuses have beenby put forward to avoid
engaging with these associations. This is in detriment to eradicating denominational prejudice and
discrimination by faith.

6 roles of Islam-phobia:

1. Muslims are not Americans.

2. All Muslims are terrorists.

3. Pork is to Muslims as crucifix or garlic is to vampires.

4. All brown people are potentially Muslims and are therefore terrorists.

5. Islam is not a religion, it’s a violent ideology.

6. There is a secret Muslim plot to destroy us and western civilization.

Bush’s view of world before 9/11:
America’s view of the world changed dramatically, and perhaps permanently, on Sept. 11. But in
order to measure the nature and extent of these changes it is important to understand where
attitudes toward international issues stood before the attacks occurred. A three-month survey by
the Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations — completed
in early September — provides a detailed snapshot of the worldview of “before” America.

The quadrennial survey, titled America’s Place in the World, found that American opinion
leaders and the public had a mixed approach to international affairs. No single issue or concern
was dominant. While the spread of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism were ranked
among the top threats to the United States, the elites and the public also expressed concern over a
varied list of global problems ranging from infectious diseases to international financial
instability. China was seen as the country that posed the greatest danger to the United States, but
the dominant view among both the public and the elites is that China is a problem to be
managed, not an enemy to be defeated. Most elite groups saw the spread of radical Islam as a
greater threat to U.S. interests than China’s emergence as a world power.

Both the opinion leaders and the public sensed that the peace and prosperity of the 1990s were
coming to an end. Compared to four years earlier, several of the elite groups expressed far less
satisfaction in the state of the world — among foreign affairs experts, for instance, satisfaction
fell from 60% in 1997 to 34%. Much of this dissatisfaction was linked to concerns about
President Bush’s handling of foreign policy — specifically, the contention he paid too little heed
to the interests and concerns of traditional allies. While there was a strong consensus among
most elites in favor of aggressive multilateralism — a “first among equals” role for the United
States — the general public wants the nation to be no more or less active than others.

Both the public and influential believed that foreign terrorists posed a much greater risk of
deploying a weapon of mass destruction against the United States than even hostile military
powers. For opinion leaders, this translated into broad opposition of Bush’s missile defense
proposal. A majority of the public, however, continued to express support for the plan. Bush’s so
called crusades against axis of evil
Of all the things that rankle the critics of George W. Bush, few anger them more than his
willingness to apply the word evil. Like President Ronald Reagan two decades before him, Bush
operates from a Christian worldview that distinguishes between good and evil. And yet, the
specific objections of Bush’s critics tell us as much about them as they do about him. Indeed,
their outrage is very selective; they, too, have evils. An examination of these evils on both sides
is a worthwhile exercise – a quite illuminating exercise.
Axis of Evil:
Bush’s identification of evil in the case of the September 11 hijackers actually did not elicit a
firestorm of protests from his detractors. Even the most stalwart moral relativists tried to hush
their inclinations, including college professors who typically might instruct their students that the
hijackers, just like Americans, likewise believed they were right, and, hey, who are we to judge
whether the suicide bombers were wrong? … This was a decidedly unpopular outlook after
September 11, as its adherents in the academy knew.

Rather, what made these detractors really angry – and gave them new life – was President Bush’s
use of a new label: “axis of evil.” In his January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, Bush
identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as three legs of an “axis of evil.”

This sentiment was rooted in Bush’s personal detestation of the regimes in these nations. Bush
told reporter Bob Woodward that he “loathed” North Korean communist despot Kim Jong Il,
whose economic policies led to the starvation of 10 to 15 percent of his country’s population (2
to 3 million out of 22 million people) from 1995-99. Kim’s public schools teach North Korean
children that their leader does not defecate and that a new star appeared the day he was born. His
regime reportedly removes triplets from parents out of fear that one of those triplets will one day
remove Kim. The dictator directs the nation’s scarce resources into a nuclear weapons program
he promised not to develop.

To Bush, Kim was evil, as was Saddam, as were Iran’s murderous mullahs. And with such a
moral declaration, the Texan began stoking the flames of opposition; actually, he threw gasoline
on the fire. The mere sure declaration that evil lurked, and could be openly identified among
foreign governments, drew lightning. The response to Bush’s Biblical language was fire and
brimstone.

Supporters of Bush’s phrase saw it as a salutary revelation to those ignorant of Saddam’s tyranny
or Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism or Kim’s madness. They welcomed the candor. The
Washington Post, hardly a conservative newspaper, editorialized that what Bush said about the
three countries “has the advantage of being true.” Still, Bush’s critics had had enough. For him to
call the Nazis evil was okay. To dub hate crimes evil was fine. Even September 11 could perhaps
be characterized as an act of evil. But to apply the terms to these three countries? A line had been
crossed.

The problem for the left seemed to be that Bush had identified certain nations as evil. To be sure,
liberals do this as well. They rightly asserted that South African Apartheid rule and the Nazis
were evil. They said the same of Augusto Pinochet’s regime in Chile and the El Salvador
leadership in the 1980s. Liberals call foreign regimes evil all the time. The reality is that they
disapprove when conservatives like Bush single out regimes. Yes, it’s a double standard, an
inconsistency that is frustrating.

There are other reasons why the left objects to leaders like President Bush naming certain
countries as evil. An example is evident in a November 2002 resolution by the left-wing National
Council of Churches, which complained that the President “rhetorically divide[s] nations and
people into camps of ‘good and evil.’ Demonizing adversaries or enemies denies their basic
humanity and contradicts Christians’ beliefs in the dignity and worth of each person as a child of
God.”

Role of ISIS in post 9/11:

The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has been aided by the continuing failure
of the US Government to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks and its support
of jihadi movements such as al-Qaeda in the years since, says former Senator Bob Graham, the
co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11.

Senator Graham, a distinguished elder statesmen who was twice Democratic governor of Florida
before spending 18 years in the US Senate, believes that ignoring what Saudi Arabia was doing
and treating it as a reliable American ally contributed to the US intelligence services’ failure to
identify Isis as a rising power until after it captured Mosul on 10 June. He says that “one reason I
think that our intelligence has been less than stellar” is that not enough attention was given to
Saudi Arabia’s fostering of al-Qaeda-type jihadi movements, of which Isis is the most notorious
and successful. So far the CIA and other intelligence services have faced little criticism in the US
for their apparent failure to foresee the explosive expansion of Isis, which now controls an area
larger than Great Britain in northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

Under the plan, Saudi Arabia is to host a special training facility for “moderate” Syrian
opposition which is to fight both Isis and the government of President Bashar al-Assad. A
problem is that Saudi Arabia dislikes Isis today, whatever its role in its creation, but it gives
priority to regime change in Damascus.
The Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 has long been public
knowledge since 15 out of 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama
bin Laden, was a member of the Saudi ruling elite. The 9/11 inquiry found that, for financing, al-
Qaeda relied on a core group of private donors and charities in Saudi Arabia

The true focus of ISIS, Haykel described, is bid’a, or “reprehensible innovations” in Islamic
theology. ISIS is mostly concerned with other Muslims, especially Shiites – who make up some
15 percent of the world’s Muslims – “who they see as abandoning the law.” The group is also
concerned with Sufi Muslims, he said, whose concept of God as mystical and personal is vile to
ISIS.

Attacks like these are “important to them because the U.S. is attacking them. So they’d see this
as a deterrent, an attempt to change U.S. behavior and make the U.S. stop attacking. And they
don’t have a lot of their own capability to carry out spectacular attacks. That’s why they rely on
this loose network of fans to do it,” McCants said. “Global jihadists are happy to have attacks
against the West, but the Islamic State’s focus is on conquering territory. If it can inspire fans to
do this dirty business on their own steam, great?”

Conclusion:
This study has argued that Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue is one way to combat Islam phobia in
America. Although Muslims have become more active and have taken a stronger leadership role in
Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue in the years since 9/11, inadequate planning and knowledge of
dialogue options, as well as the incomplete current approach to interfaith dialogue prevent it from being
optimally effective as a tool in the fight against Islam phobia.