UN Special Rapporteur’s Report on Countering Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred Does Not Stand Up to Scrutiny (Part 2)

Part 1

The Special Rapporteur attempts to nullify contested issues of Muslim immigration.

He states:

Conspiracy theories drawing on xenophobic and racist narratives about Muslims are also propagated online by far-right groups. Such theories include fabrications that immigrant Muslim populations are going to “outbreed” native populations. (page 6, paragraph 20.)

This ignores the fact that Muslim leaders and ordinary Muslims have themselves talked frankly about their ambitions of acquiring political power in non-Muslim countries through their higher birthrates. For example, in 2006, Muammar Gaddafi, an influential Arab leader, told large crowds of Muslims,

We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without military conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union; that’s another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Bosnia, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. 50% percent of its citizens are Muslims. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time.

• In 2008, prominent Muslims in the UK told an audience to have more babies to enable Muslims to take over the UK from inside.
• In 2015, a preacher referred to Europe in the Al-Aqsa mosque and said, ‘We will give them fertility. We will breed children with them because we shall conquer their countries.’
• In 2019, in a viral video, a Canadian Muslim asserted there would be Sharia law in Canada eventually, as ‘Muslims were making babies and you are not.’
• In 2021, in India, a Muslim leader said Muslims should not adopt family planning measures as advocated by modern society, as it is ‘against’ Sharia law. He also linked having more children to gaining votes and electing their desired Prime Minister.
• In 2022, a video showed Muslims and Danes quarreling in Denmark. One Muslim man yelled, ‘We have five children; you only have one or two. In 10 to 15 years, there will be more Pakistanis than Danes in this country! The Danes are five million, and soon you’ll be exterminated. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians, and the Finns, man! We are multiples of millions, man! Soon, other Muslims chime in. One says, ‘I just got married and will also have five children.’ Others chant, ‘This isn’t Denmark anymore; this is Paki-land,’ and repeat: ‘We are taking over your country.’

The Special Rapporteur casts the entire responsibility for all the challenges Muslims face in non-Muslim countries on the non-Muslim majority.  

In his narrative, the hostile non-Muslim environment is the sole cause of all the difficulties faced by Muslims, who have apparently no agency to improve their lot. Examples include:

• If there is a perception that Muslims are a ‘suspect community,’ (page 1, paragraph 3) then the fault lies entirely with those who so perceive them and is unconnected with any actions on the part of Muslims, such as their overrepresentation in the so-called grooming gangs scandal in the UK.
• If Muslims demonstrate lower educational attainment in Western countries, the reason is the ‘hostility experienced’ or their ‘teachers’, but it has nothing to do with Islamic culture. (pages 10 and 11, paragraphs 35 and 36). He does not consider what Islamic websites state, that ‘Shari‘ah is filled with evidence that women should stay in their homes and avoid going out except when there is a pressing need.’
• The Special Rapporteur states, ‘Over the past two decades, Muslim individuals and communities have borne the brunt of the use and abuse of counter-terrorism measures.’ By this reasoning, the United Nations Security Council Consolidated List would be considered problematic. This list has the names of individuals and entities identified as engaging in or supporting financial crime, corruption, terrorism, or other activities that threaten international peace and security. It publicly lists 727 individuals and 273 entities, with scarcely a non-Muslim name in them. To state the obvious: the cause of their inclusion was their illegal acts, not their religion. He refers to ‘horrific acts of terrorism purportedly’ carried out in the name of Islam and to ‘Muslim’ extremists and terrorists. Factually, there is nothing ‘purported’ about the religion of many terrorists who have been involved in 49,076 terror attacks since 9/11.

The commonality of some restrictions imposed by non-Muslim majority and Muslim countries undermines assertions of rampant ‘Islamophobia.’  

The Special Rapporteur’s report focuses mainly on the challenges faced by Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim majority States. This omission is methodologically questionable. When both Muslim and non-Muslim countries impose similar restrictions on expressions of Islamic faith, this suggests that non-Muslim countries are not doing so because of ‘Islamophobia’ but instead because there are objective public policy grounds for doing so. For example, Tunisia cracked down on beards after terrorist bombings in 2015. It also banned the niqab in public institutions after a string of terrorist bombings in 2019. Tajikistan, with a 95% Muslim population, banned the hijab in 2024, describing it as an ‘alien garment’ with the ban aimed at ‘protecting ancestral values and culture’.

The Special Rapporteur’s use of the words ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’ is inconsistent.

The report uses the word ‘Muslim’ freely when referring to them as victims of ‘Islamophobia’/anti-Muslim hatred’ or when unfairly targeted institutionally. However, it avoids doing so when Muslims are involved in criminal acts or when Islam appears to be the motivating ideology. The report implicitly faults the media for using adjectives like ‘radical,’ ‘extremist,’ and ‘terrorist’ to describe Muslims. (page 5, paragraph 15) However, what adjectives should be used if evidence demonstrates that Muslims were indeed ‘radical,’ ‘extremist, ‘or had committed terrorism?

 The Special Rapporteur stereotypes all Muslims in non-Muslim countries as victims

The Special Rapporteur’s repeated use of the word ‘stereotype’ (10 times) and ‘trope’ (6 times) about Muslims and Islam is striking, as he indulges in the same practice. Specifically, he repeatedly stereotypes all Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries as victims, using the word 11 times in his report, and proceeds to stereotype and generalize billions of people in China, India, the US, and Europe as ‘Islamophobic.’

The Special Rapporteur in effect advocates press censorship, only for Muslims and Islam.

One of the recommendations is to suggest that media ‘adopt guidelines for reporting on Muslims and Islam.’ (page 23, paragraph 82) This needs an explanation as to why Muslims and Islam should be the only community and faith to be given this protection. Furthermore, his reference to ‘avoiding stereotypes and generalizations’ is weak. If a string of terrorist attacks occurs in which the perpetrators are all Muslim, then it is not a stereotype to mention that Muslims were involved in all of them. Not doing so is tantamount to hiding relevant facts from the public, endangering their lives, and a disservice to democracy, which requires open discussions on all matters of general importance, no matter how uncomfortable.

To conclude, Muslims need the full protection of law, as do all communities, no more, no less. The report, however, is thoroughly one-sided. It aims to convince the reader that ‘Islamophobia’ is an injustice being done to Muslims by non-Muslims in many non-Muslim countries by using the phrase ‘epidemic proportions.’ (page 1, paragraph 1) But it entirely omits what is being done by a significant number of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. It is such actions that contribute to widespread negative representations of Islam, and ‘fear’ of Muslims.

No legislature can effectively legislate against ‘fear’ if there are genuine grounds for fear do exist as is happening in the US right with two terrorist attacks. It is not Islamophobic to discern patterns.

An honest conversation on Islamophobia is not possible on the UN Special Rapporteur’s report, because of its many biases and omissions.