Decent critique from a liberal Muslim perspective, unfortunately too many long words and too much academic-speak to be persuasive to Lennon's target audience, but the points stand.

*****

https://countercurrents.org/2025/09/manufacturing-fear-a-critique-of-tommy-robinsons-islamophobia/

Manufacturing Fear: A Critique of Tommy Robinson’s Islamophobia
in World
by V A Mohamad Ashrof
20/09/2025

On September 13, 2025, more than 110,000 people protesting against immigration marched through London in one of the country’s biggest right-wing demonstrations. The “Unite the Kingdom” march, organized by Tommy Robinson, saw some protesters clashing with police, wounding at least 26 officers. This violence occurred as police tried to keep the right-wing protesters separate from a group of some 5,000 rival demonstrators gathered at White Hall. The march, billed as a “festival of free speech,” ultimately amplified racist conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim hate speech across Whitehall, with marchers traveling to London by train and coach.

The contemporary global landscape is increasingly fraught with narratives of division, fear, and hostility, meticulously constructed and disseminated by figures who position themselves as guardians of national identity against perceived external threats. Among these, Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, stands out as a particularly potent and influential purveyor of Islamophobia. His trajectory, from co-founding the English Defence League (EDL), an extreme nationalist movement, to his current incarnation as an independent media personality, is characterized by a relentless campaign against Islam, framed as an existential threat to Western, and specifically British, values. This paper undertakes a comprehensive and critical examination of Robinson’s rhetoric, statements, and textual derivations, primarily as expressed in his autobiographical and polemical works: Enemy of the State (2015), SILENCED (2022), and Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017). This analysis aims to expose how Robinson’s discourse systematically misrepresents Islam, undermines democratic principles, and actively threatens the fabric of a pluralistic global community. We contend that Robinson operates as a war-mongering extremist whose narratives fuel division, dehumanization, and ultimately imperil the potential for genuine coexistence and shared human flourishing.

Deconstructing Robinson’s “Enemy of the State”: The Foundations of Division

Robinson’s 2015 autobiography, Enemy of the State, serves as more than a personal recounting; it is a foundational text for understanding his ideological underpinnings and the rhetorical strategies he employs to cultivate an “us vs. them” narrative. Through critical discourse analysis, the text reveals how Robinson positions himself as a persecuted truth-teller, simultaneously demonizing Islam and the institutions of the state that he claims are complicit in its perceived encroachment.

A central pillar of Robinson’s narrative in Enemy of the State is the theme of victimhood. He meticulously constructs an image of himself as a lone warrior, an “enemy of the state,” targeted by a collusive “establishment”—comprising the police, courts, media, and political elites—for his courageous “truth-telling” about Islam. This “enemy of the state” trope is a classic populist strategy that inverts traditional power dynamics, positioning the dissenting individual or a perceived majority as the victim of a state-backed conspiracy, thereby delegitimizing established authority. For example, Robinson explicitly states, “The establishment doesn’t want to admit that there is a problem with Islam in the UK. They are so terrified of being called racist, so brainwashed by their own multicultural dogma, that they are willing to sacrifice our children, our freedom, and our very way of life on the altar of political correctness. They are enabling an ideology that wants to destroy us” (Robinson, 2015, p.4). This rhetoric is deeply intertwined with a secular paranoia, echoing Hobbesian anxieties about state overreach. However, Robinson twists this paranoia to vilify Muslims as state-favoured invaders, thereby fostering an acute “us-vs-them” polarization. This framing is particularly potent as it taps into a generalized distrust of elites, redirecting it into a specific anti-Muslim grievance.

From a democratic perspective, this conspiratorial framing is profoundly damaging, as it actively erodes trust in democratic institutions. A healthy democracy relies on transparency, accountability, and the robust protection of minority rights—principles that are fundamentally undermined by a narrative that consistently demonizes state actors as complicit in a grand deception. The allegation of a conscious cover-up by a corrupt elite, a common populist trope, serves to dismantle the very mechanisms designed to ensure justice and equality for all citizens. Furthermore, the claim that institutions are “brainwashed by their own multicultural dogma” not only delegitimizes inclusivity but presents pluralism itself not as a foundational value, but as a dangerous ideology that actively threatens national well-being. This creates a feedback loop where any attempt at inclusion or understanding is immediately dismissed as evidence of “brainwashing.”

Ecumenically and interfaith-wise, this victimhood narrative is deeply corrosive. It erects formidable barriers to dialogue and cooperation by suggesting that any attempt at inclusivity or understanding between faith communities is merely a façade for a sinister, anti-Western agenda. Islamic liberation theology unequivocally emphasizes the paramount importance of solidarity, dialogue, and working collaboratively across differences for social justice. Robinson’s zero-sum narrative, which explicitly posits Muslims as a “common enemy” (Robinson, 2015, p.50), directly precludes the formation of such vital interfaith alliances. Instead of fostering bridges of understanding and shared purpose, his rhetoric actively seeks to burn them, promoting an antagonistic view that is utterly antithetical to any genuine ecumenical or interfaith engagement.

Perhaps the most pervasive and ideologically dangerous discursive strategy employed by Robinson in Enemy of the State is the essentialization and subsequent monolithization of Islam. Robinson consistently portrays Islam as a singular, immutable, and inherently hostile ideology, devoid of any internal diversity, capacity for reform, or nuanced contextual interpretation. Phrases such as “Islam trumps everything” (Robinson, 2015, p. 44) or the categorical assertion “There’s no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam” (Robinson, 2015, p.317) exemplify this reductionist and dangerously simplistic approach. He further generalizes, writing, “Whatever rivalries and tribal allegiances they had in their own communities, between different mosques and sects, there was one common enemy that united them every time – non-Muslims” (Robinson, 2015, p.50). This sweeping generalization functions to erase the vast and vibrant spectrum of Islamic thought and practice, which encompasses everything from Sufi mysticism to rationalist theology, from highly progressive interpretations to various traditional schools of thought.

This rigid binary construction—a monolithic, inherently radical Islam pitted against a non-existent or irrelevant “moderate” Islam—directly contradicts the foundational tenets of progressive and reformatory Islam. Influential thinkers like Muhammad Abduh, for instance, championed ijtihad (independent reasoning) as a crucial mechanism to adapt Islamic principles to evolving modern contexts (Abduh, 2004). Similarly, contemporary scholars such as Tariq Ramadan advocate for tafsir (contextual reinterpretation) to align Islamic values with democratic ideals and universal human rights (Ramadan, 2005). Islamic feminism, particularly through the pioneering work of figures like Amina Wadud, actively applies ijtihad to Quranic verses (e.g., Q. 4:34 concerning gender roles) to derive deeply egalitarian readings, thereby directly challenging the patriarchal interpretations that Robinson implicitly or explicitly amplifies (Wadud, 1999). Robinson’s derivations, which disingenuously link serious societal issues like child grooming scandals to a generalized “Koranic ideology” (Robinson, 2015, p. 397), fundamentally conflate cultural abuses with theological imperatives. This is a claim that reformatory Islam robustly counters through rigorous historical contextualization and nuanced textual analysis, demonstrating that such abuses are deviations from, not expressions of, core Islamic teachings.

From an Enlightenment secular perspective, this monolithization constitutes a profound violation of pluralism. It denies Muslims their fundamental agency for self-reform and treats Islam as an undemocratic, static bloc rather than a dynamic faith capable of adapting to egalitarian norms. The Enlightenment championed reason, critical inquiry, and individual autonomy as cornerstones of human progress. Yet, Robinson’s rhetoric effectively traps Muslims in a static, irredeemable past, denying them the capacity for intellectual and ethical evolution that is a hallmark of any living tradition. Democratically, this essentialism is deeply problematic because it categorizes an entire religious minority as inherently suspect, thereby undermining the cardinal principle of equal citizenship and paving a dangerous path towards widespread discrimination and marginalization.

Robinson’s discourse relies heavily on a strategy of selective derivations, extracting isolated incidents or decontextualized textual references to construct a pervasive narrative of inherent Muslim aggression and a looming “Muslim takeover.” The phrase “Meanwhile we are sleepwalking our way towards a Muslim takeover of the country” (Robinson, 2015, p.182) succinctly encapsulates this existential threat framing. This rhetoric nefariously transmutes legitimate demographic shifts into a conspiratorial narrative of conquest, portraying mosques not as cherished places of worship and community hubs, but rather as insidious “outposts of control” (Robinson, 2015, p.145). Such language is designed to instil fear and transform an entire community into an alien, hostile force.

He provocatively attributes child exploitation scandals, a grave societal issue, to “Islamic views on non-believers as permissible targets” (Robinson, 2015, p.397). This incendiary claim functions to dehumanize Muslim men and consciously echoes deeply ingrained Orientalist tropes that have historically depicted Muslim societies as barbaric, sexually predatory, and morally inferior (Said, 1979, p. 272). This selective focus egregiously ignores the complex systemic issues that contribute to such crimes and the undeniable fact that perpetrators of child exploitation come from all backgrounds, regardless of their faith. Islamic feminists, such as Asma Barlas, unequivocally leverage Quranic egalitarianism (e.g., Q.33:35) to condemn all forms of exploitation and violence, arguing forcefully that such acts are patriarchal deviations and not inherent to the ethical core of Islam (Barlas, 2002). Robinson’s narrative, however, cynically co-opts genuine feminist concerns not to address gender-based violence from a universal human rights perspective, but to demonize an entire religious community, thus distorting and undermining the very cause it pretends to champion.

From an Islamic standpoint, Robinson’s selective interpretations deliberately ignore the Quran’s profound and universal emphasis on adl (justice) and rahma (compassion, Q. 21:107), which serve to universalize human dignity across all peoples (Q. 17:70). His aggressive utterances, such as “You cannot reason with these people” (Robinson, 2015, p.315), deliberately foreclose any possibility of dialogue, rational engagement, or mutual understanding, instead favouring confrontation over any prospect of ecumenical reform or shared societal progress. This confrontational approach not only actively prevents understanding but also brazenly incites hostility, further eroding the fragile foundations of a truly pluralistic and egalitarian society.

Robinson’s rhetoric, while disingenuously cloaked in the language of defending “British values,” actively and systematically undermines the core pluralistic and egalitarian ideals central to Enlightenment thought and modern democracy. His appeals to “free speech” are paradoxically weaponized to justify speech that silences, marginalizes, and denigrates others. While Enlightenment secularism, epitomized by Voltaire’s impassioned arguments for tolerance, demands the critique of all forms of extremism equally, Robinson exhibits a pathological hyper-focus on Islam while selectively exempting other forms of radicalism or bigotry (Robinson, 2015, p.140), thereby revealing a stark and undeniable bias. This selective application of critique is fundamentally anti-Enlightenment, as it abandons universal reason and objective inquiry for a particularistic, ethnocentric, and ultimately discriminatory agenda.

The inflammatory nature of Robinson’s rhetoric carries a significant risk of inciting violence, as evidenced by the documented confrontational tactics frequently employed by groups like the English Defence League (EDL), with which he was formerly associated (Robinson, 2015, p.170). Such tactics clash directly with the principles of pluralistic egalitarianism, which unequivocally mandates the protection of minority rights and the fostering of a safe and secure environment for all citizens, irrespective of their background or beliefs. Ultimately, Enemy of the State serves as a potent exemplar of “secular hypocrisy”: claiming to champion and defend “British values” while simultaneously eroding them through persistent intolerance, relentless fear-mongering, and the systematic demonization of a minority group. Robinson’s sweeping generalizations, which deliberately ignore the vast majority of British Muslims’ demonstrated support for democracy and civic participation, betray the very ideals of mutual respect and active civic engagement that are cornerstones of a truly inclusive and democratic society.

Deconstructing “SILENCED” and “Mohammed’s Koran”: Escalation of Extremism

Following his initial autobiographical effort, Tommy Robinson escalated his activism, culminating in his 2022 work, SILENCED, and the highly controversial co-authored Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017). These later publications consolidate and aggressively expand upon his foundational anti-Islam narratives, leveraging new platforms and increasingly aggressive rhetoric to paint a chilling picture of an existential threat.

In SILENCED, Robinson meticulously constructs a new, self-serving persona: that of an “independent journalist” and “truth-teller,” ostensibly persecuted for exposing “uncomfortable truths,” particularly concerning “radical Islam.” He chronicles numerous arrests, imprisonments, financial hardships, and bans from social media platforms, attributing these adversities to a concerted and malicious effort by the “State,” “Big Tech,” and “Far-Left” entities (Robinson, 2022, Introduction). This narrative strategically reframes the legitimate legal consequences of his actions as politically motivated censorship, rather than as due accountability within a democratic legal framework. For instance, his repeated and obsessive focus on “grooming gangs” (Robinson, 2022, p.75), which he asserts are predominantly perpetrated by Muslim men, serves a dual purpose: to validate his claims of state cover-ups due to “political correctness” and to further demonize an entire religious community.

From a democratic perspective, the “journalist” trope employed by Robinson is a sophisticated form of disingenuousness. Genuine journalism demands rigorous ethical reporting, unwavering factual accuracy, and an unshakeable commitment to the public interest, critically eschewing incitement or selective, misleading presentation of facts. Robinson’s approach, in stark contrast, frequently prioritizes provocation and raw emotional appeal over verifiable facts, thereby undermining the very principles of responsible media that are indispensable for an informed and healthy public discourse. His strident calls for “free speech” are, in practice, frequently weaponized to justify hate speech, while simultaneously seeking to silence his critics and opponents through legal means or by dismissively framing them as integral parts of the insidious “establishment” conspiracy (Lowles, 2018, p.110). This highly selective application of free speech principles is fundamentally antithetical to an inclusive democratic society, where freedom of expression is judiciously balanced with the profound responsibility not to incite hatred or discrimination against minority groups.

The co-authored Mohammed’s Koran Why Muslims Kill for Islam (2017) represents the zenith of Robinson’s essentialist and aggressive attack on Islam. Its central and highly contentious argument posits that Islam is inherently a “religion of war and subjugation.” This claim is predicated on a distorted application of the doctrine of “abrogation,” where the authors contend that later, supposedly more violent Quranic verses supersede earlier, more tolerant ones. In a deliberately provocative act, the authors controversially reorder the Quran to place the most “violent” verses first, audaciously claiming that this reveals Islam’s “true nature” (McLoughlin, p.1). They unequivocally state, “Islam is the very opposite of a religion of peace. You will see why Muslims kill, and you will see that those members of our own society who have a duty to inform us have been blatantly lying to us about Islam” (McLoughlin, Introduction). They proceed to define jihad solely as warfare (McLoughlin, p.5), argue that kuffar (non-Muslims) are “sub-human” (p. 7), and assert that “What the West has experienced with Jihad and sexual slavery is just authentic Islam” (McLoughlin, Appendix 12).

From an Enlightenment-inspired secular perspective, Mohammed’s Koran presents a monolithic, static, and utterly caricatured image of a profoundly complex and dynamic religious tradition, thereby denying its inherent diversity and its demonstrable capacity for internal ethical and intellectual development. By selectively quoting, reordering, and decontextualizing sacred texts, the authors engage in a blatant form of intellectual manipulation meticulously designed to confirm their deeply entrenched preconceived biases, rather than to foster genuine understanding or critical inquiry. This approach directly contradicts the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason, open critical inquiry, and the rigorous pursuit of objective knowledge, replacing these foundational principles with a dogmatic, fear-mongering, and ultimately dangerous narrative.

Robinson’s activism is characterized by frequent, physically present “demonstrations” or “exposures” often staged in Muslim-majority areas, typically filmed and broadcast live across his platforms. These events, far from being peaceful acts of protest or genuine journalistic endeavours, often intentionally escalate into confrontational situations. They are meticulously designed to provoke reactions that can then be cynically used to further his narrative of inherent Muslim hostility or the fabricated existence of “no-go zones.” He explicitly frames these as necessary confrontations, stating, “Sometimes you have to confront the problem head-on to make people see” (Robinson, 2022, p.110). This aggressive, confrontational approach stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles of a pluralistic society, which values peaceful assembly, constructive dialogue, and mutual respect.

From a democratic perspective, such tactics are deeply corrosive to social cohesion. They actively create an environment of pervasive fear and antagonism, rendering it exceedingly difficult for diverse communities to coexist peacefully. The incitement to hatred, even if it falls short of directly calling for physical violence, can have severe real-world consequences, demonstrably contributing to an alarming increase in Islamophobic hate crimes and fostering a pervasive climate of suspicion and division (Karim, 2000). Islam, emphasizing adl (justice) and ihsan (beneficence) in all social relations, actively seeks to build bridges of understanding and promote mutual respect between communities (Quran 5:8, 5:48, 5:69, 49:13, 6:108). Robinson’s actions, however, systematically dismantle these vital efforts, replacing them with a dangerous and intractable narrative of inevitable conflict.

Islamic liberation theology, fundamentally committed to dismantling systems of oppression, would unequivocally identify Robinson’s activism as an insidious form of ideological oppression specifically targeting a marginalized religious minority. By relentlessly portraying Muslims as an inherent and existential threat, he consciously creates a dangerous justification for discriminatory policies, social exclusion, and systemic marginalization. The confrontational nature of his activism, explicitly designed to elicit negative reactions, then serves to “prove” his initial premises, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of division and discord. This insidious cycle of incitement and confirmation bias is profoundly antithetical to any vision of a truly just, equitable, and pluralistic society where all citizens feel safe, respected, and possess equal rights.

From an Enlightenment-inspired secular perspective, this constitutes a dangerous and systematic assault on the foundational principles of a liberal democracy: universal human rights, equality before the law, and freedom of religion. While secularism champions critical inquiry and open debate, it also unequivocally demands equal protection for all citizens, irrespective of their faith or background. Robinson’s rhetoric, by consistently demonizing one specific religious group, systematically undermines these crucial protections and risks paving the way for systemic discrimination and institutionalized prejudice (Said, 1997).

Pluralism, by its very definition, celebrates diversity and the peaceful coexistence of multiple cultures and faiths within a single society. Robinson’s manufactured crisis, conversely, seeks to eradicate or significantly marginalize one particular group, asserting that their very presence is inherently incompatible with idealized “British values.” Islamic liberation theology offers robust intellectual and ethical frameworks for Muslims to engage meaningfully and productively within diverse, democratic societies, powerfully demonstrating that Islam is not monolithic and can be a profound force for good. Robinson’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge this rich diversity, and his active promotion of a singular, hostile interpretation of Islam, reveals a fundamental rejection of pluralistic ideals and a dangerous commitment to an exclusionary vision of society. His activism, therefore, is not merely a critique of Islam; it is an active and insidious threat to the democratic fabric itself, eroding trust, fostering division, and undermining the very principles of a just society.

Robinson’s Transnational Network and the Normalization of Islamophobia

Tommy Robinson’s sphere of influence extends far beyond the geographical confines of the United Kingdom. He has painstakingly cultivated a transnational network comprising far-right activists, anti-Muslim propagandists, and sympathetic media outlets across the globe. This expansive global reach serves to amplify his divisive narratives, allowing his particular brand of Islamophobia to resonate in diverse political contexts and significantly contribute to a broader, insidious normalization of anti-Muslim sentiment. This analysis critically examines Robinson’s international connections, his opaque funding streams, and his ideological alignment with burgeoning global anti-Muslim movements. It will analyse how his transnational activities deleteriously impact democratic processes, pluralistic societies, and fundamental humanistic values, drawing extensively on critical Islamic humanism, Islamic feminism, progressive Islam, reformatory Islam, and Islamic liberation theology to underscore the universal and pervasive threat posed by such organized hatred.

Robinson has strategically aligned himself with a diverse array of international figures and organizations who unequivocally share his anti-Muslim ideology. This formidable network includes far-right politicians, influential alt-right media personalities, and anti-immigrant groups spanning Europe, North America, and beyond. He has frequently travelled to the United States, for example, to participate in conferences and speaking engagements meticulously organized by think tanks and activist groups with a well-documented history of anti-Islam stances. These international platforms provide him with a significantly larger audience and crucial financial support, as well as a thin veneer of intellectual legitimacy that his street-level activism often conspicuously lacked. As incisively reported by investigative journalists, “Robinson’s trips to the U.S. have been instrumental in solidifying his financial backing and broadcasting his message to an American audience often receptive to anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric” (Hope, 2019). This strategic internationalization is a key component of his success in propagating his extremist views.

From a democratic perspective, the trans-nationalization of Islamophobia poses a significant and escalating threat to global cooperation and the shared values of universal human rights. When individuals like Robinson are deliberately platformed internationally, their divisive and hateful narratives gain dangerous traction in new contexts, actively fuelling xenophobia and undermining concerted efforts to build inclusive societies worldwide. The systematic exchange of tactics, rhetorical strategies, and ideological frameworks between these disparate groups creates a potent global echo chamber, where anti-Muslim sentiment is relentlessly reinforced, amplified, and normalized across national borders (Ogan et al., 2018).

From an ethical and egalitarian viewpoint, the direct funding of Islamophobia is unequivocally reprehensible. These considerable financial resources are purposefully deployed to perpetuate hatred, sow deep divisions within societies, and systematically marginalize a significant segment of the global population. Progressive Islam actively and passionately advocate for economic justice and transparency, viewing opaque funding mechanisms that promote bigotry as fundamentally antithetical to both core Islamic values and universal human rights.

The normalization of hate is one of the most perilous consequences of Robinson’s transnational influence. It stifles genuine civil discourse, replacing reasoned debate with emotionally charged slogans, fear-mongering, and divisive rhetoric. The public sphere, which should ideally be a space for respectful exchange of ideas, increasingly becomes a battleground where empathy is devalued, and prejudice is dangerously legitimized. Reformatory Islam, which advocates for rigorous internal self-critique while actively participating in building a just society, finds its tireless efforts fundamentally undermined by this pervasive environment of generalized suspicion and hostility. When an entire faith community is constantly under siege and attack, the vital space for nuance, meaningful reform, and internal dialogue inevitably shrinks, leading to further alienation and radicalization (Kundnani, 2014).

Democratically, the erosion of civil discourse weakens the very foundation of participatory governance. Democracy inherently relies on the ability of its citizens to engage in respectful debate, acknowledge and appreciate diverse perspectives, and work collaboratively towards common ground. When hate speech becomes normalized, it intimidates minority groups, actively silences dissenting voices, and polarizes society to such an extreme degree that genuine political consensus and cooperative governance become almost impossible. The transnational spread of Robinson’s ideology, therefore, not only exports Islamophobia as a hateful ideology but also actively undermines democratic health and stability in every country it touches, posing a direct threat to global peace and humanistic values.

Against this bleak backdrop of pervasive transnational Islamophobia, the urgent need for robust counter-narratives and unwavering global solidarity becomes paramount. Islamic liberation theology offers powerful and intellectually rigorous frameworks for challenging Robinson’s divisive narratives and promoting an alternative, compelling vision of inclusive and just societies. These interconnected frameworks emphasize several crucial strategies:

• Diversity within Islam: It is essential to actively showcase the vast, rich, and often overlooked spectrum of Islamic thought and practice, explicitly rejecting the dangerous and reductive monolithic portrayal perpetuated by Islamophobes. This involves highlighting the multitude of cultures, interpretations, and spiritual paths within the global Muslim community.

• Universal Human Rights: Arguments against Islamophobia must be firmly grounded in shared humanistic values that unequivocally protect the inherent dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, gender, or background. This frames the fight against Islamophobia as a universal human rights issue.

• Interfaith Dialogue and Alliance Building: Fostering genuine cooperation and understanding between different faith traditions and secular groups is crucial to combat all forms of bigotry and demonstrate a united front against hatred. Building bridges, not walls, is the ethical imperative.

• Ethical Media Literacy: Promoting critical engagement with media is vital to empower individuals to discern propaganda and misinformation from genuine, factual journalism. This helps to inoculate audiences against the manipulative tactics of figures like Robinson.

• Advocacy for Justice: Actively campaigning against discriminatory policies and holding purveyors of hate speech accountable within robust legal frameworks is essential. This includes pushing for stronger hate crime legislation and challenging institutional biases.

The global reach of Islamophobia, epitomized by figures like Robinson, necessitates a similarly global, coordinated, and ethically grounded response that champions pluralism, humanism, and democratic values. Ultimately, combating transnational hate requires a fundamental recognition that an attack on one minority group, anywhere in the world, is an attack on the fundamental principles that uphold the dignity and rights of all humanity.

Counter-Narratives and the Struggle for Justice

One of the strongest tools against Islamophobia is the reclamation of Islamic narratives, moving beyond reductive caricatures promoted by figures like Tommy Robinson. Critical Islamic humanism provides an invaluable framework, highlighting Islam’s ethical traditions of justice, compassion, and human dignity. By emphasizing authentic teachings on pluralism, interfaith respect, and the common good, counter-narratives expose the hollowness of Islamophobic claims. This involves several components:

Educational Initiatives: Promoting accurate understandings of Islam through lectures, resources, and programs that reveal the diversity of Muslim cultures and beliefs (Esposito, 2010). Such efforts dismantle stereotypes and build bridges.

Artistic and Cultural Expression: Supporting Muslim artists, writers, and filmmakers who humanize Muslim life and challenge prejudice. Culture, through its aesthetic power, fosters empathy.

Historical Revisionism: Countering distorted accounts by highlighting Islam’s flourishing in science, philosophy, medicine, and interfaith cooperation (Nasr, 1996). Correcting Eurocentric histories demonstrates Islam’s contributions to civilization.

From a decolonial perspective, reclaiming narratives is an act of epistemic liberation. Islamophobia perpetuates colonial tropes portraying Islam as barbaric and antithetical to the West (Said, 1979). By asserting Islamic intellectual traditions and lived experiences, Muslims decolonize dominant discourse and challenge power structures that sustain prejudice. Islamic liberation theology underscores this as a justice struggle, empowering communities to define themselves free from external imposition (Aslan, 2005).

The Path Forward- Interfaith Solidarity and Coalition Building

Combating transnational Islamophobia requires broad-based coalitions. Interfaith solidarity shows that hatred against one group threatens all.

Joint Advocacy: Leaders across faiths and secular groups must publicly condemn Islamophobia, defend religious freedom, and champion inclusion through statements, protests, and lobbying.

Shared Dialogue Spaces: Platforms where diverse communities connect, share experiences, and build genuine relationships are antidotes to prejudice, moving beyond tolerance to affirmation.

Alliances with Other Marginalized Groups: Islamophobia intersects with racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, and anti-Blackness. Strategic alliances with Black Lives Matter, Jewish groups, LGBTQ+ advocates, immigrant rights, and Indigenous movements strengthen collective resistance.

From a democratic perspective, policy advocacy is crucial to safeguard civil liberties and equality. The funding of anti-Muslim agendas through opaque channels requires transparency and accountability (Lean, 2012). Reformatory Islam encourages civic participation to hold power accountable. Challenging structures that normalize hatred aims to create societies where rights are protected and celebrated.

The struggle against Robinson’s global Islamophobia demands sustained effort and long-term vision. Moving beyond “tolerance” towards affirmation of diversity requires:

Mainstreaming Diversity: Integrating Muslim histories and contributions into curricula, media, and public discourse ensures inclusion at the societal core.

Challenging Systemic Biases: Confronting discrimination in employment, housing, services, and politics requires sustained equity and anti-racist commitments.

Promoting Intercultural Competence: Education that equips people with skills to navigate cultural and religious differences nurtures empathy instead of fear.

Civic Engagement and Representation: Encouraging Muslim participation in politics and civic life ensures authentic representation and strengthens democracy.

From a pluralistic standpoint, an inclusive society is one where all feel belonging and recognition. Critical Islamic humanism envisions a community grounded in ta’aruf (mutual recognition) and adl (justice), celebrating differences as divine wisdom rather than sources of division. Progressive Islam stresses constant striving for equity, while Islamic feminism highlights intersectionality, addressing challenges faced by Muslim women and racialized groups.

The path forward is not about constant reaction to figures like Robinson, but about proactively building societies where such figures lose influence. Embedding justice, pluralism, dignity, and compassion ensures hatred finds no fertile ground. The ultimate vision is a global landscape where interconnected human worth is cherished, and organized hatred is marginalized through collective action, ethical commitment, and a just, compassionate community.

Bibliography

Abduh, M. The Theology of Unity. Translated by I. Musa’ad & K. Cragg. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2004.

Ahmed, L. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Allen, C. Islamophobia. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2010.

An-Na’im, A. A. Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1990.

Aslan, R. No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York: Random House, 2005.

Barlas, A. Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002.

Esposito, J. L. Islam: The Straight Path. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Hope, C. “Revealed: Far-right figure Tommy Robinson received hundreds of thousands in donations from US benefactors.” The Independent, 16 June 2019.

Karim, K. H. Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 2000.

Kundnani, A. The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror. London: Verso Books, 2014.

Lean, N. The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims. London: Pluto Press, 2012.

Lowles, N. Tommy Robinson: Enemy of the People? London: Searchlight Educational Trust, 2018.

McLoughlin, P., & Robinson, T. Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam. United Kingdom: Peter McLoughlin, 2017.

Nasr, S. H. Religion and the Order of Nature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Ogan, C. L., et al. “The global digital divide and social media use: Examining the case of Facebook in the Arab Spring.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 23, no. 3, 2018, pp. 133-148.

Rahman, F. Islam and Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Ramadan, T. Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Robinson, T. Enemy of the State. The Press News Ltd, 2015.

Robinson, T. SILENCED. Independent Bookstore, 2022.

Said, E. W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.

Said, E. W. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Wadud, A. Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.