Nathan Lean: Donald Trump and Islamophobia

Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry, considers the incendiary remarks made by Republican Party candidate, Donald Trump, as just the latest and most flagrant example of an incipient Islamophobia in American society.
Lean TII

Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigrants to the United States set off a firestorm of controversy. For his opponents in both parties, it was a golden opportunity to slam the Presidential candidate and characterise his plan as excessive and un-American.

Jeb Bush described Trump as “unhinged,” while Marco Rubio said such a policy was “outlandish” and would “not bring Americans together.” Ted Cruz politely “disagreed,” while Mike Huckabee said that the plan was “unconstitutional” and “never going to happen.” Hillary Clinton branded the proposition as “dangerous.”

Yet, despite the referendum of disapproval for Trump’s remarks, they are not the real problem. They are simply the loudest expression of a persistent prejudice towards Muslims that exists within the wider political landscape. While it is easy to call out the blustery ones like Trump, Islamophobic rhetoric that is less brassy often goes un-rebuked. And that has real consequences, not the least of which is the normalization of Muslims as objects of perpetual scrutiny and scorn.

Take Trump’s colleagues in the GOP, for example. Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum distanced themselves from the his remarks, but not from the anti-Muslim activist behind them. Both candidates, along with Ben Carson, were set to address Frank Gaffney’s National Security Action Summit in Las Vegas. Gaffney has a history of floating wild anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, including claims that President Obama has “submitted” to Islamic law and is actively cavorting with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ted Cruz has attended events hosted by Gaffney’s group, and Mike Huckabee, who once referred to Muslims as “uncorked animals,” wedded his feelings of antipathy towards Islam with his feelings of antipathy towards Obama, saying last month that the president “probably” wants to make Americans memorize verses of the Quran.

Like Trump, Senator Rand Paul has expressed support for religious-based immigration bans. Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, he suggested that not only should France limit Muslim immigrants, but other European countries “that had old colonies in predominantly Muslim areas” should consider the idea, too.

Then there’s the case of Marco Rubio. Following the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, he entertained the idea of barring Muslim students from overseas from seeking VISAs to study in the United States. Just last month, when asked to respond to Hillary Clinton’s refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” he took the opportunity to invoke Nazi-era Germany and compared the Muslim faith to the fascistic anti-Semitic movement that birthed the Holocaust.

And speaking of Clinton, the former Secretary of State and Democratic candidate shows us that anti-Muslim prejudice is not only a Republican affair. While she has vocally criticized Trump’s extreme proposals and conveyed support for the Muslim community, her most prominent campaign surrogate, General Wesley Clark, said in the wake of the Chatanooga shooting in July that “radicalized” American Muslims who are “disloyal” to the United States should be placed in internment camps similar to those used during World War II to detain Japanese Americans.

Unlike the uproar hounding the Trump campaign, the public has responded to these types of instances — and there are many more like them — with tepidity, if not outright indifference.

It’s easy to chalk all of this up to the madness of election seasons — to furrow our brows in disappointment and mourn the death of civility as an expected casualty of the race for the White House. And research does show that Islamophobia is closely linked to these quadrennial cycles of building domestic consent.

But Americans can, and must, do better than that.

It’s not good enough to raise our voices in disapproval only in those moments when prejudice reaches high-pitched frequencies. Nor is it good enough to speak up only in seasons of political grandstanding, which tend to magnify these types of ugly views. In our selective disdain, we send the message that some expressions of Islamophobia are more malignant than others.

That’s the wrong approach: all of them are malignant.

To truly make America great again, all who believe that Trump’s brand of bigotry runs counter to this republic’s values must reject it whenever and wherever it is present.


Nathan Lean is the author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims. He is the Director of Research at Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative.


The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims is available to buy from Pluto Press here.

One thought on “Nathan Lean: Donald Trump and Islamophobia

  1. Interpretations vary depending on who the interpreter is.

    What appears in the West to be the emergence, return to, or resurgence of Islam is in fact a struggle within Islamic societies over the definition of Islam, in this case the definition of Jihad.

    No one person, authority or institution has total control over that definition. But some writers assume their own definition and interpretation.

    Same way there is contest in defining Islam among the sects and sections. Fundametalism’s epistemological mistake is to think that “fundamentals” are ahistorical categories, not subject to and therefore outside the critical scrutiny of true believers.

    A number of critics tamper with the beliefs of sincere Muslim believers and cast doubts on their beliefs and try to show such beliefs to be fraudulent and non-divine. There is blind gloating, uncritical patriotism, extreme xenophobic nationalsim and downright rather unpleasant chauvinism.

    May not all agree, but many faith based persons individuals like me feel that we need some strong religion based moral foundation to stand on, even if it is meant outside the statute books. Some critics overtly or covertly want to accompalish a materialistic empire that is attached to the imperialism of yesteryears by forcing people to declare themselves to be Westerners or Easteners forgetting the unity of humanity.

    They are under the impression that ethnic minorities in the West can not represent themselves nevertheless, out of political neccessity the minorities can be represented only by the majority race.

    The opposition between Orient and Occident, Christians and Muslims or even secular and religious, is both misleading and higly undesirable in the fast changing globalising world that moves towards multiculturalism rather than the xenophobic and aggressive cultural nationalism.

    Cultures are hydrid and heterogeneous and cultures and civilizations are closely interrelated and interdependent to beggar unitary description of their individuality

    A handful of western values and ideas none of which have any meaning outside the history of conquest,immigration,travel and the mingling of peoples that gave West its present mixed identity.

    Man has come a long way to cross the barriers rather than manitaining barriers that the western colonialists had been building for over 200 years in the 18th and 19th centuries. Is blind secular nationalism is equivalent of blind fundamentalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s