The Relationship Between Islamophobia and Media within the Scope of Media Literacy

Islamophobia has become a frequently discussed term in both academic studies and the media, especially in recent years. Islamophobia refers to deliberate prejudice, discrimination, and hostility directed at Muslims in public discourse and the media. But why do I say “in public discourse” rather than “in dictionaries”?

Because you will not find the definition of the term Islamophobia in the Turkish Language Association. The reason is simple: the TDK defines “phobia” as “an unusually intense fear or aversion toward specific objects or situations.” In other words, the definition explicitly refers to an irrational (unusual) fear.

This effectively frames Islam as the object of an irrational, unusual, and illogical fear. Just as a Christian, a Jew, or any person belonging to another religion has the right to reject such a characterization, so too does a Muslim. While the prefix “anti” is used for other religions or ethnic groups—such as antisemitism and Anti-Christian sentiment—why is “phobia” used specifically for Islam?

According to the definition by John Esposito and Ibrahim Kalın, Islamophobia manifests itself through “the exclusion of Muslims because of their religious identity, discrimination against this group, the claim that Islam is incompatible with Western common values, the notion that Islam is inferior to Western cultural and religious structures, and the propagation of the perception that Islam is not a faith but a savage and backward political ideology.”

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, mass media played an active role in shaping anti-Islamic sentiment. After September 11, a link was established in the Western world between Islam and terrorism, and the media, especially social media, played a major role in reinforcing this perception. As false news and deliberate misrepresentations fueled anti-Muslim sentiment, societies became polarized, and our shared values of humanity, justice and equality were obscured.

The first serious polemic against Islam was written by John of Damascus (Yuhanna b. Mansur ed-Dımeşkî, d. 749), who labeled Prophet Muhammad a “false prophet.” This text served as a model for many subsequent polemical works. Thus, the institutionalization and systematic development of anti-Islam sentiment can be traced to this period. Early reactions should be viewed as the natural resistance that any new religion encounters, since changing a community’s beliefs and customs has always been difficult.

Over time, the only change has been the transformation of this opposition into violent forms and its widespread adoption in both public discourse and intellectual circles under the term “Islamophobia.” From the 1960s onward, Western states’ power struggles in the Islamic world and the influx of Muslim migration led to an increase in racism and xenophobia in the West.

Elizabeth Anne Poole’s British Islam: Media Representations and Social Meanings and Malcolm David Brown’s The Construction of Muslim Identities in the United Kingdom and France were the first academic works to focus specifically on the relationship between media and Islamophobia.

After the 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers, this hatred intensified further. According to Nathan Lean, FBI statistics from 2002 showed a 1600 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims—an almost utopian rise.

While it is understandable that the public reacts against attacks carried out in the name of Islam, governments and especially the media did not correct this false perception; instead, they exacerbated it. History provides numerous examples of Muslim tolerance in governance: during the Seljuk, Abbasid, and Ottoman periods, churches and mosques rose side by side. Practices such as Fatih’s edict in Bosnia further demonstrate the continuity of this approach.

Despite their close familiarity with the Islamic world, why does Western media omit clear rulings in the Qur’an that prohibit coercion in religion and mandate respect for other beliefs? Is it ignorance, or is it deliberate manipulation of perception?

It is striking that Western states, which today champion discourse on democracy, equality, and freedom, use the media to render invisible the crimes of their colonial past. For example, BBC presenter Jane Hill’s use of “killed” for Israelis and “died” for Palestinians is indicative of this distortion.

We must not forget the Danish Cartoon Crisis. The crisis erupted on September 30, 2005, after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons allegedly depicting Prophet Muhammad. When the newspaper explained that its intent was to contribute to debates on criticism of Islam and self-censorship, Muslims living in Denmark protested. The incident triggered global demonstrations and uprisings in some Muslim countries. Again, it was the media, again Islamophobia, and again a resulting crisis.

On the other hand, social media platforms have become a gear that fuels Islamophobia. Conspiracy theories and disinformation circulating in digital environments challenge the boundaries of reality. American experts emphasize that Muslims are targeted by ignorant political manipulation and disinformation campaigns on social media, and that this online hatred sometimes translates into real acts of violence.

False news shared by real individuals can sometimes directly inspire violent acts. According to Iman Atta, president of the British organization Tell MAMA, we are now living in the most dangerous time for Muslims; as Islamophobic rhetoric among politicians becomes normalized, conspiracy theories such as “The Great Replacement” circulating online fuel a climate of fear. The unchecked spread of information pollution and disinformation facilitates the proliferation of anti-Muslim sentiment.

In European countries, anti-Islam sentiment and hate crimes have also reached critical levels in recent years. Attacks against Muslims have broken records in many Western nations, led by France. According to data from the French Ministry of the Interior, 173 Islamophobic incidents were reported in 2024. Although the number showed a slight decline compared to the previous year, experts note that the majority of cases remain unreported. Moreover, in the first quarter of 2025, these attacks increased by 72 percent compared to the previous year.

For example, in France in 2023, the abaya was banned in schools; in 2024, girls walking freely in public were targeted under fabricated justifications such as “skirt length.” During the opening ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics, all religious symbols, including headscarves, were banned for athletes. These measures are seen as symbolic steps aimed at rendering Muslims invisible in public life.

Attacks on mosques have also sharply increased: mosques in Marseille were defaced with racist slogans and became the subject of dangerous arson attempts. In June 2024, hateful graffiti reading “Death to Islam” was found inside a mosque in Annecy. The victims suffered deep spiritual as well as material harm. In 2024, physical and symbolic attacks on mosques across Europe reached their highest levels ever recorded.

This trend is not limited to France; similar surges in hate are occurring in countries such as the United Kingdom. According to the British organization Tell MAMA, the number of Islamophobic incidents in 2024 set a new record: 6,313 cases were reported—a 43 percent increase from the previous year—with 5,837 of them confirmed.

The events in Gaza have exposed the double standards of Western media. For years, many experts and journalists have argued that global news outlets, especially those in the United States and Europe, have adopted a pro-Israel stance. Even journalists within CNN have admitted that they can only refer to air strikes in Gaza as “airstrikes” if they have Israeli approval, and that they would never apply the same standard to Russian actions in Ukraine.

For years, Palestinians have been portrayed as “the other,” and addressed with a different language when compared to Israelis. Experts emphasize that leading Western media outlets dehumanize Palestinians and minimize their suffering, adopting a pro-Israel narrative.

Craig Mokhiber, a United Nations official, stated that “Western media has become part of a mechanism that supports genocide, acting as an accomplice to Western governments.” These are striking examples of how major media organizations misuse their responsibility to report the news.

In this dark picture, the role of media organizations is critical. Journalistic ethics urge publishers to present news without bias and to fairly represent diverse viewpoints. Indeed, “impartiality” means conveying information without favoring any opinion or side. However, in today’s media landscape, the language used in news reports sometimes violates these principles.

Unfortunately, some media outlets use exaggerated or contextually detached expressions when covering Muslim communities. This prevents the public from seeing real events honestly. Media manipulation and biased framing reinforce prejudiced public perceptions and undermine social trust.

Yet in a healthy democracy, the media must be the voice of the oppressed and uphold impartiality as a principle...