Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

DOI 10.1007/s11562-007-0002-2

Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam

Göran Larsson

Published online: 31 March 2007

# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract A large amount of academic research has analysed and documented the
fact that Muslims are often presented in a negative or stereotypical way in Western
media and popular culture. This article focuses on how the Internet can also be used
in spreading and publishing anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions. Although the
Internet is significant in the development of contemporary society, no studies have
focused on the importance of information and communication technologies in
spreading Islamophobic opinions. However, the new technologies can also be used
for monitoring and combating Islamophobia, and many Muslim organisations are
today using the Internet for these purposes. The article is based on an indepth
analysis of both anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim homepages that can be related to the
debate over Islamophobia.

Keywords Internet . Islam . Islamophobia . Reactive identities

A vast amount of academic literature and reports illustrate that Islam and Muslims
are often presented negatively or stereotypically in the print media (in both the
broadsheets and the tabloids), on television, and in popular culture (comic books,

A draft version of this article was presented at the 8th EUROFOR Marie-Curie Conference, European and
National Agencies Dealing with the ‘Non-Accepted’, Berlin, 14–17 December 2006. I am grateful for the
support I received from the Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung/Europäisches
Migrationszentrum, the Swedish research project LearnIT, funded by the Knowledge Foundation
(KK-stiftelsen), and the Linnaeus Centre for Research on Learning, Interaction, and Mediated
Communication in Contemporary Society (LinCS), supported by the Swedish Research Council. I also
appreciate all the positive comments and reactions I received from the participants at the above conference,
especially from my college Dr Åke Sander. I would also like to thank Dr Henrik Bogdan, Göteborg
University, who helped me with information about the new religious movement called Heaven’s Gate.
G. Larsson (*)
Department of Religious Studies and Theology, Box 200, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden
e-mail: goran.larsson@religion.gu.se
54 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

films, etc.).1 However, few studies have focused on the impact and role of the
Internet in spreading anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions.2 Although it is very
difficult to demonstrate a clear correspondence between the content of a certain
medium and public attitudes, the impact of the Internet should not be under-
estimated, especially since it is nowadays a part and parcel of everyday life in most
Western Societies.3 Furthermore, the Internet is also used by journalists for gathering
information and doing research for other media reporting in the broadcast media or
the tabloids and broadsheets. From this point of view, cyberspace plays both a direct
and indirect role in how Islam and Muslims are presented and represented in public
discourse and the media. Regarding the impact of the media on public attitudes,
Lorne L. Dawson writes:

Media are not neutral or passive conduits for the transfer of information. They
mold the message in ways that crucially influence the world views we
construct. They adjust our self-conceptions, notions of human relations and
community, and the nature of reality itself (Dawson 2004: 386).

The aim of this article is threefold. First I want to illustrate and establish the rather
obvious fact that the Internet can be used to spread anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
opinions. Although this article cannot produce a representative picture of the Internet
itself, it focuses on the Internet hub WikiIslam and its collection of links. This site is
an illustrative example of how the Internet can be used to spread anti-Islamic and
anti-Muslim opinions to a global audience. However, Muslims and non-Muslims can
also use the Internet to monitor and combat racism and Islamophobia. It is therefore
my second aim to explore a number of homepages that have this ambition. The third
aim is to discuss and explore possible methodologies for investigating and analysing
anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim milieus on the Internet.
Since the Internet is constantly growing rapidly, it is, of course, not possible to
analyse and study every form of Islamophobia on it.4 Nonetheless there is still a

1
See, for example, Allievi (2003); Berg (1998); Said (1981); Shaheen (2001).
2
Several studies have been published on hate crimes, anti-Semitism and homophobia on the Internet and
in printed books and reports. Cf., for example, the homepage of the Tolerance and Non-Discrimination
Information System http://tnd.odihr.pl/?p=ki-in); Media awareness Network (http://www.media-awareness.
ca/english/issues/online_hate/index.cfm) or the Anti Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/
internet_hate.asp). However, to the best of my knowledge no study has specifically focused on
Islamophobia on the Internet, though there are many studies of Muslim extremists spreading hatred and
violence on the Internet.
3
However, it is important to remember that “The Internet is not contributing so much to the dissolution of
the self or the modern social order. Rather it is facilitating the more complete development of the self as
the focus of social life under conditions of intensified reflexivity, while continuing the very modern
expansion of the range of our sense of community to the globe itself” (Dawson 2004, p. 390).
4
This limitation is related to both methodological problems and problems of definition. The Internet is
expanding rapidly, and it is impossible to keep up with the pace of the expansion of cyberspace.
Furthermore, the definition of Islamophobia is also problematic, and it is necessary to have a clear
understanding of what we are looking for on the Internet (I will return to this problem below). The
quotation is taken from Dawson (2004, p. 388).
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 55

need for a “great deal of basic descriptive work,” to quote Lorne L. Dawson.5 My
discussion in this article is therefore limited to the “community-edited website”
WikiIslam and the collection of links provided by this site.6 Important questions are:
To what extent is the Internet disseminating anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim attitudes?
Is it possible to unwind a cyber web of Islamophobia by focusing on the link
collection provided by WikiIslam? To put it more explicitly, is WikiIslam an
expression of Islamphobia on the Net?

Religion, the Internet and discrimination

Although the study of religion and the Internet has developed rapidly since the
introduction of the new information and communication technologies in the 1980s,
to the best of my knowledge no academic studies have specifically focused on how
the Internet can be used to spread polemics and anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
discourses to a global audience. There are some studies that deal with internal
Muslim debates and conflicts between the different branches of Muslim groups (for
example, between Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, or members of groups such as the
Ahmadiyya or the Nation of Islam).
The analysis of the Internet has generated both utopian and dystopian visions of
the future. For example, in her influential book Give me that online religion, Brenda
Brasher argues that the communicative aspect of the Internet and the possibilities
associated with the new technologies will foster peace and interfaith dialogue rather
than conflicts and tensions (Brasher 2001). This optimistic prediction about the
Internet could mainly be seen as a utopian vision about the future that needs to be
substantiated with empirical data before it could be accepted. Without wishing to be
too critical, I think that this and similar visions about the technology and its so-called
liberating effects on the community are at least exaggerated, if not wholly wrong.
Contrary to a peaceful and harmonious development, most researchers seem to argue
that the Internet will not solve or remove xenophobic opinions or fears rooted and
accepted in the society (cf. O’Leary 2005: 48). A more sober approach to the new
information and communication technologies emphasises that the anonymity of
cyberspace “may cause some users of the Internet to behave more unpleasantly or
ludicrously than they would have in face-to-face contacts.” (Højsgaard 2006: 168) In
my view, there is no reason to believe that a person who holds xenophobic,
Islamophobic or homophobic opinions in “real life” (i.e. outside cyberspace) will
become an open, tolerant, and enlightened person on the Internet. If this observation
is correct, as I believe it is, the fact that many Europeans hold negative and
stereotypical opinions of Islam and Muslims is most likely to have a negative effect
on the climate of discussion on the Internet. If an individual perceives that Islam is,

5
In order to collect more empirical data on religious activities, identity processes and discrimination in
cyberspace, there is a growing need for more heuristic and theoretical discussions about how to do Internet
research in the field of humanistic studies and social sciences. An important contribution to this question is
the book Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net, by Jones (1999).
6
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/List_Islam.
56 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

for example, a dangerous, barbaric and patriarchal religion, his or her opinion will of
course be transmitted, mirrored and expressed in offline milieus, as well as in
cyberspace. However, by comparing anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions
articulated in cyberspace with corresponding offline discussions, it is possible to
limit this methodological problem. Thus it is important to ask whether, and to what
extent, the Internet is being used to spread and foster anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic
opinions in contemporary society. Although the integration of immigrants, in
particular those with a Muslim cultural background, is a vital question for the future
development of the European Union, these questions are almost never related to
developments on the Internet.
The great majority of academic studies of Islam and the Internet have so far been
descriptive and focused on providing an overall impression of Islamic or Muslim
homepages: few studies have addressed the relationship between online and offline
activities.7 According to leading researchers in the field of religious studies and the
Internet, such as Christopher Helland and Lorne Dawson, it is essential to realize that
on-line discussions are related to offline activities and prevailing norms and opinions
(cf. Dawson 2004; Helland 2002, 2005). For these authors, it is essential to ask:
What is the relationship between online and offline milieus? To what extent is
cyberspace important for the establishment of new forms of communities? Is the
perception of the self effected by the use of the Internet?8 The study of Islamophobia
on the Internet should also be analysed in relation to questions of identity processes,
xenophobia, integration, multiculturalism and tensions within contemporary
European societies. For example, Stefano Allievi, who argues that a strong anti-
Islamic and anti-Muslim wind is blowing across Europe, indirectly addresses this
issue. According to him, the rise of Islamophobia in the European Union must be
related to the fact that many individuals consider that they have lost their national
identities with the rise of the European Union. The negative and stereotypical
opinions of Islam and Muslims could therefore be understood as the outcome of
so-called reactive identities, that is “identities defined in opposition to others” (Allievi
2006: 37). With the help of preconceived and negative opinions about “the other”, it
is possible to create an over-arching European identity that makes a separation
between “Us and Them.” For example, we are not like them (i.e. Muslims) – we are
civilized Europeans! Allievi continues:
The debate on Islam, with the historical and symbolic overload it carries with it,
has started to dominate public discussions about the “pluralisation” of Europe.
Consequently, the public discussions about Islam seem to be the means by
which Western societies discuss their recent and not yet fully understood
evolutions and tendencies. In this context, immigrants are increasingly seen as
Muslims, rather than as workers, students, parents, children, etc. In other words,
society tends to define them by their (pre-supposed) identities rather than by
their social roles. Thereby, the category of diversity, but also those of otherness

7
Cf., for example, Bunt (2000, 2003); Brückner (2001).
8
According to Dawson (2004, p. 389), “Two themes have dominated the research done on the sociological
consequence of the Internet: its impact upon our shifting conceptions of personal identity and on
alternative forms of community.”
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 57

(if not extraneousness) and even incompatibility, are being re-introduced in

situations where such categories had previously been excluded because they no
longer made much sense. For instance, second generation new Europeans, who
can no longer be considered immigrants and in fact have become less and less
“other,” are now being “Islamized,” which means that they may well become
reconstrued as “other,” different, and even extraneous (Allievi 2006: 37).
In relation to the long quotation above from Allievi, it is relevant to ask whether
the Internet hub WikiIslam also should be analysed in this light. A second question,
of course, is whether WikiIslam is contributing to this development or not.
Independent of our questions, it is important to stress that, in order to analyse online
activities related to anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim feelings, negative feelings against
people and institutions that are perceived as being Muslim or Islamic are widespread
and accepted in several European contexts (cf., for example, Allievi 2003; EUMC
2006). This prerequisite is basic if we want to understand the anti-Islamic and anti-
Muslim opinions that are articulated by, for example, WikiIslam, treated in this
article. This condition also reminds us that Helland and Dawson are right when they
argue for the necessity of considering online and offline activities and prevailing
attitudes together when analysing opinions expressed and formulated on the Internet.
However, in this article I have only focused on and analysed the Internet as a tool for
spreading anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions. A second step would therefore be
to analyse and interview people who take part in and seek information about Islam
and Muslims on the homepage of WikiIslam, i.e. in order to see in what ways the
information taken from the Internet influences their world views and how it affects
their attitudes towards Islam and Muslims in “real” life. The present article therefore
deals only with the first step and should mainly be seen as an explorative attempt to
cover a number of anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions that are expressed and
spread with the help of information and communication technologies. In order to
embark on this mission, we must now enter the world of WikiIslam.

WikiIslam

Like the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, WikiIslam could best be described as a

“community-edited website.” The site is thus open for editing, and its visitors and
members update its content. According to the information provided under the section
called FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions), “the main difference between WikiIslam
and Wikipedia is that opinions critical of Islam are not censored on WikiIslam for
political correctness.”9 Those who call up the homepage are also reminded that this
is a critical site and that it does not contain any pro-Islamic content. In this specific
context, to be “critical” is to hold a preconceived and negative opinion about Islam
and Muslims. The purpose of the site is explained in the following way:
The purpose of this Wiki is to archive those truths about Islam which are
frequently censored by Muslims or political correctness. This project also

9
See http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/FAQ.
58 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

provides a much needed relief for editors at WikiPedia whose opinions are
constantly edited out by Muslims and others who are afraid of saying anything
against Islam for fear of NPOV [neutral point of view] of bias.10
This declaration of purpose indicates that the setting up and starting of WikiIslam
is partly a response to developments that have taken place on Wikipedia. To present
a “correct” picture of Islam, it was necessary to start a new Wiki-site. WikiIslam was
therefore created on 27 October 2005, though it was only opened on Monday,
4 September 2006.11 Since the content of WikiIslam is deemed controversial,
especially for many believing Muslims, it is no surprise that the site has been
vandalised by hackers, who have tried to edit it, modify it or shut it down. According
to the information provided by the site, the first attack of vandalism took place on
26 October 2006, since when the site’s security protection has been updated to
hinder further attacks.12 However, at the time of publishing this article the WikiIslam
site was not functioning and it is unclear if it permanently closed or if is has been
vandalised again.
Although cyber vandalism is one of the downsides of being exposed on the
Internet, new information and communication technologies are powerful tools that
can be used for articulating anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions at little risk and
low cost. Compared to earlier forms of media, such as the radio or television, it is
very easy to produce and set up a homepage at low cost. To broadcast a message or
print a text for that matter requires more money and technical skills, and it is much
more difficult to get one’s message out to a large audience. Technological
developments have also made it much easier to be a producer of theological or
political messages as compared to former periods. Prior to the Internet, most
individuals were only consumers, not producers. From this point of view it is clear
that the introduction of the Internet has created new possibilities for many people to
get their voices heard and to question the established order in the society. The
importance of the Internet is, for example, clearly stated under the section called
“The Internet Toolbox For Islam Critics” on the WikiIslam homepage.
Islam is a global challenge. It should be met with a global response. The best
instrument for doing this is the Internet, the most international medium of all.
As many news outlets may still be reluctant to openly criticize Islam, the
Internet opens the possibility of a freer discourse on such subjects than more
traditional media do. The intention behind this Toolbox is to encourage more
people to use the Internet as a way of getting critical discussion of Islamic issues
out to the general public. Any person who wants to is very welcome to copy this
list or any parts of it that they may find interesting to their own websites.13
The quotation above and the content of WikiIslam are examples of how a large
number of different and not always related opinions and critical remarks on Islam
and Muslims are collected on the Internet. Although my article is primarily focused

10
See http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/FAQ.
11
See http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/WikiIslam:About.
12
See http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/WikiIslam:About#WikiIslam.27s_first_vandalism_attack.
13
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/Internet_Toolbox.
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 59

on the links provided by WikiIslam, it is pertinent here to give a broad description of

the content of the “community-edited website.” WikiIslam contains information
about Islam in the news; the Koran (especially on its perceived internal contra-
dictions); the prophet Muhammad (570–632 A.D.); quotations on Islam; the
persecution of former Muslims; the persecution of non-Muslims in Muslim
countries; literature on Islam and Muslims, Islam and pedophilia, etc. Compared to
“Muslim homepages,” i.e. those set up by believing Muslims, WikiIslam contains
only negative and critical examples. This bias is clearly represented in the section
called “laughing with the prophet”, which presents stories and reports from the life
of prophet Muhammad (i.e. hadith reports).14 My impression is that the stories
reported by WikiIslam have merely been selected to show that Muslims are ignorant,
backward or even stupid. This way of presenting the hadith tradition is in stark
contrast to how Muslims would introduce this material (cf. for example Siddiqi
1993). The outline of the material does not provide anyone visiting the homepage
with any information on the history and importance of the hadith material in Islamic
history and tradition. It does not even clarify the meaning of the word hadith, nor
does it provide any information on the place and function of the hadith traditions
within either an Islamic context or the academic study of Islam. This selection
therefore does not give the reader any chance to make up his or her own mind on
how to view or evaluate the hadith traditions (i.e. the basic principles of usul al-
hadith or the non-Muslim academic study of the reports), nor to obtain any
impression of the rich variety of information that could be found within this material.
WikiIslam also encourages its visitors to question and criticise all Muslims for
their belief in Islam. This job is made easier by the help of the so-called “101
questions to ask a Muslim,” a list of 101 tricky and provocative questions that are
formulated to demonstrate that Muslims are wrong and that Islam is not a “true”
religion.15 For example: “Muslims believe that our body parts will testify [to] our
sins in the hereafter. Is that true for donated body parts as well?” (cf. Wiegers 2002)
or “Is the milk of those milk rivers in heaven cow’s milk? How many cows does it
take for Allah to produce all that milk?”16 The visitor is also recommended to make
use of the Internet to criticise Muslims and spread negative information about them
and about Islam. This section is called “Practical Tips For People Working To
Expose Islam.”
The easiest thing you can do if you are concerned about Islam and what it is
doing to the world is using the Internet. Email the links to some of the websites
by ex-Muslims […] to friends, family, colleagues and everybody you know.
You may include other Islam-critical websites such as http://www.jihadwatch.
org/. This is free, and takes very little of your time, while increasing the
knowledge of Islam in the general public.17

14
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/Laughing_with_Muhammad.
15
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/101_questions_to_ask_a_Muslim.
16
The two quoted questions are numbers 2 and 3 in the list provided by WikiIslam. See http://www.
wikiislam.com/index.php/101_questions_to_ask_a_Muslim.
17
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/Internet_Toolbox#Practical_Tips_For_People_Working_
To_Expose_Islam.
60 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

By “ex-Muslims,” the quotation is referring to Muslims who have abandoned

Islam and become either atheists or secularists or else Christians.18

The link collection

As already indicated in the discussion above, WikiIslam is an open source that best
could be described as a “community-edited website.” From this point of view, the
homepage, or I should rather say the portal or hub, is constituted by its links.
Without the constant addition of new links and uploaded files, WikiIslam will most
likely stop attracting new members and the website will generate fewer hits (i.e.
fewer hits by people looking for “critical” information about Islam and Muslims via
search engines such as Google or Altavisa). By December 2006, 268 links had been
created under the heading “The complete list of sites offering an Alternative View on
Islam.” Since the list of links provides the visitor with a short description – for
example, if the forum or homepage is coloured by a specific outlook, or if it is
written in a certain language – it is possible to divide the material according to the
following scheme.
The taxonomy set out in Table 1 should, of course, be read carefully. For example,
it is difficult to make a clear separation between links that are placed under the
heading of “Christian/Jewish/ex-Muslim/Arab Christians” and the category “general/
nationalistic,” and the boundaries between the categories are floating ones. For
example, homepages or forums that give voice to nationalistic feelings often use
religious arguments when criticising Muslims and Islam. Nationalistic feelings may
also harbour religious and non-religious contents and motives that illustrate that the
boundaries between the categories are floating and difficult to uphold. Although most
taxonomy suffers from all or several of the problems discussed above, a taxonomy
can help us organize and analyse a large group of material. The taxonomy should
therefore not be seen as a blueprint of reality, but rather as a tool that helps us to
analyse the selected material (in this case the link collection provided by WikiIslam).
As already noted, it is impossible to predict the impact of WikiIslam just by
viewing its online content, but the list above illustrates that this “community-edited
website” provides Internet users with easily accessible anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
information. In December 2006, WikiIslam contained links giving information in
English, French, Dutch, German, Arabic, Swedish, Italian, Norwegian, Spanish,
Turkish, Indonesian, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Hebrew, Bengali, Hungarian and
Persian. This is an illustration of the fact that all individuals with access to a
computer with a modem linked to the Internet and who can read any of the
languages used by WikiIslam can easily find anti-Muslim information on the
Internet. This information can be used to question Muslims and criticise Islam and
Muslims in any local or global context.

18
For many Muslims, this is a problematic question that is hard to reconcile with western attitudes to the
freedom of religion. However, it is essential to stress that Muslims often argue that the individual has been
given freedom of choice, and that if he or she decided to abandon Islam, that is a matter of personal
choice.
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 61

Table 1 The complete list of sites offering an alternative view on Islam

Perspective Language/nationality Number

Christian/Jewish/ex-Muslim/Arab Christians English, Turkish, Indonesian, Arabic, French, 79

Italian, Dutch, Swedish
Secular/atheist/agnostic French, English, Turkish, German, Dutch, 54
Arabic, Italian, Spanish
Assyrian/Armenian/Serbian (genocide) English 6
General/nationalistic (pro-Israel/pro-United French, English, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, 94
States, anti-Muslims in Europe/pro-Russian/ Polish, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Greek,
pro-Serbian/anti-Muslims in Canada/ Hebrew, Danish, Hungarian, Spanish,
anti-terrorism) and satirical/humoristic Bengali, Portuguese
homepages
Hindu/Sikh English 18
Zoroastrian Persian 2
Women’s rights/feminists English, Hungarian 12
Islamic (search engine covering the four most English 2
acknowledged collections of hadiths or
translations of the Koran)
Pre-Islamic paganism/Neo-pagan English 1
Total 268

Source: WikiIslam (December 2006).

Is WikiIslam an expression of Islamphobia?

According to the UK think-tank, the Runnymede Trust (1997), and the report
Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, it is essential to make a distinction between
so-called open and closed attitudes to Islam and Muslims when discussing
Islamophobia.19 A closed attitude in this context is a viewpoint that claims that all
Muslims are similar and that they all behave the same way because they are
Muslims. Islam and Muslims are thus presented as a static and homogeneous entity
that is unaffected by external factors such as the economy, the social context and
worldly powers. Islam has an agency of its own, and all Muslims slavishly follow
the laws of Islam without any hesitation because they belong to the race called
“Homo islamicus.” According to this essentialist view, there is no room for critical
reflections that take into consideration the variations and tensions present in Islamic
history, as well as among Muslims in contemporary societies all around the world.
Following the Runnymede Trust and its definition of Islamophobia, it is possible to
argue that a closed attitude is more likely to be an expression of Islamophobia than
an open attitude. An open attitude is here constituted by a notion that Islam and
Muslims are heterogeneous phenomena and that it is possible to find great variation
in how Muslims interpret Islam. The difference between a closed and an open
attitude is illustrated in the table below, taken from the report Islamophobia: A
Challenge For Us All.
The taxonomy provided by the Runnymede Trust is useful in many ways, but it
does not solve all the methodological problems that are related to the counting and
measuring of Islamophobia in society. For example, in order to decide whether an

19
Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, p. 5, Runnymede Trust (1997).
62 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

incident should be seen as an example of Islamophobia, we have to decide whether

we should focus primarily on the motives that have been driving the perpetrators, or
whether we should rather listen to the victim and his or her perceptions of the
incident. The motive of the perpetrator and the perception of the victim are not
automatically the same. However, this methodological problem is not unique to the
study of Islamophobia – most studies of discrimination have to tackle this or similar
problems. Furthermore, it is also difficult to make a clear separation between so-
called ‘hate crimes’ and crimes driven mainly by hatred and fear of Muslims and
Islam. Racism and xenophobia are also part and parcel of the discussion of
Islamophobia, and it is difficult to isolate the study from other forms of
discrimination and xenophobia.20
Regardless of the methodological problems discussed above, it is relevant to ask
whether WikiIslam could be described as an expression of closed or open attitudes
towards Islam and Muslims. In relation to the criteria set up by the Runnymede Trust
(see Table 2), it should be quite easy to label most of the material published on
WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia. This is especially the case when we
remember that the host of the “community-edited website” stresses that “WikiIslam
is a community-edited website where opinions critical of Islam are not censored for
achieving a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV).”21 Nonetheless they argue that the site
is not a hate site and that many of the contributors are ex-Muslims who have Muslim
families and friends.22 This is not, of course, a guarantee that they are less critical of
Islam or objective in their perception of Islam and Muslim cultures.23 It is also
difficult to see all the sites linked to WikiIslam as expressions of Islamophobia, for
example, the link to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). This
homepage is rather a portal that contains news from the Middle East and the Arabic-
speaking world, and the content covers all kinds of news, as well as theological
discussions within the wider Middle East.24 Therefore, in order to call WikiIslam a
“purely” Islamophobic site, it would be necessary to scrutinise all web pages linked
to this site thoroughly, which I have not done for this article. It is therefore important
not to jump to the conclusion that all homepages that are added to the link list of the
WikiIslam have an Islamophobic agenda (cf. MEMRI discussed above), although
some of them might be labelled that way. This is an illustration of the fact that any

20
The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), for example, discusses how to
define Islamophobia in its report Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia,
published in 2006.
21
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/WikiIslam:About.
22
See http://www.wikiislam.com/index.php/FAQ.
23
Immigrants from Iran after the revolution of 1978/1979 have, for example, articulated some of the most
critical discourses on Islam and Muslim cultures. I am not trying to say that their experience of an Islamic
government is not genuine, but from an academic point of view it is difficult to make them into
spokespersons for all Muslims. Both historical examples and contemporary discussions among Muslim
theologians and “ordinary” Muslims illustrate clearly that it is not possible to talk about Islam as a
homogenous phenomenon. Interpretations of Islam have always varied depending on social, economic and
cultural conditions and power relations, and there is no indication that this will change in the near future.
24
See www.memri.org.
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 63

Table 2 Closed and open views of Islam

Distinctions Closed views of Islam Open views of Islam

1. Monolithic/ Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc,
diverse static and unresponsive to new realities.
2. Separate/ Islam seen as separate and other: (a) not
interacting having any aims of values in common
with other cultures (b) not affected by
them (c) not influencing them.
3. Inferior/ Islam seen as inferior to the West:
different barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
4. Enemy/partner Islam seen as violent, aggressive,
threatening, supportive of terrorism,
engaged in ‘a clash of civilisations.’
5. Manipulative/ Islam seen as a political ideology,
sincere used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticism of Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’
West rejected/ rejected out of hand.
considered
7. Discrimination Hostility towards Islam used to justify
defended/ discriminatory practices towards
criticised Muslims and exclusion of Muslims
from mainstream society.
8. Islamophobia Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural
seen as and ‘normal.’
natural/
problematic
Islam seen as diverse and progressive,
with international differences, debates
and development.
Islam seen as independent with other
faiths and cultures: (a) having certain
shared values and aims (b) affected by
them (c) enriching them.
Islam seen as distinctively different, but
not deficient, and as equally worthy of
respect.
Islam seen as an actual or potential
partner in joint cooperative enterprises
and in the solution of shared problems.
Islam seen as a genuine religious faith,
practised sincerely by its adherents.
Criticisms of ‘the West’ and other
cultures are considered and debated.
Debates and disagreements with Islam do
not efforts to combat
discrimination and exclusion.
Critical views of Islam are themselves
subjected to critique, lest they be
inaccurate and unfair.

Source: Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All, p. 5, Runnymede Trust (1997).

information posted on the Internet can easily pop up in new environments and that
the content of a specific homepage can be put to a number of different purposes.
Thus, when information is made public on the Internet, the “owner” often loses his
or her control over the posted data, especially since a homepage, or any information
posted on the Internet for that matter, can be linked to an immense number of
homepages, forums and portals, including WikiIslam. From this point of view, it
becomes much more difficult to argue that all information posted on WikiIslam is
Islamophobic by nature. To form this conclusion, it would be necessary to analyse
all the information linked to this site in detail and to talk to the people who originally
posted the information on the WikiIslam site. In my analysis, this limitation is an
important reminder that the study of religion and the Internet must consider both
what happens in cyberspace as well as ordinary daily activities in “real” life off
screen (cf. Dawson 2004: 394).

Combating Islamophobia on the net

The Internet hub WikiIslam shows that the new information and communication
technologies can be used to publish and spread anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
opinions. And although WikiIslam is an illustrative case study, it is evident that
Muslims themselves can also use the Internet to combat opinions and voices that are
64 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

perceived to be Islamophobic. Without judging whether Muslims are right or wrong

in their opinions – i.e. whether their perceptions are correct or not – several portals
and homepages are created with the aim of helping Muslims and non-Muslims
combat all forms of Islamphobia. Leaving aside the fact that the Muslim hubs are
partial and pro-Islamic (WikiIslam is, of course, also partial, being strongly anti-
Muslims and anti-Islam), it is important to document and study how Muslims also
use the Internet to improve their situation in Western society.25 The section below
and the examples selected should therefore only serve as an illustration of how
Muslims are using the new information and communication technologies to combat
Islamophobia. Resembling my reservations concerning WikiIslam, the homepages of
Islamophobia Watch, CAIR and FAIR, discussed in this section, should not be seen
as being representative of all Muslims. Likewise, my analysis does not provide us
with any information or data about the popularity of the selected homepages, nor of
the purposes for which they are utilised by either Muslims or non-Muslims.
Nonetheless, the homepage Islamophobia Watch is a clear example of how
Muslims can use the Internet to combat Islamophobic opinions in contemporary
debates. The history of the site and its aims are explained on the homepage.
Islamophobia Watch was initiated in January 2005 as a non-profitmaking
project to document material in the public domain which advocates a fear and
hatred of the Muslim peoples of the world and Islam as a religion. Islamophobia
Watch has been founded with a determination not to allow the racist ideology of
Western Imperialism to gain common currency in its demonisation of Islam.26
Resembling WikiIslam, the homepage of Islamophobia Watch contains informa-
tion on specific topics that are discussed in relation to Islamphobia and the outburst
of anti-Muslim opinions in contemporary society. For example, anti-Muslim opinions
related to the veil, the London bombings, leftist groups, liberalists, multiculturalism,
secularism, right-wing extremism and so-called women’s issues are discussed in great
detail. The homepage also contains specific information about authors and opinion-
formers such as Daniel Pipes, Tariq Ramadan, Oriana Fallaci and Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
While Pipes and Fallaci could best be described as anti-Muslim essentialists,
Ramandan and al-Qaradawi are two influential Muslim theologians who are playing
prominent roles in contemporary discussions of how to interpret Islam. By entering
the homepage of Islamophobia Watch, the Internet surfer is also provided with
information about the situation of Muslims in a large number of countries in the
European Union, Australia and New Zealand. From the link collection and the
frequent references to the report of the Runnymede Trust mentioned earlier, it seems
quite clear that Islamophobia Watch is situated in an UK context. My general
impression is that Islamophobia Watch mainly monitors discrimination, and the
ambition of those who run the homepage is to provide Muslims with data on
Islamophobia. A similar monitoring project is also carried out by FAIR (Forum

25
My analysis and description of both WikiIslam and the other Internet hubs discussed in this section
could all be seen as a humble attempt on my part to follow and partly answer Dawson’s call for more
research. He writes: “We need to know more about what is on the net, who has put it there, and why” and
“A great deal of basic descriptive work must be done” (Dawson 2004, pp. 387–388).
26
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/about-us/.
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 65

Against Islamophobia and Racism), another organization based in the UK.27 Among
many other things, they provide Internet users with a so-called News Digest that
“covers the top issues in the media relating to Islamophobia and racism in the UK.”
FAIR has been set up as an independent charitable organisation, its aims being:
& To raise awareness of and challenge Islamophobia through constructive and
educational means.
& To project a more balanced and positive image of Islam, as practiced by the vast
majority of British Muslims.
& To monitor and identify specific incidences of harassment and violence and deal
with them by case-specific means. To work towards the elimination of religious
discrimination at all levels and to promote equality of opportunity for all.
& To campaign and lobby to highlight and critique unjust laws affecting the
Muslim community in Britain. To monitor the way the regime of anti-
discrimination law is working and recommend improvements.
& To encourage good relationships between people and communities of different
religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds.28
Another example of how the Internet can be used to combat anti-Islamic and anti-
Muslim opinions is illustrated by the Counsel on American–Islamic Relations or
CAIR.29 Besides monitoring and gathering information on the public debate over
Islam and Muslims in the United States, this organisation also gives Muslims (or non-
Muslims for that matter) an opportunity to submit so-called online incident reports
covering both the positive and negative experiences of Muslims in American
society.30 Furthermore, CAIR teaches Muslim leaders and organisations how to
protect themselves and prevent themselves from becoming victims of xenophobia,
racism and Islamophobia. In order to empower Muslims, CAIR issues a so-called
survival kit for Muslims who have been harassed or assaulted or who suffer from
Islamophobia. The homepage also provides practical tips for how to set up lobby work
and get Muslims registered for voting so that they can take an active part in society.31
The three examples discussed in this section illustrate clearly that the Internet also
can be used to combat Islamophobia and curb anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim opinions
in society.

Conclusions

In studying and analysing anti-Muslim attitudes on the Internet, it is important to

remember that “history has been marked rather by religious tensions and conflicts
than inter-religious tolerance and coexistence” (Højsgaard 2006: 173) and that

27
http://www.fairuk.org./.
28
http://www.fairuk.org/objectives.htm.
29
The aim of CAIR is “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties,
empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” See
http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=About.
30
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=civilRightsPositiveIncidentReport.
31
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=138&theType=AA.
66 Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67

tensions and conflicts are not unique to the so-called age of information. This is a
reminder of the fact that neither conflicts and tensions nor tolerance and coexistence
are automatically linked to or caused by the introduction of a new technology (in this
case the Internet). Although most modern media (for example, the VCR, computer
games and the Internet) have initially been blamed for and linked to destructive and
negative forces in society, it is very difficult to make a causal connection between
technology and how society develops. Although I agree with Lorne L. Dawson that
the Internet has had a strong effect on the development of society, it is still very
difficult to prove that people have adopted certain attitudes, beliefs and behaviours
because of a new technology alone (cf. Dawson 2004: 385). In order to understand
how societies develop and transform themselves over time, we have to apply a much
broader analysis, incorporating the economy, politics, culture, etc., otherwise we run
the risk of becoming deterministic in our understanding of how the new information
and communication technologies transform society. For example, in periods of social
crisis it is easy to blame the technology (or immigrants, for that matter) for all the
problems in society. How this “moral panic” functions is clearly illustrated in an
excellent article by Lorne L. Dawson and Jenny Hennebry on the so-called
“Heaven’s Gate” affair in the United States in 1997. To grasp the fact that 39
members of the religious group Heaven’s Gate had committed collective suicide at
Rancho Santa Fe, California, on 26 March 1997, many voices in the United States
argued that the members had been lured into this “sect” by browsing the Internet. In
the moral panic that followed the suicides, some voices even called for the Internet
to be closed down.32 This unimaginable outburst of collective suicides could be
explained with reference to the introduction of the Internet and the fact that many of
the members of Heaven’s Gate had been working with computers and information
and communication technologies.
To develop the study of the Internet and avoid deterministic and monocausal
explanations as in the case of Heaven’s Gate, new ways, methods and theories for
analysing religion in cyberspace must be explored and developed. I have already
stressed that I totally agree with researchers such as Lorne L. Dawson and Lori
Kendal, who argues that “researchers need to consider participants’ local off-line
environments, as well as to explore how participants’ blend their on-line and off-line
lives and social contacts.” (Kendall 1999: 60) Researchers of ‘religion online’ and
‘online religion,’ to use Christopher Helland’s categories,33 should therefore refrain
from describing online life as a “new and discrete utopian world.” Instead we have to
consider that “online life always works in a feedback loop with offline life,” and that it
is impossible to study the Internet as a unique technology separated from the rest of
the society (Dawson 2004: 394). To develop the study of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic
attitudes posted on the Internet, it is necessary to formulate a number of questions that
requires fresh research and more empirical data before they can be answered in a
convincing and satisfying way. These questions are: Is there any difference between
online and offline arguments that are used in criticising Islam and Muslims? Are the
same arguments and examples recycled and reused, independently of local variations?

32
Dawson and Hennebry (2004). On this new religious movement, see also Chryssides (2005, pp. 353–370).
33
On these two categories, see Helland (2002, 2005).
Cont Islam (2007) 1:53–67 67

Is it possible to locate and isolate arguments that have been taken from WikiIslam and
used in offline debates? Who is using WikiIslam to criticise Islam and Muslims? Is the
material posted or linked to WikiIslam new, or is it based on translations of printed
materials? Does online criticism of Islam and Muslims differ from other forms of
disapproval? What is the Islamic or Muslim reaction to WikiIslam? What kind of
Muslim reactions does WikiIslam trigger? In order to answer these questions, it is
evident that we need more empirical research that includes, among many other things,
online and offline surveys, questionnaires and interview studies.

References

Allievi, S. (2003). The media. In B. Maréchal, et al. (Eds.), Muslim in the enlarged Europe: Religion and
society. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Allievi, S. (2006). How and why “Muslims” became “Muslims.” In ISIM Review, No. 18.
Berg, M. (1998). Hudud: Ett resonemang om populärorientalismens bruksvärde och världsbild.
Stockholm: Carlsson.
Brasher, B. (2001). Give me that online religion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brückner, M. (2001). Fatwas zum Alkohol unter dem Einfluss neuer Medien in 20 Jhdt. Würzburg: Ergon
Verlag.
Bunt, G. R. (2000). Virtually Islamic: Computer-mediated communication and cyber Islamic environ-
ments. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Bunt, G. R. (2003). Islam in the digital age: E-jihad, online fatwas and cyber Islamic environments.
London: Pluto.
Chryssides, G. D. (2005). “Come on up, and I will show thee”: Heaven’s gate as a postmodern group. In
J. R. Lewis & J. A. Petersen (Eds.), Controversial new religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dawson, L. L. (2004). Religion on the Internet: Presence, problems, and prospects. In P. Antes, A. W.
Geertz, & R. R. Warne (Eds.), New approaches to the study of religion: Volume 1: Regional, critical,
and historical approaches. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Dawson, L. L., & Hennebry, J. (2004). New religions and the Internet: Recruiting in a new public space. In
L. L. Dawson & D. E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion online: Finding faith on the Internet. London: Routledge.
EUMC (2006). Muslims in the European union: Discrimination and Islamophobia. Vienna: European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
Helland, C. (2002). Religion online/online religion and virtual communitas. In J. K. Hadden & D. E.
Cowan (Eds.), Religion on the Internet: Research prospects and promises. London: JAI Press.
Helland, C. (2005). Online religion as lived religion: Methodological issues in the study of religious
participation on the Internet. Online – Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet, 1(1).
Højsgaard, M. T. (2006). Connecting without belonging: Interfaith dialogue and religious conflicts within
online settings. In G. Larsson (Ed.), Religious communities on the Internet. Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell International.
Jones, S. (Ed.) (1999). Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net.
London: Sage.
Kendall, L. (1999). Recontextualizing “Cyberspace”: methodological considerations for on-line research. In
S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the net. London: Sage.
O_Leary, S. (2005). Utopian and dystopian possibilities of networked religion in the new millennium. In
M. T. Højsgaard & M. Warburg (Eds.), Religion and cyberspace. London: Routledge.
Runnymede Trust (1997) Islamophobia: A challenge for us all. London: The Runnymede Trust.
Said, E. W. (1981). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the
world. London: Routledge.
Shaheen, J. (2001). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. Northampton: Interlink.
Siddiqi, M. Z. (1993). Hadith literature: Its origin, development and special features. Cambridge: Islamic
Text Society.
Wiegers, G. (2002). Muslim discussions on organ donations to adherents of other religions. In W. A. R.
Shadid & P. S. van Koningsveld (Eds.), Intercultural relations and religious authorities: Muslims in
the European Union. Leuven: Peeters.