The Manufacturing of Fear: How Islamophobia is Orchestrated in France

In France, Islamophobia is not merely a collection of random prejudices; it has become an idée fixe—a fixed and obsessive idea. This French term, retained in English as “idée fixe,” describes a notion that oscillates between stubbornness, narrow-mindedness, and outright obsession. Those who hold it refuse to deviate from their belief, let alone critically re-examine it. This concept has become deeply entrenched within influential segments of the French decision-making class and media circles, forming the core of what is often reductively labeled “the Muslim problem.”

A New Catalyst for a Fixed Idea

This entrenched Islamophobia recently found fresh fuel following the tenth anniversary of the Bataclan terrorist attacks in Paris. A right-wing magazine, Vigilance Screen, commissioned an opinion poll on the religiosity of French Muslims. The survey’s findings, as presented, suggested a “surge” in religious practice among the youth, claiming that one in four French Muslims strictly observe Islamic rites and that the wearing of the hijab is becoming widespread among young women.

The report extrapolated from this data a dangerous tendency towards extremism, implicitly drawing a direct line between religious observance and radicalization. This framing ignited a fierce national debate, reaching the highest levels of the Ministry of the Interior. Pundits and journalists across various media platforms seized on the narrative, issuing warnings about “creeping Islamization,” “re-Islamization,” and the “alarming advance” of religious signs, which they claimed threatened to place Sharia law above the laws of the French Republic.

However, more prudent voices quickly highlighted the survey’s profound methodological flaws. They pointed out that the sample size was not necessarily representative, the questions were leading, and the timing of its release—coinciding with the sensitive anniversary—was far from innocent. This was not an objective search for truth, but the construction of a pre-determined “truth” under the guise of scientific neutrality. It represents a systematic bias that creates problems rather than solving them, lending a pseudo-scientific veneer to deep-seated ideological and propaganda-driven views.

Beyond Simple Racism: The Anatomy of a Prejudice

It is crucial to understand that Islamophobia in the French context is distinct from classical racism. It is not merely a set of actions against Islam and Muslims, nor is it confined to the less educated, working-class segments of society who might hold prejudices against those in similar socio-economic circumstances. Instead, it is a sophisticated orientation—an ideological framework—nurtured and propagated by educated, influential, and powerful elites within the media, academia, and political establishment.

This system operates on a logic of continuity and manufacturing, akin to the concept of “Holocaust industry.” It is, in essence, an Islamophobia industry: a self-perpetuating cycle of feeding, molding, and directing public perception based on a preconceived notion of a danger—whether real, potential, or, most often, entirely imagined.

The “Necessary Enemy” in the French Imagination

As the renowned French anthropologist René Girard argued in his seminal work, The Scapegoat, societies facing deep-seated crises and existential anxieties often seek a “necessary enemy”—a scapegoat to bear the blame for their misfortunes. In contemporary France, and Europe at large, the Muslim community has been cast in this role.

This sense of being under threat oscillates between a feeling of persecution and the outright demonization of this “necessary enemy.” The construction of this enemy relies on a reductive memory, a selective reading of history, and the deliberate amplification of specific events—a practice similar to the “Gore rule,” which involves focusing on and relentlessly repeating a single, shocking incident while ignoring all countervailing evidence.

This process involves a fundamental, and often deliberate, logical fallacy: the confusion of cause and effect. The narrative begins with the assumption that Muslims are inherently unassimilable into Western societies, particularly France. It then fails to ask why integration might be challenging, ignoring critical factors like systemic failures in education, employment, housing, and weakened community bonds. Instead, the retreat into identity and religiosity—which is often a reaction to social exclusion and a lack of integration—is itself portrayed as the cause of the problem.

This is a classic case of metonymy in the social sciences: substituting an effect for its cause. The vast majority of Muslims, who are peaceful and integral parts of the national fabric, are rendered invisible, reduced to a single, menacing identity: “the Muslim.”

A Three-Tiered Architecture of Suspicion

The recent survey on religiosity functions as the third tier in a structured architecture of suspicion:

1. The Legislative Foundation: The so-called “Separatism Law” (August 2021), officially framed as reinforcing secularism, which legally codifies a suspicion of Muslim communities.

2. The Institutional Memo: The Ministry of the Interior’s memorandum on “Political Islam” (June 2024), which targets Muslim associations, including non-violent ones, under the nebulous accusation of “infiltration.”

3. The Societal Narrative: The public opinion survey, which targets society at large—specifically the general Muslim population—and aims to legitimize the first two tiers by creating a socio-cultural “proof” of a problem.

Together, these tiers interact to give Islamophobia a veneer of legal, administrative, and sociological “legitimacy.”

Conclusion: The Real Crisis and a Path Forward

In France and beyond, Islamophobia is dangerously intertwined with issues of immigration and the conspiratorial “Great Replacement” theory. This obscures the reality that migration is a hallmark of modern societies, that immigrants have historically contributed significantly to Western economies, and that identities are inherently fluid.

The way to overcome these entrenched social problems does not lie in show trials, ready-made judgments, or the persecution of a manufactured “necessary enemy.” The solution requires honest dialogue and a genuine, scientific approach that addresses the real, complex roots of social friction, rather than feeding the cyclical and politically convenient industry of fear.

  Donate Here