Muslims countering Islamophobia, a proactive position. Luqman Nieto.

To say that the media are a powerful tool when it comes to shaping public opinion is not a new and well-proven argument.
The media – newspapers, radio, television, the internet, social networks – have evolved as the technology that supports them has evolved to become practically omnipresent.
What constitutes a media outlet and how they have changed their fundamental characteristics is the subject of another article, but that the general public is exposed to a constant stream of information that competes to win our opinion is an undeniable reality.
The power of the media lies in the fact that they propose a way of understanding the events that happen around us, a way of giving meaning to them.
This meaning comes from a larger, general narrative that contextualizes it and is the prism through which the media filter the facts to offer the opinion that fits their agenda.
Absolute objectivity does not exist, and the most a media outlet can aspire to is not to hide its subjectivity.
What we are interested in highlighting here is that the media are a tool to build a narrative, a discourse, and as such the important thing is that we are aware of what discourse they propose when it comes to reporting.
Therefore, what the media offer is a version of the facts based on an agenda and on the basis of which other versions are possible.
Numerous examples of this can be seen in the study recently published by the Islamophobia Observatory “An incontestable reality: Islamophobia in the media” through which we see how different media propose different ways of understanding certain events.
The objective of a media outlet that publishes a news item is to provoke a response in the reader, either by influencing their opinion, changing it or confirming it, so that when a critical mass of readers share the same opinion as the media, a social movement is produced, either in favor of change or in opposition to it.
In doing so, the outlet is creating a narrative through which to give meaning and meaning to both its own existence and that of its readers.
The last elections in the United States, where certain private companies became very important when it came to influencing public opinion through social networks to determine a result, or, without going any further, the alleged Russian interference during the referendum attempt in Catalonia, also through social networks, are some examples of this.
The reason why I have stopped to briefly outline what a media outlet is and what its objectives are, is because given its pervasiveness today we cannot pretend to be oblivious to its influence and the impact that these can have on the way we ourselves create our personal and community narratives.
When we talk about Islamophobia, what we are saying is that there are certain sectors of society whose narrative defines Islam in a way that is conflicting to their ends.
From this radiates a discourse that permeates many media outlets – some of which represent these same sectors – consciously or unconsciously.
In the face of this, the crucial thing is how we Muslims respond to this definition of Islam and Muslims.
There are two possibilities, either reactively or proactively. When we respond reactively, we are giving reality to the version of events that these media, or social sectors, propose and we are confirming their narrative.
We are letting the definition of Islam, of Muslims and their place in society, be defined by them instead of us defining it.
When we take a proactive position instead, we are proposing an alternative narrative that does not accept an imposed definition, but advocates understanding that Islam and Muslims can be, and are, an integral part of this society.
The danger of reactivism is that it can easily turn into victimhood.
That is, Muslims accept the fact that they are victims of an aggression that is a response to a crime they have not committed.
The reaction to something is necessarily linked to the agent that causes it, in the same way that an answer is linked to the question asked.
Taking a proactive position is the opposite.
It is not just answering questions but being involved in the formulation of them.
If Muslims want, and should want, to participate in the formulation of the questions, they must take a proactive position.
The reality is that Muslims are already an active part of this society on many levels, and as the Muslim population consolidates – new Muslims and immigrants, their children and in many cases already a third generation – their participation will grow in quality and quantity.
An example of this are some of the European countries that have more settled and traditional Muslim populations, such as England, France or Germany, where Muslims are part of the social fabric at all levels – from politics or academia to business or service sectors.
The social readjustments that are taking place in these places, with the dangers that this can entail when public discourse is hijacked, are testimony to this.
A society is a dynamic entity constantly subjected to different pressures that aspire to shape it, which gives rise to necessary readjustments.
The question we must all ask ourselves, Muslims and non-Muslims, is what kind of society we want to live in and what steps we are taking to do so.
In this sense, participating in social discourse in an active and positive way, in the formulation of questions and not only in the answers, is essential to be a constituent part of the individual and social narrative, and the best way to counteract Islamophobia.
(Article commissioned by the Observatory of Islamophobia in the Media.) Facebook and Twitter @ObsIslamofobiaLuqman Nieto Hafid de Corán, writer and vice-president of the Seville Mosque Foundation. www.luqmannieto.com