There has been a pronounced rise of anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe in recent years, with roots dating back to the 1990s that were sharply accelerated after the events of 9/11. This pervasive Islamophobia stems from lingering post-colonial Orientalist attitudes that fundamentally view Muslims as problematic outsiders threatening European identity. Anti-Muslim perspectives are deeply ingrained in institutions and structures across Europe, with heated debates about Muslim visibility and integration showing that Muslim communities are widely seen as inherent threats to social cohesion. Detailed surveys by organisations such as Turkey’s SETA have empirically documented the extent and growth of these negative societal attitudes towards Muslims.
The roots of this sentiment can be traced back to European colonialism and the scientific racism and exploitation of colonised peoples that first emerged to justify colonial subjugation. Despite the societal resets that occurred in Europe following the immense traumas of two world wars, elements of these outdated colonial attitudes clearly persist in the present day. Minority Muslim populations, originally brought to Europe for manual labour and industrial work, were initially expected to fully assimilate to European cultural norms. However, even amid the economic shifts of deindustrialisation and globalisation that hollowed out the low-wage jobs that had brought Muslim workers to Europe, these minority communities have continued to grow and establish permanent roots in Europe rather than disappearing as once expected. This endurance has become a source of resentment and anxiety for some segments of the European majority populace. Patterns of systemic discrimination and exclusion have become deeply ingrained across European institutions and societies.
The outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war represents a particularly polarising event that has further amplified divisions over anti-Muslim sentiment. Hamas’s astonishing rocket attacks reaching Jerusalem and Tel Aviv stunned many observers on 7 October, prompting a severe military response from Israel that has led to massive destruction in Gaza and the great loss of Palestinian civilian lives. This cycle of violence has led to hardened and mutually hostile stances, with greater support for both the Palestinian cause and Israel’s rationale for self-defence emerging across various European countries. In this setting, the subtleties of middle-ground points of view are often lost in the broad accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against some critics of Israeli policy and the limited stories spread by major Western media outlets. Western European political leaders have fallen behind in defending Israel’s right to militarily defend itself against terrorist attacks, even as their own populations increasingly march in mass protests that call for an immediate ceasefire and peaceful diplomatic resolution to the crisis. The asymmetric brutality of the conflict, with Palestinians suffering vastly disproportionately, has also led much of the European public to become desensitised and numb to the violence. This dynamic further amplifies existing social divisions rooted in lingering European guilt over the Holocaust occurring on European soil alongside ongoing Orientalist prejudices that paint Arab Muslims as culturally backwards.
The radicalisation of some young Muslims can be partially understood as arising out of exclusion from mainstream society and experiences of discrimination or anti-Muslim hostility. However, such radical acts, especially violent ones, also drive greater public fear and resentment towards Muslim populations more broadly. The process of radicalisation tends to stem from a sense of alienation, the pressures of racialisation, and a relative sense of deprivation, with extremist ideology only coming at the very end of this progression. The extremism that emerges is fundamentally rooted in failures within European society itself, rather than stemming from any kind of foreign ideological contamination. Indeed, contemporary Islamist extremists adopt many of the same terrorist and radical rhetorical tools first developed by secular European anarchist and nationalist terrorist groups over the last two to three centuries. The notion sometimes propagated that Muslim immigrants and citizens intrinsically represent a “fifth column” at risk of inherent radicalisation tends to obscure this sociological reality. Government “countering violent extremism” programmes often simply replace more neutral community development initiatives with explicitly securitised and surveillance-oriented programmes, limiting the scope of discourse and trust between Muslim community members and authorities. In this climate, radicalisation emerges most forcefully where people lack alternatives for meaningful social participation and economic mobility within their own communities.
Several key factors will shape the future trajectory of relations between Muslim and non-Muslim populations across European countries. Muslim community demographics feature birth rates that exceed the declining birth rates seen in non-Muslim European populations. This is contributing to the rise of a very youthful European Muslim population juxtaposed against the ageing non-Muslim majority ethnic groups. Urban sociological dynamics are also creating concentrations of Muslim residents comprising local majority populations in certain neighbourhoods of large cities. However, research shows that more day-to-day interaction and sharing of community spaces across ethnic and religious groups correlates with more harmonious and positive relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. Achieving this positive vision will require reforms that foster far greater inclusion of Muslims within mainstream institutional spaces that have historically marginalised those perceived as outsiders. It will also require addressing the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of Muslims in public discourse and the media. Economic policies must be reoriented to provide greater support for communities rather than solely emphasising individual-level solutions. Without these kinds of significant reforms, polarisation and social tensions look likely to worsen in the coming decades. However, communication and understanding on the interpersonal level still retain the potential to build human bonds and transcend ingrained prejudices, despite the weight of history and institutions.
At the most fundamental level, people inherently seek interpersonal connection and understanding once the social and political barriers separating groups are removed. Well-intentioned rhetoric alone will not bridge these present divides. Rather, courageous political, civic, and intellectual leadership will be essential to articulating a bold aspirational vision that can help unite society across existing lines of division and polarisation. Through greater openness and communication, levels of mutual trust and common humanity can be rediscovered. There are no easy answers or rapid fixes after decades and centuries of ingrained attitudes. But this process must begin with awareness of past and present reality and the willingness to imagine a future that moves beyond fear and division.