Social & Cultural Geography

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rscg20

Geographies of Islamophobia

Kawtar Najib & Carmen Teeple Hopkins

To cite this article: Kawtar Najib & Carmen Teeple Hopkins (2020) Geographies of Islamophobia,
Social & Cultural Geography, 21:4, 449-457, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2019.1705993

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1705993

Published online: 16 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2555

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rscg20
SOCIAL & CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY
2020, VOL. 21, NO. 4, 449–457
https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1705993

EDITORIAL

Geographies of Islamophobia
Kawtar Najib and Carmen Teeple Hopkins
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Islamophobia often refers to systemic racism against Muslims Received 9 February 2019
and the lived experiences of discrimination against people Accepted 12 November 2019
who are perceived as Muslim. These forms of racism and KEYWORDS
discrimination have intensified in the last couple of decades, Geographies; Islamophobia;
especially since the War on Terror. This introduction argues Multi-scalar; Muslims;
that Islamophobia is a spatialized process that occurs at dif- Muslim-minority contexts
ferent scales in Muslim-minority countries: globe, nation,
urban, neighbourhood, body and emotion. First, we outline MOTS-CLEFS
géographies; islamophobie;
a genealogy of the term, Islamophobia. Second, we demon-
multiscalaire; musulmans;
strate the ways in which Islamophobia occurs at different contextes à minorité
scales and is connected between scales. Finally, we introduce musulmane
the papers in the special issue to highlight our argument that
Islamophobia is multi-scalar. We also show how the methodo- PALABRAS CLAVE
logical contributions of the research within geographies of Geografías; islamofobia;
Islamophobia can impact policy-making and political organiz- multiescalar; musulmanes;
contextos de minorías
ing against Islamophobia.
musulmanas

Géographies de l’islamophobie
RÉSUMÉ
L’islamophobie désigne souvent le racisme systémique à
l’égard des musulmans et les expériences vécues de discrimi-
nation envers les personnes perçues comme telles. Ces formes
de racisme et de discrimination se sont intensifiées pendant
les deux dernières décennies et surtout depuis la «?guerre
contre le terrorisme?». La présente introduction soutient que
l’islamophobie est un processus spatialisé qui se produit à
différentes échelles dans les pays à minorité musulmane: glo-
bale, nationale, urbaine, riveraine, corporelle et émotionnelle.
Pour commencer, nous définissons une généalogie du mot:
islamophobie. Nous démontrons ensuite les manières dont
l’islamophobie survient à différentes échelles et est reliée
entre échelles. Finalement, nous présentons les articles de
l’édition spéciale pour mettre en évidence notre argumenta-
tion que l’islamophobie est multiscalaire. Nous démontrons
aussi la façon dont les contributions méthodologiques de la
recherche au sein des géographies de l’islamophobie peuvent
influencer l’élaboration des politiques et l’organisation poli-
tique contre l’islamophobie.

CONTACT Kawtar Najib kawtar.najib@ncl.ac.uk School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle
University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England, UK
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
450 EDITORIAL

Geografías de la islamofobia
RESUMEN
La islamofobia a menudo se refiere al racismo sistémico contra los
musulmanes y las experiencias vividas de discriminación contra las
personas que son percibidas como musulmanas. Estas formas de
racismo y discriminación se han intensificado en las últimas dos
décadas, especialmente desde la Guerra contra el Terror. Esta
introducción argumenta que la islamofobia es un proceso espaciali-
zado que ocurre a diferentes escalas en países de minorías musulma-
nas: globo, nación, espacio urbano, vecindario, cuerpo y emoción.
Primero, describimos una genealogía del término, islamofobia. En
segundo lugar, demostramos las formas en que ocurre la islamofobia
a través diferentes escalas y su conexión entre escalas. Finalmente,
presentamos los artículos en este número especial para resaltar nues-
tro argumento de que la islamofobia es multiescalar. También mos-
tramos cómo las contribuciones metodológicas de la investigación
dentro de las geografías de la islamofobia pueden afectar la
formulación de políticas y la organización política contra la
islamofobia.

The state of Islamophobia in predominantly Non-Muslim countries

While Islamophobia is not new, it has intensified in the last couple of decades, especially
since the War on Terror. The post 9/11 context has been accompanied by the conflation of
Islam with terrorism, legislation against clothing associated with feminine Islamic piety
(i.e. anti-headscarf and anti-‘burqa’ laws), as well as anti-immigration protests and xeno-
phobia that is directed toward Muslim migrants, to name a few examples. Indeed, in
Muslim-minority countries we are witnessing the rise of openly anti-Muslim politicians
and political parties. Anti-Muslim political discourse in the global north often revolves
around the following tropes: Muslims come from ‘backward’ cultures and are foreigners
who do not belong in Europe or North America; the Islamic veil oppresses Muslim women
who are passive; and Muslim men are ‘terrorists’ (Katz, 2007; Staeheli & Nagel, 2008). These
narratives and policies, reflecting a long history of Orientalism (Said, 1978), are based on
false analogies and cultural prejudices and impact the socio-spatial dimensions of
Muslims’ lived experiences.
The term, Islamophobia, was coined in 1997 by the Runnymede Trust, a U.K. think tank
on race and cultural diversity to refer to an ‘unfounded hostility toward Islam’
(Runnymede Trust, 1997: 4). While the initial report provides a comprehensive portrait
of the many forms of anti-Muslim sentiment, twenty years later the Runnymede Trust
(2017) continues to draw attention to the negative repercussions of this discrimination on
the lives of Muslims. Islamophobia has been commonly understood as a process of
racialization and Othering that essentialises and homogenizes Muslims (Allen, 2010;
Halliday, 2003; Naber, 2008; Sayyid & Vakil, 2010); Islamophobic political debates and
media coverage often deny the plurality and humanity of Muslim populations.
Within academic disciplines, Islamophobia initially began to be theorized as both
a concept and field of inquiry to a greater extent in social science disciplines other
than geography: notably Sociology, Anthropology and Political Science (e.g. Göle N.
 SOCIAL & CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY 451

2011; Modood, 1997; Scott, 2007). In geography, the term began to be used in the
late 2000s (Hopkins, 2019). Previously, the research on Muslim communities in social
and cultural geography focused on Muslim identities and urban exclusion in Muslim-
minority countries (Dwyer, 1999; Falah & Nagel, 2005; Hopkins, 2007; Hopkins & Gale,
2009; Koefoed & Simonsen, 2010; Kwan, 2008; Mansson McGinty, 2012; Naylor &
Ryan, 2002; Peach, 2006; Peach & Gale, 2005; Phillips, 2006). Earlier geographical
research on Muslims tended to focus on residential segregation (Gale, 2013; Phillips,
2006) as well as processes of racialization (Kobayashi & Peake, 2000). We then began
to see some geographers engaging with the term, Islamophobia, while not necessa-
rily defining it (Dwyer, Shah, & Sanghera, 2008; Mansson McGinty, Sziarto, &
Seymour-Jorn, 2012), and others who started to define its contours in research on
France, Sweden and Australia (Dunn, Klocker, & Salabay, 2007; Hancock, 2015; Itaoui,
2016; Listerborn, 2015; Najib, 2019; Teeple Hopkins, 2015).
Social and cultural geographers often refer to Islamophobia as a form of systemic
racism against Muslim populations and discrimination against people who are per-
ceived as Muslim. Islam is seen as a racialized religion: this process of racialization
occurs through violence and discrimination that are directed toward visible signs of
Islamic belonging (e.g. beard, veils, mosques) (Dunn et al., 2007; Hopkins, 2004).
Drawing on theories of intersectionality, this racialized dimension of Islamophobia is
also gendered. Anti-veiling laws have impacted young Muslim women who wear
a headscarf significantly more than young Sikh or Jewish men (who also wear
a turban or a kippa) and racist attacks and interpersonal aggressions in public spaces
tend to target visibly Muslim women (Gökariksel & Secor, 2015; Hancock, 2015;
Listerborn, 2015; Najib, 2017; Teeple Hopkins, 2015).
Building on this geographical tradition on the socio-spatial exclusion of Muslims,
this special issue advances the concept of Islamophobia by arguing that
Islamophobia is a spatialized process that occurs at different scales: globe, nation,
urban, neighbourhood, body and emotion. The articles in this special issue also
provide a methodological contribution to the geographies of Islamophobia: there
are innovative quantitative, mixed-methods, and mapping approaches that provide
a vantage point into the ways in which Muslim communities experience daily life and
negotiate Islamophobia.
Inherent in the spatialization of Islamophobia is an important relationship
between visibility and invisibility: on the one hand, signs of Muslim piety, such as
mosques, veils, and beards are often visible in public space in Muslim-minority
contexts (Göle et al., 2011; Hatziprokopiou & Evergeti, 2014). Islamophobic perpetra-
tors have attacked Muslim women and men or buildings associated with Islam based
on this visibility (Hopkins & Gale, 2009; Jonker & Amiraux, 2006; Teeple Hopkins,
2015). On the other hand, bans against religious dress (e.g. the 2004 headscarf ban in
public schools in France) and the construction of mosques (e.g. the 2009 ban in
Sweden and Switzerland on Minarets, the tower which provides a visual distinction
and is used for the Muslim call to prayer) attempt to reduce the visibility of Muslim
communities. The actors and institutions of Islamophobia may include municipal
planners, national law-makers, or interpersonal violence by both men and women.
452 EDITORIAL

Islamophobia: a multi-scalar approach

It is this relationship between the ‘visible’ (which fosters Islamophobic attacks) and the
‘invisible’ (which reduces Islamophobia) aspects of Muslimness that a multi-scalar
approach allows us to explore in more detail. A place-based understanding of
‘Othering’ often involves a dualistic vision of ‘us versus them’. In spatial terms this binary
can be understood as ‘here versus there’ (Clayton, 2009; Hancock, 2015) at a global scale
in which media and political discourse defines ‘us’ as white, non-Muslim bodies notably in
Europe and America and ‘them’ as brown, Muslim bodies who come from and should
remain notably in the Middle East and Northern Africa. These understandings often
reinforce colonial discourse that Muslims do not belong in these countries: their presence
is conditional and their communities are considered suspect.
At the national scale, there is a key theoretical issue on the relationship between
governance and faith. There are often differing interpretations of secularism across
countries. In France, for example, the freedom of religion was established through early
20th century laws to separate the Catholic Church from the educational role of the State
(Baubérot, 2012) and the term, laïcité, was interpreted in French law in the mid-20th
century to continue the state. But in the 2004, the French state used laïcité as an argument
to ban religious symbols in the public school system. Embedded in this national-scale law
was a fundamentally spatial understanding: symbols of Islamic belonging were appro-
priate in the ‘private’ space of the home but not in the ‘public’ space of schools (Teeple
Hopkins, 2015). Islamophobia not only threatens the coexistence of the various religious
groups, but it also betrays the democratic values of European and North American
countries. The specificity of national histories is important to understanding how demo-
cratic concepts become manipulation to justify how Islamophobia becomes legally
enshrined in law.
Islam is often deemed incompatible with ‘western’ ideas and values, and therefore the
multicultural and cultural diversity policies in Muslim-minority countries tend to frame
Muslim integration as a challenge (Modood, 2008). Secular laws attempt to reinforce the
idea that there is no place for visible signs of Islam. This violence persists amidst the
disproportionately high and unsubstantiated misconceptions of a Muslim threat in
Europe and North America (Duncan, 2016). And Islamophobia takes different forms in
different national contexts. France, for instance, has been at the forefront of implement-
ing laws against religious dress and other countries and regions have followed suit (e.g.
Denmark). In contrast, the United States does not have laws against religious dress but
there is strong anti-Muslim sentiment that pervades political discourse and immigration
including President Donald Trump’s past attempt to implement a ‘Muslim ban’ and
a major reduction in the number of Muslim refugees entering the U.S. from 2016 to
2018 (Bier, 2018).
At an urban scale, these stereotypes pose geographical questions around the belong-
ing and safety of Muslim populations in predominantly non-Muslim neighbourhoods and
cities. Henri Lefebvre’s ‘right to the city’ was premised on the emancipatory struggle for
the working-class people to reclaim their attachment to daily life and affordable housing
in the downtown core after their displacement to the suburbs by the capitalist class
(Lefebvre, 1996). Across Europe and notably in France, Muslim communities tend to live in
these peripheral working-class neighbourhoods, experiencing high rates of precarious
 SOCIAL & CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY 453

employment and unemployment. The daily violence that many Muslim women and men
endure in public space significantly questions their ‘right to the city’. Geographers provide
a ‘spatial’ reading of how social distinctions and forms of discrimination are constituted,
constrained and mediated (Delanay, 2002; Sundstrum, 2003).
While geographies of exclusion and inequality have a longer history in urban and social
geographies, to what extent do geographies of Islamophobia reflect these broader forms
of socio-spatial exclusion? Put simply, does anti-Muslim discrimination occur in spaces of
poverty and degradation, in Muslim neighbourhoods, or in geographical spaces that are
not typically associated with Muslim neighbourhoods? For example, in Paris, anti-Muslim
acts tend to occur in privileged and central areas, but there are some spots emphasized in
degraded urban areas where Muslim populations may live in great majority, even if they
represent a small proportion (Najib, 2019). It is this daily violence in urban space that is felt
at both the scales of the body and emotion: the trauma from Islamophobic violence
cannot be undone. The never-ending potential threat of violence in public space com-
bines an embodied emotional and physical sense of fear (Listerborn, 2015) that is
particularly strong for those who are read as visibly Muslim. As a result, Muslim women
who wear a headscarf must reinvent new mobilities and behaviours to avert potential
situations of discrimination (Najib & Hopkins, 2019).

The papers in this special issue

This special issue is partly based on a selection of papers presented in organized
sessions at the American Association of Geography’s annual conference in Boston in
2017 (sponsored by the Social & Cultural Geography research group). The contributors
are early career and established scholars from different backgrounds and universities
whose research substantively engages with Islamophobia in social and cultural
geography.
This special issue demonstrates the different scales at which Islamophobia occurs and
relies on a range of methodologies to make its case. While most geographical studies on
Muslim exclusion rely on qualitative methodologies, there is a need for mixed-method
approaches (Hopkins, 2009). Indeed, quantitative data can reveal general processes of
Islamophobia, while qualitative data can better examine and detail the people’s embo-
died and emotional experiences of it. Applying both quantitative and qualitative
approaches to the geographies of Islamophobia represents an important moment for
public engagement and education, and can help inform policy-making to prevent anti-
Muslim discrimination.
We begin with Kawtar Najib and Peter Hopkins’ comparative case study of Paris and
London. They show how Islamophobia occurs in different spaces in each city, highlighting
how particular spaces and places, such as the city centres, suburbs, transport axes,
pockets of segregation, public areas, transport networks and public institutions, offer
striking differences about where Islamophobia is most likely to occur in each city. Building
on feminist theories of intersectionality, the article shows how spatialized Islamophobia is
gendered, racialized, aged and classed. While the spatial analysis is focused at the urban
scale in each geographical context, there is a cross-national comparison that also under-
girds their inquiry, contrasting the French Republican model with the British multicultural
political model. Moreover, the methodological innovation of this article lies in the
454 EDITORIAL

quantitative mapping of Islamophobia in each city based on statistics from community

organizations and London Metropolitan Police.
The second article of the special issue by Rhonda Itaoui focuses on the U.S. context and
the lived experiences of young American Muslims living in the Bay Area of San Francisco
in California. Similar to Najib and Hopkins, Itaoui also provides a mapping of Islamophobia
but instead of relying on the statistical data of other organizations, she uses a mixed-
methods approach and asks her participants to complete ‘mental maps’ through an
online survey to show their understandings of safe and unsafe spaces. Her findings
show how young Muslims perceive racism across the city. The urban scale is the focal
point, considering how places such as public transportation and airports are heavily
embedded in meanings of surveillance and a lack of safety for young Muslims.
Anna Mansson McGinty’s piece draws our attention to the scales of the body and
emotions and links them to broader forms of discrimination. Relying on feminist theories
of emotional geopolitics, she demonstrates that Islamophobia is both embodied and
systemic: these are two distinct but connected processes that carry both psychological
and geographical meanings. Drawing on ethnographic interviews with two siblings in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Mansson McGinty’s use of qualitative methods brings a depth to
stories that come with a longstanding relationship with and trust between her intervie-
wees and herself. Similar to the previous two articles, the research findings give examples
of Islamophobia in urban spaces, but the interviews also show how Islamophobia oper-
ates in intimate places, including that of the family.
Similarly, Lauren Fritzsche and Lise Nelson draw on qualitative fieldwork in Missoula,
Montana to explore the contested and embodied politics of refugee resettlement and
Islamophobia. The article shows how Islamophobia occurs in everyday and local spaces
and is directed toward people who are not necessarily Muslim but are nonetheless
racialized. The paper makes an important contribution by grounding Islamophobia in
a context of settler colonialism. Through a feminist geopolitical approach, Fritzsche and
Nelson emphasize how refugees are viewed as a threat to the existing local white
Christian community in Missoula and thus demonstrate how Islamophobia is embedded
in ways that construct Montana as a frontier space.
In the special issue there is an overarching theme of the realm of the ‘political’, spaces
of formal and informal politics, and how these politics are shaped by Islamophobia. Claire
Hancock’s research examines how Muslim populations are accepted and celebrated at the
municipal scale in Paris while discourses emphasize the need to control them at a national
scale. Her article demonstrates how scale is constitutive of the broader contradiction
between visibility and invisibility that the special issue highlights. Moreover, Hancock
shows how the interpretation of Islam as a ‘culture’ instead of a ‘religion’ is used
strategically: if Islam is considered to be a culture then, in theory, secular laws do not
legislate against it.
With a more explicit focus on the political realm, Robin Finlay and Peter Hopkins’s
article considers the different forms of political participation engaged with by young
Muslims in Scotland in relation with their own experience of Islamophobic discrimination.
Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault as a theoretical anchor, the paper highlights how
Islamophobic governmentality shapes political participation and how space is central to
how it functions. Their qualitative analysis reveals that when Islamophobia intersects with
political participation, it can discipline and marginalise political agency, while also
 SOCIAL & CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY 455

engendering political and activist resistance. When Islamophobia is a barrier to political

participation, it pushes young Muslims into marginal spaces of society.
Finally, this special issue contributes to debates in social and cultural geography at the
intersection of feminist geography, youth geography, urban geography, political geogra-
phy, and geopolitics. A geographical lens to Islamophobia shows that religion has
become a significant feature of contemporary systemic racism, bigotry and discrimina-
tion. We hope that this special issue opens the door to further geographical research on
Islamophobia and how Muslims are challenging Islamophobia both in daily life and in
larger social movements. Future research might expand on the spatialized nature of this
violence to explore regional disparities, rural experiences of Muslims, and additional
comparative case studies at a range of scales.

Acknowledgments
We would like to first thank the contributors to this special issue and the participants of the
‘Geographies of Islamophobia’ paper sessions at the AAG conference in Boston in April 2017 who
breathed life into this research. Thank you to Peter Hopkins and Anna Mansson McGinty for their
encouragement and constructive comments on this editorial introduction, and to Linda McDowell
for her support of this project. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the enthusiasm and work of the
Social and Cultural Geography editorial and publishing team – many thanks in particular to Avril
Maddrell, Mary Gilmartin and David Bissell.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the European Commission through a H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie
Actions Individual Fellowship [Horizon 2020-MSCA-IF-2015-703328-SAMA (Spaces of Anti-Muslim
Acts)] and a Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture fellowship [194023]; H2020 Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions; Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture.

References
Allen, C. (2010). Islamophobia. Burlington: Ashgate.
Baubérot, J. (2012). La laïcité falsifiée (pp. 212). Paris: La Découverte.
Bier, D. (2018). Trump might not have gotten his ‘Muslim ban.’ But he sure got his ‘extreme vetting.’
The Washington Post. 10 December. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/
2018/12/10/trump-might-not-have-gotten-his-muslim-ban-he-sure-got-his-extreme-vetting/?
noredirect=on&utm_term=.8eb934c35fce
Clayton, J. (2009). Thinking spatially: Towards an everyday understanding of inter-ethnic relations.
Social & Cultural Geography, 10(4), 481–498.
Delaney, D. (2002). The space that race makes. The Professional Geographers, 54(1), 6–14.
Duncan, P. (2016, December 13). Europeans greatly overestimate Muslim population. The Guardian.
Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/datablog/2016/dec/13/europeans-
massively-overestimate-muslim-population-poll-shows
Dunn, K. M., Klocker, N., & Salabay, T. (2007). Contemporary racism and Islamaphobia in Australia.
Ethnicities, 7, 564–589.
456 EDITORIAL

Dwyer, C. (1999). Veiled meanings: Young British Muslim women and the negotiation of differences.
Gender, Place & Culture, 6(1), 5–26.
Dwyer, C., Shah, B., & Sanghera, G. (2008). From cricket lover to terror suspect’ - challenging
representations of young British Muslim men. Gender, Place & Culture, 15(2), 117–136.
Falah, G. W., & Nagel, C. (2005). Geographies of Muslim women: Gender, religion and space. New-York:
The Guiflord Press.
Gale, R. (2013). Religious residential segregation and internal migration: The British Muslim case.
Environment and Planning A, 45, 872–891.
Gökarıksel, B., & Secor, A. (2015). Post-secular geographies and the problem of pluralism: Religion
and everyday life in Istanbul, Turkey. Political Geography, 46, 21–30.
Göle, N. (2011). The public visibility of islam and european politics of resentment: the minarets-
mosques debate. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(4), 383–392.
Göle, N., Ferrara, A., Kaul, V., & Rasmussen, D. (2011). The public visibility of Islam and European
politics of resentment: The minarets-mosques debate. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 37(4),
383–392.
Halliday, F. (2003). Islam and the myth of confrontation: Religion and politics in the Middle East. I.B.
New York: Tauris.
Hancock, C. (2015). The Republic is lived with an uncovered face (and a Skirt): (Un)dressing French
citizens. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(7), 1023–1040.
Hatziprokopiou, P., & Evergeti, V. (2014). Negotiating Muslim identity and diversity in Greek urban
spaces. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(6), 603–626.
Hopkins, P. (2004). Young Muslim men in Scotland: Inclusions and exclusions. Children’s Geographies,
2(2), 257–272.
Hopkins, P. (2007). Global events, national politics, local lives: Young Muslim men in Scotland.
Environment and Planning A, 39(5), 1119–1133.
Hopkins, P. (2009). Geographical contributions to understanding contemporary Islam: Current
trends and future directions. Contemporary Islam, 3(3), 213–227.
Hopkins, P. (2019). Social geography II: Islamophobia, transphobia, sizism. Progress in Human
Geography, 030913251983347.
Hopkins, P., & Gale, R. (2009). Muslims in Britain race place and identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Itaoui, R. (2016). The geography of Islamophobia in Sydney: Mapping the spatial imaginaries of
young Muslims. Australian Geographer, 47(3), 261–279.
Jonker, G., & Amiraux, V. (2006). Politics of visibility. Young Muslims in European public spaces.
Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Katz, C. (2007). In Banal Terrorism. D. Gregory & A. Pred (Eds.), Violent geographies: Fear, terror, and
political violence (pp. 349–361). New York: Routledge.
Kobayashi, A., & Peake, L. (2000). Racism out of place: Thoughts on whiteness and an antiracist
geography in the new millennium. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2),
392–403.
Koefoed, L., & Simonsen, K. (2010). “Den fremmede”, byen og nationen: Om livet som etnisk minoritet.
[“The Stranger”, the city and the nation: About living as an ethnic minority]. Frederiksberg: Roskilde
universitets forlag.
Kwan, M. P. (2008). From oral histories to visual narratives: Re-representing the post-September 11
experiences of the Muslim women in the USA. Social & Cutural Geography, 9, 653–669.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In Writings on cities (pp. 63181).
Listerborn, C. (2015). Geographies of the veil: Violent encounters in urban public spaces in Malmö,
Sweden. Social & Cultural Geography, 16, 95–115.
Mansson McGinty, A. M. (2012). Teaching against culture in Geography of Islam. The Professional
Geographer, 64(3), 358–369.
Mansson McGinty, A. M., Sziarto, K., & Seymour-Jorn, C. (2012). Researching within and against
Islamophobia: A collaboration project with Muslim communities. Social & Cultural Geography, 14
(1), 1–22.
 SOCIAL & CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY 457

Modood, T. (1997). Introduction: The politics of multiculturalism in the New Europe. In T. Modood
& P. Webner (Eds.), The Politics of Multiculturalisme in the New Europe (pp. 1–26). London: Zed
Books.
Modood, T. (2008). Is multiculturalism dead? Public Policy Research, 15, 84–88.
Naber, N. (2008). Introduction. Arab Americans and US Racial Formations. In A. Jamal & N. Naber
(Eds.), Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11: From invisible citizens to visible subjects (pp.
1–45). New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Najib, K. (2017). L’islamophobie et sa géographie. In CCIF Collective against Islamophobia in France
Annual Report 2016. 27–33.
Najib, K. (2019). Géographie et intersectionnalité des actes antimusulmans en région parisienne.
Hommes & Migrations, January-March 2019. Religion and Discrimination, 1324, 19–26.
Najib, K., & Hopkins, P. (2019). Veiled Muslim women’s strategies in responses to Islamophobia in
Paris. Political Geography, 73, 103–111.
Naylor, S., & Ryan, J. R. (2002). The mosque in the suburbs: Negotiating religion and ethnicity in
South London. Social & Cultural Geography, 3, 39–59.
Peach, C. (2006). Islam, ethnicity and South Asian religions in the London 2001 census. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(3), 353–370.
Peach, C., & Gale, R. (2005). Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the new religious landscape of England. The
Geographical Review, 93(4), 469–490.
Phillips, D. (2006). Parallel lives? Challenging discourses of British Muslim self-segregation.
Environment and Planning D, 24(1), 25–40.
Runnymede Trust. (1997). Islamophobia: A challenge for us all. Author.
Runnymede Trust. (2017). Islamophobia: Still a challenge for us all. London: Author.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism (pp. 368). New York: Pantheon Books.
Sayyid, S., & Vakil, A. (2010). Thinking through islamophobia: Global perspectives. London: Hurst &
Company.
Scott, W. J. (2007). The politics of the veil. Princeton: The Princeton University Press.
Staeheli, L. A., & Nagel, C. R. (2008). Rethinking security: Perspectives from Arab–American and
British Arab activists. Antipode, 40, 780–801.
Sundstrum, R. R. (2003). Race and place: Social space in the production of human kinds. Philosophy
and Geography, 6(1), 83–95.
Teeple Hopkins, C. (2015). Social reproduction in France: Religious dress laws and laïcité. Journal of
Women’s Studies International Forum, 48, 154–164.