France’s political and media establishment manufactures a climate of fear around Muslims, using biased studies and restrictive policies that ultimately strengthen the very religious identity they seek to suppress.
The article argues that Islam has become a political obsession in France, driven by media owners and commentators who rely on fear-based narratives portraying Muslims as a dangerous internal threat. A recent IFOP study commissioned by a biased organization is used as an example of how limited data is weaponized to justify exceptional laws, repression of mosques, and disproportionate scrutiny of Muslim practices such as the headscarf. These policies, however, have produced the opposite effect: instead of weakening Muslim identity, they have reinforced it among younger generations who feel increasingly targeted, silenced, and excluded. The result is a deepening social divide created not by the Muslim population, but by a political environment that talks about Muslims without ever listening to them.
In France, Islam has become a national obsession. Every day, the media machine repeats the same themes: Islamism, the veil, halal food, the “Muslim Brotherhood,” and most recently the idea of “halal capitalism,” a term that barely existed before political talk shows adopted it.
This constant fixation is anything but innocent. It is part of a narrative constructed by a small group of media owners fascinated by identity-based theories—“clash of civilizations,” “great replacement”—who need an internal enemy to maintain an atmosphere of fear. The Muslim fits this role perfectly: too visible, too religious, too different, and therefore suspect.
In such a climate, it becomes almost impossible to discuss religion or religious practice calmly. Suspicion has replaced reflection; mistrust has replaced dialogue.
A Climate of Manufactured Suspicion
The latest example is an IFOP study commissioned by the magazine Écran de Veille. Conducted in August and September 2025 with 1,005 Muslim respondents, it was greeted as a sensational revelation by parts of the media landscape increasingly dominated by far-right narratives.
As soon as it appeared, the survey was presented as long-awaited proof of a “danger”—another confirmation that Islam is the country’s primary problem. The “Morandini” TV segment, where Rachida Kaaout was not even allowed to present a differing perspective, perfectly illustrates the atmosphere. The media no longer seeks understanding; it merely reinforces a fear that has already been cultivated.
Écran de Veille: A Biased Commissioner
Before analyzing the numbers, we must consider the origin of the survey. Écran de Veille presents itself as a platform focused on security and geopolitics. However, according to the Journalism Observatory, it is linked to Global Watch Analysis, a platform known for obsessive anti-Muslim narratives and conspiratorial rhetoric.
In their editorial line, Muslims are portrayed almost as a parallel network of influence—an “Islamic AIPAC” operating in France. We are far from objective analysis.
Reality, however, tells a different story. For two years, a genocide in Gaza has been documented by international organizations. Meanwhile in France, most political and media forces supported Israel without hesitation.
A single WhatsApp message from a former MP close to Israeli positions was enough to make the Élysée retreat on a boycott targeting businesses involved in illegal settlements.
If a “Muslim lobby” existed, it clearly has not convinced anyone.
The Forced Silence of Mosques
People often talk about “Muslim communities,” yet rarely about what they are actually able to do. For two years, no nationwide demonstration has been organized by the mosques—often out of fear, but mostly because of administrative pressure.
Prefects now threaten places of worship over a sermon, a sentence, a social media post. Reduced to silence, mosques no longer play their social role, even though they could contribute to cohesion and help prevent radicalization. Meanwhile, Jewish organizations and synagogues openly call for support for Israel without facing any repercussions.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrations—largely attended by non-Muslims—are described as “Islamist gatherings.” A double standard is at work. And a narrative is being constructed completely independently of the facts. It is no longer possible to criticize Israel or even Netanyahu, wanted by the ICC for genocide in Gaza, without being labeled antisemitic. It has become a new tool for shutting down criticism of Zionists who publicly call for genocide in Gaza and for the colonization of much of the Middle East based on “promises” said to be made over 3,000 years ago.
The Survey: Small Sample, Broad Claims
The survey is based on a sample of 1,005 people. Can one draw conclusions about several million French Muslims from this? There is no basis for such certainty. We do not know the respondents’ social class, education level, or geographic background.
Yet the results are used as a political base: young Muslims “feel more religious,” pray more, and attend the mosque more frequently. Why would this be a problem? The Republic guarantees freedom of conscience—except, it seems, when Muslims exercise it.
The study compares Muslim religiosity to Catholics, who are presented as increasingly secularized. But there is no similar analysis of Jewish or Orthodox Christian religiosity, which is often far more structured. The critique clearly targets one religion—and does not even pretend otherwise.
The Muslim Brotherhood: A Label That Excuses Anything
In recent years, the term “Islamist” has been replaced by a new catch-all label: “frérisme,” referring to the Muslim Brotherhood. Invoking it is enough to justify shutting down a mosque, dissolving an organization, freezing a bank account, or conducting a raid. Yet no one agrees on its definition. The survey claims that 24% of Muslims (and 35% of those under 25) “feel close” to it.
But close to what? A movement many do not know, cannot define, or have never engaged with? The vagueness is convenient for authorities: it provides theoretical justification for extraordinary measures.
The Veil: A French Obsession
Another illustration of France’s fixation is the headscarf. For twenty years, the 2004 law banning it in schools and the numerous laws invoking “laïcité” have been presented as solutions to a problem framed as incompatible with the Republic.
Yet the IFOP survey concludes the opposite: the headscarf has not disappeared—it has become more normalized among younger generations. According to the survey, 31% of Muslim women wear the veil, though only 19% wear it regularly. The phenomenon remains a minority practice overall.
But the most striking figure lies elsewhere: among women aged 18–24, one in two wears the veil (45%), three times more than in 2003 (16%), when the national debate that led to the 2004 law began. In other words: the more the Republic tries to ban the veil, the more it spreads among young Muslim women. Moreover, 80% say they wear it out of personal conviction—not provocation.
Conversely, the rate among women over 50 has dropped sharply—19 points between 2003 and 2025. Younger generations are increasingly committed to their identity despite repression.
Repression Produces the Opposite Effect
The survey will be discussed for weeks. It will be used to justify new laws, strengthen existing measures, and further target part of the population. But decision-makers ignore one key reality: repression produces the very identity retreat it claims to fight.
A new generation—better educated, better connected, and more aware of its rights—sees what is being said about it. It watches changing norms, hostile rhetoric, and skewed interpretations. And it draws a simple conclusion: the more it is pressured to disappear, the more it asserts itself.
This is the French paradox: in the name of fighting “Islamism,” the country is manufacturing a social malaise that did not exist at anywhere near this scale twenty years ago. By talking about Muslims without ever speaking to them, France is creating exactly what it claims to prevent.
