Evangelicals Now have shared the leaked definition of Islamophobia that a government working party have been drafting.
“Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.
“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.
“It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”
Tim Dieppe from Christian Concern who has been campaigning against the attempt to put together a definition argues that the proposal is problematic and will lead to Christians getting into trouble with the law. This primarily concerns the statement that:
It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims
Tim comes up with several examples of what he thinks might be considered prejudicial stereotyping. In particular he talks first about stating that Muslims and Christians worship different gods. Would this be prejudicial stereotyping?
Well obviously not. I speak as someone who has written on this blogmaking that very argument!. It is not considered prejudicial to state that people worship different gods. That’s because we live in a pluralistic society where people are free to choose to believe in any god or none. Further, it is not a stereotype, it is a statement of theological debate.
Secondly he gives the example of a report produced for Christian Concern on the grooming gangs. Now, as it happens, that report was not the carefully prepared academic report Dieppe claims. Just because something is produced by an academic does not make it academic. In this case, one problem was that the author, a scholar in Islamic theology was attempting to provide a report which was to do with sociology, anthropology and criminology. The result is quite a flimsy affair that fails to offer in depth analysis. Now as it happens, even though I thought it a weak and lazy report that failed to engage properly with questions about the causes of grooming gangs, it still stopped short of stereotyping Muslims. There is the risk though that it could be used as part of a narrative that does that.
Dieppe focuses entirely on the word “stereotyping” and ignores the two words around it. First, that it is about being prejudicial, in other words as the definition goes on to state, it is about discrimination on order to disadvantage Muslims “in public and economic life.” So, for example, I would suggest that it would be an issue if people used stereotypes about Muslims to argue that Sadiq Khan could not serve as mayor. Similarly, it would be discriminatory not to offer a job to someone or refuse housing because they have a muslim sounding name.
Secondly the point is that Muslims will be treated as “racial” by the stereotyping. The language may focus on religion but the true intent is to mark out Muslims as ethnically different by virtue of culture. Dieppe separates this out and treats it as a distinct and seemingly sinister point as though the aim is to make criticism of Islam racist. The point is obvious, the danger is not when there is genuine criticism of Islam, rather it is the attempt to treat Muslims as a racially caricatured group. It’s using Islam as a pretext to attack people based on what are in fact ethno-cultural norms. Sadly, this is something we have seen frequently when people conflate Muslim with Arab or Pakistsni.
Unfortunately, Dieppe’s engagement with the definition provided fails to offer a valid critique. It seems that he has already decided that a definition/ any definition of Islamophobia or targeted fear and hatred towards people from Muslim backgrounds would be an attack on free speech and Christian critiques of Islam
The same arguments are of course used against definitions of antisemitism. The reality is that our understanding of antisemitism does not prevent us from critiquing Judaism and witnessing to Jews. Nor does it prevent criticism of the Israeli state. The drafters of the Islamophobia definition will do well to learn from the example with antisemitism and include specific non exhaustive examples of what is meant. They might also want to spend more time defining what Islamophobia is not.
Personally I welcome the offer of a definition and hope it will provoke a discussion about how we can love our Muslim neighbours, stand firm against prejudice and racism, and remain committed to clearly proclaiming the Gospel to them.
Faithroots 