Some while back, the proposed definition of “Islamophobia” was leaked. There were numerous responses and I particularly engaged with Tim Dieppe of Christian Concern at the time.
The definition has now been officially published and Tim has written for Evangelicals Now again here. Because I’ve already given a detailed response, I don’t think there is much to add.
However, I want to pick up on one very specific claim he has made. Dieppe claims that having a definition on anti-Muslim hatred is discriminatory against other religions. This is clearly not the case.
First, for this to be true, we would have to argue that the working definition of antisemitism is also discriminatory. We know that to be nonsensical.
Secondly, the reason for seeking a definition is made clear in the Government’s document. Webcam recognise racism when it is straight forward, when it is targeted based on skin colour or country of origin. We can also identify prejudice against people based on religious beliefs when that is the sole issue. Every year a known academic at Easter makes sound pejorative comments about Christianity. We can recognise it for what it is. We also recognise that disagreement over beliefs of fair game. Some Christians are understandably offended but actually the arguments are so woodenly silly that we don’t need to lose sleep over them.
What Islamophobia definitions are attempting to deal with is something more complex, when people are targeted in a way that discriminates or risks significant threat to them and there is a complex coming together of ethno-cultural factors linked to perceptions of a religious culture. Note that this means also that non Muslims can end up being targeted. For example at times Sikhs have been targeted because they wear turbans and this has been confused with Islamic dress code.
I want to just pick up on another thing Tim says in his article. He writes:
Christian Concern published an academic report last year exposing the Islamic nature of grooming gangs and arguing that Islam is more associated with grooming gangs than ethnicity. Is this discussion in the public interest? Over the years, many people have attempted to shut down precisely this discussion arguing that it is racist or Islamophobic. Certainly, they would say that it is not in the public interest to raise concerns about the Islamic nature of grooming gang abuse. I am not confident, even now, that the national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly assess the Islamic nature of the abuse since it was excluded from the draft terms of reference.
One of the perceived challenges with the working definition we use for antisemitism, is the risk that it might be used to shut down debate about the Jewish faith, the actions of the state of Israel of the particular political philosophy known as Zionism. We can recognise those challenges and the need to navigate them without rejecting the attempt to define or the definition itself.
Further, unfortunately whilst the report Tim mentions was by an academic, that does not in itself make it academic. I critiqued the report here and it was pretty much one hot mess. Similarly, I sadly see frequent examples that claim to be critiques of Islam which treat the Quran in a way that we would ask our critics not to treat the Bible with statements ripped out of context and wooden eisegesis replacing careful exegesis. I’m not saying that all of those examples amount to or should amount to Islamophobia but if a working defintion helps us to work harder and do better in our engagement with Muslims and on issues of public theology then that’s a good thing.
It is just not the case that defining a specific thing is an act of discrimination. It is also worth remembering that the definition is non statutory. It introduces no new criminal laws nor special rights and privileges in law. Rather it is an aid to help better understanding.
Faithroots 