Arguing the fuss over the term Islamophobia is an overblown issue about semantics and “it has always been made clear that Islamophobia does not encompass disagreement, criticism or even condemnation of Islam”, Miqdaad Versi has written a dishonest essay about the definition of Islamophobia, via The Guardian, and upon closer examination and research of his very own sources he in fact exemplifies why the argument that the accusation of Islamophobia is being used to shut down debate about Islam [not Muslims] is indeed valid.
In his essay titled “Islamophobia is real. Stop the obsession with semantics”, Versi misleads his readers by saying that the term gained popularity after the Runnymede Trust published its 1997 report “Islamophobia a challenge for us all” and that it was “initially defined as unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.”
Versi is actually incorrect about the 1997 definition that the Runnymede Trust provided. In fact on page 1 of the report the Runnymede Trust defines Islamophobia as “a useful shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam— and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.” The Runnymede Trust’s report actually reiterates its 1997 definition in the first, and complete, sentence on page 4 of the report by saying, “The term Islamophobia refers to unfounded hostility towards Islam.”
Versi also ignores that the report itself focuses on “closed views on Islam on the one hand and open views on the other” and that on page 5 of the report, 4 out of the 8 distinctive views that the report uses to help identify Islamophobia solely focuses on a person’s view on Islam, not Muslims.
No where in the 1997 report does the Runnymede Trust define his quoted initial definition of Islamophobia. To any un-bias reader, with the power of evidence, it is quite clear that Versi has misrepresented information with his own play on words.
The tendency to conflate Islam, Muslims, race, and governments continues throughout the report. In Chapter 4 where the focus is “media coverage”, several examples of hate towards Muslims are given, but yet they are described “a handful of examples of negative references to Islam in the press.” The report even ridiculously considered it Islamophobic when members of the press criticized Qatar for refusing to allow a child diagnosed with HIV to return to the country to be with his family.
21 years later and it is even more clear that Versi has chosen to be dishonest about how actually the critique of Islam has always been enough to accuse one of Islamophobia, because in its 20th anniversary report on Islamophobia, the Runnymede Trust has admitted to actually backing off its 1997 definition. On page 7 of the new report, Runnymede Trust says:
“In this context it is worth reminding ourselves of Runnymede’s 1997 definition. The original Islamophobia report states that the term refers to three phenomena:
- Unfounded hostility towards Islam;
- Practical consequences of such hostility in unfair discrimination against Muslim individuals and communities;
- Exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political and social affairs.
We mainly agree with this broad definition. In our view, the focus should be on the second and third phenomena.”
Also found on page 7, the Runnymede Trust now gives an entirely new definition of Islamophobia which no longer includes the term Islam at all.
The Runnymede Trust now instead defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism, as its short definition. As a longer definition the Runnymede Trust now defines Islamophobia as any distinction, exclusion or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
While the Runnymede Trust has clearly backed off of its original definition because as they have said, “many have argued that Islam as a religion is a system of beliefs, and so can and should be subject to criticism,” the report arrogantly never acknowledges its own fault at defining Islamophobia as hatred towards Islam and its own fault for using Islam and Muslim interchangeably throughout its own report.
Instead the Runnymede Trust appears to believe it is a “dangerous sophistication” that people have been able to separate the ideology of Islam from Muslims.
Versi’s level of ridiculous manipulation of evidence doesn’t end there though, because while he argues that critique of the faith is valid, he then writes,
“It must be noted, however, that there are some who hide behind ‘criticism of Islam’ as they attempt to legitimize their bigotry, such as author Douglas Murray’s theory that less Islam is a solution to terrorism. While using the term ‘Islam,’ what that implies is that we need fewer Muslims to keep British shores safe. It is difficult to understand how such a goal could be achieved other than through some form of ethnic cleansing or mass deportation. This is not ‘criticism of Islam’ and falls well within the scope of Islamophobia.”
The above quote is a clear example of once again Islam and Muslim being used interchangeably to support the accusation of bigotry that the term Islamophobia is suppose to communicate even if we accepted Versi’s (and it was only Versi’s, not his evidence’s) initial definition of Islamophobia and the Runnymede Trust’s current.
Is this a case of someone thinking using words like “however” and “it must be noted” makes it okay to do the exact thing they just argued wasn’t the case?
Read Murray’s article and never will you find a suggestion ethnic cleaning or mass deportation. Instead he calls for British Muslims themselves to sort out the problems within the British Muslim community that cause some British Muslims to become terrorists.
But yet Versi would rather argue that “less Islam” means ethnic cleansing and mass deportation, because when people say “Islam” it actually does mean “Muslim”, and therefore it is Islamophobia. And THAT Is how a discussion about creating solutions and communities addressing their own problems gets shut down. Hurl the charge of Islamophobia and imagine genocide and mass deportation.
To anyone who indeed comes as a person who does not like Islam, but does recognize that civil rights of all human beings regardless of faith, Versi’s vague definition of Islamophobia would of course be confusing, because he never defines what it is today and instead says that it is understood as “as a concept or social phenomenon [that] also goes beyond a literalist dictionary definition”. Perhaps instead, they would offer another term to clearly condemn hostility towards Muslims, such as “anti-Muslim hatred” but nope, that’s not okay according to Versi.
Why? The Runnymede Trust believes “referring only to ‘anti-Muslim hate’ (or even ‘anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination’) doesn’t fully capture the widespread (or structural) ways racial inequalities persist. It may also get things back to front: prejudicial attitudes about a group develop to justify the economic or political disadvantages experienced by that group.”
But honestly Versi’s attempt to make the criticism of the term Islamophobia appear to be an overblown issue about semantics and not about the definitions that have been given by the Runnymede Trust and countless other organizations, is still well, laughable.
Laughable because the reality is that even the Muslim British Council, where he actually serves as the assistant secretary general does include “Islam” in its definition of Islamophobia.
On its page dedicated to the topic of Islamophobia, the Muslim British Council writes:
“In our reporting, Islamophobia includes when someone or something is targeted, discriminated against or excluded in any way, due to their/its actual or perceived Muslim identity. It also includes prejudice that promotes fear against Muslims and Islam.”
While Versi’s essay is dishonest and contradictory, it proves everything what critics of the term Islamophobia have been arguing for the several years now: The word Islamophobia is being used to defame those who do not agree with Islam and offer valid criticism of the religion, as its original definition allowed and its new definition still leaves room for.
