It's Not Difficult To Define Islamophobia. So Why Does Britain Struggle With It So Much?
20 June 2019By Nesrine Malik
From the Tory party to the police, senior figures raise problems which are
simply irrelevant. It says a lot about their willingness to confront this
prejudice
Last week it became clear that, according to senior police, the Tories and
some non-Muslim public figures with some Muslim friends, the term "Islamophobia"
is undefinable in any meaningful, actionable way. The working definition, put
forward by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims, is not
legally binding; yet Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs'
Council, said it was "too broad as currently drafted, could cause confusion
for officers enforcing it and could be used to challenge legitimate free
speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states". This is
either ignorant or consciously misleading. There is no legal implication in
the definition whatsoever.
Last week the government also rejected the definition, which in full reads: "Islamophobia
is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of
Muslimness or perceived Muslimness." The communities secretary, James
Brokenshire, said that accepting the definition had "potential consequences
for freedom of speech" and that the combination of race and religion would
cause "legal and practical issues". Already adopted by Labour and the Liberal
Democrats, the definition was turned down because it needed "further
consideration". So just how much more information will it take for ministers
to consider such a short single sentence?
I can help. Last week ITV News revealed the details of a leaked dossier that
sets out more than 100 accusations of Islamophobia and other incidents of
racism against people claiming to be Conservative party members. Members were
said to have called Islam a "cult" which is being allowed to "take over our
country". Muslim people were an "infestation" who cause "mayhem wherever they
decide to invade". One member allegedly said: "Their plan is to turn this
country into an Islamic state."
Perhaps these cases will aid the Conservatives in their "further
consideration", and indeed anyone else grappling with the extreme difficulty
of parsing the difference between criticising a religion and calling a people
"an infestation".
There is something common in all the quotes above – the belief that Muslims
are some invading, corrupting force that is usurping and replacing the native
population. There is no mention of Islamic doctrine, no criticism of Islam as
a religion, legitimate or otherwise. The abuse merely claims a general intent
of its followers, whoever they are, to take over the country. But this still
isn't clear enough for many who believe engaging with anti-Muslim prejudice
will jeopardise law enforcement, free speech, and even historical inquiry.
There is a sort of Upstairs, Downstairs element to it all. Muslims are told by
those in authority that they just don't understand the implications of what
they are asking for: sure, things are tough down there in the trenches for
you, with a rise in hate crime and whatnot, but have you considered what this
means for those of us running the country or who are its most influential
voices?
The historian Tom Holland stretched the implications even further. He tweeted:
"Attacks on Muslims are criminal, and should obviously be punished as such.
Pointing out that there was a religious motivation behind, say, the Muslim
sieges of Constantinople or the Caliphate's imposition of discriminatory taxes
on Jews and Christians absolutely should not be." Again, he omits the fact
that there is no "criminal" element to the definition at all. Former
Conservative chair Sayeeda Warsi, who has campaigned to root out Islamophobia
from her party, was accused by Ben Goldsmith (Zac's younger brother) of
"working alongside some of the most illiberal, unpleasant people in Britain to
silence any attempt by mainstream Muslims … or anyone else to question the
Islamist ideology".
This resistance to a mere attempt at a description of Islamophobia is not only
an overreaction, it is a telling sign. It swerves the original problem – the
epidemic of anti-Muslim prejudice, abuse and hate crime – and focuses instead
on unrelated non-issues. In parliament Labour MP Naz Shah tried to put a stop
to this tactic by saying: "Let me put this to bed once and for all: this is a
non-legally binding working definition, which is why that assertion is simply
plain stupid."
All Muslims are asking for is a moral gesture, a step towards grappling with
what is happening to them. I am afraid Shah is either naive or generous. The
pushback is not something as benign as "stupid": the fixation on a nonexistent
legal dimension is, in itself, a manifestation of Islamophobia which refuses
to see Muslims as individuals with rights, but as part of a sinister whole.
One could even say it is a type of racism that targets expressions of
Muslimness or perceived Muslimness. A helpful definition, isn't it?
• Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments