MohammedAmin.com
Serious writing for
serious readers

Search this site

Custom Search

As explained in my 2012 Conservative Home article “Islamophobia – a trap for unwary Muslims” the definition of Islamophobia published by the Runnymede think tank in 1997 was so flawed that I regarded it as harmful to Muslims.

Many Muslims staunchly defended the word, albeit often with the rather weak defence that the word was better than nothing, rather than with an explanation of why the definition was a good one!

Runnymede clearly recognised there was a problem with the definition, because in 2017 they published a new definition, even though they called it a refinement rather than bringing themselves to say that it was a replacement because the 1997 was seriously deficient. In late 2018 the All Party Parliamentary Group (“APPG”) on British Muslims published their own definition. Many organisations have adopted the APPG definition.

However, the public have not. As someone who is very attuned to the nuances surrounding the word “Islamophobia”, when the word is mentioned I always ask myself “What definition of the word ‘Islamophobia’ is this person using?”

I had a striking example of this on 11 March 2020 when I had my first ever appearance on “The Moral Maze.”

Moral Maze appearance

The weekly BBC Radio 4 programme “Moral Maze” describes itself as “Combative, provocative and engaging live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories.”

On 11 March 2020 the programme was devoted to a discussion about Islamophobia.

This was particularly topical as a few days earlier the story had broken that Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission had been suspended by the Labour Party for historic comments which were alleged to be Islamophobic.

The Policy Exchange think tank has published a full dossier about the allegations and Mr Phillips’s response.

Programme participants

The programme was presented by the BBC’s Michael Buerk who chaired a panel comprising:

• Mona Siddiqui
• Melanie Phillips
• Tim Stanley
• Matthew Taylor

The chairman and the four panel members collectively proceed to hear from a series of witnesses, one at a time. In this programme, the witnesses were the people below, listed in order of appearance:

• Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra
• Fiyaz Mughal
• Dr Myriam Francois
• Myself. This was my first ever appearance on “Moral Maze.” At my request, I was described as “Chairman of the Islam & Liberty Network which is a think tank which propagates the message that Islam is completely compatible with economic, political, and religious freedom.”

Listening to the programme

“Moral Maze” is presently available on BBC Sounds but I am not clear whether this will be permanent. Clicking on the poster below will take you to the BBC Sounds website to listen to the programme.

My appearance starts at 26:15 but I strongly recommend listening to the whole 43-minute programme.

The Islamophobia definition the participants use

It is not practical for me to transcribe the entire programme. However, I have jotted down some points below, all directed at ascertaining which definition is being used. They are in chronological order.

Most of the time the presenters do not state which definition of the word “Islamophobia” they are using. Even when someone, like Ibrahim Mogra below, claims to use the APPG definition, their words show that they are using not that but the Runnymede 1997 definition.

• Melanie Phillips states that anti-Muslim prejudice undoubtedly exists but that “Islamophobia” conflates that with criticism of Islam, She is clearly thinking of the Runnymede 1997 definition.
• When Ibrahim Mogra is asked to define Islamophobia, he states that he is happy with the APPG definition. He says that he was keen on using the phrase anti-Muslim hatred but regards that as failing to encompass anti-Muslim discrimination and anti-Muslim prejudice. However he then goes on to discuss the “phobia” part of “Islamophobia” which is what the Runnymede 1997 report does. He does not at any stage apply the APPG definition in his comments, despite saying that it is the definition he uses.
• The questions that Melanie Phillips asks of Ibrahim Mogra are clearly based on the Runnymede 1997 definition.
• When Michael Buerk questions the concept of racism being applied to Muslims, (so here he is looking at the APPG definition) Myriam Francois responds with the standard sociology phrase “Race is a social construct.” This short exchange illustrates the “dialogue of the deaf” you get when the word “racism” is understood differently by academics and by a non-academic such as Michael Buerk.
• The lines of questioning that Tim Stanley and Melanie Phillips pursue with Myriam François show that both of them have in mind the Runnymede 1997 definition of Islamophobia.
• Matthew Taylor’s question for me also implies that he is using the Runnymede 1997 definition of Islamophobia. However, the further discussion suggests that he is not consistent about the definition and also appears to think that Islamophobia equals anti-Muslim bigotry / prejudice. This demonstrates the need for precision and clarity about definitions.
• I pointed out to Matthew Taylor that using the word “racism” as sociologists use it, you can be racist against chess players. I have subsequently added the section "Racism against chess players" to my page "The word Islamophobia should be abandoned."
• In the concluding discussion, Melanie Phillips perpetrates the etymological fallacy by debating the “phobia” suffix of the word "Islamophobia." This again harkens back to the Runnymede 1997 report which explores the “phobia” aspect in some detail. Conversely the APPG 2018 document uses the word “phobia” on only three occasions, deep in body of the report, and does not give "phobia" any importance. All of this shows that Ms Phillips is entirely focused on the Runnymede 1997 definition.

Why does this matter?

The programme shows that these highly knowledgeable panelists and witnesses, many of whom are immersed in the issues, have problems being precise about which Islamophobia definition they are using, and most of the time tend to use the Runnymede 1997 definition.

After the Runnymede 1997 definition had 20 years of promotion by many Muslim organisations and their supporters, it is in practice almost impossible to make commentators forget it and instead apply a different definition.

That would be true even if the revised definition were a good one, which the APPG definition is not, as explained in my critique of it on my page “The word Islamophobia should be abandoned.”