From Forbes a piece by Nikita Malik on the dangers of protecting a religion rather than people from criticism.

In November last year, the APPG on British Muslims in the United Kingdom proposed adopting a new definition of the term ‘Islamophobia’....

… While the intention to protect Muslims against hate crimes is an important and necessary one, the definition has been rejected based on fears that it is too broad. In particular, a definition that focuses on hostility to Islam (by credence of the description ‘Islamophobia’) as opposed to hostility against people incorporates a concern that those who criticize aspects of Islam may be prosecuted or silenced.

This is an important concern that deserves attention. The Islamophobia definition seeks to address targeting expressions of Muslimness or ‘perceived Muslimness’, rather than bigotry against Muslim individuals themselves. The priority, surely, must be to tackle hatred directed against Muslims, not to prevent criticism of, or opposition to, any religion or belief system. Such criticism is necessary in any liberal society, and we have already seen it being regulated with recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that criticizing the Prophet Mohammed is ‘beyond the permissible limits of objective debate’.

The individuals most at risk of potential policing of ‘Muslimness’, criticisms of Islam, or countering Islamism are Muslims themselves. These include Muslims who are labelled not devoutly Muslim enough, Muslims who belong to minority Islamic groups, Muslims who openly criticize aspects of the Islamic practice or work on countering Islamism, and ex-Muslims who have publicly chosen to leave the Islamic faith. 

Continue reading @ Forbes Magazine.

Instead Of Islamophobia, We Should Focus On Defining Anti-Muslim Hatred

From Forbes a piece by Nikita Malik on the dangers of protecting a religion rather than people from criticism.

In November last year, the APPG on British Muslims in the United Kingdom proposed adopting a new definition of the term ‘Islamophobia’....

… While the intention to protect Muslims against hate crimes is an important and necessary one, the definition has been rejected based on fears that it is too broad. In particular, a definition that focuses on hostility to Islam (by credence of the description ‘Islamophobia’) as opposed to hostility against people incorporates a concern that those who criticize aspects of Islam may be prosecuted or silenced.

This is an important concern that deserves attention. The Islamophobia definition seeks to address targeting expressions of Muslimness or ‘perceived Muslimness’, rather than bigotry against Muslim individuals themselves. The priority, surely, must be to tackle hatred directed against Muslims, not to prevent criticism of, or opposition to, any religion or belief system. Such criticism is necessary in any liberal society, and we have already seen it being regulated with recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that criticizing the Prophet Mohammed is ‘beyond the permissible limits of objective debate’.

The individuals most at risk of potential policing of ‘Muslimness’, criticisms of Islam, or countering Islamism are Muslims themselves. These include Muslims who are labelled not devoutly Muslim enough, Muslims who belong to minority Islamic groups, Muslims who openly criticize aspects of the Islamic practice or work on countering Islamism, and ex-Muslims who have publicly chosen to leave the Islamic faith. 

Continue reading @ Forbes Magazine.

11 comments:

  1. Surely hatred of Islam is the same as hatred of the Ummah?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excelllently and succintly put Hostility to and prejudice against Muslims afre rooted in the historic 'othering' of Eastern cultures or Orientalism. We must always defend the right of Muslims to practise their faith and oppose objections to the building of mosques and the policing of Islamic dress. But liberal democracy must never accede to demands of community or purported faith leaders to request the banning of books like The Satanic Verse or that the Prophet Mohammed be exempt from artistic depiction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Barry - what do you think should be done with face masking in public? I know the French were behaving badly when they banned the burkinki but I think there is a case for it not being societally permissible for citizens to mask up in public. They cant go naked in public (in dress code terms something that has total transparency !) and it is a rule that applies to all. I would oppose it if it were a subterfuge aimed solely at targeting Muslims. Nor do I think Sikhs should be allowed to wear their religious attire as public servants. Why not Liverpool or Leeds scarves as well?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anthony

    Good questions Any public official, law enforcement officer or legislator should be able to ask anyone with a mask to uncover their face in the interests of public safety. I personally have no problems with public servants being allowed to wear the turban, hijab or cross etc so long as it they treat everybody impartially. I personally would not display my Leeds scarf at work. Only my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barry - take the police. It should be a state uniform worn without fear or favour. It should not be religion on tour. At least you can prove that Leeds exist (if just about!!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anthony

    As a matter of curiosity has anyone ever challenged the wearing of religious/cultural garb by public officials in the Republic of Ireland? I presume that French police officers are not allowed to wear the hijab?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony

    I might be able to answer my own question when I finish readong "Republic of Islamaphobia. The Rise of Respectable Racism in France" by Jim Wolfreys.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would have been opposed but I am not sure about a legal challenge. I doubt that the French are allowed to wear the hijab while policing. Perhaps you will review the book for us

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anthony

    Seriously considering it but have never reviewed books before.

    ReplyDelete
  10. there is no one way of doing it but a man of your ability should find it easy enough - easy for me to say given that I have reviewed hundreds of them

    ReplyDelete
  11. All public displays of religion in the form of garments should be banned. It's merely a display of seperation.

    When it comes to the niquab, what about are rights in a civilised society to see the faces of our fellow citizens? There's also a safety issue; how can we be sure that there is not a pedophile wearing a full length niquab fiddling with himself near playgrounds.

    Fuck that, ban the religious garments in public, let them wear what they like in their religious establishments or homes.

    ReplyDelete