If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

Robust definitions of both Islamophobia and antisemitism are not merely academic exercises; they are essential tools for identifying, challenging and ultimately eradicating prejudice and discrimination against Muslims and Jewish people, respectively. Given my expertise, I focus here on Islamophobia — but I hope to draw some useful parallels with regard to antisemitism.

In particular, I want to argue that having clear criteria for legitimate criticism of Islam, as proposed by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, is crucial in navigating the complex landscape of religious discourse and preventing the weaponisation of criticism to mask bigotry.

Defining Islamophobia

As Halim Rane and I have detailed in our book Islam and Muslims in the West, the concept of Islamophobia emerged as a significant issue in the late 1990s and gained traction throughout the 2000s. The 1997 Runnymede Trust Report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All”, played a pivotal role in its conceptualisation — defining Islamophobia as:

an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination.

This definition underscores that Islamophobia is not simply a matter of personal bias or isolated incidents, but is a systemic issue with tangible consequences.

A major challenge in defining Islamophobia lies in determining the target of the prejudice: is it directed at Islam as a religion, or at Muslims as individuals — or perhaps both? This distinction is important because it speaks to the nature of the prejudice. When the focus is on Islamic teachings, it can be argued that criticism is directed at ideas. However, when the focus is on Muslims as people, it moves into the realm of discrimination and exclusion. Moreover, the issue of distinguishing Islamophobia from other forms of discrimination — like racism and xenophobia — further complicates the matter.

The diverse manifestations of Islamophobia highlight its multifaceted nature. In Islam and Muslims in the West, we identify four key forms:

• social exclusion — such as marginalisation from politics, employment and positions of responsibility;
• violence — including physical assaults, property damage and verbal abuse;
• prejudice — which manifests in media portrayals and everyday conversations;
• discrimination — such as unequal treatment in employment and access to services.

These manifestations are all interconnected. For example, prejudiced media portrayals of Islam and Muslims can fuel discriminatory practices and violence. Halim Rane and I examine several causes for the rise of Islamophobia over the last three decades. These include:

• the increased rate of Muslim immigration to the West;
• the rise of Islamism throughout the world;
• Islamist terrorist attacks in the West;
• the “War on Terror”;
• the depiction of Islam and Muslim in mainstream and social media;
• the racialisation of religion — whereby anti-Arab and anti-Asian sentiments have migrated towards anti-Muslim sentiment.

In this sense, Islamophobia can be seen as a form of racism, where both biology and culture are factors. By way of analogy, during the Holocaust and the genocide in Srebrenica, simply refraining from religious practices would not save individuals who were targeted on the basis of their religious identity. It was the identity of the community itself that was being targeted. This highlights the social and political construction of race as a means of discrimination.

It is essential to recognise that criticism of Islam is distinct from Islamophobia. There must be room for critical approaches to the Islamic tradition — for two decades, I have been a strong proponent of such a critical approach when it comes to Islamic fundamentalism — as there should with any set of beliefs and ideas. There should be a right to critique ideas, but it is important that such criticism does not become a pretext for intolerance and bigotry.

Criteria for legitimate criticism

The criteria proposed by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (CBMI) provide a valuable framework for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobic discourse. These criteria address key dimensions that help us assess the nature and intent behind the critique. These dimensions are organised into eight key areas:

• Monolithic versus diverse: Legitimate criticism acknowledges the diversity of thought and practice within Islam, avoiding generalisations. Islamophobia, on the other hand, often portrays Islam as monolithic and static.
• Other versus interdependent: Legitimate critique recognises that Islam is part of a complex, interconnected world; whereas Islamophobia often portrays Islam as separate, “other” and irreconcilable with Western societies.
• Inferior versus different but equal: Legitimate criticism considers different cultures as equal and different. Islamophobia, on the other hand, positions Islam as inferior to other cultures and religions.
• Aggressive enemy versus cooperative partner: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some elements of some Islamic traditions may be problematic while still recognising that Muslims as a community are generally peaceful. Islamophobia paints Islam and Muslims as fundamentally aggressive and hostile.
• Manipulative versus sincere: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some people use any religious tradition for personal and political gains, but does not to assume that all adherents of those traditions are dishonest. Islamophobia assumes that all Muslims are manipulative or insincere in their beliefs and practices.
• Rejection versus reciprocal exchange and critique: Legitimate criticism must be open to engaging with and debating Muslim criticisms of Western societies. Islamophobia often dismisses Muslim voices altogether.
• Defending discrimination versus its opposition: Legitimate criticism would oppose all forms of discrimination — including those directed at Muslims. Islamophobia defends or ignores discriminatory behaviour against Muslims.
• Rational criticism versus problematic anti-Muslim discourse: Legitimate criticism recognises that criticism of ideas is one thing, but anti-Muslim hate speech is a problem. Islamophobia, on the other hand, normalises and promotes anti-Muslim discourse.

These criteria are crucial in understanding what constitutes Islamophobia and what does not. For example, while criticising specific Islamic doctrines is valid, using such critiques to stereotype all Muslims as violent or fanatical crosses the line into Islamophobia. Similarly, while a discussion of the role of religion in politics is important, denying the basic human rights of Muslims is clearly Islamophobic.

The importance of clarity and cooperative action

The CBMI criteria offer an important framework that helps us differentiate between fair critique and prejudiced bigotry. Just as a clear definition of Islamophobia and criteria for legitimate criticism of Islam are crucial for combating prejudice against Muslims, a similar effort is required to establish a robust and well-understood definition of antisemitism — along with an understanding of what constitutes legitimate criticism of Judaism and of the State of Israel — in order to combat antisemitism effectively. I believe that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) is one such definition.

Clear definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism — along with adherence to the CBMI criteria and JDA guidelines — are not just an abstract academic concern but a practical necessity. Without such robust definitions, it is difficult to identify and counter Islamophobic and antisemitic acts and rhetoric. When Islamophobia is not recognised, its consequences can be dire, as is evidenced by the tragic events in Christchurch.

In this regard, it is imperative that academics work with media outlets to ensure responsible reporting on Islam and Muslims, to develop counter-narratives to challenge Islamophobic stereotypes and tropes while simultaneously critiquing harmful interpretations of Islam that contribute to anti-Muslim sentiment, and to promote initiatives that foster interfaith dialogue and understanding. Social media platforms need to do more to moderate hate speech online, including monitoring and removing hate speech and harmful content. (For instance, I attempted to get YouTube to take down a video of a popular preacher Assim Al-Hakeem, in which he intimates that non-Muslim should be killed if they do not pay the “humility” tax for not converting to Islam — but without success.)

Building more inclusive, equitable societies

Defining Islamophobia and antisemitism, and establishing robust and nuanced criteria for legitimate criticism, are essential steps in combating prejudice and discrimination against Muslims and Jewish people alike. Robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism allows us to recognise the various forms they take, from social exclusion and discrimination to violence and hate speech.

The criteria provided by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia and the guidelines proposed by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism provide useful yardsticks to help us differentiate between fair criticism and discriminatory, bigoted rhetoric. By combining this clarity with concrete action, we can begin to address the root causes of Islamophobia and antisemitism, and build more inclusive and equitable societies for all.

Adis Duderija is an Associate Professor in the study of Islam and Society at Griffith University in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. He has been publishing extensively for almost two decades on various aspects of the Islamic intellectual tradition, especially progressive Islam.