(March 12, 2015 at 10:46 am)Dystopia Wrote:I have to disagree with the article entirely because it tries to apply personalised prejudice to an ideology. That's not to say that islamophobia doesn't exist, it does however this piece does a poor job of thinking through its definitions. I'm surprised because the team at Runnymede aren't usually so sloppy. It's very simple: Islamophobia is prejudice against muslims, generally, not islam. If I happen to think that an individual muslim is sexist, that's not Islamophobia and if I happen to think that the ideology is inherently sexist (although adherents aren't necessarily so), that's not islamophobia. Neither is islamophobia a specifically western phenomenon. Also, Islam is clearly a politicised & politicisable ideology, although not necessarily so. My definition is very different to 'criticism of the Islamic ideologies' which is simply know as 'free thought'. I would change their indicators as follows:
Quote:Muslims are seen as a monolithic group, static and unresponsive to change.
Muslims are seen as separate and "other". They do not have values in common with other cultures, are not affected by them and do not influence them.
Muslims are seen as inferior to the other cultures/creeds. They are seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
Muslims are seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations.
Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
Criticisms made of 'the West' by muslims are rejected out of hand.
Hostility towards muslims is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal
With those adjustments, there would be a reduced risk of accidentally earmarking someone as an Islamophobe when they're making a justified criticism of Islam.
Sum ergo sum