Agreeing on a definition of Islamophobia is a precondition for accountability.

Evidence

To challenge Islamophobia the starting point must surely be a definition, a mechanism that leads to accountability. The Runnymede Trust’s definition is a starting point for discussion. We also need to bring together a cross-section of community organizations and individuals, parliamentarians and government, to agree a definition. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 37

To challenge Islamophobia the starting point must surely be a definition, a mechanism that leads to accountability. The Runnymede Trust’s definition is a starting point for discussion. We also need to bring together a cross-section of community organizations and individuals, parliamentarians and government, to agree a definition. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 32

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames the whole definitional debate as a political act: definition as accountability mechanism, not merely analytical tool.
• QUESTION: The author assumes definition precedes action. Is that warranted, or do definitions follow from already-existing policy response? Bleich would push back that definition should result from careful concept formation, not precede it.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 37; Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 32
• XREF: connects to: The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102; A neutral, usable concept is a prerequisite for causal analysis of Islamophobia. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 10

Related

• Definitions of Islamophobia double as policy interventions, not neutral analysis (similarity 0.89)
• The Islamophobia definition is a policy instrument, not merely analysis (similarity 0.88)
• A neutral, usable concept is a prerequisite for causal analysis of Islamophobia. (similarity 0.87)
• Definitions of Islamophobia are political instruments tied to policy responses (similarity 0.87)
• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition (similarity 0.86)
• Established definitions of Islamophobia resist replacement despite their inadequacy (similarity 0.85)
• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage (similarity 0.85)
• Scholarship on Islamophobia must justify its own normative commitments, not merely critique others’ (similarity 0.85)
• Definitional choices about ‘Islamophobia’ are political acts with real consequences (similarity 0.85)
• Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible (similarity 0.85)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.85)
• Britain has failed to officially define Islamophobia decades after Runnymede’s report (similarity 0.84)
• Islamophobia debates operate at distinct levels of definition, cause, and effect (similarity 0.84)
• Inconsistent operational definitions prevent cumulating research on Islamophobia. (similarity 0.84)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition #corroborates (0.88) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102
• A neutral, usable concept is a prerequisite for causal analysis of Islamophobia. #corroborates (0.85) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 10