Anti-Islamophobia analysis should serve as a guide toward reasonable dialogue, not just diagnosis.

Evidence

Not only must the study of Islamophobia not squeeze out the possibility of such discussion, but by showing us where it becomes Islamophobic – by caricaturing, by assuming that all Muslims think in a particular way, by creating a climate in which reasonable dialogue is impossible – it should help to guide us on to the terrain of reasonable dialogue. Merely identifying the unreasonable and the populist is not enough; our frames of analysis should lead us to the reasonable, to what criticisms may be made of Muslims and/or Islam and what criticisms that Muslims want to make of contemporary western societies too are worthy of hearing. The minority in question must be able to negotiate, modify, accept criticism and change in its own way; a dialogue must be distinguished from a one-sided imposition. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 599

Categorization

• XREF: The demand that critique lead to ‘reasonable dialogue’ and that the minority ‘negotiate, modify, accept criticism’ reads as a liberal-universalist rejoinder to both Runnymede and Halliday camps in the contested Islamophobia definition debate.
• SEED: A possible essay: how the term ‘Islamophobia’ itself serves as a norm-regulating device orienting discourse toward dialogue, versus pure diagnostic critique.