Commission membership selection may have privileged mainstream credibility over contribution.
Evidence
It argued that as the Commission sought to establish a legitimised and mainstream representative body, certain ‘types’ of Muslim were more accepted and granted representation. It also argued that the Commission de-legitimised those that were excluded and further marginalised those deemed to be on the fringe. In an interview with Commission member Rabbi Julia Neuberger, not only did she confirm that interfaith principles were key in the formulation of the Commission’s make-up but that they were vital to all the key concepts. Unfortunately, the exact selection process and criteria employed for membership of the remains unknown but what with there being some anecdotal evidence in circulation to suggest that certain members of the Commission were hand-picked for mainstream credibility rather than their contribution, it might be that the IHRC’s suggestions are not entirely refutable. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 286
Categorization
- XREF: Supports the critical-Muslim-studies/decolonial framing the reader tracks: who gets to define Islamophobia is itself a question of inclusion and power. — connects to: Member selection raises internal trust while formalizing specific distrust as supervisory duty.
Related
- The Commission’s interfaith ethos shaped and constrained the final report’s thinking (similarity 0.82)
- The Islamophobia Commission’s interfaith framing silently excluded non-mainstream Muslim voices (similarity 0.81)