Free-speech debates are orthogonal to the question of actual anti-Muslim discrimination.

Evidence

In the intervening years, therefore, two contradictory concerns have emerged: it is both more necessary than before to explain and outline why Islam as such is not a threat to, or in inherent conflict with, ‘the west’; and, at the same time, to allow and defend criticism of Islam (and all religions and beliefs) as a clear consequence of free speech. One reason we have chosen to focus our definition is that so much of the debate about free speech and criticism of Islam is irrelevant, or at best orthogonal, to the question of whether Muslims in Britain (and elsewhere) face discrimination – and what we in Britain should do about that discrimination. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 137

There is little doubt that this still exists – if anything such hostility now has a wider platform and has been developed and promoted in new, disturbing ways (see Chapter 10, and Chapter 13). … In the intervening years, therefore, two contradictory concerns have emerged: it is both more necessary than before to explain and outline why Islam as such is not a threat to, or in inherent conflict with, ‘the west’; and, at the same time, to allow and defend criticism of Islam (and all religions and beliefs) as a clear consequence of free speech. One reason we have chosen to focus our definition is that so much of the debate about free speech and criticism of Islam is irrelevant, or at best orthogonal, to the question of whether Muslims in Britain (and elsewhere) face discrimination – and what we in Britain should do about that discrimination. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 132

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s rival stances: Halliday’s ‘anti-Muslimism’ critique and the critical-Muslim-studies framing both hinge on this free-speech-vs-prejudice distinction; this is where this text draws its boundary line against them.
• DEFINE: Explains why the definition deliberately centers discrimination rather than ideas-criticism.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 137; Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 132

Related

• Anti-Islamophobia analysis should serve as a guide toward reasonable dialogue, not just diagnosis. (similarity 0.81)
• Criticism of religious ideas should never be restricted as Islamophobic (similarity 0.81)
• Anti-Islamophobia must not become the sole analytical frame for studying Western Muslims (similarity 0.79)
• Anti-Muslim discrimination should be fought through existing anti-racism frameworks (similarity 0.79)
• Critical scrutiny must extend to Islamist movements themselves, not only their oppressors. (similarity 0.79)
• Fighting Islamophobia need not stifle legitimate criticism of Muslims (similarity 0.79)
• Muslims were told anti-Muslim racism cannot exist because Muslims are not a race (similarity 0.79)
• Islamophobia is best understood and countered as a form of anti-Muslim racism. (similarity 0.78)
• Western limits on speech extend to Holocaust denial but not to anti-Islamic expression (similarity 0.78)
• Anti-Muslim rhetoric still targets Islam as a religion, not just its adherents. (similarity 0.78)
• Denying Islamophobia as ideas-criticism enables anti-Muslim feeling disconnected from real Muslims. (similarity 0.78)
• Bigoted speech should be countered morally and politically, not legally. (similarity 0.78)
• Separating Islamophobia as ideology from racism undermines anti-racist struggle (similarity 0.78)
• Retaining ‘Islamophobia’ over victim-centred terms is necessary because media negativity attaches to ‘Islam’ itself. (similarity 0.78)
• A dialogue-based anti-Islamophobia framing can silence legitimate universal-rights criticism. (similarity 0.78)