The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model.

Evidence

Before the report had even established or explained the ‘closed views’, its relevance and significance had been elevated to such that it was an integral and necessary foundation of understanding. Whilst the ‘closed views’ will be fully considered, a succinct explanation is offered by Philip Lewis: a closed view presents Islam as monolithic and static, an aggressive and ideological enemy to be combated. Muslim minorities should thus be exposed to scrutiny and social control; and there is no need to take seriously any criticisms they may make of Western society … the open view acknowledges that Islam, like Christianity, is diverse, dynamic and in dialogue with wider society. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 275

Categorization

• DEFINE: Grounds the reader in the Runnymede ‘open vs closed views’ framework itself, the core of Module 1.
• XREF: connects to: Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, 24; Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, 49; The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 138 (+7 more)

Related

• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.94)
• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.94)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.93)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.91)
• Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam (similarity 0.91)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.90)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.89)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.89)
• Closed views treat Islam as a monolithic, static bloc with no internal diversity (similarity 0.89)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.88)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.88)
• Runnymede’s open-closed binary reproduces the very dualism it condemns (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.87)
• Runnymede redirects the term’s focus toward discrimination and exclusion (similarity 0.87)
• Runnymede’s eight closed views form an internally inconsistent typology (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam #expands (0.90) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims #expands (0.75) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 158