The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core

Evidence

Identifying the key aspects of Islamophobia helps to recast and to make sense of the cacophony of perspectives laid out above. The Runnymede Trust (1997) definition focuses largely on the secondary dimensions of the concept, but it also mixes in some indicators and even effects of Islamophobia (such as discrimination and exclusion) that are best kept separate. The British journalists who brashly categorize themselves as Islamophobes are expressing an aversion to aspects of Islamic doctrine that they find objectionable. To the extent they are doing so in an undifferentiated way— implicating all of Islam—they are indeed exhibiting Islamophobia, and to the extent that their statements go beyond aversion to express fear or hostility, they are more intensely Islamophobic. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 40

Categorization

• XREF: Directly recasts the Runnymede definition discussed in ch0 — distinguishes doctrine-level aversion from fear/hostility toward Muslims, operationalizing ‘indiscriminate.’ — connects to: The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 13; Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, 24; The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348 (+5 more)

Related

• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.94)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.93)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.93)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.93)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.93)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.91)
• The Runnymede report introduced Islamophobia as marking Muslim-specific experience beyond shared discrimination. (similarity 0.91)
• The 1997 Runnymede report defined Islamophobia as faith-based discrimination beyond ethnicity (similarity 0.90)
• Runnymede redirects the term’s focus toward discrimination and exclusion (similarity 0.90)
• Runnymede’s model failed to distinguish Islamophobia from other similar phenomena (similarity 0.90)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.90)
• The Runnymede Trust defines Islamophobia as a form of racism against Muslims (similarity 0.89)

Broader Connections

• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam #qualifies (0.85) — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia, 24
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam #qualifies (0.85) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348
• Islamophobia’s material harms are constitutive of it rather than merely its effects #corroborates (0.85) — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 497
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. #qualifies (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 275
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility #qualifies (0.78) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 715
• The Runnymede model itself reduces Muslims to Islam as a common denominator. #expands (0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 869