The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views

Evidence

Acknowledging the limitations and credibility of ‘Islamophobia’ as a suitable and adequate neologism, it justified its use by suggesting that a new phenomenon of increasing voracity needed a new name. In doing so, the report became the first source to offer a comprehensive definition of Islamophobia: the ‘shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear or dislike of all or most Muslims’. It is important to note that within the first few pages of the report however this definition changed. In doing so, the report’s definition became the ‘phobic dread of Islam … the recurring characteristic of closed views’. Still a phobic dread but one that was best understood through the conceptualisation of the runnymede model itself. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 274

Categorization

• DEFINE: Shows the Runnymede definition evolving from an all-Mulims framing to the ‘closed views’ model, central to the reader’s definitional-camps survey.
• XREF: connects to: The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages.; Runnymede’s eight closed views form an internally inconsistent typology — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 391; The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 915 (+3 more)

Related

• The Runnymede Report’s definition of Islamophobia shifted and changed within its own pages. (similarity 0.98)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.97)
• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam (similarity 0.93)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede report defines Islamophobia inconsistently across sentiment, prejudice, and discrimination. (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.92)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.91)
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. (similarity 0.91)
• The 1997 Runnymede Commission already distinguished open from closed views of Islam. (similarity 0.91)
• Runnymede redirects the term’s focus toward discrimination and exclusion (similarity 0.90)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.90)
• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage (similarity 0.90)
• Runnymede’s 1997 Islamophobia framework is a liberal construct defining harm as unfounded hostility (similarity 0.89)
• The Runnymede report introduced Islamophobia as marking Muslim-specific experience beyond shared discrimination. (similarity 0.89)
• The Runnymede report classed Islamophobia as racism without defining it as racism (similarity 0.89)

Broader Connections

• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam #expands (0.95) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348
• Runnymede defines Islamophobia as closed views of Islam #qualifies (0.90) — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia, 24
• The report separates legitimate criticism from closed-view Islamophobia #contradicts (0.85) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 51