The Runnymede Report’s own practice reproduced the monolithic Muslim it condemned

Evidence

Barring one example, wherever statistical data was employed in the report religious markers and identifiers were overlooked to the extent where ‘Muslim’ repeatedly failed to be either identified or mentioned. Yet still the report claimed that it was challenging and combating the perception that Muslims are ‘pictured as undifferentiated, static and monolithic, and as intolerant of internal pluralism and deliberation … [where] sweeping generalisations are then made about all Muslims’. The reality was as Halliday suggests, that the report presented Muslims in such ways that they become a monist abstraction, over-simplified and substitutable primarily by the marker ‘Pakistani’ or even worse ‘Asian’: ‘Asian’ being a term that Modood and others had already deemed inappropriate and unworkable. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 314

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The self-undermining logic—a definitional campaign against stereotyping that itself erases internal Muslim diversity and substitutes ethnicity—is a dense critical point about definition-as-political-act worth sitting with.
• XREF: connects to: Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam — Runnymede Trust, Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, 49; The Runnymede Report conflated Muslims overwhelmingly with South Asian ethnicity — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 310; The Runnymede model itself reduces Muslims to Islam as a common denominator. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 869 (+2 more)

Related

• The Runnymede Report conflated Muslims overwhelmingly with South Asian ethnicity (similarity 0.88)
• The Runnymede report’s definition is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede model itself reduces Muslims to Islam as a common denominator. (similarity 0.87)
• The Runnymede model so dominated Islamophobia discourse that it escaped critical scrutiny (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede model essentialises Muslims and reduces Islam. (similarity 0.86)
• Runnymede’s core aim is countering monolith views of Islam (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam (similarity 0.86)
• The Runnymede model is self-reinforcing and theoretically weak (similarity 0.85)
• Runnymede’s model failed to distinguish Islamophobia from other similar phenomena (similarity 0.85)
• The Runnymede report demonised victims and apportioned blame to Muslims themselves (similarity 0.85)
• Runnymede’s 1997 definition founded but did not fix the field’s usage (similarity 0.85)
• The Runnymede Report’s definition shifted within its own pages toward closed views (similarity 0.85)
• The Runnymede report classed Islamophobia as racism without defining it as racism (similarity 0.85)
• The 1997 Runnymede definition fused hostility to Islam with discrimination against Muslims (similarity 0.85)
• Established definitions of Islamophobia resist replacement despite their inadequacy (similarity 0.84)