The Runnymede report introduced Islamophobia as marking Muslim-specific experience beyond shared discrimination.

Evidence

As Weller puts it, the publication of the Runnymede report ‘moved the terms of the debate quite significantly … [introducing] into public discourse the notion that, alongside shared dynamics of discriminatory experience, there may also be particularities of Muslim experience signalled by the word “Islamophobia”’ (Weller 2006: 306). While this was so, the real challenge facing Muslim communities and civic society was the fact that very few groups or organizations had the appropriate expertise to take forward the report’s findings. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 479

Categorization

  • XREF: This directly evidences the definitional-camp question: the Runnymede-era framing treats ‘Islamophobia’ as signalling particularities of Muslim experience, contrasted with Halliday’s ‘anti-Muslimism’ critique and Bleich’s neutral concept. — connects to: The Runnymede report reframed anti-Muslim prejudice as faith-based rather than ethnic. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 189; The 1997 Runnymede report defined Islamophobia as faith-based discrimination beyond ethnicity — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 185; The Runnymede Report redefined Islamophobia around closed views of Islam — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 348 (+13 more)
  • DEFINE: Quotes Weller’s account of how the report deployed the term to flag Muslim-specific discriminatory dynamics.

Broader Connections