The term Islamophobia demands a better-grounded, contestable definition

Evidence

This recurring problem makes it extremely difficult to answer the question ‘what is Islamophobia?’ The intention of this book is to therefore try and seek some redress to this situation, attempting to explore and consider the necessary factors relevant to Islamophobia in the here and now at the same time as looking towards putting forward a better definition and conceptualisation of the phenomenon. In doing so, a number of key questions will need to be answered which include: does ‘Islamophobia’ exist? If it does, then what might ‘Islamophobia’ be? Are new or better terminologies required to assist the naming, defining or conceptualising of ‘Islamophobia’? And finally, if existing definitions and conceptualisations are shown to be lacking in any way and subsequently contributing to the sense of contestation that exists, how might ‘Islamophobia’ be better defined and conceptualised? — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 102

Categorization

• XREF: Allen’s research questions map directly onto the Runnymede vs. Bleich vs. Halliday camps this reader is surveying — ‘are new terminologies required’ is Halliday’s anti-Muslimism critique. — connects to: Agreeing on a definition of Islamophobia is a precondition for accountability. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 37; Scholarship on Islamophobia must justify its own normative commitments, not merely critique others’ — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 602; Retaining the term Islamophobia centers hostility on Islam itself. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 615 (+32 more)

Related

• Contested definitions of Islamophobia deepen the rift over its existence (similarity 0.90)
• Islamophobia’s contestation stems from a failure to define or conceptualise it. (similarity 0.90)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.89)
• Islamophobia persists as a term despite definitional failure because it is now socially real (similarity 0.89)
• Islamophobia is real but resists empirical proof, and the term stays despite flaws. (similarity 0.88)
• Definitional choices about ‘Islamophobia’ are political acts with real consequences (similarity 0.88)
• Islamophobia functions as an indiscriminate umbrella term serving varied agendas (similarity 0.88)
• Definitions of Islamophobia double as policy interventions, not neutral analysis (similarity 0.88)
• Established definitions of Islamophobia resist replacement despite their inadequacy (similarity 0.87)
• Defining Islamophobia as ‘unfounded’ makes its denial subjectively defensible (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia must be treated as a neutral social-scientific concept, not a political term. (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia is best understood and countered as a form of anti-Muslim racism. (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia’s definitional looseness makes it a contested and unstable concept in Europe (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.86)
• Islamophobia names a real social reality despite being imprecise and polemical. (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Islamophobia is political rather than religious and must be fought politically #qualifies (0.85) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 576