An abuse of language

The Conservatives are being castigated for their alleged willingness to accommodate “Islamophobia” despite removing the whip from Lee Anderson, the former party deputy chairman. He accused Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, of being in thrall to the “Islamists”. Rishi Sunak said Mr Anderson was wrong to say what he did but remains under pressure to concede that the Tories were demonstrating double standards.

At issue is the definition of Islamophobia.

The term entered political discourse in 1997, popularised in a report from the Runnymede Trust. Sixty recommendations were put forward, targeted at government departments, bodies and agencies, local and regional statutory organisations, and voluntary and private bodies.

The report focused on perceived anti-muslim prejudice, though it was not apparent back then that there was a popular animus towards Muslims reflected in widespread violent behaviour, even if some attacks were recorded. Politicians who refuse to acknowledge their own perceived Islamophobia are now being denounced as racists, even though Islam is a religion. It also differs from antisemitism, a centuries-old prejudice that has been used in the past to exclude Jews entirely from a country or to murder them in their millions.

To demand parity between the two is an abuse of language. Moreover, the term “Islamism” was adapted in order to differentiate between Muslims and religious dogmatists who seek to further their particular ideological ends in the name of their religion. Using the word “racist” in this context looks like a deliberate attempt to shut down a legitimate debate about how to deal with the threat from those who would perpetrate violence.