Banning Islamophobia would curb debate – just ask a liberal Muslim

Polarising rhetoric risks drowning out the overwhelmingly positive story of Islam in Britain

If you heard that a friend or colleague had been reprimanded for Islamophobia, what would you think? Probably that he’d said something undiplomatic, but certainly not bigoted. That he had, perhaps, suffered the same fate as the philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, sacked by the Government after his words on the recent migrant crisis were twisted, with malign intent. In other words, you’d think it was a trumped-up charge – with no real crime.

But anti-muslim bigotry in Britain is all too real, with the number of attacks rising at an alarming rate. The broadcaster Maajid Nawaz was beaten while standing outside a London theatre a few weeks ago – he said he’d be OK because this was “the life that forged us”. To grow up Muslim in Britain has always meant facing such headwinds: they might not blow as strongly here as in other countries, but they’re gathering strength now.

At first glance, attempts to define (and proscribe) Islamophobia seem uncontroversial. Anti-muslim bigotry ought to have the same status as anti-semitism and under the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, it does. So why the need to define

Islamophobia? It is not a difficult word to understand: it refers to Islam as a religion – as distinct from Muslims, the followers of that religion. It is taken to mean both. But the vagueness of the phrase means that it can be used as a weapon against anyone, especially those seeking to scrutinise the agenda of political Islamism. In Britain, where religious freedom must coexist with the freedom to critique or mock any organised religion, words matter.

Once Islamophobia emerged as a word in the 1990s, it found its way into dictionaries without controversy. “Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force,” says Oxford. An Islamophobe “fears or hates Islam and its followers,” according to Chambers. But there are attempts under way to have the Government redefine the word to mean, in effect, anti-muslim racism. So why not just say anti-muslim racism? Because Islamophobia is a fashionable new cause, with momentum. The new, narrow definition has been adopted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and every party in the Scottish Parliament: all want the UK Government to follow.

It’s easy to see what could happen, because it has been happening already: activists use the word to try to silence their enemies. When Boris Johnson made a joke in this newspaper about women in niqabs looking like letterboxes, he was accused of “dog whistle” Islamophobia by Lady Warsi, a former Conservative Party chair, and subjected to a Tory party inquiry. The Islamic Human Rights Commission absurdly named Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, as one of four men who “flagrantly displayed the most Islamophobia” last year. He is a practising Muslim.

This game has been played for some time in the Islamic world, with moderate Muslims usually the targets. In his study, Islam and Islamism, the Damascus-born scholar Bassam Tibi explains how zealots use the label. “By presenting themselves as the spokesmen of true Islam,” he says, they “defame their critics by the equally invented notion of Islamophobia.” The label is cast on anyone “who does not embrace Islamist propaganda – including liberal Muslims.”

The writer Qanta Ahmed has warned MPS that they might end up being “useful idiots” for extremists who “want to present their bizarre dress code as the face of Islam” and don’t understand the notion of Islamophobia can be used as a kind of blasphemy law. In his submission to a parliamentary inquiry, Ed Husain puts it simply: “By shouting ‘Islamophobia’ in the face of those who call for reform,” he says, “we end the debate on how we can stop religious causes for such violence.”

It’s worth quoting these liberal Muslims because we so seldom hear voices like theirs. Hardliners have no problem hogging the headlines – unsurprisingly, given that Islamist terrorist attacks are being plotted (and thwarted) with regularity. But for almost two decades, now, stories about Islam have tended to be stories about extremism. This has a cumulative, corrosive effect and a generation of young British Muslims have grown up in a tougher, harder era. One Comres poll found that two in five Brits think Islam is a negative force in our society. If Sajid Javid, a non-practising Muslim, does run for the Tory leadership, it would be naive to think he would not face these same headwinds.

This month is Ramadan and by the end of it, British Muslims will have donated about £100million to charity. “Can you be 5:32?” asks one fundraising advert – a reference to verse 5:32 of the Koran that says “Whoever saved a life, it would be as if they saved the life of all mankind.” As a Christian, this is what I’ve always understood Islam to be about: prayer, charity and seeking to follow (or, literally, submit to) the will of God. Different to Christianity, but not so different. All people of the book, worshipping the same creator.

We hear about Islamist atrocities. But not so much about (say) the Muslims who raised $200,000 for the victims of last year’s Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, or who formed a “ring of peace” around the synagogues in Toronto in a gesture of solidarity. The everyday story of Islam in Britain is one of peaceful integration and normal life – but somehow, this point is being lost. Those who prefer a more polarised picture, one of jihadists vs Islamophobes, usually win out.

In the interview that got him sacked, Sir Roger described his admiration for Muslims who “settle into the Meccan way of life”, saying they were perfect citizens with “inner serenity”. “We ought to learn to appreciate that,” he said, “and encourage it.” That he could then be fired as a suspected Islamophobe – by a minister who hadn’t properly read what he said – showed the Government had itself succumbed to a kind of mania. That it was time to take a step back and have a long think.

Perhaps in a reaction to the Scruton debacle, the Government now appears minded to reject the new Islamophobia definition. “Legally problematic,” it says. Morally problematic, too. Anyone ought to be at liberty to examine, discuss and disagree with any religion, just as anyone should be free to practise one without harassment. This ought not to be a difficult case to make.