Don’t outlaw ‘Islamophobia’

‘One of the things that’s coming up over and over again is Islamophobia,’ says Keir Starmer in a campaign video, talking to Sadiq Khan. ‘We need to say over and over again that Islamophobia is intolerable… and I think there’s more we can do in government. There’s certainly stuff online that needs tackling much more robustly than it is at the moment.’ The video shows the London mayor nodding in agreement. He tells Starmer: ‘Your experience as a prosecutor means you’ll be thinking about the strategy we can use.’

But it’s not the strategy they should be worrying about so much as the unintended consequences. Outlawing ‘Islamophobia’ – as Starmer, with a massive majority, could easily do – makes no sense. I’m both a Muslim and a historian of Islam and I find the whole notion of Islamophobia to be wrongheaded, an etymological fallacy.

The notion of Islamophobia was invented to mirror homophobia and draw parallels with anti-Semitism. But the word itself is inherently flawed. Both homophobia and anti-Semitism are directed against specific peoples. ‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of ideas, beliefs and attitudes. Violence or discrimination against adherents of any religion is obviously indefensible, but it should also go without saying that in a free society people should be at liberty to criticise or mock any organised religion. No intelligent Muslim should place the word ‘Islam’ and the word ‘phobia’ together in a single phrase. This is why the word did not exist until relatively recently. Islamophobia has been largely promoted by Islamists and jihadists, to protect them from scrutiny.

Anti-Muslim bigotry, even violence, is a problem. But Muslims, like members of all religious minorities, are already protected under the 2010 Equality Act. The 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act makes it an offence to incite hatred against someone on the basis of their religion. But part 3A, clause 29J makes clear that this does not prohibit ‘discussion, criticism, or expressions of antipathy’ towards particular religions or their adherents.

Most popular

Steerpike

Morrisons turns on Rachel Reeves

John Foreman

Why Paddy Mayne shouldn’t get a Victoria Cross

Zoe Strimpel

Where Wales went wrong

If you look into the forces demanding that Britain outlaws Islamophobia, you find the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-western global movement dedicated to destroying Israel and removing all Arab and Muslim governments; an organisation that is openly homophobic and misogynistic. Denouncing this extremism is a religious duty for most Muslims, because Islamists are destroying the beauty, pluralism and inheritance of classical Islam. Islamists are banned in Mecca but operate freely today in Britain. And they specialise in using the equalities agenda to demand the means to pursue, defame and (ideally) prosecute their critics.

As Khan pointed out, Starmer is a prosecutor. He should have learnt by now to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, but he shows no sign of understanding the difference. He has acted on behalf of the Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, and served in the cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn, who once called Hamas his ‘friends’. In the campaign video, Sir Keir says that anti-Muslim sentiment has risen since the 7 October attacks. But since it’s Hamas and Islamism that have created antipathy to Muslims, Starmer should be addressing them. If he did, he’d win over many in Britain who recognise that fundamentalism poses a huge threat to our country.

Going after the hardliners would be a win-win for Starmer – but does he have the courage? Uprooting Islamists from Britain’s institutions and streets would make the country safer and do more to promote relations between Muslims and non-Muslims than any spurious new law. But neither Labour nor the Tories will commit to this ideological battle, which leaves the field open for Nigel Farage.

Legislating against ‘Islamophobia’ would have disastrous consequences. The German judge who refused to grant a Muslim woman a divorce from her abusive husband in 2007 did so on the grounds that the abuse was culturally acceptable and sanctioned by the Quran. Such incidents would become normal for fear of accusations of ‘Islamophobia’. Let’s remember that the i-word has been used not only against politicians but also against Muslims who confront jihadists.

To apostatise and proselytise, offend and embrace, accept and reject – these dualities uphold the essence of liberty. Where would we be if we had censored David Hume’s criticisms of Christianity in the 18th century, or banned Gibbon’s volumes on the history of Rome in which he condemned the institutionalisation of religion? Islam was born because the Prophet Mohammed mocked the pagan religion of the Meccans. Judaism thrived because Abraham and later Moses opposed the pagan Egyptians in their persecution of the Jewish people. Christianity emerged as Paul and the early disciples attacked the values of Rome and the laws of Judea.

Offence is needed for freedom, and citizens of open societies must learn to become resilient. Criticism and discussion are the harbingers of progress. Muslims do not need to be patronised with excessive legislation.

Today it is ‘Islamophobia’. What’s next? Are we to be prohibited from questioning the gender inequality of literalist Islam: wife-beating, the unfairness of divorce laws, inheritance disparity, reactions to apostasy? Islamophobia laws are a step backwards, making it harder for reformist forces in Islam. This is something that today’s secular politicians struggle to comprehend.

Yes, there is clearly a problem of rising anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain. But if Starmer and the Labour party are serious about tackling it, then they should ban the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. There is no better way to protect moderate, patriotic Muslims than to remove the cancer of extremism within today’s Islam.

Watch Fraser Nelson and Ed Husain discuss more on Spectator TV: