Kenan Malik on “Islamophobia”

November 22, 2013 at 12:26 am (Anti-Racism, civil rights, democracy, Free Speech, intellectuals, islamism, posted by JD, Racism, rcp, reblogged, relativism)

Kenan Malik is not someone we often recommend, not least because of his dubious friends in the RCP/ Spiked Online / Institute of Ideas. Still, he’s often struck us as a bit more intelligent than most of that lot (the frankly embarrassing Claire Fox, etc), and this piece (from a couple of weeks ago), would seem to confirm that view:

Kenan Malik
By Kenan Malik

I am taking part on Friday in a discussion entitled ‘When does criticism of Islam become Islamophobia?’, hosted by Oxash, the Oxford Atheists, Secularists and Humanists. So, I thought it might be worth setting out the basic points that undergird my own thinking about the relationship between criticism, Islam and Islamophobia.


Islamophobia is a problematic term. This is not because hatred of, or discrimination against, Muslims does not exist. Clearly it does. Islamophobia is a problematic term because it can be used by both sides to blur the distinction between criticism and hatred. On the one hand, it enables many to attack criticism of Islam as illegitimate because it is judged to be ‘Islamophobic’.  On the other, it permits those who promote hatred to dismiss condemnation of that hatred as stemming from an illegitimate desire to avoid criticism of Islam. In conflating criticism and bigotry, the very concept of Islamophobia, in other words, makes it more difficult to engage in a rational discussion about where and how to draw the line between the two.



When it comes to criticizing ideas, nothing should be out of bounds. Nothing should be unsayable simply because someone finds it offensive. Particularly in a plural society, offending the sensibilities of others is both inevitable and important. Inevitable, because where different beliefs are deeply held, clashes are unavoidable. Important because any kind of social change or social progress means offending some deeply held sensibilities.

‘You can’t say that!’ is all too often the response of those in power to having their power challenged.  To accept that certain things cannot be said is to accept that certain forms of power cannot be challenged. The notion of giving offence suggests that certain beliefs are so important or valuable to certain people that they should be put beyond the possibility of being insulted, or caricatured or even questioned. The importance of the principle of free speech is precisely that it provides a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence acts as a permanent challenge to authority.



If no criticism should be off limits, nevertheless some kinds of criticism need to be challenged. The other side of defending free speech is the necessity of confronting bigotry.  The whole point of free speech is to create the conditions for robust debate. And one reason for such robust debate is to be able to challenge obnoxious views. To argue for free speech but not to utilize it to challenge obnoxious, odious and hateful views seems to me immoral. It is, in other words, morally incumbent on those who argue for free speech to also stand up to racism and bigotry.



When does criticism become bigotry? The line is crossed when criticism of Islam, of ideas or beliefs, become transposed into prejudice about people; or when critics demand that Muslims are denied rights, or be discriminated against, simply because they happen to be Muslims.

We should oppose all discrimination against Muslims in the public sphere, from discriminatory policing and immigration laws that might specifically target Muslims, to planning regulations that make it more difficult to build mosques than other similar buildings or restrictions on the ability of Muslims to assemble or worship that apply merely because they happen to be  Muslims.  Whatever one’s beliefs, there should be complete freedom to express them, short of inciting violence. Whatever one’s beliefs, there should be freedom to assemble to promote them. And whatever one’s beliefs, there should be freedom to act upon those beliefs, so long as in so doing one neither physically harms another individual nor transgresses that individual’s rights in the public sphere. A Muslim should have the same rights and obligations as any other citizen.

We should also oppose all attempts to use criticisms of Islam to demonise Muslims. But criticism of Islam, of whatever kind, even if it is offensive or bigoted, should not be a matter for the criminal law. Bigoted speech should not be a legal but a moral issue. Just as Muslims have the right to express their beliefs, short of inciting violence, so should everyone else, including the right to express the most pungent beliefs about Islam. A society that outlawed anti-Muslim arguments would, in my mind, be as reactionary as one that banned Muslim immigration or pursued discriminatory forms of policing.



It is important to make the distinction between criticism of Islam and prejudice against Muslims. There is also, however, a large gray area on the borderlands of bigotry that needs addressing, a gray area between, on the one side, vicious anti-Muslim hatred and, on the other, absurdly self-serving claims of ‘Islamophobia’ hurled at everyone from Salman Rushdie to Tom Holland. It is a large gray area where you may sometimes find, say, the likes of Sam Harris or Martin Amis. I have been highly critical of both; not because they are bigots in any reasonable sense of the word but because their arguments often so lack nuance, and are so bereft of context, that they both provide intellectual ammunition for bigots and can become a means of mainstreaming bigoted arguments.

Much of the problem arises from the way that the debate about Islam is filtered through the lens of the ‘clash of civilizations’, the claim that there is a fundamental civilizational difference between Islam and the West that will, in the words of Samuel Huntingdon, the American political scientist who popularized the term, set the ‘battle lines of the future’, unleashing a war ‘far more fundamental’ than any ignited by ‘differences among political ideologies and political regimes’. The ‘clash of civilizations’ is a threadbare argument, but it is part of a genuine academic debate. It is also the frame through which the ‘otherness’ of Muslims is established, a frame within which both popular discussion and the arguments of the bigots, including tellingly those of Islamists, have developed.

The academic arguments need challenging. So do popular perceptions, and the arguments of the bigots, too. The academic debate is clearly distinct from the popular discourse which in turn is separate from the claims of the bigots. Yet not only does each shade into the other, but the academic debate also provides the intellectual foundation for both the popular discussion and for the arguments of the bigots.

The real issue we need to address, then, is not so much where to draw a distinction between ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ criticism, as how to remake the very framework within which Islam is viewed, a framework that helps define both mainstream and bigoted ideas. Or, to put it another way, we should stop being so obsessed by the distinction between legitimate criticism and Islamophobia, and start thinking about how an obsession with both Islam and Islamophobia distorts our culture and our debates.


  1. Kenan Malik on “Islamophobia” | OzHouse said,

    […] Nov 22 2013 by admin […]

  2. Mike Killingworth said,

    Actually, JD, I’d say that this was a pretty bog-standard Spiked Online effort – reminds me of why I’ve given up reading the site. Half of what he says is restating the obvious and the other half tries to obfuscate the real difficulties. What he does have right is that this is not so much about Islam (which I will come back to) as about the use and abuse of power.

    More specifically, he seeks to draw a distinction between offence and abuse (and by implication, to determine who has and who has not the right to claim victim status and some special consideration in consequence) which is simply misguided if it is not actually dishonest. The usual line on the left seems to be to quote Ricky Gervais as though he were some deep moral philosopher or political theorist. He isn’t – he’s an entertainer. People take offence – often by claiming to be the victims of abuse – as a political act. Socialists will do this when it suits them and must therefore either allow others to do so as well or else claim that their political goals give them a privilege which they deny to others.

    Neither Malik nor any of the writers on this site (and I include myself) has a cast-iron rule for deciding whether or not X’s claim of victim status is justifiable because each and every such claim is an act of political struggle. It’s a very very long time since I read “the young Marx” but I still feel pretty sure that that position is necessarily held by anyone who believes that Marx had an important contribution to make to political philosophy.

    Bear in mind that background as I recall to you an experience I had in the workplace over 25 years ago now, when I took a post amongst whose functions was the line management of three “race equality advisers” (a tom-fool thing for a white guy to do, I readily admit).

    I introduced myself to them with these words: “There are two things that I want you to know about me. First, I passionately believe in race equality. Second, I quite accept that my kids aren’t good enough to marry yours.” I left the room. The doyenne (a South African of Indian descent) turned to the other two and said “he’s got to go, he knows too much”. The black Jamaican woman nodded her head in agreement whilst the Muslim guy sought me out to buy me a lunchtime beer.

    (to be continued)

  3. Mike Killingworth said,

    (continued from #2 above)

    A few days later I told them that I knew how to abolish racism once and for all, and would surely do so just as soon as I could persuade the Martians to invade Earth.

    Socialists have to face the fact that Huntington was half-right (he made a habit of it). Race is a more important source of identity for human beings than class. Far more. Even the ideologists of the CPSU got there by the mid-1980s.

    This does not mean that Huntington (or al-Qaeda, for that matter) are right to infer that the planet isn’t big enough for both Islam and western culture. That depends on whether or not we want it to be.

    And if we want it to be, we had all, Western and Muslim alike, better copy another colleague I had in that workplace, who, when she first saw me, said: “oh my God – you look just my ex-husband! Oh, well, I suppose I’m the one who’s going to have to deal with that.” It was the greatest sense of relief I’ve ever felt in my life, because I surely had neither the right nor the capacity to compel her to take that attitude, even though I had the greatest need that she should do so.

  4. Sue R said,

    Funnily enough Ricky Gervais did study philospophy at Uneversity College London, so I expect he does know a thing or two about moral philosophy. (Though what Mr Killingworth is referring to evades me). Can someone interprete the anecdotes about his work collegues; I am not sure what he is saying. Anyway…I have been delighted with Socialist Unity these past few days where John ‘machoman’ Wight has been getting into hot water for being an Islamophobe for describing the Syrian rebels/jehadists as ‘savages’ etc. Accused of playing into Orientalist preconceptions. What a hoot!! Hoist on his own petard! And, all because he is a dyed in the wool Stalinist who thinks the sun shines out of Assad Bashir behind. I find it interesting as well that he argues that the Russians are totally alturistic and disinterested in their support of Bashir, unlike those grasping Yanks and Saudis who have an ulterior motive. Yeah, right.

    • Babs said,

      Ricky Gervais also knows a thing or two about racism…

      About Russia and Assad….I think they aren’t too keen on him and nor are the Iranians. He’s responsible for an entirely avoidable civil war, a war that has cost the Russians and Iranians (and their proxy Hezbollah) a lot of political damage in Europe and the Arab/Sunni Muslim world as well as costing them a fortune to prop up the Assad regime. It’s not so much Assad they care about, it’s their strategic interests.

      For Russia it’s about reining in unauthorised by the UN unilateral military action by the US as well as holding onto their sole (albeit small) mediterranean naval base in Tartus. Syria is also a country the Russians have a long military technical relationship with going back decades and they will lose this if the Assad regime is defeated. Also it’s much more dangerous for Russia to have an Salafist Islamic Syrian state than it is to have an authoritarian secular one. Such a state would undoubtedly provide support to the Jihadists in the Caucasus especially if Turkey looks the other way.

  5. jimmy glesga said,

    Islamaphobia is a made up word by the usual idiot left. Islam is a vile murderous cult.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: