Navigating complex discourse:
Cambridge insights on defining Islamophobia in 2025
In a May 20 seminar at the University of Cambridge, scholars, practitioners, and students convened to delve into the complexities surrounding Islamophobia, antisemitism, and their intersections with broader societal frameworks. The session, rich with insights and debates, emphasized the necessity for a nuanced understanding of these forms of discrimination and their implications in both policy and everyday life.
Understanding the roots
Professor Esra Özyürek opened the discussion by tracing the historical evolution of Islamophobia and antisemitism, highlighting their deep entrenchment in societal structures. These biases, often fueled by political and economic conditions, reflect not only racial and religious prejudices but also broader xenophobic sentiments exacerbated by globalization and nationalism.
The legislative challenge
MPhil student Henry King further elaborated on the challenges the UK faces in legislating against Islamophobia. The task of defining such a multifaceted issue is daunting, often leading to tokenistic gestures rather than substantial policy changes. The historical context provided by King underscored the cyclical nature of attempts to address these issues legally, yet often falling short of impactful change.
Intersectionality
Several speakers emphasized the intersectionality present within forms of discrimination. Ayesha Ulhaq, a final stage PhD student, illustrated this concern with reference to her fieldwork, highlighting the pervasiveness of challenging experiences in workplaces and other public space. Her examples indicated specific challenges faced by visibly Muslim women, and the “emotional regulation” they experience.
Racialisation
Unable to attend, Dr Iman Dawood submitted reflections from her fieldwork: British Salafis often become targets of both criticism and discrimination due to their visible religious practices and conservative interpretations. This tends to reinforce a form of racialization, transforming religious practices into racial markers. This transformation affects even white converts, who find themselves perceived as “not quite white” upon adopting Salafi practices. These experiences further underscore the intersectional nature of Islamophobia, which operates across axes of religion, race, gender, and culture, challenging simplistic narratives and necessitating a nuanced approach to understanding and addressing discrimination.
Turning allies into antagonists?
Esra Özyürek raised a concern that attempts to encapsulate such complex issues within rigid definitions often result in tokenistic gestures that fail to capture the lived realities of the affected communities. Özyürek argued that these definitions tend to pit different marginalized groups against each other, as they compete for recognition and validation of their specific struggles. Furthermore, she underscored the challenge of addressing the rapidly shifting nature of discrimination, which often leaves policymakers trailing behind societal changes. Özyürek proposed that instead of focusing on specific definitions, there should be an overarching approach that acknowledges the interconnectedness of various forms of hatred and their shared roots in broader social prejudices.
Global and local dynamics
Dr Marietta van der Tol brought an international perspective, drawing attention to the legal categories around race, religion, ethnicity - and the way far-right actors seek to circumvent those categories (eg “it wasn’t about race, it was about certain attire”-argument). It is important that a new Islamophobia definition is sensibly related to existing categories in anti-discrimination law and criminal law; but, importantly, that it helps naming the interconnectedness of these categories for the purposes of policy development. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that legislation concerns the regulation of behaviours towards minority groups; while other policy tools might promote societal tolerance in general.
Questions
As discussion opened up, other attendees raised key questions.
Education vs legislation
Dr Mohammed Ibrahim Ahmed asked whether education, rather than legislation, should take the forefront in combating Islamophobia. This question sparked a debate on whether society should focus on fostering understanding and tolerance through education, thereby addressing the issue at its root, rather than relying solely on legal frameworks that may be slow to adapt and implement.
Crimes and incidents
Leo Taylor raised a question concerning the distinction between hate crimes and hate incidents, specifically in the context of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim violence. He touched upon the issue of underreporting and questioned whether this distinction might further muddy the understanding and response to such acts.
King highlighted that despite reports from organizations like Tell MAMA indicating a spike in Islamophobic incidents, there remains a challenge in accurately capturing and understanding this data. Dr Iona Hine reflected on the broader challenge of collecting data and how policy makers often rely on statistical evidence to drive change. While numbers and data are important, they don't always change people's perspectives or behaviours. If the general public are slow to understand the concept of racialisation, for example, it may be case studies (qualitative data) rather than numbers (quantitative data) that cut through.
The state role
A recurring theme, most prominent in questions from MPhil student Ferhat Kafali, was the role of the state versus individual and community responsibilities in addressing these injustices. This raised critical discussions on whether the state's actions should be motivated by a desire to create “good citizens” or by an ethical commitment to human rights.
The online audience posed additional questions and exchanged written commentary about the risk of fragmenting and softening an ask when overattentive to the breadth of British Muslim experience, the possibility of a restorative justice approach to get past “racist” labels, and what happens if a future definition proves unsatisfactory.
Conclusion
The seminar closed with the acknowledgement that while definitions may be crucial for law and policy, the results must be comprehensive and flexible enough to address the evolving nature of discrimination in a dynamic social landscape.
This conversation is a starting point for ongoing engagement and critical reflection. As we grapple with these complex issues, it becomes increasingly clear that collaborative dialogues, like the one hosted at Cambridge, are vital for fostering informed and empathetic societies capable of crafting effective solutions to systemic injustice.
The thoughtful contributions and questions raised during the seminar serve as a foundation for future research and policy-making, aiming to bridge gaps between communities and combat discrimination in all its forms.