1 week Ago By Special to National Post
The greatest victims of extremist interpretations of Islam are Muslims themselves. This uncomfortable truth undermines Canada’s approach to combating anti-Muslim bigotry, as outlined in “The Canadian Guide to Understanding and Combatting Islamophobia.” The guide defines Islamophobia broadly as, “Racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general.
” This definition creates an intellectual sleight of hand, conflating prejudice against Muslims with criticism of certain doctrines or political movements operating under the banner of faith. The term “anti-Muslim bigotry” serves us better than “Islamophobia,” as it clearly identifies what we should oppose: discrimination, prejudice and hatred directed at Muslims as people. Islamophobia, with its “phobia” suffix, implies that any fear or criticism of Islam itself is irrational and racist.
This linguistic imprecision has real consequences for civil liberties and public safety. The guide does reference “anti-Muslim hatred,” but wrongly conflates it with Islamophobia. When we intentionally conflate criticism of ideas with hatred of people, we betray both liberal principles and the Muslims fighting for change within their own communities.
These Muslim voices are often the first to be silenced by accusations of enabling Islamophobia and find themselves abandoned by the very western liberals who should be their natural allies — a perverse outcome of supposedly “progressive” thinking. The guide’s recommendation to “centre diverse Muslim voices” sounds admirably inclusive until one realizes which Muslim voices are systematically excluded: secular and reformist Muslims, as well as those who reject the injection of extremism and antisemitism into Islamic doctrine. Instead, the most extreme political interpretations are presented as the voices of the community.
This betrays Muslims fighting for liberal values and denies the rich diversity of thought within Muslim communities themselves. It also creates the false impression that Islam is monolithic, rather than dynamic and evolving. The consequences extend beyond intellectual discourse.
Across campuses, literary festivals and public forums, speakers who critique certain Islamic doctrinal interpretations or practices are labelled as bigots and effectively silenced. Extremists have weaponized western guilt and liberal sensibilities, learning that calling someone “Islamophobic” can end careers and shut down debate. Thus emerges the circular logic of Islamophobia: any criticism of political Islam becomes evidence of bigotry, and any attempt to expose this fallacy becomes further proof of prejudice.
The guide’s references to an “Islamophobia industry” further illustrate this problem by inverting reality. When critics highlight extremist literature in certain mosques or foreign funding of radical preachers, they’re addressing documented issues with potential national security implications. Dismissing such concerns as products of an “industry of hate” shields legitimate security issues from scrutiny.
This paralyzes police, security services and policymakers, who grow reluctant to investigate real threats for fear of being branded as bigots. The cost of this self-censorship is paid primarily by vulnerable communities, including Muslims themselves. The guide’s dismissal of concerns about extremism as “fearmongering” ignores the substantial problem of radicalization in some religious institutions.
This hinders an honest assessment of how religious institutions can become vectors for political influence that may undermine democratic values and social cohesion. The guide’s media representation complaints also merit a challenge. While the media does report on world events driven by religiously motivated violence, the guide is wrong to demand de-emphasizing such events.
The answer to biased coverage isn’t enforced silence, but more nuanced reporting, including platforming Muslims who clearly separate Islam from Islamist extremism. None of this denies the reality of genuine anti-Muslim prejudice. From vandalized mosques to harassment of visibly Muslim women, bigotry against Muslims demands unequivocal opposition.
Every citizen deserves equal protection regardless of faith. Fighting prejudice, however, shouldn’t require terminology that conflates people with ideology. Islam, like all religions, needs the space for open critique and discussion, not blanket protection.
This balanced position allows us to combat genuine bigotry while preserving the intellectual freedom that benefits believers and non-believers alike. When we replace “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim bigotry,” we lose nothing in our fight against prejudice. What we gain is the clarity needed for both honest critique and genuine protection — clarity that serves us all in building a pluralistic society.
National Post Dalia al-Aqidi, Haras Rafiq and Mohammad Rizwan are members of Secure Canada’s International Muslim Counter-Voice Initiative. Jamie Sarkonak: Federal bureaucrat-activists strike again with 'Understanding Islamophobia' guideRaheel Raza: Opposing extremism is not Islamophobic, despite what recent report suggests.
