The fight against anti-Muslim hatred is both necessary and important. Muslims, like all minority communities, deserve protection from discrimination, hostility and violence. Police forces have a duty to ensure that prejudice against Muslims is recognised and challenged, and Muslim staff associations have a responsibility to represent their members to the best of their ability.

Indeed, Jews should have a particular interest in combating anti-Muslim hatred. Jewish history demonstrates the dangers of allowing prejudice against minority communities to become normalised. Societies that tolerate hatred against one minority often become hostile to others. The protection of Muslims from genuine hatred and discrimination is therefore not merely a Muslim concern; it is a concern for everyone committed to a pluralistic and democratic society. That is why the report Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred and Promoting Human Rights by Khaldoun Kabbani, Chair of the Scottish Police Muslim Association and Vice President of the National Association of Muslim Police, is so concerning.

The problem is not that the report seeks to tackle anti-Muslim hatred. The problem is that it does so through a framework riddled with historical inaccuracies, ideological assertions and political claims presented as objective fact. For Zionists, and therefore for the overwhelming majority of Jews, this should be deeply troubling.

The first warning sign appears in the report’s discussion of antisemitism. The author argues that antisemitism should be understood as prejudice against all “Semitic peoples” because Arabs, Christians and Muslims can speak Semitic languages. This is historically incorrect.

The term “antisemitism” was coined in nineteenth-century Germany specifically to describe hostility towards Jews. It emerged because anti-Jewish activists wished to frame their hatred not as religious disagreement but as a supposedly scientific and racial objection to Jews. Whatever the linguistic origins of the word “Semitic”, antisemitism has never referred to hostility against all speakers of Semitic languages. It has always referred to hostility towards Jews.

By attempting to redefine antisemitism as a broader category, the report erases the historical reality of Jewish persecution and obscures the specific nature of anti-Jewish hatred. That should concern anyone serious about combating racism.

A further difficulty with the report is its tendency to blur the distinction between hatred of Muslims and criticism of ideas, beliefs or practices associated with Islam. Anti-Muslim hatred is real. Muslims can be subjected to abuse, discrimination, violence and prejudice because they are Muslims. Such conduct should be condemned unequivocally. However, it does not follow that disagreement with aspects of Islam, or concerns about the implications of particular religious doctrines, automatically constitute hatred.

The report appears to assume that criticism of Islamic beliefs or discussion of cultural compatibility is inherently suspect. Yet in a free and democratic society, religious ideas, like political ideologies, are open to scrutiny, debate and criticism.

One obvious example concerns animal welfare. Many people oppose both halal and kosher slaughter because they believe stunning should be mandatory before slaughter. They may be entirely consistent in their opposition to both practices and motivated solely by concerns for animal welfare. To describe such individuals as anti-Muslim or antisemitic would be both inaccurate and unfair. This is true even if restrictions on such religious practices would have a detrimental effect on Muslim or Jewish life.

Similarly, discussions about immigration, integration and cultural compatibility are legitimate subjects of public debate. Modern Britain is becoming increasingly multicultural, and it is entirely reasonable to discuss how different communities, traditions and values can coexist within a shared civic framework. Such discussions may sometimes be uncomfortable, but they are not necessarily expressions of hatred.

Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against the report’s approach is found within the Muslim world itself. The long-standing schism between Sunni and Shia Islam demonstrates that hostility and discrimination can exist between different Muslim communities based upon competing religious interpretations and historical narratives.

The division, rooted in disputes over succession following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, has........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)