.... A significant problem in the APPG’s report and its definition is the use of the term “Muslimness”. Despite the discussion of “intersectionality” and other jargon borrowed from the social sciences, the report essentialises religious identity in a way that leaves little room for other forms of identity.
It is the identity of an individual Muslim as “ a Muslim” which is held to explain his or her interaction with wider British society. But - as the report itself acknowledges only to ignore – the construction of social identity is complex and situational.
And what is “Muslimness” and who, exactly, would decide what the concept meant in practice? What would be disallowed or banned? These are important questions that are unanswered in the report. They are particularly relevant given the huge diversity of British Muslims – from the Middle East, Turkey and Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Europe itself.
There is, clearly, a risk that such terms would end up being policed by selfappointed gatekeepers. For example, in the Ofsted example mentioned above (p. 55), school inspectors are accused of Islamophobia for questioning the wearing of hijabs by girls at school.
The implication is that “Muslimness” must involve wearing hijabs, since only one interpretation of what it means to be Muslim is offered. For all the talk that Muslimness is not a single identity, there is very little pluralism in the report. There is no consideration given to Muslims who may feel that agencies such as Ofsted are protecting them from an attempt to impose a uniformity with which they do not agree. [Policy Exchange] Read more
