The Islamophobia Trap
The motte-and-bailey strategy hidden inside the word
One of the most successful rhetorical maneuvers in modern discourse is the strategic use of the word Islamophobia. To see why, we need to apply the concept of a motte-and-bailey.
The Motte (Defensible Core)
The motte is the easily defensible, commonsense meaning:
Islamophobia means prejudice against Muslims as people.
Examples include refusing to hire someone because she wears a hijab, harassing a man at the airport because of his beard, or vandalizing a mosque.
Almost everyone agrees this is wrong. Hostility to individuals on the basis of religious identity is a form of prejudice and, in many cases, indistinguishable from racism.
This is the position its defenders retreat to when challenged. It is safe, obvious, and broadly shared across the political spectrum.
The Bailey (Expansive Territory)
The bailey is the more ambitious and far less defensible meaning:
Islamophobia means criticism of Islam itself—its doctrines, its history, its laws, its founder.
Examples include questioning Sharia, rejecting blasphemy laws, critiquing Muhammad’s actions, or pointing out violent passages in the Qur’an.
Here, the word functions not as a shield for people, but as a shield for ideas.
This territory is strategically valuable because it delegitimizes opponents. Labeling criticism of Islam as Islamophobic instantly reframes the critic as a bigot rather than a participant in free debate.
The Strategic Move
The brilliance of the tactic lies in the seamless switch between motte and bailey:
When someone objects—“Surely criticism of a religion is not the same as bigotry against its adherents?”—the defender retreats to the motte: Of course we only mean prejudice against Muslims, nobody is saying criticism is off-limits.
But in practice, public accusations of Islamophobia overwhelmingly target critics of doctrine, not just bigots against people.
This oscillation between definitions keeps critics perpetually on the defensive. They either accept the charge and self-censor, or they reject the charge and appear to be defending bigotry.
The Consequences
The effect of this motte-and-bailey is twofold:
Silencing debate: Fear of being branded Islamophobic chills open discussion about Islamic law, history, and politics.
Diluting meaning: The term no longer clearly distinguishes between actual bigotry and legitimate criticism. As a result, genuine anti-Muslim prejudice risks being trivialized.
The Proper Distinction
We must draw a sharp line:
Criticism of ideas (doctrine, texts, laws, political movements) is not bigotry.
Hostility to people because of their religious identity is bigotry.
Failing to maintain this distinction poisons discourse. Protecting individuals from discrimination is just. Shielding religious doctrines from criticism is authoritarian.
Conclusion
Islamophobia operates as a motte-and-bailey. Its defensible core is the condemnation of anti-Muslim prejudice. Its expansive, aggressive use is the suppression of criticism of Islam itself. Recognizing this rhetorical maneuver is the first step toward resisting it. In a free society, people deserve protection from persecution, but ideas do not deserve protection from critique.