WE may learn lessons in managing Islamophobia from British novelist and essayist George Orwell of Animal Farm (1945) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) fame.
In 1945, he wrote a number of essays, including Anti-Semitism in Britain, recently published in Notes on Nationalism.
He introduces his essay by providing background of the Jewish population in Britain, about 400,000 then.
In addition, there are thousands or scores of thousands of Jewish refugees who have entered Britain from 1934 onwards.
"There are a few big monopolies, such as the ICI, one or two leading newspapers and at least one big chain of department stores are Jewish-owned," he notes, arguing that it would be far from the truth to say that British business life is dominated by Jews.
He starts with the background, already known, to emphasise that there is no real Jewish "problem" in England.
Any noticeable influence, he says, is only in what are loosely called "intellectual circles".
Yet, in the 1940s, he argues that anti-Semitism had been greatly exacerbated by the war and that "humane and enlightened people are not immune to it".
It does not take violent forms, but still, is "ill-natured enough", and have political consequences.
Here, Orwell, a pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair, gives some samples of anti-Semitic remarks made to him during the period. One goes like the following:
"I generally come to work by bus. It takes longer, but I don't care about using the Underground from Golders Green nowadays. There's too many of the Chosen Race travelling on that line."
Another one is as follows: "These bloody Yids are all pro-German. They'd change sides tomorrow if the Nazis got here. I see a lot of them in my business. They admire Hitler at the bottom of their hearts. They'll always suck up to anyone who kicks them."
From the numerous remarks heard by Orwell, he makes some conclusions.
One is that "above a certain intellectual level", people are ashamed of being anti-Semitic.
They would be careful to draw a distinction between "anti-Semit-ism" and "disliking Jews". The other, notes Orwell, is that anti-Semitism is irrational.
The Jews are accused of specific offences that the person speaking feels strongly about, but it is obvious that the accusations merely rationalise deep-rooted prejudice.
Attempting to counter them with facts and statistics is useless, and may sometimes be worse than useless.
The remarks show that people can remain anti-Semitic, or at least anti-Jewish, while being fully aware that their outlook is indefensible.
Orwell then gives the wartime scenario in Britain, with Jews thought to be clever at dodging military service, that Jews are mostly concerned about selling food, clothes, furniture and tobacco, exactly the commodities in short supply during the war, with consequent over-charging, black markets and favouritism.
Orwell argues that it would be easy to imagine anti-Semitism as a "quasi-rational thing", founded on mistaken premises. And naturally the anti-Semite would think of himself as a rational being.
A cogent point is that one of the marks of anti-Semitism is an ability to believe stories that could not possibly be true.
One example occurred in London in 1942.
It was reported that a crowd, frightened by a bomb blast nearby, fled into an Underground station.
This resulted in over 100 crushed to death. In the same day, it was repeated all over London that the "Jews were responsible".
One will not get much further by arguing with people who believe the Jews are the cause of more than 100 deaths.
Among educated people at that time in Britain, anti-Semitism was held to be an unforgivable sin.
It is also pertinent to know that the serious study of anti-Semitism had been prevented, and findings from the limited investigations then "have been kept strictly secret", claims Orwell.
Orwell believes anti-Semetism to be essentially a neurosis, with rationalisations believed in, and could be partly true.
It is part of the larger problem of nationalism, again irrational, and will not yield to argument.
Accordingly, the starting point for any investigation into antiSemitism should not be "why does this obviously irrational belief appeal to other people?" but "why does anti-Semitism appeal to me, and what is there about it that I feel to be true"?
Prejudice is learnt. It is establishing rationality in the absence of truth.
The writer is professor of social and intellectual history, International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation, International Islamic University Malaysia