A new definition of “Islamophobia,” slated for publication in the U.K. this week, has triggered widespread alarm among free speech campaigners. A leaked version of the definition revealed that the government had rebranded “Islamophobia,” a phrase used to silence criticism of Muslims, Islam, and Islamism, as “anti-Muslim hostility.”
We cannot allow the government to adopt this definition. It will mean anyone in the public sector could lose their job for speaking truthfully about Islam.
Leading secular and religious free speech advocates and parliamentarians warned that the alternative terminology of “anti-Muslim hostility” could still serve as a de facto blasphemy law, stifling legitimate criticism of Islam, and rendering such discussions as an arrestable offense in the minds of law enforcement officials intimidated by Muslim extremists in the U.K.
Sources indicate that Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary who is responsible for publishing the definition, postponed its publication to next week following the Islamist massacre of 15 Jews celebrating Hanukkah on December 14 at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia.
The working group tasked with wording the definition, which, according to the government, is “supposed to reflect a wide range of perspectives and priorities of British Muslims,” has dropped the controversial term “Islamophobia,” according to leaked drafts of the definition.
Leaked Draft Definition Of “Anti-Muslim Hostility”
According to the BBC, the draft definition describes “anti-Muslim hostility” as “engaging in or encouraging criminal acts,” whether “physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.”
The definition includes the “prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals” as well as “engaging in prohibited discrimination” including “the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions [is] intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”
“It’s even worse than feared,” Conservative MP Nick Timothy wrote on X. “This is old wine in new bottles. A terrible idea pushed by activists and extremists, rebranded as a compromise. If Labour agrees to it—meaning the public sector, the police, and the courts start to follow it—we will no longer have free speech.”
“Already the police and CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] are prosecuting people who desecrate the Quran and say things offensive to some Muslims. Already the mob intimidates schools, the police, and private businesses into de facto blasphemy laws,” Timothy remarked.
Silencing Discussion of Islamic Texts Against Jews
Timothy cited a Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari that calls for Muslims to kill Jews, explaining that the citation was “an example of why this matters” in the light of the Bondi Beach slaughter of Jews, since some Islamists use the text to justify antisemitic violence.
“Whether it’s [the Hadith] authentic is moot. We should be free to discuss it—not least because moderates who disbelieve the Hadith should be supported in doing so. But with this definition, it’s obvious: even raising this point would be said to be stereotyping and racializing Muslims,” the parliamentarian argued.
“In a week where we’ve seen yet another terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamists, it’s more clear than ever that our public services need to be able to deal with issues of extremism without fear or favor,” Conservative parliamentarian Claire Coutinho noted, adding that “public servants did not tackle the rape gangs because they were scared of being called racist and Islamophobic.”
New Definition Racializes Islam
Tim Dieppe, head of public policy at Christian Concern, told Focus on Western Islamism that the proposed definition poses a serious threat to free speech. He argued that vague concepts such as “prejudicial stereotyping” risk criminalizing ordinary, factually accurate statements about Islam, while the language of “racialization” wrongly treats a religion as a race.
“What exactly is ‘prejudicial stereotyping’?” he asked. “If I say, “Muslims don’t eat pork.” Would that count? There is nothing to say it wouldn’t.”
“We cannot allow the government to adopt this definition. It will mean anyone in the public sector could lose their job for speaking truthfully about Islam,” Dieppe warned.
The Free Speech Union warned that the “new terminology is so expansive that it could silence legitimate debate, criticism, and challenge of Islam, including discussion of the grooming gangs scandal.”
Islamists Hit Back at New Definition
Meanwhile, Muslim Engagement & Development (MEND), a Muslim advocacy group with a long history of promoting Islamism, issued a statement complaining that the terminology of “anti-Muslim hostility” risks “stripping the definition of its recognition as a distinct form of racialized religious discrimination—a red line for MEND.”
“Islamophobia is not only hostility toward Muslims; it is a structural and societal form of discrimination that intersects with race, ethnicity, and religion,” the statement said. “We will oppose any attempt to water down and redefine Islamophobia in a way that diminishes its racialized dimension, restricts its scope, or fails to protect the communities most affected.”
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which has been accused of having Islamist links, also issued a statement warning the government against “lack of transparency” and the “watering down” of the “Islamophobia” definition.
Arguing that a definition of “Islamophobia” must include race, the MCB said: “Stripping out or diluting the concept of racialization does not protect free speech. It obscures the nature of the harm and weakens the ability of public bodies to understand, address, and prevent discrimination.”
Sikhs Fear Censorship
The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO), which has consistently opposed the definition, has written to the Secretary of State insisting that the new terminology “still risks censoring criticism of religion.”
“If the government is defining ‘anti-Muslim hostility,’ why is there no Working Group for Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and indeed those of no faith?” the NSO asked, arguing that the new definition risks “perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach for different religious groups.”
In July, over three dozen members of the House of Lords warned the Labour government that its proposed definition of “Islamophobia” will have “a chilling effect on free speech,” with “serious repercussions for those who fall foul of the definition,” FWI reported.
The letter argued that privileging an “Anti-Muslim Hatred” definition is unfair to adherents of other religions, since there is no “definition of Anti-Christian, Anti-Hindu, Anti-Sikh or Anti-Buddhist hatred.”
