Britain’s largest umbrella organization for Muslims rejected the government’s definition of “Islamophobia,” a day after the long-awaited definition—rebranded as “anti-Muslim hostility”—appeared on a government website.
“We are unable to endorse such a definition at the present time,” Wajid Akhter, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which has faced long-standing accusations of ties with Islamists, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, stated in a press release.
Debating Islam cannot be taboo. Why is this religion being given protected status in the UK?
Complaining that the definition “appears to be a diminished version of that recommended by the Government’s own Independent Working Group last year,” the MCB expressed concerns over “the dilution” of the definition and “the motivations of some of those driving the dilution.”
On March 9, the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government released the definition with nine pages of interpretive guidelines offering assurances that mocking, criticizing, and insulting Islam will continue to be protected by law. The definition controversially includes “race” and “ethnicity” as factors fueling the “prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims.”
Definition Articulates Anti-Muslim Hostility as a Form of Racism
Clarifying that this is a “working definition” which may “need to evolve” as “understanding of the issues develops,” the government defines anti-Muslim hostility as “intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts” that are directed at Muslims.
The definition includes verbal, written, or digital communications under criminal acts and expands the category of “Muslim” to cover anyone who is “perceived to be Muslim,” including where that “perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race, or appearance.”
The guidelines acknowledge that Muslims come from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds and that race and religion are distinct protected characteristics under U.K. law, but insist that “for many, anti-Muslim hostility can be articulated as a form of racism.”
The definition covers individuals and institutions who engage in “unlawful discrimination” with the intention of disadvantaging Muslims in public and economic life.
The guidelines concede that the definition is “non-statutory” and “must not be confused with legislation.” It clarifies that the definition does not restrict criticism, ridiculing, or insulting Islam or academic and political debates.
The demand of Islamists that “Islam be treated as a race, and that any attack on it be treated as racism, isn’t in the definition itself, but is reflected in the supporting text,” political advisor Andrew Gilligan pointed out in The Spectator.
Secularists Welcome Definition With Reservations
Some groups that had opposed an earlier proposed definition of “Islamophobia,” including Humanists UK, welcomed the new definition for restricting speech harmful to Muslims while protecting speech that criticizes Islam as a religion.
The secularist organization commended the government for omitting the “misleading term” of “Islamophobia,” which, it observed, falsely conflates prejudice against Muslims with legitimate criticism of Islamic beliefs and is also used by hardline Islamic states to suppress dissent.
The National Secular Society exhibited greater reservation in its endorsement. “The Government’s new social cohesion strategy contains welcome language on free speech and liberal values—but reveals a continuing tendency to pander to faith-based pressure, Stephen Evans, the organization’s CEO, wrote.
“The good news is that the language of ‘Islamophobia’ has finally been jettisoned,” Evans stressed. “Islamists will be disappointed but may be comforted by the line that the definition ‘may need to evolve over time.’ Ongoing vigilance will be necessary.”
Lawmakers and Activists Slam Definition
However, several parliamentarians and free speech campaigners attacked the definition, warning that it would be used as a covert anti-blasphemy law to severely curb freedom of expression and legitimate criticism of Islam.
Speaking to Focus on Western Islamism, Tim Dieppe, head of public policy at Christian Concern, a think tank headquartered in London, described the definition as “quite sinister.” Dieppe, an Islamic scholar who has written extensively on the definition, warned that “there is no doubt this will have a chilling effect on speech about Islam.”
“Raising concerns ‘in the public interest’ is protected, but who decides what is in the public interest? Is discussing the Islamic nature of grooming gang abuse in the public interest?” Dieppe asked. “Many have tried to silence such talk even without a formal definition.”
“The government’s Islamophobia definition has had a rebrand, but the underlying challenges remain the same. Its loose wording will shut down public services trying to combat grooming gangs, FGM, and terrorism, and yet it will do nothing to change the law on harassment and abuse,” Claire Coutinho, a Conservative MP, tweeted.
“Identity politics is a dead end, not a route to a cohesive society,” Shadow Communities Minister Paul Holmes added. “This definition is so broad and subjective that it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law, with a chilling effect on free speech and legitimate criticism of Islamist extremism.”
“Anti-Muslim hatred is unacceptable, but Britain already has strong laws to tackle hate crime and discrimination, and they should be enforced,” he emphasized, accusing the Labour-led government of “pandering to the politics of sectarianism.”
Muslim Lawmaker Used Definition to Silence Anti-Islam Discourse in Parliament
“Debating Islam cannot be taboo. Why is this religion being given protected status in the UK? Islamic extremists cause a huge amount of terrorism across the West. Islamic men [are] responsible for a huge amount of grooming gang scandals. Am I now going to be prosecuted?” Richard Tice, MP and Deputy Leader of Reform UK, asked.
In a lengthy post on X, Nick Timothy, MP, slammed the definition as “a very predictable betrayal” by the Labour Party. The parliamentarian warned that the definition “confuses racial and religious identities,” asking if critics could “assert the relevance of racial and religious identity in the crimes of the rape gangs” comprised mostly of Pakistani Muslim men.
“Is a primary school free to say no hijabs? Is a secondary school able to say no ritual prayer on the premises? Is a newspaper able to report that a terrorist shouted Islamic slogans? Are we free to identify entryism in public institutions?” he asked. “Should Christians and Sikhs have their own definitions?”
Labour MP Afzal Khan, who was forced to apologize for sharing a post referring to the “Israel-British-Swiss-Rothschilds crime syndicate” and “mass murdering Rothschilds Israeli mafia criminal liars,” published a video celebrating the “historic” moment on social media and equating anti-Muslim hostility with racism.
Muslim parliamentarians like Iqbal Mohamed have already used the definition to restrict criticism of Islam. Hours after the definition was published, Mohamed asked if it could be used to sanction lawmakers in the House of Commons and the House of Lords for engaging in “Islamophobic” discourse.
“It is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House, but the Honorable Member is right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims,” Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, responded.
