An Open Letter on the Government’s Proposed Definition of “Islamophobia”
We, organisations from across the moral, political and ideological spectrum, including faith groups and secular organisations, write to express serious concern about the UK Government’s ongoing efforts to adopt a non-statutory definition of “Islamophobia”. At a time of rising tensions, deepening mistrust, and urgent social challenges, this move risks fuelling division rather than fostering social cohesion.
We strongly oppose racism and discrimination in all their forms. We also recognise the many benefits of living in a multiethnic and multifaith society. But adopting an official definition of “Islamophobia” will do little to tackle prejudice and much to exacerbate problems by encouraging censorship, identity-based grievance, and the policing of speech.
The proposed definition blurs the crucial distinction between race and religion. Islam is a belief system that, like all others, must be open to scrutiny, criticism, mockery and even condemnation. Equating criticism of Islam with racism misrepresents the nature of both and undermines long-standing principles of free expression.
We have already seen the dangers of this confusion. The term “Islamophobia” has been used to silence legitimate concerns, particularly around issues such as grooming gangs, women's rights, and religious influence in education. Former Bristol University professor Steven Greer faced life-threatening abuse following baseless accusations of Islamophobia. In Batley, a teacher remains in hiding after showing an image of the Prophet Muhammad during a lesson on free speech, with little institutional support or public defence. Acts of protest such as publicly burning the Qur'an are increasingly framed as “Islamophobic”, effectively reviving blasphemy norms in all but name. Yet blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021. Labelling religious offence as “hate” risks granting special protections to ideas and beliefs, in direct conflict with democratic principles of open debate.
Far from protecting Muslims from harm, definitions like this often empower self-appointed community gatekeepers and stifle the diverse range of views that exist within Muslim communities themselves. Reformist, liberal, ex-Muslim, and secular Muslim voices are particularly vulnerable to being labelled and excluded.
It also sets a precedent for the creation of similar definitions for other groups, turning public policy into a battleground of identity-based grievance and competing victimhood. This risks fragmenting society further and undermining equal treatment before the law.
For the reasons given above, we urge the government to abandon its endeavour to define Islamophobia; ‘anti-Muslim hatred’ is clear, sufficient and already covered in law.
The Equiano Project
Don’t Divide Us
National Secular Society
Fiyaz Mughal, Founder of Muslims Against Antisemitism
Academics for Academic Freedom
Christian Concern
Hardeep Singh, deputy-director, Network of Sikh Organisations
Free Speech Union
Oxford Institute for British Islam
Scottish Union for Education
What possible reason or justification can there be for protecting a cruel mediaeval religion that is only too ready to murder opponents while the government offers no protection to any other religions, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs spring to mind, all of whom are peaceful? Islam is the last religion in the world that actually needs protection, or merits it for that matter. They know full well how to protect themselves in the event of any criticism: kill, kill and kill some more. Meanwhile the government shuts its eyes to the endless anti-Semitism that has reached the stage where Jews are often afraid to walk in their own neighbourhood with the police turning a deliberate blind eye to the abuse, or they are too busy investigating hurtful comments on social media.
It seems to me clear that while Labour's clampdown on criticism of Islam may win it Muslim votes (is that their reason for proposing the law?), it will alienate everyone else. Is this in fact what the mean-spirited weak-willed spineless creatures want -- because it is what they will get?
This sounds a lot like the rhetoric surrounding BLM and DEI, which suggests that only white people can be racist while Black and Brown people are never considered racist. It also implies that only white people can be wrong, while Black and Brown people are seen as infallible. Furthermore, it claims that only Christians can be bad, whereas all other religions are deemed perfect. This perspective is entirely misguided. The same tactics are employed here and elsewhere. You must fight back through the courts, public opinion, and policy-making. It's essential to consider the insights from other Muslim leaders regarding their concerns about Islamic extremists and the importance of the West becoming more informed and proactive in not letting certain groups into Western countries, as they do not allow them in their own countries. Obtain data, long-term studies, and garner support from Muslims who are not stuck in an ideological mindset but live in reality.
You cannot reason with ideology. You cannot reason with someone who will martyr themselves, their children, or their babies for their own beliefs.