By Maira Butt
With hate crimes against Muslims at a record high, a new parliamentary working group on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred has been formed to pin down a definition of the prejudice.
Initial consultation closed on Sunday 20 July. It asked for:
- Advice on terminology,
- The need for a definition,
- Whether racism should be a component of any new definition and
- Examples of anti-Muslim hatred/Islamophobia.
Led by Dominic Grieve KC, who served as attorney-general from 2010 to 2014, the working group comprises “representatives from Muslim communities, independent experts, and academics” according to the government website. It also includes Professor Javed Khan, managing director of the Equi think tank; Baroness Gohir, chief executive of Muslim Women’s Network UK; Akeela Ahmed, co-chair of the newly launched British Muslim Network; and independent consultant Asha Affi.
For many it is a long-awaited piece of work that will improve the lives of British Muslims, enhance community cohesion, and allow the challenges and obstacles faced by the community to be seen and acknowledged.
However, the proposal of a new definition has drawn criticism from some who believe it will afford Muslims special protections. Others, such as Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, suggest the working group could lead to a definition akin to a blasphemy law and restrict free speech.
Background
The term Islamophobia was first used in the UK in the 1997 Runnymede Trust report Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, in which it was defined as “an outlook or worldview involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination”.
In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims defined the term as: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
The government rejected the definition at the time as too vague and requiring “further careful consideration”. Many, including Sir Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, have attacked the phrasing for referring to race, suggesting that Muslims are not a race.
However, those defending the wording, including human rights groups such as Liberty and proponents such as Baroness Warsi, refer to the racialised perceptions of Muslims as an important aspect of anti-Muslim prejudice, deserving protection.
Working group origin
The working group was launched in February 2025, to look afresh at the definition after Islamophobic attacks reached their highest recorded number in 2024.
Inviting an online consultation from all members of the community via an online form, it said it aims to “advise government on how to best understand, quantify and define prejudice, discrimination, and hate crime targeted against Muslims”.
The working group has drawn criticism from some, for consulting Phillips and Sir John Jenkins, a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia who wrote a policy review at the request of David Cameron when he was prime minister. Both have been accused of Islamophobia.
Reports from the Middle East Eye news site also suggest that the government has blocked some of its Islamophobia advisers from contacting Muslim organisations including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).
An MCB spokesman told the Religion Media Centre: “We can confirm that neither the communities ministry nor its appointed working group members proactively reached out to the Muslim Council of Britain to participate in this call for evidence … We are mobilising our grassroots membership to share their views anyway.”
The MCB, which describes itself as the largest umbrella organisation of Muslim groups, with 500 affiliated groups and mosques including charities, schools and other professional networks, was set up in 1994 in response to a government request to have one body to contact. The relationship soured over the years, with successive governments adopting a policy of non-engagement with the MCB since 2009.
“Britain’s diverse faith communities don’t need petty cancel culture politics driven by the whims of right-wing think tanks and legacy media outlets — we need a government brave enough to lead with authenticity and common sense,” the MCB added.
Anti-Muslim or Islamophobia?
Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the charity the Islamophobia Response Unit, told the RMC that the continuing use of Islamophobia as a term, as opposed to “anti-Muslim hatred”, was of paramount importance.
Taking away the reference to ‘phobia’ — a strong dislike, aversion to or fear of — would remove the idea encapsulated by the term ‘Islamophobia’, Mr Iqbal said. He suggested that the irrational part of the definition – that fear is irrational – was crucial, comparing it to instances of transphobia or homophobia.
“A hate crime is a completely different set of circumstances. It is included within Islamophobia. But anti-Muslim hate doesn’t deal with the structural, systemic and institutional discrimination.”
He gives the example of someone being treated differently for wearing a hijab, or politicians such as Lee Anderson suggesting that “Islamists” had “got control” of the mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, as the kind of action or speech that could not be fairly considered an individual hate crime but could be considered an irrational phobia of Islam or a fearmongering view of the community.
“You can’t necessarily say that’s hate, that’s why it’s really important to distinguish between the two. Anti-Muslim hatred covers specific acts of violence or abuse. Islamophobia covers not only hatred but it covers instances such as those comments. It covers institutional racism on the grounds of race and religion.”
Mr Anderson left the Conservatives after being suspended. He is now chief whip of Reform UK.
Restricting free speech?
The Conservative MP Nick Timothy is against the idea of defining Islamophobia, saying it is a damaging “threat to our freedom of expression”, and he has been urging people to write in to the consultation to share this view.
Mr Iqbal says that fears of the definition restricting free speech are unfounded as the working group seeks to define a non-statutory definition of the discrimination faced by Muslims. “It can’t restrict free speech, because it’s not a legally enforceable definition. How can something non-legal have an effect legally?”
An open letter from groups including the Network of Sikh Organisations wrote that “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.”
But those who defend the process say there is a difference between legitimate critique and racialised bigotry, and that a well-defined description could help distinguish between the two.
During a House of Lords debate in September 2024, Baroness Warsi pushed for clarity as she implored: “You cannot genuinely tackle what you dare not define and detail.”
Furthermore, the news site Politics Home reported that a letter to invite MPs to the working group meetings advised that the work be “compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression”.
The working group was given a six-month mandate to deliver a non-statutory definition of the term, with findings due by the end of August 2025. Mr Grieve told parliament that the body’s recommendation was expected to be published in September 2025.
