Defining "Islamophobia" could restrict gospel freedom

Religion, politics, ethnicity and free speech are difficult conversations to have in a public forum without fear and are also a policy weakness for politicians who are either faith illiterate or struggle to appreciate the interaction between religions. However, there is no excuse to tolerate the rise in religious-motivated hate crime in the UK.

In the official Hate Crime statistics for the year ending March 2024, — it showed ​“there was a 25% increase in religious hate crimes compared with the previous year”, specifically the breakdown is as follows:

• 3,866 against Muslims
• 3,282 against Jewish people. This doubled from previous publication.
• 702 against Christians
• 216 against Sikhs
• 193 against Hindus

The rise in religious-motivated hate crime, unfortunately, is the political and cultural climate that politicians need to tackle and it’s crucial that evangelicals engage with wisdom and boldness.

Sponsored

For over 179 years, the Evangelical Alliance has championed religious freedom because it is fundamental to a flourishing society. The lessons learned from our persecuted brothers and sisters abroad teach us that when religious freedom is restricted, withdrawn or violated, personal safety and the health of a nation are compromised.

Today, the role of evangelicals to is to boldly live out the Great Commandment. We are called to love lavishly and to serve our neighbours. Member organisations like Elam, London City Mission, Mahabba Network, Welcome Churches and the South Asian Network are doing incredible outreach work in reaching Muslims with the gospel and coming alongside those Muslims who have experienced violence at a local level.

Whilst in opposition, the Labour Party formally adopted the 2018 All Party Parliamentary definition (APPG) of Islamophobia as a party policy.

Ahead of the 2024 general election, the Labour Party manifesto pledged to ​“reverse the Conservatives’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate”. There is confusion around what Labour now plans to do. In September, Lord Khan of Burnley, the government’s faith minister, in a letter to Network of Sikh’s stated that, ​“the definition proposed by the APPG is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins,”, potentially signifying a softening in their position.

In February 2025, the Labour government announced a working group ​“to provide guidance to government and other bodies to support further action on tackling religious motivated hate.” Within the terms of reference, it states the definition will be non-statutory (i.e. not legally binding or enforceable by criminal justice agencies) and that ​“any proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of speech and expression – which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of, or insult religions and/​or the beliefs and practices of adherents;”, which we welcome.

Earlier this month, Danny Webster (director of advocacy) and I sought a meeting with the secretariat to represent the concerns of our members. These are set out below.

Our overall message to the commissioners was to take a cautionary approach to introducing a non-statutory definition that should focus on hostility and violence towards individuals and not belief systems. Our position can be summarised in the following six points:

We strongly support the Terms of Reference’s commitment to protect freedom of speech and religion – such freedoms are foundational for a pluralistic and democratic society.

We argue that ​“Islamophobia” can blur the line between the criticism of Islam and hatred of Muslims and recommend the clearer term ​“anti-Muslim hatred,” which targets discriminatory behaviour without restricting legitimate expression.

If a definition is adopted, we suggest it should include clear examples of what is and is not anti-Muslim hatred. We asked for assurance that robust religious disagreement, satire or proselytism are set out as examples of what is not classified as hate. This will ensure protection for public dialogue, academic discussion and religious freedom.

We recognise that Muslims may be racialised but stress that race and religion are distinct legally. We emphasise that race-related hate is already covered under existing legislation and warn against conflating the two, which could create legal confusion.

We express doubt that defining ​“Islamophobia” will significantly reduce anti-Muslim hate, citing the above example of rising antisemitic incidents despite the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

We note that hate crimes affect multiple religious groups (Muslims, Jews, Christian, Sikhs, Hindus). We warn that defining hatred for each group could lead to legal inconsistency and overcomplication and instead recommend one unified legal standard for all forms of religious hatred.

In the short term, members can share their own reflections to the government’s proposed working definition by completing the online public consultation. The deadline is Monday 20 July.

We then expect the commissioners to review submissions over the summer and report back to Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, outlining their findings and recommendations. In the meantime, we are meeting and briefing across party spokespeople to ensure whatever definition is proposed, parliamentarians across the House are equipped to ensure freedom of religion or belief for all. This should include the freedom to share, preach and produce materials sharing the gospel with others.