New Islamophobia Definition is a Scam
How do you tell Muslim communities that they are not a priority? You release a new, meaningless definition of Islamophobia.
The UK government’s new definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is being presented as progress, but for many British Muslims it feels like a slap in the face. Rather than offering concrete protection from the hatred and discrimination Muslims face daily in this country, the definition appears vague, contradictory, and ultimately toothless.
At first glance it is difficult to see how Muslims are protected at all. The wording repeatedly contradicts itself, introducing caveats and loopholes that appear to allow the mistreatment of Muslims to continue unchecked. Even after several readings, it remains unclear what the definition actually changes in practice - or how it will prevent discrimination, hostility, or exclusion.
The most striking feature of the new definition is that it appears to prioritise protecting speech that ridicules or insults Islam rather than addressing the discrimination shaping Muslim public life - from barriers in employment, education, housing and hostile media narratives to disproportionate scrutiny under counter-extremism policies.
The accompanying guidance explicitly states that the definition protects “ridiculing or insulting a religion or belief, including Islam,” while also affirming “the fundamental right of every person in the United Kingdom to exercise freedom of speech and expression within the law.” On its face, this language appears less concerned with confronting anti-Muslim hostility than with reassuring Islamophobes that they will remain free to attack Muslims.
This is not about removing freedom of speech. But foregrounding the right to insult Islam while offering little clarity about how Muslims will be protected from discrimination sends a troubling message. At a time when Muslims face abuse, exclusion and suspicion across public life, the government’s framing risks prioritising the sensitivities of Islam’s critics over the safety and dignity of Muslim communities.
The government’s guidance also states that the definition protects “criticism of the belief systems or practices of individual adherents of a religion or belief, including Islam.” Imagine if a definition addressing hatred against any other faith or minority community - such as racism or antisemitism - began by emphasising the right to ridicule their beliefs or practices. It would be politically unthinkable.
Yet when it comes to Muslims, the difference is stark. The emphasis appears to fall less on protecting a community facing well-documented discrimination and more on safeguarding the right to offend. At a time when anti-Muslim hostility is widely recognised as a growing problem in Britain, this framing risks sending a troubling signal about whose rights are being prioritised.
Language like this has often been used to legitimise hostility toward Muslims under the guise of cultural or ideological critique. In practice, it blurs the line between legitimate debate and rhetoric that contributes to the marginalisation of Muslim communities.
This definition echoes the logic of the Sewell Report (2021) produced under the previous Conservative government. That report acknowledged the existence of racial inequalities while simultaneously arguing that Britain does not have a systemic racism problem. In doing so, it appeared to recognise discrimination while stripping away the structural explanations needed to address it.
Muslim communities are often told that engagement with government - having “a seat at the table” will lead to meaningful protection. Yet time and again, this engagement seems to produce symbolic gestures rather than substantive change. Worse still, it allows governments to claim consultation and inclusion while continuing policies that deeply harm Muslim communities. As Audre Lorde famously observed: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
Much of the debate from Muslim organisations around this definition has focused on the omission of “racialisation”. But in my opinion, this is the only progressive part. Muslims are a faith community, not a racial group.
Anti-Muslim hostility long predates modern racial categories and is rooted in religious hostility. And Islamophobia is embedded deeply in systems and institutions. These systems target all Muslims, regardless of religiosity and practice. Racialising Muslims renders us invisible in structures and frameworks that only see colour racism, and will never root out Islamophobia.
If Muslim communities are to challenge Islamophobia effectively, they must centre their reality as a diverse, multicultural faith community and push for structural change that reflects this.
In many ways, this definition functions as a smokescreen. It risks dividing and distracting Muslim communities while the real issues remain unaddressed. While the definition acknowledges obvious hostility, it largely sidesteps the institutional and systemic forms of discrimination that shape Muslims’ lived experiences. These structural inequalities often go unnoticed, yet they continue to limit opportunities and perpetuate cycles of socio-economic marginalisation.
If the aim of this definition was to reassure Muslims that anti-Muslim hostility is being taken seriously, it falls far short. The danger is that it allows government to claim progress while avoiding the deeper structural changes needed to confront discrimination.
Responsibility also lies closer to home. Too often, Muslim organisations and public figures lend legitimacy to these processes, presenting symbolic engagement as meaningful progress. When participation is used to validate policies that fail to address the realities facing Muslim communities, it risks reinforcing the very invisibility and marginalisation it claims to challenge.
