The Christian Institute has cautioned that making a formal definition of “Islamophobia” risks eroding free speech and stifling legitimate criticism of faith.
Responding to the Islamophobia working group’s call for evidence, which closed on July 20, The Christian Institute argued that the term “Islamophobia” is confusing and unnecessary, and warned that conflating criticism of Islam with hatred toward Muslims could have chilling consequences for open debate.
“Laws already protect people of all faiths and none from discrimination, hatred and violence,” the submission stated. “A latest term risks confusing criticism of Islam as a faith – a democratic right – with hostility to Muslims as people.”
The Christian Institute cited past concerns raised by greater than 40 experts concerning the idea of “Muslimness” utilized in earlier proposals, saying it may very well be manipulated to insulate religious beliefs from public scrutiny.
“It also begs the query: who defines Muslimness?” the CI asked in its submission.
A key area of contention is whether or not anti-Muslim hatred must be considered a type of racism.
The Christian Institute argues that Islam, being a faith, shouldn’t be treated like a race.
It warned that concepts like “cultural racism” could lead on to the disciplining of people for expressing mainstream views—as an illustration, opposing mandatory female head coverings or favouring UK law over Sharia.
Such reclassification, The Christian Institute argued, would weaken legal protections for religious discussion enshrined in Section 29J of the Public Order Act — protections that don’t extend to racial categories.
The working group was arrange in February to develop a non-legal definition of anti-Muslim hatred and is led by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve KC.
Grieve has acknowledged the challenge of defining Islamophobia in a way that’s consistent with free expression, having previously said, “We must balance addressing the lived experience of those that are victims of it and the suitable of British Muslims to feel heard and guarded as equal residents of our country, with the unwavering requirement to take care of freedom of thought and expression under law for all.”
The group’s terms of reference explicitly state that any proposed definition must uphold freedom of speech, including the suitable to criticise and even insult religious beliefs.
A government spokesperson affirmed, “We are absolutely committed to defending freedom of speech, and any proposed definition have to be compatible with the suitable to freedom of speech and expression.”
Despite the assurances, concerns concerning the implications of defining Islamophobia have emerged from across political and ideological lines.
Sir Trevor Phillips, former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned at a recent event that defining Islamophobia is a type of “thought policing” designed to shield one set of spiritual beliefs from public challenge.
“We don’t need a definition, we’ve got perfectly good legal remedies against discrimination,” he said, in response to The Sun.
Others, including former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, former Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman, and Haras Rafiq, counter-extremism advisor, have echoed these warnings.
Mahmood and Rafiq said the proposals could deter public scrutiny of Islamist extremism, while Ms Spielman cautioned that schools is likely to be pressured to evolve to conservative Islamic agendas.
Critics also point to recent examples where individuals have faced serious consequences for comments perceived as Islamophobic—even when later exonerated.
The Christian Institute’s submission referenced the 2020 suspension of Sir Trevor Phillips from the Labour Party over remarks about Muslim communities—he was reinstated over a 12 months later.
Additionally, the National Secular Society has argued that the adoption of any definition of Islamophobia would threaten freedom of speech and legal equality.
Dame Sara Khan, an authority in human rights and counter-extremism, has warned that Islamophobia accusations are sometimes manipulated by radicals to suppress dissenting voices inside Muslim communities.
The debate comes amid growing concern concerning the rise of what some call “backdoor blasphemy laws.”
Recent prosecutions for desecrating the Quran, and political calls for legal protections for prophets and holy books, have raised questions on the boundaries of free expression.
Critics fear that a proper Islamophobia definition could enable further censorship under the guise of tolerance.
Stephen Evans, National Secular Society Chief Executive, said: “While the intention to combat hatred is commendable, creating special protections for one particular faith will prove counterproductive to community cohesion.
“We welcome Dominic Grieve’s recognition of the importance of safeguarding free speech. Individuals must be protected, not their beliefs.
“The term ‘Islamophobia’ should definitely be avoided resulting from its ambiguity and clear potential to be misused to shield the faith of Islam from criticism.
“We urge the Working Group to make sure free expression is protected.”
 The Christian Institute has cautioned that making a formal definition of “Islamophobia” risks eroding free speech and stifling legitimate criticism of faith. Responding...){kind=link}