Ayesha Khan from the Association of Muslim Lawyers argues that Muslims should urge the government to drop the word “Islamophobia” from official discourse and use the term “Anti-Muslim Hatred” instead, thus offering Muslims more legal protection from hate crimes.
The UK Government’s Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred is inviting public views on how to define hate against Muslims. One of the main questions is: should the term “Islamophobia” continue to be used or is “Anti-Muslim Hatred” the correct and more protective choice?
The deadline to respond is July, 20 2025, but this is not a minor debate over language as the outcome will directly affect how public bodies, regulators and police respond to hatred against Muslims for years to come.
This Consultation presents a key moment for the Muslim Community to help shape the official understanding of Anti-Muslim hatred.
A formal and precise definition will not only help identify anti-Muslim conduct, but also strengthen efforts to prevent hate, educate the public, and hold perpetrators accountable.
We must understand that the term Islamophobia is exploitable and lets perpetrators hide behind freedom of speech claims.
On the other hand, Anti-Muslim Hate is clear. It reflects the lived experiences of our community. It offers real protection. And it’s the term our institutions can understand.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
We must not settle for a word that has never defended us. We must call it what it is: “Anti-Muslim Hatred.”
The problem with the term ‘Islamophobia’
For years, Islamophobia has been used to describe hate against Muslims.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) came up with a definition of Islamophobia accompanied by a list of examples of what may constitute Islamophobia.
The definition they arrived at was: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”
Standing alone, this definition seems to accurately encompass Anti-Muslim hatred well. But it hasn’t worked – and here’s why:
The word Islamophobia itself, is wrong. Islamophobia literally means fear of Islam. And in both legal and public settings, phobias are viewed with sympathy, not scrutiny. They’re seen as natural responses, not acts of hate. A phobia invites understanding and empathy, not punishment.
But hatred of Muslims is not a phobia. It’s not a psychological condition. It’s not about fear. It’s about discrimination – deliberate, targeted, and dangerous. And for those who experience it, the consequences are painful and enduring.
Worse still, calling it a “phobia” blurs the line between hate and opinion. That gives abusers a legal loophole, one they’ve exploited again and again.
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, everyone in the UK has the right to Freedom of Expression. This includes the right to criticise religion, including Islam. So when someone expresses hostility toward Islam – even if it is offensive or provocative – they can argue that they are simply exercising a protected right under Article 10.
This creates a serious problem. When hatred of Muslims is described as fear or criticism of Islam, it becomes much harder to challenge in law. Authorities often hesitate to act. Perpetrators hide behind “free speech” and Muslim communities are left unprotected.
By calling it “Islamophobia,’ the harm is downplayed. The focus shifts from the people being abused, Muslims, to the religion itself – Islam. And that shift allows real-world hate to flourish under the excuse of “free speech.”
And that’s why terms like “homophobia,” which suggest irrational fear rather than active discrimination, have been replaced by clearer and more accurate terms like “anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.”
How the far right exploit this
Because Islamophobia focuses on “fear of a religion,” far-right actors use it to their advantage. Twitter/X is full of far-right accounts making this distinction. They claim they’re merely “criticising Islam,” and then rely on Article 10 to defend their abuse. This confusion has left Muslims exposed to hostility and abuse.
A research report into Islamophobia explains this problem clearly:
“The distinction between Islamophobia and racism often provides justifications to see Islamophobia as natural. While racism is negatively framed because people cannot choose their race, Islamophobia is justified as it targets religious belonging. This perspective refuses to acknowledge Islamophobia as a form of cultural racism, as previously discussed. For example, a tweet claims: ‘It’s not “racist” to desire to protect your country and culture from Muslim takeover & destruction… Islam is NOT a race.…
“The tweet justifies the perpetuation of anti-Islam narratives because of the alleged choice that Muslims make in being violent. It does not only stress the incompatibility of Islam and the West, but it also normalizes Islamophobia by distinguishing it from racism… From this perspective, Muslims supposedly invite Islamophobia because of their unwillingness to accept Western norms. Once again, these tweets dehumanize Muslims and perpetuate Islamophobia by failing to recognize different facets of Islam.”
This is why Islamophobia does not protect British Muslims. It’s not a shield – it is a loophole.
But the problem goes further
Far-right actors are now actively mobilising against the word “Islamophobia” itself and the Working Group, claiming it amounts to a blasphemy law that forbids any criticism of Islam.
This means if the Working Group adopts “Islamophobia” to define Anti-Muslim hate, the term will likely face legitimate legal challenge on strong Article 10 freedom of expression grounds, and a court could ultimately strike it down as overly restrictive.
If that happens, British Muslims will again be left in limbo without any official definition – continuing to leave them unprotected from Anti-Muslim hatred and once again forced to fight for recognition within a system that keeps failing them.
In law terminology matters
Islamophobia was introduced several years ago to name rising Anti-Muslim hostility and discrimination. While well-intentioned, it has fallen into these legal loopholes which allow abuse towards Muslims to continue. It is vital that we take this unique opportunity to address this.
Legal clarity is everything. And the Association of Muslim Lawyers (AML) has been clear: “Anti-Muslim Hatred” is the legally precise and protective term, and the correct term in law. “Islamophobia,” on the other hand, is imprecise and open to abuse.
Authorities, regulatory bodies and employers need definitions that are specific and enforceable. “Anti-Muslim Hatred” does exactly that – it names the victim group clearly and removes the ambiguity about whether speech targets a belief or a people.
The term “Anti-Muslim hatred” is already being used by the European Commission, Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it matches terms like Antsemitism and racism. This is about creating legal parity – so that Muslims are treated equally in the eyes of the law and it is vital that we get a formalised definition in the UK.
What Anti-Muslim Hatred actually covers
Anti-Muslim Hate refers to abuse, discrimination, or violence directed at people because they are Muslim, or perceived to be. That means it includes hate based on ethnicity, culture, appearance, language, clothing, and names, all of which Muslims are regularly targeted for.
It moves the conversation away from abstract religious debate and focuses squarely on the human cost of hatred.
It protects ordinary Muslims including women in hijab, men in beards, and Muslim children in schools, and ensures their safety is taken seriously.
Editorial credit: Lois GoBe / Shutterstock.com
In defining “Islamophobia” in 2019, the APPG on British Muslims also included examples of what this hatred might look like, similar to the examples in the IHRA definition of antisemitism. However, some of these examples are deeply problematic, as they risk reinforcing the very stereotypes they aim to condemn.
For instance:
“Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterise Muslims as being ‘sex groomers,’ inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.”
Including such examples – even to illustrate prejudice – can inadvertently legitimise or normalise them by repeating slurs and suggesting that such stereotypes are widespread enough to warrant explicit mention. This risks implying that these harmful depictions are based on a distorted grain of truth, which only fuels further hostility.
This is precisely why we must abandon the APPG definition of Islamophobia in its entirety. It has failed to offer legal protection, clarity, or consistency. To safeguard Muslims effectively, we must adopt a term that reflects the reality of the abuse they face.
For example, the more protective definition would be:
“Anti-Muslim hatred is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
This definition alone is sufficient and stands by itself as a strong and comprehensive definition. It captures the breadth of abuse without echoing the language of bigotry itself, with no need for any examples to muddy the waters.
Urgent call to action: Your voice is vital – before July 20
This is a once-in-a-generation chance for British Muslims to shape how the law sees us and protects us. Submit your views to the Government Working Group here and tell them that “Anti-Muslim hatred” is the term that we, as a community, prefer.
Give your views on what you would like the definition to cover such as racism and hostility for example.
The form for submissions is here. The deadline is July 20th.
The Association of Muslim Lawyers also suggests that when filling out the form you add: “you will be agreeable to the recommendations on terminology from the Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Working Group” to avoid any dispute over the terminology itself.
