Defining ‘Islamophobia’ is not the answer to combatting anti-Muslim hate

Just 24 hours after the seaside town of Southport suffered a despicable attack on children and adults at a dance class, masked men attacked a local mosque, throwing bricks, bottles, fireworks and rocks.

Fed with a slew of online misinformation suggesting the perpetrator was a Muslim migrant, a minority of mindless thugs took to streets, sparking several days of ongoing unrest. This has been characterised by hooligans attacking police officers, asylum seeker hotels, and people based on the colour of their skin, in addition to mosques.

The Government has rightly promised that anyone involved in the disorder will face the full force of the law. It has also offered funding for new emergency security for mosques and Muslim faith schools.

It is appalling that mosques are at risk of violent disorder and in need of beefed-up security to ensure the safety of worshippers. Attacks on places of worship are unacceptable and utterly wrong. Nobody should make excuses for those targeting them with violence. The protection of freedom of religion or belief for all is an essential component of a civilised and successful secular society.

But supporting targeted communities doesn't necessitate endorsing a flawed definition of 'Islamophobia', which the Government is facing renewed calls to adopt. Quite the opposite; adopting the definition may well make matters worse.

Responding to the recent wave of anti-Muslim bigotry, Afzal Khan MP, a long-time proponent of the term, has called on the prime minister to meet with "Muslim community leaders" and formally adopt a definition of 'Islamophobia' to combat "the racism and vitriol we are seeing by a minority of far-right activists on Britain's streets".

But there is nothing to suggest that adopting such a definition would combat racism or anti-Muslim prejudice. It is more likely to inflame rather than dispel community tensions and divisions.

Some Muslim groups have long pushed successive governments to adopt the contentious 'Islamophobia' definition proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which defines 'Islamophobia' as "a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness".

The previous Government decided against adopting this definition on the basis that the proposed wording "conflates race with religion, does not address sectarianism within Islam, and may unintentionally undermine freedom of speech".

A report co-authored by former Labour MP Khalid Mahmood published in April outlined how the definition has already been wielded as a weapon to silence those accused of offending Islamic sensibilities. Introducing the report, former home secretary Sajid Javid argued adopting the definition would "risk creating a blasphemy law via the backdoor".

In opposition, the Labour Party unquestioningly adopted the definition. In Government, it needs to recognise that this approach will be a counterproductive way of addressing anti-Muslim bigotry. Adopting the 'Islamophobia' definition means oversimplifying a complex problem, feeding a competitive grievance culture, and stifling important discussions.

The term unhelpfully conflates criticism of Islam as a religion with bigotry against Muslims as individuals. The distinction between prejudice, hatred and discrimination against Muslims, and criticism of Islam as a set of ideas and practices, is one which must not slip out of focus. Islam, like any other religion, must be subject to scrutiny and criticism. Because in a free and open society, no religion can be immune from scrutiny and criticism.

Putting Islam beyond critical examination out of fear of being labelled 'Islamophobic' hinders efforts to address reasonable concerns. It also robs ex-Muslims of their ability to speak freely about their experiences. And it makes it all the more difficult for dissenters and reformers within the faith to promote their vision of Islam.

In times of heightened tension, we should seek to reassure and support communities under threat – and call out the vile racism for what it is. The Government will inevitably look to tighten up hate speech laws. But it must also safeguard the right to express dissenting opinions or engage in controversial debate. If it censors or silences people in the name of combatting 'Islamophobia', the Government will undermine one of the fundamental pillars of a liberal democratic society: the freedom to speak openly and critically about religion. This is a prerequisite of peaceful coexistence.

Amid rising extremism and polarisation, with mobs threatening our basic freedoms, now is not the time to start abandoning liberal democratic principles. Now is the time to stand up for them.

Rather than relying on definitions and speech laws, the Government should focus on initiatives and policies that promote integration, understanding and respect among individuals of different beliefs and backgrounds. This might not be the easiest path, but it will be the more successful.