The Definition Of So-Called 'Islamophobia': A Rebuttal

A non-statutory definition of ‘Islamophobia’ presents an existential crisis for Britain. As ‘non-statutory’, it will have the full effect of law but without the scrutiny of the legislative process and will be used as a means of silencing criticism and protecting predators. It must be stopped.

Johnathan Smith

13 Jul 2025 — 34 min read

Just as Blair’s government set about rewriting our constitution when Labour gained power in 1997, Starmer’s government appears bent on rewriting our history and culture. The latest foray occurred this week where tributes poured out on the 20^th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings when 52 innocent people were murdered and many more hundreds injured. The problem? Not a single tribute from official channels mentioned the virulent ideological pathogen that caused those terrorists, like thousands of others before and after, to murder innocent people: Islamic fundamentalism.

This episode serves as a stark reminder of what’s coming next: An official definition of ‘Islamophobia’. Possibly the most ill-conceived proposition in the history of this great nation, this definition will do no more than act as a shield for, and legitimise, the very ideology that would destroy our entire way of life. It presents an existential crisis and must be stopped – here’s why:

In its 2024 election manifesto, Labour has promised to bring in a Race Equality Act and clamp down on "Islamophobia". Since then, with some pushback that ‘Islam’ is manifestly not a race, Labour now has a secretive Working Group advising Angela Rayner, the call for evidence of which was sent out to select pressure groups and the final advice of which will not be made public.

According to the 2021 Census, the total number of Muslims in the UK is just under 4 million, accounting for about 6% of the overall population. For current estimates, various sources note over 3,000 mosques in England alone today (around 33% of these are registered as charities in England & Wales and they collectively received £3 million in government security funding). The UK’s first Sharia council began in 1982. As of 2024, there were 85 Sharia courts operating nationwide (though they hold no formal legal status they make legal rulings) making England the "Western capital of Sharia courts." Between 2001 and 2021, the Muslim population grew by about 150%, making it the fastest growing minority faith in Britain. A 2025 survey found 71% of British Muslims identify as Muslim first, British second.

Tower Hamlets led local authorities with 39.9% of residents identifying as Muslim in 2021, followed by Blackburn with Darwen (35.0%) and Newham (34.8%) . 51.4% of Muslims aged 16–64 are employed, compared to 70.9% in the overall population. Economic inactivity is notably higher (41.9%), with students (13.8%) and those “looking after home/family” (16.1%) prominent reasons. 25.3% of Muslims had no qualifications, higher than the national average, while 32.3% held Level 4 or above. 84.5% of Muslims are under 50, whereas only 62% of the general population falls into that age bracket.

By way of background, defining "Islamophobia" gained serious traction in 2018 with the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims publishing a report entitled "Islamophobia Defined - The inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia". At least one member of Labour’s front bench, Wes Streeting, was part of the group and the foreword was written by Dominic Grieve KC who now chairs the current Working Group.

That 2018 report gave the following definition of "Islamophobia":

Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.

If we ignore for a moment that clear fact that Muslims are not a race, and racism can’t possibly be in point without introducing a gross and offensive legal fiction, the statement seems fairly innocuous.

However, what came next was incredibly dangerous. The report gave examples of "Islamophobia" which are reproduced verbatim below:

"Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion."
"Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover."
"Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims."
"Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims."
"Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
"Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination eg by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour."
"Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society eg loyalty tests."
"Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed [sic] 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.’"
"Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic."

Save for the first and last, these ‘examples’ are incredibly dangerous because they stifle genuine criticism of Islam as an ideology and religion. Whilst at first glance they appear to be a lazy replica of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism", there are major differences and it seems clear they have been written by extremists using the cloak of inept politicians who do not understand Islam. There’s a lot to unpack so let’s take a deeper look at the origins of the term ‘Islamophobia’ and each problematic example in turn:

Origins Of The Term

The earliest mention the French word islamophobie is found in a thesis published by Alain Quellien in 1910 to describe "a prejudice against Islam that is widespread among the peoples of Western and Christian civilization". It reappeared in an article by Georges Chahati Anawati in 1976 and was later translated in the 1990s as ruhāb al-islām (رهاب الإسلام) in Arabic, literally "phobia of Islam."

In 1996, the Runnymede Trust established the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (CBMI), chaired by Gordon Conway, then vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex. The Commission's report, "Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All", was launched in November 1997 by the Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw. In the report, "Islamophobia" was defined as:

An outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination.

Point By Point

Conspiracies about Muslim entryism into politics, government or other societal institutions

Last year, we saw disgusting scenes of Muslims targeting sitting MPs. Nobody will forget the footage of Jonathan Ashworth being harassed by Muslims about Gaza whilst campaigning in Leicester, neither will people forget Muslim men chanting Jess Phillips’ Muslim opponent’s name at her victory speech in Birmingham. Ashworth lost his seat with Phillips scraping a majority of 693. Both their opponents ran on a Gaza ticket.

But it doesn’t stop there – we now have Muslim MPs, for example, Tahir Ali, openly calling for Islamic blasphemy laws in Parliament and whose constituency work includes lobbying the government to pay for a new airport in Mirpur, Pakistan. Others use many of their Parliamentary questions for the sole purpose of bringing up the Israel-Hamas war and denigrating Israel.

As regards entry into government, we have the 700 strong Home Office Muslim Network which aims to recruit, retain and promote Muslim staff and ‘influence policymakers’. Then there’s the umbrella organisation, the Civil Service Muslim Network, which delivered webinars to hundreds of civil servants which included statements like ‘it’s a time for both setting agendas, but resisting them as well’, ‘we are in the belly of the beast’, ‘Zionism… is the ethnic cleansing of anyone who is non-Jewish’ and referring to Israel as ‘Shaitan’ which is Arabic for Satan.

And with respect to other societal institutions, many will have been deeply concerned when, this week, the ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’ (CfMM), was the subject of a report by Policy Exchange which found that CfMM wished to censor and limit criticism of Islam and Muslims with their methodology going so far as suggesting the mere mention of a terrorist’s Islamic faith was ‘biased’. It’s worth noting that however innocuous the name ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’ sounds, it was set up by the Muslim Council of Britain which in turn was deemed to undermine British values to the extent the government ‘has a long-standing policy of non-engagement’.

These are not ‘conspiracies’. These are genuinely held concerns, based on documented evidence, that Islamic fundamentalists are pervading the political and governmental landscape in great numbers in order to further the Islamic fundamentalist agenda and undermine our democratic state.

The myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism

No right minded individual in the UK, which only emerged from the Troubles at the turn of the millennium and fought insurgencies around the world, thinks Muslims are unique in turning to terrorism. However, Islam’s propensity for terrorism is undeniably unique.

Most Muslims have never read the Bible and most non-Muslims have never read the Quran and Hadith. This results in tortured works like Saida Warsi’s book "The Enemy Within," which are simply misleading and misguided efforts at cultural relativism. Here's the truth of the matter – whilst other religions can be used to justify violence, Islam is unique in that the Quran, which is said to be the direct word of God, directly commands its followers to fight and kill non-Muslims:

Despite being about the length of the first Harry Potter book (c 70,000 words ie very short), the Quran repeatedly instructs Muslims to kill and fight non-Muslims with one verse even using the word ‘terrorise’ (V 60 Ch 8, The Spoils of War). Other verses literally shame Muslims for disliking fighting (V 216 Ch 2, The Cow) or not participating in Jihad (V 91-95 Ch 9, Repentance).

Which brings us onto the word ‘jihad’ – yes, there is some extremely limited scope to say that it could mean "non-violent struggle," but, in truth, there is but one meaning in almost every single use: Holy War in the cause of God, i.e. what we in the West would call a Crusade through a Christian lens. The major works of Sahih Hadith by al-Bukhari and Muslim make clear this violent meaning. They also make clear that for men, jihad, and dying during jihad, carry the highest reward in the eyes of God:

Thankfully, there is a purposive interpretation to the Quran which views those revelations as less relevant in today’s world and a further alternative that requires this power to command jihad to be held by the state, or caliphate; however, it is little wonder Islamic fundamentalists find fertile ground for recruitment amongst young men and why there have been no less than 12 terrorist attacks in the UK since 2005 with over 500 British Muslims travelling to join the Islamic State – more than who serve in the British armed forces.

The claims of a demographic threat posed by Muslims or of a Muslim takeover

Given the 2021 census made plain that White British will be a minority in their own country within forty years, this is a legitimate concern regarding demographics but doesn’t solely apply to Muslims. The tidal wave of immigration since the census has compounded those very real fears.

Equally, we see that Muslims have been more assertive in demanding concessions, for example, the Muslim Vote making multiple demands of Labour in the run up to the 2024 election. Polling shows that many Muslims in the UK believe Sharia (Islamic law) should be implemented in the UK under which Christians and Jews are required to pay the Jizya (a ‘protection tax’) and are treated as second class citizens with polytheists, for example, Hindus, treated far worse.

But there is another limb to this well-founded fear. At the founding of Islam, Muhammad was forced out of Makka in 622 AD, an event which is known by Muslims as ‘Hijra’. This event gave rise to the beginning of the Islamic calendar i.e. 622 AD is known in the Arabic calendar as ‘0 After Hijra’ (‘AH’). Together with a small number of supporters (c 70), known as Muhajirun, from Makka, or what Westerners might describe according to our laws as refugees by virtue of religious persecution, Muhammad arrived in a small town named Yathrib, a religiously diverse town, assisted by a small number of its residents, known as Ansar, who it’s considered were likely related to him through his maternal grandmother. Muhammad soon positioned himself as an independent adjudicator between the often conflicting tribes in the town, divided as they were.

Muhammad soon set about consolidating his power base, raiding Makkan caravans and Yathrib was soon renamed ‘Medina’, or ‘town/city’ in English and there came to be a governing document settling disputes, the "Constitution of Madina", making Muhammad a central figure. He continued to proselytise, delivering new verses and tried to convert the three main Jewish tribes of Yathrib. These were the Banu Qaynuqa, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayda, who were successful traders and wealthy. The Jewish tribes refused Muhammad’s advances and soon found themselves in conflict with the Muslims, reflected in a harshening tone in the Quran where they are singled out from Christians (V 82 Ch 5, Table).

The first to go were the Banu Qaynuqa, who were a wealthy Jewish tribe. In 624 AD, apparently over a perceived slight towards a Muslim woman that resulted in the death of a Jew and escalated. Despite Muhammad’s initial desire to murder the men (and it follows take the women and children as slaves – the women for sex), he was dissuaded by another tribal chieftain of which the Banu Qaynuqa were a client tribe and they were allowed to leave.

The second to go were the Banu Nadir, another wealthy Jewish tribe who specialised in jewels and weapons. There are conflicting reports as to how Muhammad came to this conclusion (one source says it was a revelation) but in 625 AD Muhammad accused them of plotting to kill him. These Jews had a lucky escape and were also expelled, permitted to take only what they could carry but without weapons of any kind. Muhammad personally appropriated their lands which he used to fund the lifestyle of his family and used the leftover (referred to as half) to fund jihad (Hadith 1757, Sahih Muslim).

The third to go were the Banu Qurayda who suffered the cruellest of fates. They were also wealthy and specialised in trading weaponry. In 627 AD, despite helping Muhammad stave off a Makkan invasion of Madina, Muhammad accused them of treachery which they denied. Nonetheless, Muhammad laid siege and they eventually surrendered unconditionally to Muhammad, it seems reasonably believing they would be expelled.

Muhammad ordered the killing of every single man amongst them. According to as close to a contemporaneous source as possible, Ibn Ishaq, between 600-900 men were brought out in batches and murdered by beheading. In cold blood. Muhammad’s companions checked the boys’ pubic areas for hair to determine whether they were ‘men’; if so, they too were put to the sword (Hadith 4404, Sunan Abi Dawud; Hadith 3429, Sunan an-Nasa'I; Hadith 2541, Sunan Ibn Majah; Hadith 1584, Sunan at-Tirmidhi). Muhammad then ordered the women and remaining children, numbering about 1,000 be taken as slaves (the women and girls could be taken as sex slaves), taking at least one himself (Hadith 4028, Sahih al-Bukhari; Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (Alfred Guillaume tr, OUP 1995); her name was Rayhana, daughter of Amr, son of Khunafa.).

In more than one Hadith, Muhammad is said to have ordered one of his followers to "abuse them, Gabriel is with you."

With that done, Muhammad had totally cleansed Yathrib of Jews and renamed it. Objectively viewed against our legal principles, this ethnic cleansing of Medina was a genocide. Muhammad personally oversaw a genocide.

To put it another way, Islam arrived in a thriving pluralistic trading town called Yathrib as refugees pleading mercy and acceptance. Within a few years, it had completely taken over, killed or expelled all non-Muslims and renamed the town to ‘town’.

The inevitable problem is that the Quran is the word of God for all places and all time to be followed absolutely (V 121 Ch 2 (The Cow); V 1 Ch 11 (Hud); V 1 Ch 13 (Thunder); V 1 Ch 18 (The Cave); V 27 Ch 18 (The Cave); V 1 Ch 32 (Prostration)) and Muhammad is the perfect example of a Muslim (V 21 Ch 33 (Clans); V 32 Ch 3 (Al Imran); V 69 Ch 4 (Women); V 92 Ch 5 (The Table); V 54 Ch 24 (The Light); V 63 Ch 25 (Proof); V 12 Ch 64 (To Wrong Each Other); Hadith 15, Sahih al-Bukhari); a moral paragon. This is why so many Muslim boys are given his name, why it has been the most popular boys name in the England and Wales since 2013 (Muhammad has but one spelling in Arabic but multiple in English - aggregated they have been the most popular boys name in England and Wales since 2013) and why no Muslim will feel comfortable criticising the actions of Muhammad. His actions set the bar for what is right and wrong, particularly for Islamic fundamentalists.

It’s important to note that there is a clear historical context for the actions for the early Muslims: The world was generally a much darker place where killing and brutality was part and parcel of life. To be clear, by no means are most Muslims in the UK walking around harbouring genocidal thoughts but, that being said, we need only look to the last decade to see that the actions of early Islam have indeed been used by Islamic fundamentalists to justify atrocities, for example, the genocide of the Yazidis in Iraq between 2014-2017 and the Jews on 7 October 2023.

With our own extensive history of Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks, these are evidence-based fears that must be addressed.

Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims

As a nation, we need to have a very serious and uncomfortable conversation with Muslims about Islam and its place and meaning in the UK.

Every week we see thousands of protesters in support of Palestine. Where are they for the Sudan? Where are they for the Christians all over Africa being murdered by Muslims? Where were they for Yemen? Where were they when ISIS were conducting a genocide against the Yazidis in Iraq and forcing the women and girls into sexual slavery? Where are they for the hundreds of thousands of little girls forced into child sexual slavery and prostitution by Muslim men in the UK?

Aside from a few very brave Muslims, they are nowhere to be seen.

There is a moral cowardice at the heart of this. All of this can be justified by a literal construct of the Quran, for example, the Yazidis were not people of the book so the men could either convert or be killed and their women, including girls, taken as sex slaves. This is trite Islamic jurisprudence in some circles of Islam, including some in the UK, and is no secret. In fact, you can go online and find horrendous sermons in from UK Muslim preachers straight out of the Quran and Hadith dehumanising non-Muslims, justifying paedophilia and raping slaves.

Not every Muslim bears responsibility, not every Muslim understands the Quran, far from it, and most would not subscribe to these views even if they did. But Muslim leadership in the madaris (Islamic schools) and masajid (mosques) up and down the country are well aware of what the Quran and Hadith say and can justify, yet they do not speak up. Yes, it is trite that the Quran prohibits them to take the side of the non-believer but that excuse can only be allowed to go so far.

Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims

We really need not consider anything else other than the events that have followed 7 October 2023 to understand the perversity of this example. On that day, Hamas, which is a genuinely genocidal terrorist organisation, raped and murdered over 1,200 Jews in the worst event since the Holocaust. Although we’ve heard it all before, for the first time we have seen Israel successfully framed as a genocidal entity engaging in ethnic cleansing. Make no mistake, Israel is not committing a genocide or engaging in ethnic cleansing which it could have done on any day since – it has both the means and opportunity. It is a sick and deliberate perversion of Jewish historic and collective grief to accuse them of such a crime in the circumstances, pedalled by bad actors and useful idiots with no understanding of the term or the conflict.

It is almost as if this example was designed specifically to demonise and dehumanise Israelis, mainstreaming Muslim sectarian views on the conflict and stifling any opposition because at no recent time has there been contentious debate about ‘ethnic cleansing’ or ‘genocide’ regarding Muslims anywhere in the world.

Put simply, it wreaks of antisemitism.

Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination eg by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour

There is a level of twisted irony with this example. It demands recognition of Muslim self-determination by imposing the Muslim view of certain conflicts which have nothing to do with the United Kingdom on its indigenous population, thus denying the British people their right to self-determination.

It also makes a farce of the whole concept of this exercise. In this example, Muslim sectarian views on global affairs are to be foisted upon the British people but in the example immediately following it, the British people are told they are not allowed to think Muslims in the UK might be more loyal to the transnational Muslim community or the priorities of Muslims worldwide than to the interests of ‘their own nations’.

Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations

The Quran makes clear that Muslims are to consider themselves one body (V 103 Ch 3. Al Imran). This isn’t contentious. And it’s on full display across the United Kingdom. Muslim MPs voted against the proscription of Palestine Action, a violent terrorist organisation, calling them a ‘protest movement’ – Zara Sultana even screamed ‘We are all Palestine Action’ in the House of Commons during the debate.

There are hundreds of examples anyone can find on the internet but, beyond the fact that doctrinally there is a supranational loyalty which has been demonstrated time and time again, there is an egregious perversity and cynicism in this specific example:

First, it talks of the interests of Muslims’ ‘own nations’ – but this is a definition specific to the United Kingdom, or so we are told. Why then is ‘nations’ plural and why doesn’t it refer to the United Kingdom by name? The obvious answer is this definition of Islamophobia is not about only Muslims in the United Kingdom but about proliferating a definition throughout the Western World, ensuring censorship throughout and denying any ideological opposition.

Secondly, the previous example plainly attempts to foist Muslim views on global Muslim issues on the British people. An independent Muslim state of Kashmir? An independent Muslim state of Palestine? Denying the nexus between those two endeavours and terrorism? These are manifestly Muslim priorities, not British.

It is a naked, rank hypocrisy.

Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society eg loyalty tests

Nobody in the mainstream (or at all) has required or suggested "loyalty tests" for Muslims. What this ‘example’ nakedly seeks to achieve is to pave the way for is Islamic fundamentalists to further ingratiate themselves and fundamentalist doctrine into mainstream Muslim and secular society and then shut down any criticism by using "Islamophobia" as a device.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia

Stereotypes and reputation are two separate ideas, and are deliberately conflated by Islamic fundamentalists. A reputation is your responsibility; a stereotype is theirs. This linguistic game has played out time and time again by political vultures promoting their own interests. Islam is no exception.

Muhammed [sic] being a paedophile

According to the Oxford dictionary, a paedophile is:

someone who is sexually interested in children.

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (s. 9-12), a child is defined as someone under 16. Where the child is under 13, the offence of rape is irrespective of any consideration of consent (Section 5).

For most Sunni Muslims, it is a factual matter that Muhammad had sex with his child "wife" Aisha (Aisha bint Abi Bakr) when she was nine years old after marrying her at six (one Hadith says perhaps seven but with no divergence of the age of sex). This is not contentious – these are multiple direct chains of transmission in the best bodies of Hadith (Hadith 3896, Sahih al-Bukhari; Hadith 5133, Sahih al-Bukhari; Hadith 5134, Sahih al-Bukhari; Hadith 5158, Sahih al-Bukhari; Hadith 1422a, Sahih Muslim; Hadith 1422b, Sahih Muslim; Hadith 1422d, Sahih Muslim) and is supported by the Quran (V 4 Ch 65, Divorce).

Therefore, objectively speaking, Muhammad was a paedophile – he wasn’t the first and he certainly wasn’t the last. The issue we have is that whilst historically this was acceptable behaviour, it is not tolerated and cannot be tolerated in our society today. But to cite truth and legal fact is not necessarily protected speech in the EU.

But Islamic fundamentalists become very exercised when this is criticised. This is because Muhammad is their moral paragon ie he can do no wrong and he is to be emulated (V 21 Ch 33 (Clans); V 32 Ch 3 (Al Imran); V 69 Ch 4 (Women); V 92 Ch 5 (The Table); V 54 Ch 24 (The Light); V 63 Ch 25 (Proof); V 12 Ch 64 (To Wrong Each Other); Hadith 15, Sahih al-Bukhari). Although they do not dispute the fact Aisha was nine, they have a relative view on paedophilia. Although a literal construct of the Hadith suggests nine is the age of sexual maturity, they reframe it that Aisha had started her period and was thus sexual active.

With many little British girls, some as young as eleven, being subjected to sexual slavery by Muslim men, there is a clear imperative that criticising this specific element of Islamic fundamentalist theological doctrine must be relentlessly continued. Otherwise, this evil practice will continue apace.

Muslims spreading Islam by the sword

The flag of Saudi Arabia, which inhabits the birthplace of Islam, famously has a sword on it. It is a historically trite fact that Islam was spread by the sword – literally any coherent history book will make this clear.

From the raids on Makkan caravans, to the ethnic cleansing of all non-Muslims from Yathrib, to Khaybar, to the Ridda Wars, to the expansion through Persia and Egypt under the Rashidun Caliphate, to the rapid expansion under the Umayyid Caliphate across the remainder of northern Africa, up through Spain and even raiding southern France, to the conquest of Constantinople to the siege of Vienna, wherever Islam spread, it spread by the sword.

In short, Islam was an incredible colonial force, the success of which is evidenced today by the fact there are around 50 majority Muslim countries. And not simply colonial in the way the British Empire was, a colonial force that went out of its way to destroy any culture that was not monotheistic.

This example seeks to introduce yet another fiction – an alternative history where Islam is somehow rehabilitated in the eyes of the law and cannot be criticised for its violent past. It is a bewildering concept – particularly given how critical the UK has become of its own colonial history which on any view was peaceful by comparison.

Muslims subjugating minority groups under their rule

Again, this imposes a total fiction. It is trite that, under Sharia (Islamic law), people of the book (Jews and Christians, and the Sabaeans, but they are extinct: V 62 Ch 2, The Cow) are forced to convert or pay the Jizya (a tax payable to the Muslim state, V 29 Ch 9, Repentance). The Quran even says they must be thoroughly humbled in advance. If there is any conflict between the Muslims and non-Muslims, no Muslim’s blood may be spilt even if the death penalty would otherwise apply (Hadith 6878, Sahih al-Bukhari; Hadith 1676a-b, Sahih Muslim).

But it is worse for polytheists. They are considered unclean (V 28 Ch 9, Repentance) and are ineligible to pay the Jizya – they must convert or be killed. This is the theological doctrine that led to the genocide of the Yazidis in Iraq with the mass murder of their men and the sexual slavery of their women and girls.

There is literally no other way to describe this situation but ‘Muslims subjugating minority groups under their rule’. It imposes a moral fiction which stifles debate of an obviously supremacist doctrine.

Characterise Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’

The term "groomer" is a misnomer. The Grooming Gang scandal can only be accurately described as child sexual slavery and enforced child prostitution. The typology has two steps. The first is ‘grooming’ wherein a Muslim man determines in his mind through various methods the girl is neither chaste nor wishes to remain so. Once established, there ensues child sexual slavery and enforced prostitution.

This typology follows exactly verse 33 of chapter 24 of the Quran which states, in the context of slavery, "do not force your young girls to prostitution if they desired chastity in order that you may seek goods of worldly life." Of course, Hadith make clear nine or the beginning of puberty is the age of sexual maturity – consent is not a relevant factor in male-female relations in Islam (there are only classes of women a Muslim man is permitted to have sex with, V 223 Ch 2, The Cow).

There is now in the public domain evidence which makes clear this is exactly what happened i.e. Muslim men specifically targeting children and testing them for virginity (listen from 1 minute 7 seconds) before subjecting them to sexual slavery and enforced prostitution. Listen very carefully to what that animal did to that little girl, then read the test above again.

Now you know.

In truth, this ideology is no different from that which underpinned the sexual slavery of the Yazidi women and girls in Iraq and it’s worth reminding ourselves that more Muslims travelled from the UK to Syria and partake in that ideology than serve in the British armed forces. Just like terrorism, it is simply another facet of Islamic fundamentalism. This will perhaps help you understand why these criminals haven’t been disowned by their families or expelled by their communities.

Thankfully, most Muslims do not conduct themselves like this but a sizeable minority do - we know this from court transcripts, social media, and reporting where hundreds of men were involved in each case with only a small minority of perpetrators actually prosecuted (due to the way our criminal law works). The sad reality is that this scandal has happened on such a scale it can only be described as Crime Against Humanity per the Rome Statute and, as a factual matter, it endures.

This is why this example is so chilling. Its effect will be to prevent criticism of the sexual slavery of little non-Muslim girls by Muslim men and will normalise this morally abhorrent practice by preventing any fair and objective consideration of the ideology that plainly sits behind these crimes. Most alarmingly, it is reasonable to assume that the Muslim authors behind this example know exactly how Islamic scripture could be used to justify these practices – it is hardly a secret amongst Islamic scholars – yet rather than come out against this practice, they have authored an example of ‘Islamophobia’ to stifle discussion.

Inherently violent

Muslims may not be inherently violent and indeed the Quran acknowledges as much whilst making clear they are required to fight irrespective of this quality (V 216 Ch 2, The Cow). However, as explained above under ‘propensity for terrorism’, it is an indisputable fact Islamic scripture is inherently violent at a doctrinal level. This is supported by a substantial body of evidence over Islam's c 1400 year history as explained above in ‘spread by the sword’ and which continues today, which proves that Islam is, in fact, inherently violent.

As with the other examples, denying discussion of these fundamental topics seeks to stifle any ideological defence against terrorism and violence perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists.

Incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies

This example is ahistorical. There is a massive and irrefutable body of evidence from the founding of Islam to the fact that Lebanon is now essentially a failed state that gives rise to the concern that Muslims cannot live harmoniously in plural societies. This is not a criticism of Muslims themselves but of an ideological doctrine which demands supremacy – this is not a trope, it is a fact. All religions are spiritually supremacist but Islam is unique in demanding supremacy in this life. Islamic scripture makes clear that it is simply unacceptable for Muslims alone to submit to God, they must force all others to do so also.

As such, it is wholly unsurprising through the lens of accepted historical fact, that Islam, as a conquering force, all but eliminated any other culture where it gained a foothold with few exceptions.

Where this leaves us

Some have painted this exercise not as a meaningful legal exercise but one of community relations and the ‘terms of reference’ of the Working Group make clear that any definition will not be ‘legal’. Viewed through this narrow lens, then the entire exercise is obviously redundant. As Trevor Phillips correctly noted in 2019, the law already provides adequate protections against racist and religious hate crimes which did not exist when "Islamophobia" was first conceptualised by the Runnymede Trust in 1997.

So, if this exercise is not to fill a legal deficiency in the protection of Muslim rights, then what is its purpose? To answer this question, it’s worth referring to a quote often attributed to Andrew Cummins or Christopher Hitchens:

Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.

The Fascists

Anyone who has studied Islam in detail recognises this definition of ‘Islamophobia’, together with its examples, was crafted by Islamic fundamentalists.

From requiring us to reject the doctrinally required allegiance to the global Muslim Ummah, so obviously prevalent in Muslim politics in the UK, while in simultaneously requiring us to make it our state position that Palestine and Kashmir are Islamic states, it is a nakedly transparent and hypocritical attempt to foist their Islamic world view on Great Britain. Not only that, by incorporating these examples into "Islamophobia," we would be required to ignore the very obvious sexual slavery of little girls in the United Kingdom which are manifestly underpinned by a religious hatred and a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law. They would deny us our right to self-determination and ideological defences to their extreme views.

Make no mistake, these Islamic fundamentalists are fascists.

The Cowards

But these fascists are clever. They have cunningly given their definition a veil of legitimacy by co-opting ignorant politicians who frankly lack the intellectual curiosity to understand the world around them. Most politicians, who inevitably sidestep success in the private sector, fail to reach the top of politics but their hubris requires more. This leaves ennoblement and a seat in the House of Lords as the next best thing. So instead of applying themselves for the good of the country, however unfashionable that might be, they do exactly what they think will get them there. A foreword here, a chairmanship there, all in the name of the item on the menu that will get them their knighthood – they are amoral in the vainglorious pursuit of their legacy – you will know them when you see them.

All of this is fronted by a political party, the Labour Party, which decimated its core vote. A party that saw a front bench candidate defenestrated, two other seats lost and two further front bench seats under threat by the Muslim vote in 2024. A party which has realised, despite denials, that many Muslims vote as a bloc and that over 10 constituencies have Muslim populations of over 40% with another 30 having Muslim populations of over 20% - all of them traditionally Labour seats. With the working class abandoning them en masse – the Muslim vote is their last hope of ever retaining power.

These are your moral cowards.

The morons

As soon as this definition goes live, it is a certainty that these bad actors will use every single instrument they can to stifle criticism of the darkest aspects of Islamic fundamentalism, from terrorism to sexual slavery, both of which evidence suggests are endemic in our Muslim population. As Neil Basu said in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on "Islamophobia":

…extremists or even terrorists would be able to use that definition to frustrate some of the powers of my officers.

He was putting it mildly. If you understand how fundamentalists think, you know that behind closed doors they will be calling this definition the ‘Constitution of Britain’, drawing parallels with the Constitution of Madina which ultimately led to their Prophet’s ascendancy to power. To them, this definition paves way to the Islamic conquest of Great Britain.

For us, given the abysmal calibre of the modern MP, the majority of whom lack both experience and intellect, it probably means they will succeed. Most MPs, in their cloaks of faux-moral righteousness, will quickly give it their blessing and, before we fully appreciate what has been done, every government department, Quango and every regulatory body will be required to enforce it in HR policy as if it were law.

These are your morons.

However, there is a final category that was left out of that quote, because it is an inevitable consequence that the manipulation of morons by fascists, facilitated by cowards, will lead to victims.

The victims

We can already see the real-world consequences of Islamic fundamentalists ingratiating themselves into our government, police and security services.

Children

For anyone who understands Islam, they know that Islamic fundamentalism is at the heart of the rape gangs. It is child sexual slavery and enforced child prostitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

The government, being signatories to the Rome Statute, recognises these crimes occur abroad yet fails to recognise these crimes might be perpetrated by foreign born men on our soil – as such, the offences are not appropriately structured on our statute books.

On 16 June 2025, the Home Secretary even told the House of Commons that men had been ‘found guilty of treating teenage girls as sex slaves’. Of course, they weren’t convicted of sexual slavery because our domestic laws do not include 'sexual slavery' as a specific offence, but that is exactly what they did. And this isn’t a mystery, Justin Marozzi has just released a book "Captives and Companions: A History of Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Islamic World" in which he notes slavery still persists at scale in many Muslim countries.

Yet our government comes up with ambiguous abstract terms like ‘grooming’ or ‘group based CSE’ which are so legally broad that it seems they are deliberately designed to obfuscate the very clear typology displayed by these sex slavers. The government clearly cannot be honest with us or themselves with hundreds of thousands of little girls paying the depraved price.

Women

Our country now has a rape problem. Recently ranked above most developing countries in rapes per capita – it shames this nation.

Part of this is undeniably also manifested through Islamic fundamentalist attitudes towards women. You must understand, far from being sexually conservative as suggested by Tariq Madood in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee Islamophobia Inquiry, Islam at a fundamentalist level is hyper-sexualised. There is no concept of consent (women are tilth for men to enter into as they will), with beautiful ‘huris’ (sometimes 72 virgins) promised in the afterlife. The Quran provides the categories of women men are allowed to have sex with: four wives and his slave women/girls.

Many will find this attitude hard to conceptualise – but look no further than the Middle East and the fact that spousal rape is not a criminal act in almost every Muslim country.

Muslim women are veiled – it demarcates them as they are strictly forbidden to Muslim men. Non-Muslim women can be taken as slaves. For many, failure by non-Muslims to wear the veil is a sign that they are open to sex. This is compounded by the fact a sizeable minority of Muslim men (bear in mind that over 40,000 were on the terrorism watchlist several years ago) see the West as their enemy and, since they live here, you quickly start to understand why they feel able to rape non-Muslim women. The government appears to have deliberately failed to collect adequate ethnicity data, and no religious data at all, in direct contravention to their obligations under article 11 of the "Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence".

Our government’s answer to this has been atrocious. In any given year, up to 90% of those illegally migrating to the UK are men and most come from countries where Islamic fundamentalism and the view the West is the enemy is rife. So what has the government done? Put these men in hotels next to the homes of British families. Families that have no idea of these immigrant’s world views and that have no means of protecting themselves and it seems only recently that immigrants have started to be given lectures that they are not to sexually harass women and girls. Anyone who has spent meaningful time in the Middle East and North Africa knows this is an inevitability - even our government concedes this much - here's some of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's travel advice for Egypt:

A number of sexual assaults have been reported to the British Embassy, including cases involving minors

...

Female travellers should exercise caution when travelling alone, particularly at night, in taxis.

Take extra precautions:

do not leave children unaccompanied

do not allow hotel staff to enter your room when you are alone – try to ensure a friend or relative is present

avoid travelling in a taxi alone – if this is not possible, apply extra security by sharing the details of your driver, trip and live location with a friend.

use reputable providers for any services and excursions, and carry out research beforehand

avoid sharing personal contact or social media details

Even if the government was to blindly ignore its own advice, Baroness Casey found 'a significant proportion of [live investigations into child sexual abuse and exploitation] appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals and/or who are claiming asylum in the UK.'

What this evidences is that the government knows that putting these 'asylum seekers' into our communities presents a risk to women and girls but it is doing it anyway.

At worst, they are doing it deliberately.

At best, it is reckless. Criminally reckless.

Non-Muslims generally

As well as commanding Muslims to fight non-Muslims, the Quran and Hadith are riddled with words that brutally dehumanise non-Muslims which fundamentalists latch onto. Alongside framing Muslims as eternally victimised, proselytization and jihad ie holy war, this is a central theme of the Quran. Selected passages say, inter alia:

Non-Muslims are the worst of creatures (Surah 98:6)
Non-Muslims are no better than animals (cattle) (Surah 7:179)
Non-Muslims are the ‘clear enemy’ (Surah 60:1)
Non-Muslims wish to lead Muslims astray (Surah 5:41)
Non-Muslims are deluded (Surah 67:20)
Non-Muslims are dirty (Surah 9:28)
No other religion is acceptable (Surah 3:85)
Former Muslims who do not repent cannot be saved (Surah 9:66)
Non-Muslims are allied against Muslims (Surah 9:32–33)
Muslims should not be allied to non-Muslims (Surah 5:51)
God has forsaken non-Muslims (Surah 47:12)
God will punish non-Muslims in a brutal fashion (Surah 22:19–22) and
God will punish Muslims who take non-Muslims as friends (Surah 58:14–15, Surah 98:6–7)
Muslims should "cast horror/terror" into disbelievers (Surah 3:151)

It is easy to see why Islamic fundamentalists hate us. Remember, the Quran is not a long book like the Bible – it is short – and on a literal view is brutally dehumanising of non-Muslims, teaching obscene discrimination. On that view, it offends all of our nation’s equality legislation. From the Equality Act 2010 to art 14 ECHR (prohibition on discrimination) as it applies to rights provided under the ECHR.

To put it another way, if anyone wrote a book with those words about Muslims or, for example, black people, they would be arrested and in jail before it hit the shelves.

Yet these words, particularly aimed at Jews since 7 October 2023, are preached in mosques up and down the country and shouted on the street and yet the police do nothing – one of many examples being the frankly idiotic decision of the Met Police and their ‘advisers’ (almost certainly Muslims with fundamentalist leanings) in October 2023 saying ‘Jihad’ may have different meanings after a now proscribed terrorist organisation was demanding it at a rally. The stark reality is that, like our politicians, the organisations tasked with keeping us safe have abdicated at the highest level their responsibility to understand the threat, allowing it to be usurped by Islamic fundamentalists.

It comes as no surprise that a recent report found anti-semitism is becoming "increasingly normalised". It is shameful.

Free speech

It goes without saying that free speech has suffered. Only recently the United Kingdom’s score on the Global Expression Report dropped to under 80 for the first time in its history. To put that in context, the United Kingdom now ranks 36^th and is the only country in Western Europe and North America to be labelled as ‘less restricted’ as opposed to ‘Open’.

Our hate speech laws, contained in various statutes, have been weaponised to silence protest against Islam already. Hamit Coskun, a Turk who burnt a Quran outside the Turkish embassy whilst shouting insults about Islam in protest of the Islamic fundamentalist government there, was charged with the fantastical offence of harassing the ‘institution of Islam’.

When the CPS realised such a charge was fictitious, it was amended to reflect a public order offence and he was nevertheless convicted. The judgment and sentencing remarks should send shivers down every right-minded individual’s spine. The conviction seems to hang on the fact that ‘There was no need for him to use the “F” word and direct it towards Islam’ and the fact that there was ‘it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by 2 different people [neither of whom appear to have any justification for the nature of their response].’ So not only did the judge recognise that there was no justification for the Isalmic fundamentalists' criminal responses but he found Coskun guilty anyway. It is a truly perverse outcome.

This perfectly illustrates the mob rule we face. No person should react in the way those two men did in a free society. Anyone that does simply doesn’t belong to our society – they live in a parallel society governed by Sharia.

We should perhaps have seen this coming:-

The Batley teacher remains in police protection several years after offending Muslims through what was, by all accounts, a perfectly innocent lesson plan.
An autistic child’s mother was made to go to a mosque under police escort and apologise for her child innocently scuffing a Quran.
Jews being threatened with arrest for breach of the peace by counter-protesting against militant Palestine supporters who threatened them.

In each of the above cases, the law actually provides that it should have been the offenders who were prosecuted/arrested. Instead, the innocent victims were treated terribly by the state. Coskun’s conviction simply goes one step further – now the victims of Islamic fundamentalist violence are being prosecuted.

All of these incidents show the rule of law has been trampled on, so much so the term itself is almost meaningless – although a much broader topic, it is not too much to say that the rule of law is dead. It is a terrible place for a country to be and the prelude to a failed state.

What should be happening

With Islamic fundamentalism deeply entrenched in Great Britain, the government should be deploying every tool at its disposal to root it out.

Our constitutional framework, which unfortunately includes the ECHR, was created in 1950 when Islam simply wasn’t contemplated as falling within its scope.

How do we know this? Well, first off, Islam didn’t exist in Western Europe in any material way. Secondly, we are forever told that Churchill was a proponent of the ECHR – you may recognise his assessment of Islam which he gave in "The River War, Vol 2":

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

It is therefore frankly absurd and ahistorical to suggest that Churchill believed Islamic fundamentalists should enjoy the freedoms given under arts 9-11 of the ECHR (religion/conscience/thought, expression, assembly/association), particularly as doctrinally Islam, on a fundamentalist view, denies every freedom granted under that instrument to non-Muslims. The ECHR simply was not designed for Islamic fundamentalism. Whilst senior figures from the UAE warn us about Islamic fundamentalism and proscribe organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood, together with various Zakat charities, many of which is funded by extremist states, our governments appease these organisations, allowing them to proliferate and poison the minds of secular and moderate Muslims in the UK. It is little wonder that second and third generation Muslims are much more fundamentalist than their parents/grandparents and it is the fault of consecutive governments from 1997 onwards.

It follows that instead of launching a Working Group to define Islamophobia, the government should be launching an inquiry into Islam to understand it, including an audit of all Islamic charities, mosques and madrasahs.

This is because the greatest issue we face is that there is no ‘bright line’ in Islamic scripture – most Muslim countries, being Muslim, understand this conundrum so draw their own lines with rigorous enforcement – we cannot be so arrogant to think we know better and must urgently do the same. To give you an idea: Some Muslims won’t eat pork but believe in universal human rights. Some Muslims may think homosexuals will go to hell but stop short of thinking non-Muslims generally are animals and unclean. Other Muslims may think we are unclean but think jihad is the sole purview of a Muslim state. Other Muslims may believe in jihad but not having sex with a nine-year-old. Other Muslims may think sex with a nine-year-old is permissible but not in sexual slavery. And some may think that having sex with a nine-year-old and sexual slavery is a divine right bestowed directly upon them by God’s own word.

These are a range of views, all of which can be justified by reference to Islamic scripture. But instead of acknowledging this, getting a grip and seeking to draw a line in the sand, our respective governments have simply appeased as many Muslims as possible, the Islamic fundamentalists included. This must stop.

Which leads us to the final point. It is not an exaggeration to say that the introduction of this definition of Islamophobia, together with its examples, whatever legal cloak they put on it, represents an existential crisis for Britain and its people.

That may sound alarmist but it is not. It is a foreseeable certainty that as soon as this Working Group concludes, a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia will be forced upon us through regulatory bodies, the Civil Service and the courts in sentencing guidelines where it already has a neat home as a ‘non-statutory aggravating feature’. It will conflate race with religion, carrying these perverse examples, and it will be used as evidence in the courts to deplatform and punish anyone who complains about the activities of Islamic fundamentalists who will gleefully use it as a tool to further their poisonous ideology. If you want to understand what some of this might look like, simply read the report by Policy Exchange on the Muslim Council of Britain’s ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’.

Make no mistake, this definition will be tantamount to a blasphemy law. It will frustrate any effort by law enforcement agencies to disrupt child sexual slavery rings and terrorists. The overall effect of the definition of Islamophobia will be to impose Islam as the state religion and it represents a civilisational level threat.

To close, it is worth recalling the prescient words of Christopher Hitchens:

This is very urgent business ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you. Resist it while you still can and before the right to complain is taken away from you which will be the next thing.

You will be told you can’t complain because you’re Islamophobic… as if it was an accusation of race hatred, for example, or bigotry, whereas it’s only an objection to the preachings of a very extreme and absolutist religion.

The barbarians never take a city till someone holds the gates open for them and… it’s your own multicultural authorities who will do it for you. Resist, resist it while you can.

This Working Group is holding the gates open for the fundamentalists. This is exactly what is happening. Now.

Resist it while you can.