The waters are further muddied by the introduction of the category of race. The APPG report maintains that ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism’. But Islam is not a race. It is a religion. People from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds are Muslims. Defining ‘Islamophobia’ as a ‘type of racism’ is clearly an attempt to tarnish any criticism of Islamic beliefs or practices with the brush of racism.

Indeed, the APPG definition attempts to expand Islamophobia to include something called ‘cultural racism’. ‘The concept of racialisation’, it states, ‘situates Islamophobia within anti-racism discourse which is not however just informed by biological race, but by a culture – broadly defined – that is perceived to be inferior to and by the dominant one’.

The implication here is that if anyone judges ‘Islamic culture’ to be inferior to, say, British culture, then they are, by definition, Islamophobic. So discussing how Islamic culture devalues the rights to women, by encouraging mandatory wearing of the hijab or polygamous marriage, could be classed as Islamophobic. Once we sign up to this idea of Islamophobia, we risk losing the freedom to criticise Islamic culture altogether. In theory, a member of any political party, including the current government, that has signed up to this definition, could be disciplined for Islamophobia if they said that UK law is preferable to Sharia law.

Perhaps aware of the ill-definition of the term, the APPG helpfully provides a list of examples of Islamophobia, including ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule’. This would not only make it potentially Islamophobic to criticise the actions of ISIS or Hamas, but also to even write of the long history of Islamic conquest. As historian Tom Holland noted, ‘claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule’ are claims that ‘most Muslims, for most of history, would have been fine with’. In a further tweet he explained that ‘Military conquest and the subjugation of minority groups have absolutely been features of Islamic imperialism’. He continued: ‘We risk the ludicrous situation of being able to write without fear of prosecution about the Christian tradition of crusading or anti-Semitism, but not the Islamic tradition of jihad or the jizya’ (a tax on non-Muslims).

The language of ‘phobia’ is itself unhelpful. Strictly speaking, a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear. But the ‘phobia’ suffix is now used to dismiss perfectly rational and legitimate criticisms of beliefs and actions as irrational. Thus opposition to same-sex marriage or to the belief that people ‘can be born in the wrong body’ can be demonised as ‘homophobic’ or ‘transphobic’ respectively. Likewise Islamophobia classifies rational and legitimate criticisms of Islam as the products of an irrational fear of Islam. The use of the suffix ‘phobia’ is clearly designed to silence legitimate debate and criticism.

Muslims themselves have spoken out against this. Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, the first Muslim to be elected to parliament, told the House of Commons in May 2019: ‘I have been on the receiving end of hate mail and actions from both the far right and from the Islamist community… I will take no lessons from anybody who tells me that I am Islamophobic or that I am too much of a Muslim.’

In the same debate, John Hayes MP quoted Muslim scholar, professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq. ‘Most Muslims in this country’, Abdel-Haq had told Hayes, ‘see the preoccupation with Islamophobia, which is increasingly peddled by guilt-ridden white liberals and self-appointed Muslim campaigners, as far from being in their interests, an initiative that is likely to separate, segregate and stigmatise them and their families’.

The definition has already had a chilling effect on press freedom. Several journalists have been accused of being Islamophobic for reporting on Islam-related stories. These include The Times journalists Dominic Kennedy and Andrew Norfolk, both of whom wrote about the grooming-gangs scandal. Journalists are now even careful what they say about Islamist terrorism. If the APPG definition were accepted then reporting of issues such as these would be seriously hindered.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a key advocate of the idea of Islamophobia, already seeks to censor press articles that it alleges are Islamophobic. Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary general of the MCB, regularly complains about alleged ‘Islamophobia’ in the UK media. He has issued multiple complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and frequently obtains corrections or apologies. In one case, he succeeded in getting the Sun and the Daily Mail to issue a correction stating: ‘We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support so-called honour killings.’ Many Muslims would beg to differ and could cite scripture in defence of this practice.

Journalist Will Heaven cites a national newspaper editor as confirming that he frequently corrects stories when Versi complains about them simply to put a stop to the deluge of emails that will follow if no correction is published. Heaven argues that there is a degree of self-censorship going on because of the ‘chilling effect’ of these complaints.

It is no surprise that the MCB, with Versi taking the lead, has been one of the most vocal organisations promoting the idea of Islamophobia and campaigning for the government to formally adopt the APPG definition of Islamophobia. If this definition was formally accepted by the government, or by press associations or IPSO, this would lead to further censorship of media reporting on Islam-related issues. Press freedom to report honestly and openly about Islamic stories would be lost.

Islamophobia as an idea has long been having a pernicious effect on public institutions. From local councils to the police, fear of being accused of Islamophobia has led to blind eyes being turned to injustice. As the 2016 Casey Review into integration revealed: ‘Too many public institutions, national and local, state and nonstate, have gone so far to accommodate diversity and freedom of expression that they have ignored or even condoned regressive divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices, for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic’.

In a 2019 Policy Exchange report, Islamophobia – Crippling Counter-Terrorism, co-authors Richard Walton and Tom Wilson warn that the idea and definition of Islamophobia risks ‘diminishing freedom of speech and impairing our ability, as a society, to debate the causes of Islamist extremism’. They add that legal adoption of the definition would result in the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary, and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, all being branded ‘institutionally Islamophobic’.

The promotion of ‘Islamophobia’ by assorted campaign groups, and the attempt to give it a legal footing could do serious damage to public life. Legitimising accusations of Islamophobia not only harms free speech for non-Muslims, but also for Muslims who want to raise questions about their faith, or who simply do not want to restrict debate.

The APPG definition, in particular, is not fit for purpose. It is time for politicians and others to recognise that there is nothing ‘progressive’ about a legal assault on people’s right to criticise a religion. Political parties, local councils and universities that have adopted this definition should abandon it if they care about free speech.

It was encouraging that the former Conservative government abandoned its plans to define Islamophobia. However, the current Labour government pledged, while in opposition, to implement the APPG definition. There have been signs that it is backing away from adopting this definition in government, with Lord Khan, the faith minister, stating in September that it is ‘not in line’ with equality laws. But nothing is official as yet.

In a free society, we must be at liberty to debate and criticise all kinds of beliefs and practices. The idea of Islamophobia cuts against this principle. It is an attempt to introduce a new blasphemy law through the backdoor. And it should have no place in modern Britain.

This is an edited extract from Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor, published by the Free Speech Union

Tim Dieppe is head of public policy at Christian Concern and the author of the Free Speech Union’s latest briefing paper, Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor.

Pictures by: Getty

This article (How the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ menaces free speech) was created and published by Spiked Online and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Tim Dieppe