By Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of United by Faith
Unifying Christians from All Walks of Life Around Common Values and Concerns

We urge the govt to halt the current process defining Islamophobia, ensure full public consultation, include diverse views, and protect free speech.Any definition must not criminalise criticism of religion or belief. Stop the creation of a de facto blasphemy law through a biased and rushed process

The govt is pushing through a definition of Islamophobia via a biased group led by the Deputy Prime Minister, excluding critical voices. A low-profile consultation was launched with no publicity, and the decision date brought forward. Islam is a religion, not a race. This risks creating a blasphemy law that silences free speech. We call for full consultation, inclusion of diverse views, and protection of free and lawful expression.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Call for Transparency in Defining Islamophobia

By Wilson Chowdhry, Chairman of United by Faith
Unifying Christians from All Walks of Life Around Common Values and Concerns

A new UK government working group has been tasked with defining "Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia"—a move that may appear well-intentioned on the surface but is raising serious concerns among religious liberty advocates, secular thinkers, and human rights defenders.

The group, chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve and led under the oversight of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, is expected to deliver a non-statutory definition within six months. While aimed at curbing rising levels of anti-Muslim hostility, critics fear the working group’s one-sided composition—entirely made up of those in favour of such a definition—could produce a dangerously vague outcome that effectively imposes a blasphemy code.

Islam is a Belief, Not a Race

Critics across the spectrum agree that Muslims, like people of all faiths, deserve protection from hate and violence. But the term Islamophobia risks conflating criticism of a belief system with hatred towards individuals. Islam is not an ethnicity; it is an ideology, and in a democratic society, ideologies must remain open to scrutiny, debate, and even satire.

Lord Alton of Liverpool recently warned of the dangers of embedding blasphemy-style provisions into UK policy, citing how similar laws in other nations have been used to imprison, torture, or even execute those accused of "offending" religious sentiment. “I have personally seen how they can be misused,” he said.

Yet, despite these warnings, the government launched a quiet public consultation with little public awareness and brought the decision date forward—curtailing public scrutiny and meaningful engagement.

The Chilling Realities of Religious Censorship

The danger of enshrining a vague definition of Islamophobia becomes clear when we reflect on recent real-life cases in the UK and beyond.

• In 2022, screenings of the film The Lady of Heaven—a Shia perspective on Islamic history—were cancelled in several cinemas after protests by some Muslim groups, who claimed the film was “blasphemous.” This act of mob censorship, upheld by fear and silence, should not be the precedent for how our society engages with religious expression.
• Salman Rushdie, who spent decades in hiding after publishing The Satanic Verses, was stabbed on stage in 2022, in an attack fuelled by religious extremism. If criticising aspects of Islamic theology becomes classified as Islamophobia, even indirectly, such voices could be legally and socially silenced in future.
• Nissar Hussain, a British-Pakistani convert to Christianity, endured years of harassment—including assaults and the firebombing of his home—for leaving Islam. Despite public appeals and police involvement, his family was eventually forced to flee their Bradford home. Would raising such concerns about Islamic communities or teachings under a new definition of Islamophobia be deemed “hateful”?
• Similarly, a disturbing trend of religiously motivated harassment has emerged against those who critique or leave Islam. In December 2018, Zaheer Hussain released a vile online rant targeting a Muslim convert to Christianity, threatening to sodomize him and mocking his baptism. Despite the victim facing ongoing threats and needing police surveillance, no prosecution followed—even with video evidence. More recently, a separate video emerged showing a man threatening to urinate on a Bible in public, declaring that no Christian in England would dare stop him. Although police eventually began investigating, only after pressure from campaigners, Thames Valley Police initially dismissed the case when just one Christian reported it. These incidents highlight a chilling double standard: if a wide definition of Islamophobia is adopted, would public criticism of Islam—such as apostates sharing their faith journeys—be censured, while Islamist threats and incitements to hatred go unchallenged under the guise of religious sensitivity?

BACA’s Longstanding Campaign Against Kaffirophobia and Apostasy Hatred

The British Asian Christian Association, or (BACA) has been actively working to challenge apostasy hatred and what it terms kaffirophobia—a growing animosity towards non-Muslims—for many years. In 2016, BACA under a former guise submitted a comprehensive report to the UK Hate Crime Inquiry, authored by N. Lewis, and A. Hussain, outlining concerns and proposing actionable reforms. Many of these recommendations were unfortunately overlooked. Later, in 2019, researcher K. Gibbs and W. Chowdhry submitted further evidence to the Islamophobia Review Committee. In their most recent submission, BACA explored the connection between Islamophobia and kaffirophobia, arguing that any serious attempt to reduce anti-Muslim hatred must also address hatred against former Muslims and non-Muslims. They posit that addressing kaffirophobia holistically would help create a more balanced and just approach to tackling religiously motivated hate.

These examples show the asymmetry that can emerge when policy protects religious feelings over free conscience, speech, and belief. A narrowly defined understanding of Islamophobia could result in the suppression of apostates, reformers, journalists, filmmakers, academics, and artists, all under the pretext of fighting hate.

Free Speech Must Be Non-Negotiable

Danny Webster of the Evangelical Alliance warned that any definition of anti-Muslim hatred “must safeguard the freedom to criticise religious belief and support the freedom for people to change their beliefs.” Without this, a climate of fear and self-censorship will emerge—one where disagreement is silenced under institutional guidance.

Even senior politicians have echoed this concern. Former Communities Secretary Lord Pickles said the real danger lies in rushing the process without adequate reflection, while Kemi Badenoch stated plainly: “The definition of ‘Islamophobia’... creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.”

Sign the Petition — Defend Our Freedoms

In light of these concerns, I have launched a UK Government petition to call for immediate changes to this process. We urge the government to:

• Pause the current working group process
• Conduct a fully open and transparent consultation
• Include voices from across faiths, ideologies, and communities, including ex-Muslims, secular thinkers, and human rights groups
• Ensure any definition protects freedom of speech, including the right to criticise religion
• Reject any definition that could criminalise dissent or empower mob censorship

We must ensure that hatred against Muslims is addressed, but not at the expense of suppressing freedoms that define British democracy.

Religious ideas—like all ideas—must be open to debate, not shielded by law. Please help defend this principle.

Read more here: https://wilsonsthirdway.blogspot.com/2025/07/is-uk...