Why the new anti-Muslim hostility definition falls short

Newly qualified solicitor Haider Maqsood explores the drawbacks

In March 2026, the government set out a definition of “anti-Muslim hostility” that it hopes policymakers and other organisations can use as a framework for tackling this form of hatred.

The new definition comes at a much-needed time, with official home office statistics for England and Wales reporting unprecedented levels of hate crimes targeting Muslims, with 4478 incidents recorded in the year ending March 2025. This figure represents a staggering 45% of all religiously-motivated hate crimes. It is clear that attempts are being made to tackle this form of discrimination – and those efforts should be rightfully applauded. However, does this definition provide an anti-discrimination framework that sets policymakers and organisations up for success? Or, does the new guidance that’s been provided risk missing the mark?

Before these questions can be answered and any definition can properly be evaluated, we must first outline what it is.

The full definition can be found below:

“Anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts — including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment, or intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated — that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim, including where that perception is based on assumptions about ethnicity, race or appearance.”

“It is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims, or people perceived to be Muslim including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance, and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics, with the intention of encouraging hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.”

“It is engaging in unlawful discrimination where the relevant conduct — including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions — is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life.”

The government has chosen to separate the definition into three different ‘strands’:

1. The first strand positions ‘Anti-Muslim Hostility’ within a criminal context.

2. The second strand focuses on the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims or individuals perceived to be Muslim.

3. The third strand refers to the potential for this type of discrimination to be inherent or systemic to an institution.

One widely applauded aspect of the definition is its recognition that anti-Muslim hostility is directed not only at Muslims but also at people perceived to be Muslim. The victims are often Sikhs, Hindus, or anyone wrongly assumed to be part of the Islamic faith. This highlights the “racialised” nature of this form of hatred. Many of the stereotypes and generalisations that exist about Muslims are rooted in race, culture and ethnicity, and because anti-Muslim hostility is so often tied to racism, any definition that aims to tackle it must account for this process of racialisation, which this one does.

A second strength is the effort to capture institutional or systemic anti-Muslim sentiment. The definition makes clear that anti-Muslim hostility is not confined to private acts, acknowledging that it can take root within organisations and surface through everyday practices and biases in bodies such as political parties, workplaces and educational establishments.

It should also be noted that some civil society groups such as Humanists UK have welcomed the definition on the basis that it safeguards freedom of expression and therefore ensures that former Muslims are still able to talk about why they decided to leave the religion of Islam.

Similarly, the communities secretary, Steve Reed reassured the public that “the definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech about religion in general”. This is a key concern often put forward when definitions like this are proposed, due to fears that any such definition could inadvertently produce a “blasphemy law through the backdoor”.

The above aside, the government’s new definition does unfortunately contain many flaws that ultimately prevent it from being a serious tool for addressing discrimination towards Muslims.

The biggest and arguably most fundamental flaw is the government’s decision to coin this type of hatred as “Anti-Muslim Hostility” instead of the term “Islamophobia”. The term Islamophobia can be credited to the Runnymede Trust who are responsible for using the term in their landmark 1997 report. Ever since then, it’s become widely adopted and embedded in the psyches of academics and policymakers alike all over the world. It is therefore unfortunate that the government has decided not to give this form of discrimination the label that it rightly deserves and should be referred to as.

Particularly as such a label is internationally recognised and better captures the irrational and illogical elements of this type of prejudice. What is even more bewildering is that the Labour Party in opposition actually supported using this term, as the Muslim Council of Britain quite rightly points out, who are unable to endorse the government’s definition at this time.

The peculiar choice in naming aside, the definition is also non-statutory and therefore not actually legally binding. This calls into question it’s enforceability. If it’s not embedded into any legislation, then the definition becomes more akin to something that need only be adopted on a discretionary or voluntary basis. It is therefore unfortunate that the Government’s new “Anti-Muslim Hostility” framework lacks the legal force that would have made it a powerful tool for victims of Islamophobic attacks to equip themselves with. Whilst current hate crime legislation can be drawn upon to help with prosecution in such incidences, having a specific legal definition for Islamophobia would take into account the various nuances associated with this form of discrimination.

Furthermore, organisations like the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU) are also unable to endorse the government’s current definition (for many reasons) but one of them is the definition’s requirement for intent. One of the major criticisms they put forward is that even to prove discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, intent is not needed and by requiring this element of ‘intent’ the definition regrettably bars itself from most cases involving discrimination.

The positives and negatives aside, there are some groups who have gone as far as to mount formal challenges to the current definition that’s been conceptualised. Namely, the Free Speech Union (FSU) who has sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Communities Secretary so that they can bring forth a judicial review on the basis that the definition is unlawful. Rather than the definition be improved upon, certain groups like the FSU would like to see the dissemination of the current definition postponed. However, any lengthy delay to the formulation of such a framework is likely to be counterproductive to current anti-racism efforts. It must be said that even though the government have not adopted the term “Islamophobia” the efforts currently being made by them indicate that officials are at the very least refusing to continue to bury their heads in the sand about the growing scale of the problem. Ultimately, some progress is better than no progress and such formal challenges risk jeopardising the advancement of much needed protections for Muslims facing discrimination.

On balance, whilst the current definition “Anti-Muslim Hostility” does well to consider freedom of speech and makes varying degrees of effort to incorporate elements like perception and racialisation. However, it is unfortunate that the more widely known and more effective term “Islamophobia” isn’t utilised which is a serious misfire. The Government should jettison the term “Anti-Muslim Hostility” from its lexicon and instead embrace the term “Islamophobia” whilst simultaneously placing it on a statutory footing. Both of these actions would signal a serious intent from the political establishment to root out this increasingly prevalent form of prejudice once and for all.

Haider Maqsood is a solicitor currently specialising in employment law. He has a particular interest in the political and legal frameworks that govern anti-racism efforts, which he explored in his dissertation about Islamophobia during his undergraduate degree. He likes to keep up to date with key policy decisions and developments relating to efforts to tackle Islamophobia in the UK.