Faith leaders in the United Kingdom are raising concerns over the Labour government’s proposed definition of anti-Muslim hatred, arguing that the plan could threaten religious liberty and freedom of expression.
The debate centers on a definition first introduced in 2018 by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which characterized Islamophobia as a form of racism. The current UK Labour government has proposed replacing the term “Islamophobia” with “Anti-Muslim Hatred or Hostility” in official legal language.
Supporters of the change argue that the revised wording is intended to address physical harm and discrimination against Muslims. Critics, however, contend that the proposal largely repackages what they view as the APPG’s flawed original definition, while retaining the same underlying problems.
UK Evangelical Alliance has been among those urging caution. Alicia Edmund, the group’s head of public policy, said the government must ensure that Christian ministry and religious dialogue are protected.
“Christians sharing about the transformative hope Jesus and His teachings bring with those from other ethnic or religious minorities is not hate speech and must not be criminalized,” Edmund told Christian Daily International.
She added, “Any definition must make a distinction between fair critique of a belief system and tackling hostility and violence towards individuals — without undermining freedom of expression.”
According to the Evangelical Alliance, its representatives have engaged repeatedly with the government’s working group to stress the importance of safeguarding religious freedom while addressing genuine acts of hostility.
Similar concerns have been voiced by the Hindu Council UK. Dipen Rajyaguru, the council’s director of equality and inclusion, wrote to Communities Minister Steve Reed on Dec. 29, 2025, acknowledging the need to protect Muslims from harm but describing the current proposal as “deeply flawed.”
Rajyaguru warned that the definition “risks serious unintended consequences” and noted that existing criminal and equality laws already provide protections against discrimination and violence.
“While the first part of the definition refers to criminal acts and prohibited discrimination already clearly covered by existing criminal and equality law, the definition then expands into vague and undefined concepts,” Rajyaguru said.
He added, “As with the APPG definition, these terms lack clear legal meaning. From a Hindu perspective, this ambiguity is dangerous. It leaves interpretation open to subjective perception rather than objective legal standards, making the definition vulnerable to inconsistent application and politicization.”
Rajyaguru further cautioned that open discussion of religious beliefs could be unfairly targeted. “Under the proposed definition, there is a real risk that such discussion, especially when robust or critical, could be characterized as ‘prejudicial stereotyping’ or ‘stirring up hatred,’ regardless of factual basis or intent,” he said.
While emphasizing that hostility toward Muslims must be addressed, Rajyaguru concluded with a broader warning. “Hatred against Muslims must be confronted decisively, but this must not come at the cost of free speech, equality before the law, or the legitimate voices of other minority communities.”
