Christian and Hindu leaders in the UK have voiced disquiet about the government’s proposed definition of anti-Muslim hatred, warning that it threatens religious liberty and free speech.
The controversy centers on a 2018 definition by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which labeled Islamophobia as a form of racism. The Labour Government now seeks to replace the word “Islamophobia” with “Anti-Muslim Hatred or Hostility” in official legal definitions.
While supporters of the APPG definition claim the government’s move addresses only physical violence, critics see the new plan as a repackaging of the former flawed APPG version.
Alicia Edmund, head of public policy for the UK Evangelical Alliance (EA), insists that the government must respect Christian ministry.
“Christians sharing about the transformative hope Jesus and His teachings brings with those from other ethnic or religious minorities is not hate speech and must not be criminalized,” Edmund told Christian Daily International. “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.”
The EA has engaged the government working group on multiple occasions to urge caution.
The Hindu Council UK echoed these concerns. Dipen Rajyaguru, director of equality and inclusion for the council, wrote to Communities Minister Steve Reed on Dec. 29. Reed is completing a new non-statutory definition based on an October draft from an advisory working group led by former Tory Attorney General Dominic Grieve. The definition is to guide public bodies, councils and businesses as they combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.
In his letter, Rajyaguru affirmed the need to protect Muslims from harm but called the current proposal “deeply flawed.” He warned that the definition “risks serious unintended consequences.”
Rajyaguru noted that current criminal and equality laws already protect citizens from discrimination.
“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 listed concepts such as prejudicial stereotyping and the racialisation of Muslims as problematic.
“As with the APPG definition, these terms lack clear legal meaning,” Rajyaguru explained. “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 politicisation.”
According to Rajyaguru, this uncertainty undermines public confidence. He noted that Christian, Hindu, Sikh and secular organizations all fear that the definition fails to distinguish between hostility toward people and criticism of a religion.
“By referring to ‘racialisation’ and ‘collective characteristics,’ the definition risks treating a religion and its associated ideas, doctrines and practices as if they were immune from critique,” Rajyaguru said. “This mirrors one of the most controversial aspects of the APPG definition, which has been widely criticized for blurring this essential distinction.”
The Hindu leader expressed concern that the proposal jeopardizes theological debate and historical discussion.
“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,” Rajyaguru warned.
He stated that the breadth of the definition creates a “significant chilling effect on free speech.”
Rajyaguru reminded the government that democratic principles include the right to challenge ideas.
“Any definition that discourages lawful speech through fear of reputational or professional consequences undermines this foundational democratic principle as well as repressing free thought,” he added.
He also warned that the proposal creates a “de facto blasphemy framework” by shielding religious beliefs from scrutiny. He criticized the government for failing to consult with other faith communities.
“A plural, democratic society must protect people from harm and not protect ideas from criticism,” Rajyaguru said.
The Hindu Council UK warned that activists could weaponize these definitions to quash lawful speech or enforce ideological training. Rajyaguru urged the government to focus strictly on violence and harassment against individuals.
“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,” he concluded.
