PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE ISLAMOPHOBIA RESPONSE UNIT

Government’s Anti-Muslim Hostility Definition: IRU Assessment

Majid Iqbal, CEO, Islamophobia Response Unit (9 March 2026)

The Islamophobia Response Unit has reviewed the government’s newly released definition of anti-Muslim hostility. While we acknowledge certain positive elements, we have significant concerns about the definition’s practical utility generally and for addressing discrimination in employment and education, areas where the IRU conducts most of its casework.

We understand that the final definition departs significantly from what the working group proposed. This raises questions about why expert recommendations were not fully adopted.

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

The call for evidence (16 June – 20 July 2025) limited responses to 600-1,000 characters thereby restricting stakeholder input on complex issues affecting 3.9 million British Muslims.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes rose by 19% – amounting to 45% of all religious hate crimes; yet we waited many months for release of the definition and it has arrived only now during Ramadan.

ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION

The definition has three elements: (1) intentionally engaging in criminal acts directed at Muslims, (2) prejudicial stereotyping with intention to encourage hatred, and (3) unlawful discrimination intended to disadvantage Muslims.

Positive Elements

The definition includes perception based on ethnicity, race, or appearance. The guidance describes how “assumptions about dress, appearance, names, or other perceived markers” lead individuals to be “treated as if they belong to a collective group with fixed negative traits.” This describes racialisation, although the government hasn’t used that term and this is a missed opportunity.

By describing this concept without naming it, the guidance may limit public understanding and analytical clarity. The established term “racialisation” would have been clearer. Nevertheless, the substance, however limited, is still beneficial to a degree.

Critical Concern: The Intent Requirement

“Intentionally” or “intention” appears three times, creating a very high threshold. Most discrimination lacks provable intent. Recruitment processes excluding Muslims with Islamic names typically reflect unconscious bias. Workplace microaggressions, inappropriate comments, name mispronunciation, rarely involve intentional discrimination.

The definition requires unlawful discrimination be “intended to disadvantage Muslims.” Most successful discrimination claims show discriminatory effect, not intent. This may render the definition ineffective for some cases the IRU handles.

Terminology

“Anti-Muslim hostility” does not encompass systemic discrimination operating through indifference or structural barriers rather than overt animosity. In failing to utilise the term Islamophobia, the government has failed to grasp the importance of these elements of prejudice.

Free Speech Protections

The accompanying text extensively protects free speech, including “ridiculing or insulting” Islam. Thereby negating any arguments that it will be utilised to restrict such freedoms.

BROADER POLICY CONTEXT

The definition is being released alongside the government’s social cohesion strategy, which includes several policy mechanisms. The IRU will provide detailed analysis of these mechanisms on our website, but they include proposals for annual reporting on extremism, university conduct frameworks, enhanced regulatory oversight of charities, and monitoring of community venues and events.

We recognise the government’s stated aim to address extremism and promote cohesion. However, we will examine how these policies are implemented in practice to ensure they do not disproportionately impact Muslim communities/conflate legitimate community activities with security concerns.

QUESTIONS OF PARITY

We note differences in policy responses. Historical abuse networks involving prominent individuals (Epstein and those associated with him) have not generated the sustained attention directed at grooming gangs with specific ethnic profiles.

Protective security also differs. Jewish sites have streamlined support through established organizations; whereas mosques face complex processes with many barriers, despite Muslims experiencing 45% of religious hate crimes.

MOVING FORWARD

The IRU will reserve comprehensive judgment pending the government’s supplementary actions: institutional guidance, educational materials, and implementation support.

We hope to see a framework that effectively addresses the systemic discrimination our clients experience in employment, education, and public life. Our assessment will ultimately be based on outcomes, whether the definition leads to tangible improvements in how discrimination is recognised, prevented, and addressed. We remain committed to supporting victims of Islamophobia and working constructively with all stakeholders to ensure equal protection from hatred and prejudice.

CEO Statement: “This definition sets an intent threshold that most discrimination cases cannot meet. Our casework shows that Muslims face bias, institutional barriers, and microaggressions that aren’t intentional, but are no less harmful. We welcome some elements of the definition and guidance, particularly around racialisation, but we’re concerned about practical effectiveness. Success will be measured by outcomes, not language.” — Majid Iqbal, CEO, Islamophobia Response Unit.

For detailed analysis of the government’s cohesion strategy and ongoing commentary, visit www.theiru.org.uk/opinion or for more information contact info@theiru.org.uk