Islamophobia protester calls out Theresa May
Our prime minister, Theresa May, isn’t very keen on letting those on the receiving end of Islamophobia define what it is (Photo: David Cliff/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

My name on the top of this opinion piece will automatically become a signifier to many about who I am. The religious group I am perceived to belong to, my family’s heritage, my ethnic background, and how liberal my ‘culture’ is.

Based on those assumptions, it unfortunately also means I’m less likely to get a positive response when I try to rent a flat, less likely to be called up for a job interview and more likely to be pulled up for a ‘random’ search at an airport, and in the worst-case scenario, receive overt anti-Muslim abuse like the time I was called a ‘Muslim bomber’.

This is my lived experience of Islamophobia, along with so many others who are Muslim or perceived to be so. It’s down to me and others who share in that lived experience to define what anti-Muslim discrimination is and what it looks like, so that as a society we can move forward to tackle these prejudices. It’s why I support the new definition of Islamophobia, rejected by government on Wednesday, because what we already have clearly isn’t working.


The definition states: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’

Anti-Muslim discrimination and hatred is on the rise. It’s specifically linked to the rise of the far-right, replacing anti-immigrant sentiment as the main driver according to the group Hope not Hate. Yet it is not only a problem on the far-right, but is also structural and more often than not expresses itself through unconscious bias, such as some of the examples I highlighted at the beginning, and why so many powerful groups and institutions are keen to resist its definition.

One of those is our prime minister, who isn’t very keen on letting those on the receiving end of Islamophobia define what it is.

Rejecting the definition of Islamophobia, which has received the support of 750 British Muslim organisations, as well as academics and community groups, the government wishes to formulate its own definition.

Baroness Warsi has called out the Tory party for Islamophobia
Baroness Warsi has called out the Tory party for Islamophobia (Photo: Miles Willis/Getty Images for 9th World Islamic Economic Forum)

I want to say I’m shocked and surprised, but I’m not. When you realise that the definition proposed would mean some of the government’s own counter terror legislation and at one point its own London mayoral campaign would be classified as Islamophobic, it is no wonder the party is in a state of denial and wishes to exonerate itself of any such accusation.

Straight away I can hear the ‘it can’t be racism, Islam’s not a race’ argument made against adopting the definition. Yet Muslims are racialised. When someone is stopped at an airport the ‘suspect’ usually has a particular name and is more often than not a person of colour, to name but one example.


Muslims are othered on the basis of cultural forms of racism, how they dress, their names and perceived cultural values. If Muslims weren’t racialised how else could you explain the attacks on Sikhs when they are perceived to be Muslim.

I then hear people argue that any such definition would prevent criticism of Islam as an ideology. The definition proposed by the APPG makes it clear that in no way does it inhibit free speech.

Such an argument also assumes that only those outside of Islam are willing and capable to offer constructive criticism and that internal criticism and dissent is something which Muslims are not willing to undergo. Such an argument completely overlooks centuries of debate within Islamic societies itself.

Counter terror chiefs claim that adopting such a definition would ‘hamper’ their operations. Given the definition aims to prevent the stereotyping of Muslims, the definition can only hamper counter terror operations if they target Muslims primarily on the basis of their identity. If the only reason for identifying who is and isn’t considered a security concern is an individual’s identity and perceived Muslimness, then counter terror legislation must be reconsidered.

But we cannot duck the fact much counter terror legislation has itself been framed from an Islamophobic perspective, targeting those perceived to be Muslim specifically as a cause for suspicion by default. The Prevent scheme for example has been used to view entire Muslim communities as suspicious, leading to children who express legitimate political grievances to be reported for extremism. My identity shouldn’t have to become a cause of suspicion and matter of national security, instead intelligence and scrutiny of evidence should be at the forefront.


What message is the government sending out by rejecting this definition? For many Muslims like myself it will simply confirm our worst suspicions, that we are part of a community towards whom bigotry is considered as ‘not that bad’ and at worst a total blindspot.

One of the reasons I along with many others have never reported Islamophobic abuse that we receive in person, is because we feel no one will listen. The refusal to adopt such a definition will only confirm those fears.

We can never be so arrogant and complacent to assume that as a society we are ‘already there’ and don’t need new tools to combat emerging prejudices. For if we did, equality for so many groups would have been hampered.

While some of us play semantics, others are suffering because of the refusal of those in positions of power to acknowledge what they are going through.

MORE: New definition of Islamophobia could ‘undermine terror fight’, says police chief

MORE: Muslim woman poses like a badass in front of anti-Islam protesters