Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE, MP
Ministry for Communities
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
29 December 2025
Dear Steve Reed OBE MP,
Re: Proposed Definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred
The Hindu Council UK would like to outline our view in response to the Government’s proposed definition of anti-Muslim hatred. We wish to state at the outset that the Hindu community unequivocally condemns hatred, violence, intimidation, harassment, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims, as we do against any religious or ethnic group. Muslims, like all citizens, must be protected from harm and prejudice under the law.
However, having carefully reviewed the proposed definition, and drawing on concerns raised by our community Hindu Council UK, other organisations and commentators as well as extensive criticism of the earlier APPG definition of Islamophobia we believe the current proposal is deeply flawed and risks serious unintended consequences. We will provide issues and concerns listed below together to what we suggest as constructive alternative approaches.
- Lack of Clarity and Overly Broad Language
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, including:
- “prejudicial stereotyping”
- “racialisation of Muslims”
- “collective group with set characteristics”
- “stir up hatred”
- “practices and biases within institutions”
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 politicisation.
Others have warned that such imprecision does not provide clarity to the public, institutions, or law enforcement bodies about where legitimate expression ends and prohibited conduct begins. This uncertainty alone is sufficient to undermine confidence in the definition.
- Conflation of People with Beliefs and Ideas
A central concern shared by Hindu, Sikh, Christian, secular, and free-speech organisations is that the definition fails to clearly distinguish between hostility towards Muslims as people and criticism of Islam as a belief system.
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. This mirrors one of the most controversial aspects of the APPG definition, which has been widely criticised for blurring this essential distinction.
From a Hindu perspective, this is particularly concerning. Hindu organisations, scholars, journalists, and community members frequently engage in legitimate discussion of:
- theological differences between dharmic traditions and Islam,
- historical events involving Islamic rule in South Asia,
- contemporary issues such as extremism, apostasy laws, or treatment of minorities and Women in Muslim-majority societies, as we have recently witnessed in Bangladesh.
Under the proposed definition, there is a real risk that such discussion especially when robust or critical, could be characterised as “prejudicial stereotyping” or “stirring up hatred”, regardless of factual basis or intent.
- Infringement on Freedom of Expression
Although the definition claims to target hostility rather than debate, its breadth creates a significant chilling effect on free speech.
The Hindu Council and many organisations have highlighted that definitions of this nature tend to be enforced not through courts but through institutional policies in universities, local councils, NHS, employers, and regulators where the threshold for sanction is often far lower than the law requires.
For minority communities such as Hindus and other Dharmic Traditions, this presents a serious risk. Narratives about historical persecution under Islamic empires, or discussion of contemporary Islamist ideology, could be suppressed out of fear of breaching a poorly defined standard of “anti-Muslim hostility”.
Freedom of expression includes the right to offend, to challenge, and to criticise ideas, indeed Hinduism encourages intellectual debates that has made it robust. Any definition that discourages lawful speech through fear of reputational or professional consequences undermines this foundational democratic principle as well as repressing free thought.
- De Facto Re-Introduction of Blasphemy Protections
Hindu Council UK is particularly concerned that the proposed definition risks operating as a de facto blasphemy framework, even if this is not the Government’s intention.
By granting heightened protection to a religion-linked identity through concepts such as “racialisation” and “collective stereotyping”, the proposed definition continues to risk shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny in practice, if not in law. This is especially troubling given that the UK deliberately abolished blasphemy laws to ensure that no belief system is beyond challenge.
In summary, the Muslims we know who we estimate to be the 99% majority would not have inserted words like ‘hostility for hatred’ and the last paragraph which attempts to protect any criticism of Islamist radicalisation just as the old definition attempted to protect the Grooming Gangs with their Muslimness.
The fact that the Muslims who worked on the definition along with their Chair who had run a forward on the previous flawed definition of Islamophobia have not seen fit to consult with fellow faiths, who desperately want to work against any hatred in society, shows their political power agenda not according to us a humble faith resolution.
Further, although the Chair of this one sided committee says it is a non-statutory definition for guidance only, he knows well that as with the past definition of Islamophobia the lawyers are the first to exercise this guidance in law itself, indeed as he being a barrister no doubt do, to punish people whom the lawyers interpret to be digressing from its subjective guidance.
As other commentators have noted, minority faiths and ex-believers are often the first to be silenced by such frameworks. A plural, democratic society must protect people from harm and not protect ideas from criticism.
- Risk of Exploitation and Unequal Application
Finally, we are concerned about how this definition could be exploited or misused:
- Weaponisation of complaints
Individuals or activist groups may use the definition to shut down debate, lodge vexatious complaints, or pressure institutions to sanction lawful speech. - Institutional overreach
References to “practices and biases within institutions” may encourage ideological enforcement, mandatory training, or policy changes unrelated to unlawful discrimination. - Two-tier protection of religions
The creation of a bespoke definition for one faith group without equivalent frameworks for others, this risks fostering resentment and the perception of unequal treatment, something Hindu and Sikh organisations have repeatedly warned against. - Mission creep from non-statutory guidance
As seen with the APPG definition, non-statutory wording can rapidly become embedded in public-sector policies, with real consequences for speech and civic participation.
A Constructive Alternative Approach
The Hindu Council UK urges the Government to adopt a narrow, precise, and legally grounded approach that:
- Focuses explicitly on hatred, violence, harassment, and unlawful discrimination against Muslims as individuals.
- Avoids racialising religion or protecting belief systems from criticism.
- Explicitly safeguards freedom of expression, including the right to critique religions, ideologies, and historical events.
- Ensures parity and consistency in how hatred against all communities is addressed.
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, which are evidently excluded if not suppressed – for this reason please forgive us for submitting this letter as an open letter for the purposes of utmost serious debate.
We would welcome the opportunity to engage further with your department to help shape an approach that genuinely promotes cohesion, fairness, and democratic values.
Yours sincerely,
Dipen Rajyaguru
Director of Equality and Inclusion
Hindu Council UK