‘Islamophobia’ really means being scared of the truth

In late 2018/early 2019 parliament’s Home Affairs Committee undertook a consultation in the supposed definition of ‘Islamophobia’. As the Labour Party has today formally adopted the supposed ‘definition’ of Islamophobia drawn up by the All Parliamentary Group on Appeasing Muslims.

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

(which isn’t actually a definition at all), I share the concluding paragraphs of the submission that For Britain made to that consultation.


  • It is readily observable that throughout the report the word ‘Muslimness’, which is often used in the phrase ‘expressions of ‘Muslimness’’ appears in inverted commas in order to indicate that it is a word being used with a technical, unfamiliar meaning, and yet is introduced without explanation and is never explained …

The term ‘Muslimness’ is clearly used as a substitute term for Islam in this definition in order to blur the meaning of ‘Islam’ within the term Islamophobia. By this legerdemain, a person’s adherence to the Quran’s encouragement that a man should beat his wife for disobedience or its instructions to kill idolaters and homosexuals is equated with a person inheriting the surname Khan from their parents or eating Middle Eastern food. All are manifestations of ‘Muslimness’ and under this definition any person who challenges the reasons for the former, violently intolerant but specifically Islamic, behaviour is automatically lumped together with racism based upon the latter entirely value-neutral characteristics.


  • It should also be clearly recognised as inappropriate for any person, in any circumstances, to make sweeping accusations against the mental health of those who pursue an argument with which they disagree or which they find to be inconvenient. Such terminology seems specifically designed to prevent the resolution of any issues of contention in a peaceful and civilised manner. It is also, of course, insulting to those people unfortunate enough to suffer from real phobias. The proposed use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is in fact a pernicious form of hate speech, projecting the accusation of irrational hostility, using the trope of a person suffering mental disorder, onto a person with whom one disagrees.


  • All of the spawning Newspeak vocabulary, such as ‘Islamophobia’, ‘raceing’, ‘(de)culturing’ and ‘Muslimness’, outlined above [in the APPG report] represents more than mere incompetent use of the English language. True to Orwell’s concept, the promotion of the word ‘Islamophobia’ is clearly designed to avoid people speaking, and by so doing ultimately to prevent people thinking, the inconvenient truth that in the UK and around the world, many acts of intolerance, not to say barbaric cruelty, are being committed by Muslims sincerely following the unambiguous teaching of the Quran and the example of Mohammed.

Use of such words to deny the link between Islam and Islam-inspired intolerance is more insidious than merely a decision to see no evil or avoid a thorny issue. It appears to give official support to the narrative that there is no such link and that those who challenge the values of the Quran, even using the most moderate language and in the name of liberty and democracy, can only be irrational and themselves motivated by intolerance and ‘hate’.

  • It is in the interests of all UK citizens that the UK remains a country in which all can live together in peace. The lesson of the past four hundred years of British history is that peace comes only from a rule of law that respects the individual’s freedom to live, express themselves and worship or not, as they see fit, and a democratic culture in which communities integrate and share decision making rather than progress, or not, in separate, parallel worlds. Social harmony can never be based upon empowering people sympathetic to one tradition to silence its critics and malign views that they do not wish to be expressed.
  • The word ‘Islamophobia’ has no legitimate use. It is suggested that its use be abandoned immediately.

You can read Paul’s full response to the Home Affairs Committee here:


By Paul Ellis

For Britain Legal Officer