Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All Joint Submission to Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred Definition Working Group
15 July 2025
1. Introduction
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB), founded in 2007, and One Law for All, founded in 2008, jointly represent individuals challenging religious fundamentalism and defending secularism, universal human rights, and freedom of expression.
CEMB was established to support those who have left Islam and to campaign for the rights of apostates and blasphemers from Muslim backgrounds. One Law for All campaigns against parallel legal systems in Britain and for one secular law that treats everyone equally, regardless of religion or background.
Our constituents include women, LGBT, apostates, and others from Muslim-majority communities who are disproportionately affected by religious fundamentalism. We engage nationally and internationally on issues of freedom of conscience, sex equality, and the protection of universal rights against rising communal and religious pressures.
We submit this joint response to raise urgent concerns about the framing and use of the term “Islamophobia” and its chilling effect on freedom of expression, sex equality, and freedom of conscience.
2. Terminological and Conceptual Concerns: Islamophobia vs Anti-Muslim Hatred
There is no question that Muslims, religious and ethnic minorities, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, as in other parts of the world, face real and dangerous forms of discrimination. Hate crimes, prejudice, and bigotry have huge adverse effects on minoritised communities. These forms of hatred must be addressed unequivocally—but through the clear lens of racism, not through vague or overly protective terminology that protects ideas from scrutiny.
We, therefore, caution against the increasing use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ to describe anti-Muslim hatred. The term is promoted not primarily to combat bigotry against individuals, but to protect religious ideas from criticism. This results in a conceptual conflation between:
• Discrimination against individuals on the basis of their perceived or actual religion (anti-Muslim bigotry);
• Criticism of a set of religious beliefs (Islam);
• Opposition to political movements (Islamism).
The term ‘Islamophobia’ has been promoted by Islamists, not to combat anti‑Muslim bigotry, but to conflate criticism of Islam and Islamism with racism in order to silence dissent. It helps establish de facto blasphemy laws where there are none.
Placing criticism of ideas under the umbrella of ‘Islamophobia’ discourages essential discourse on bodily autonomy, apostasy, sex rights, and democratic values.
It is important to recall that blasphemy laws were formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008, and in Scotland in 2021. Labelling religious offence as ‘hate’ reintroduces their logic by other means and grants special protection to ideas and beliefs, undermining democratic principles of open inquiry and debate.
This conflation has significant policy consequences. It deters legitimate scrutiny of religious and political ideologies. It silences dissenters, including secular Muslims, feminists, LGBT individuals, and ex-Muslims, who are frequently targeted not only by fundamentalist actors but by well-meaning institutions prioritising ‘community cohesion’ and group rights rather than individual and citizenship rights.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is already addressed under existing equality legislation and hate crime law. Any additional protection against so-called ‘Islamophobia’—especially where it encompasses ideological critique—risks creating a chilling effect on lawful and necessary speech.
We recommend the term ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ be used in all policy and legal frameworks to describe hate or discrimination against individuals, while maintaining a firm commitment to the protection of free expression and conscience, including the right to criticise religious beliefs and institutions.
3. Freedom of Expression and the Right to Dissent
In pluralistic societies, the right to dissent from dominant belief systems is essential. The freedom to critique ideas—including religious ones—is foundational to democracy and human rights. Yet the current use of ‘Islamophobia’ routinely silences those who critique Islam or Islamism.
This occurs within a broader and increasingly troubling climate of censoring freedom of expression and speech. The Home Secretary’s attempt to proscribe Palestine Action—a civil disobedience protest group—as a terrorist organisation exemplifies the state’s growing attempts at suppressing legitimate political expression deemed controversial. Such measures risk establishing precedents that stifle free expression and protest.
Our Spokesperson Maryam Namazie has been disinvited, no-platformed, or subjected to intimidation for criticising Islam and Islamism or defending secular values. Universities, which should be bastions of free inquiry, have often capitulated to pressure under the banner of ‘Islamophobia,’ even when no racist content is present. Other recent examples include the cases of teachers and professors threatened and forced into hiding over educational material referencing Islam, or Hamit Coskun burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London in February 2025. In such instances, public institutions have blurred the line between protecting people versus protecting beliefs, risking the de facto reintroduction of blasphemy norms through informal, punitive means.
In practice, this silencing disproportionately affects those from Muslim backgrounds who are most impacted by theocratic laws and norms, including apostates, blasphemers, and women’s rights defenders. When secular voices are excluded, the narrative is ceded to conservative or fundamentalist community leaders who claim to speak for all Muslims.
The term ‘Islamophobia’ protects religion and the religious-Right, not believers who often also dissent, doubt and question the rules and dogma imposed by fundamentalists.
4. Sex, Religion, and Parallel Legal Systems
The growth and institutionalisation of religious arbitration bodies, such as Sharia councils in Britain, represents a parallel legal structure that disproportionately disadvantages women and children. Despite civil society warnings, these institutions are often shielded from scrutiny by accusations of ‘Islamophobia.’ The state’s tolerance of such parallel systems violates its obligations under international human rights law and undermines the principle of one law for all. Any attempt to shield these systems from criticism under the pretext of fighting ‘Islamophobia’ risks further entrenching sex inequality and legitimising religious tribunals over civil law.
5. Universalism in Addressing Discrimination
Efforts to combat discrimination must avoid privileging religion over other protected characteristics such as race, sex and sexuality. As argued in our joint submission with Southall Black Sisters (2025), framing anti-Muslim bigotry as ‘Islamophobia’ isolates women and dissenters from broader coalitions of resistance and elevates conservative religious leaders as spokespeople.
A universalist approach recognises that women and LGBT individuals from Muslim backgrounds do not experience harm solely or primarily as Muslims, but as racialised, gendered, and often migrant subjects. The best protection for all is to defend secular spaces, promote universal rights, and ensure access to specialist support services that are not faith-based.
6. Recommendations
1. Terminological clarity: Replace ‘Islamophobia’ with ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ in policy, law, and public discourse to avoid conflating the critique of belief systems with hate against individuals.
2. Protect freedom of expression: Affirm the right to criticise religious ideas, including Islam and Islamism.
3. Abolish parallel legal systems: Ban the recognition and use of religious tribunals such as Sharia councils and Beth Dinn, which undermine the rule of law and violate women’s rights.
4. Support secular and universalist services: Fund and prioritise non-faith-based organisations that offer support to minoritised communities, particularly in the areas of sex-based violence, apostasy, and LGBT rights.
7. Conclusion
Anti-Muslim bigotry is real and must be challenged. But protecting people must not come at the cost of protecting ideas from scrutiny. The right to blaspheme, to leave religion, to critique ideology—these are cornerstones of any democratic society. By collapsing criticism of religion and bigotry into one, the term ‘Islamophobia’ serves to silence the most vulnerable voices within Muslim communities: women, dissenters, apostates.
We urge the Committee to adopt a principled approach that combines the fight against racism with an uncompromising defence of universal rights, secularism and free expression and conscience.
For More Information, Contact:
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson Gita Sahgal, Spokesperson
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain One Law for All
exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com onelawforall@gmail.com
https://ex-muslim.org.uk/ https://onelawforall.org.uk/