A critical review of the Labour Party’s Islamophobia policy
We will review the Islamophobia policy of the Labour party and evaluate its provisions critically with reference to source data as appropriate as well as just a bit of critical thinking.
The policy attempts to define this elusive term, “Islamophobia”, it provides two definitions which it adopted as a general principle. The All Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition (APPG) states Islamophobia is
“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”
The Runnymede Trust’s definition is also provided,
“any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”
Again, to the policy’s credit, they rightly point out that Muslims are not a race of people and discrimination against them would be more rooted in religious prejudice rather than racism. The policy also again rightly flags that some people might use references to Muslims as a proxy to refer to people from certain ethnic backgrounds.
It begins to get very interesting in paragraph 10 of the code of conduct.
“…When considering allegations of Islamophobia, the Labour Party is advised to take into account the following sorts of treatment that are likely to amount to prejudice or hostility based on the protected characteristic of Islam or ethnic or national origins:”
Again, what exactly would be the protected characteristic of Islam here? Is it the state of being a Muslim? Is it the right to dress in accordance with Islam as a Muslim? Is it the right to pray and worship as a Muslim? Would this extend to waging war against unbelievers and hypocrites as Surah 9:73 says? Would this extend to the right to strike terror in the heart of the enemies as Surah 8:12–17, 60 says(according to the Tafsirs and commentaries as well)?
The hadith says the best deed is Jihad, would Jihad against the UK be a protected characteristic under this policy as well? These are pertinent questions that need clarification.
The policy gives a number of factors to consider:
a. Inciting by word or deed hatred or violence against Muslims, including calling for or justifying actual or threatened harm towards Muslims.
Completely agree with this. Inciting hatred against Muslims or calling for harm towards Muslims should be illegal and rightly so. However, is Islam itself compliant with this policy?
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
(Surah 9:29)
“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”
(Surah 98:6)
“The Verse: — “You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 65 Hadith 79)
“Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (there is non worthy or worship except Allah). Whoever says it, his life and his property are safe from me, except for its right, and his reckoning will be with Allah.”
(Sunan An-Nasai 3095)
So to mention a few, Islam has all these things in the sources. Christians, Jews and people who do not believe in Islam are the worst of creatures and Muslims should be bringing non-Muslims to Islam with chains, this is their duty as the best of creatures. Muslims are told to fight those who do not believe in their religion and the prophet of Islam is at war with everybody in the world until they accept Islam as their religion.
Now some of our Muslim friends will argue that these are taken out of context and I refer people to look up the tafsirs (interpretations) of the classical Islamic scholars to see if this is being misrepresented or not. However, let us for the sake of argument say this is out of context, does it not constitute incitement towards non-Muslims? In principle what is the difference between a religion that actually calls for violence in its books and one that really really really sounds like it is calling for violence in its books? Especially when, as we will see shortly, people have been committing acts of terror and violence based on the things these books really really really look like they are saying but are not saying at all.
b. Engaging in derogatory or dehumanising stereotypes about Muslims, for example, by suggesting that Muslims in general have a particular propensity to commit, or to support, acts of terrorism; or that individuals who are Muslim are necessarily socially or politically illiberal or regressive; or that Muslims have particular physical characteristics, names, dress or moral or ethical values; or that Muslims have a propensity for violence or are incapable of living peacefully in a democratic society; or that is not used to those of other backgrounds.
We have just gone through a bunch of sources showing the violence called for in the Islamic sources. We have seen things that really look like they are calling for terror,
“And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
(Surah 8:60)
So you have to terrify enemies of Allah with steeds of war and Allah will repay anything you spend in this regard. Again, really looks like it is advocating sponsoring terrorism here.
The Prophet Muhammad himself said,
“Abu Huraira reported:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I have been helped by terror (in the heart of the enemy) ; I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; and while I was asleep I was brought the keys of the treasures of the earth which were placed in my hand.”
(Sahih Muslim Book 5 Hadith 11)
Again, the best deed in Islam is Jihad,
“It was narrated from Abu Dharr that he asked the prophet of Allah (ﷺ) which deed was best. He said:
“Belief in Allah and Jihad in the cause of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime.”
(Sunan An-Nasa’i Book 25 Hadith 45)
Jihad, by the way, is not an inward struggle with the nature of the divine, but actual violence against unbelievers. The Quran itself makes this clear,
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”
(Surah 9:111)
Jihad involves killing and being killed for the sake of Allah. Muhammad said this is his best deed,
“It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: ‘By the One in Whose hand is my soul, were it not that some men among the believers would not like to stay behind when I went out (to fight), and I could not find any mounts for them, I would not have stayed behind from any campaign that fought in the cause of Allah. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, I wish that I could be killed in the cause of Allah, then brought back to life, then killed, then be brought back to life, then killed.’”
(Sunan An-Nasa’i Book 25 Hadith 68)
Again, these really really sound like Islam here is calling for terrorism against unbelievers. But let us assume I am misinterpreting this. This would mean there are a decent number of Muslims both within the UK and abroad misinterpreting these Islamic sources in the exact same way I am misinterpreting them.
According to the “Independent review of Prevent” carried out in February 2023 and updated in February 2024,
“At the time of writing, 220 people were in custody or on remand in the UK for terrorism- related offences. Of those in custody, 70% (153) are categorised as Islamist, a further 22% (49) are categorised as extreme right-wing and 8% (18) are categorised as holding beliefs related to other ideologies.”
(Paragraph 5.3)
“It is clear that Prevent is out of kilter with the rest of the counter terrorism system, and the UK terrorism threat picture. Islamist extremism represents the primary terrorist threat to this country — consistently accounting for the majority of terrorist attack plots both carried out and thwarted by the intelligence services. At present, 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police network’s live investigations are Islamist while 10% are extreme right-wing.”
(Paragraph 1.8)
Although calling it “Islamist ideology” rather than just Islam, the report makes the following observations,
“It is worth restating that Islamist terrorism is currently the largest terrorist threat facing the United Kingdom. In the years since the 2017 Westminster Bridge attack, the vast majority of realised and foiled plots have been Islamist in nature. At present, 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police network’s live investigations are Islamist while 10% are extreme right-wing.”
(Paragraph 3:10)
It would appear there is something in Islam giving people the idea that terrorism is an acceptable way of life. The statistics, even within the UK, do not lie.
Again there are 81 proscribed terror organisations in the UK. Of them, the following are related to or affiliate themselves with Islam.
- Abdallah Azzam
- Abu Nidal Organisation
- Abu Sayyaf Group
- Ajnad Misr
- Al-Ashtar Brigades
- Al-Gamat at Islamiya
- Al Ghurabaa
- Al Ittihad Al Islamia
- Al Murabitun
- Al-Mukhtar Brigades
- Al Qaeda
- Al Shabaab
- Ansar Al Islam
- Ansar al-Sharia
- Ansar Al Sharia- Tunisia
- Ansar Al- Sunna
- Ansar Bayt at-Maqdis (ABM)
- Ansaroul Islam
- Ansarul Muslimina
- Armed Islamic Group
- Asbat Al-Ansar
- Boko Haram
- Egyptian Islamic Jihad
- Global Islamic Media Front
- Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocian
- HAMAS
- Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Islami
- Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Islami (Bangladesh)
- Harakat Mujahideen
- Haqqani Network
- Hezbollah
- Hizb ut-Tahrir
- Imarat Kavkaz
- Indian Mujahideen
- Islamic Army of Aden
- Islamic Jihad Union
- Islamic movement of Uzbekistan
- ISIS
- Jaish e Mohammed
- Jamaah Anshorut Daulah
- Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin
- Jamaat ul-Ahrar
- Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh
- Jamaat Ul-Furquan
- Jaysh al Khalifatu Islamiya
- Jeemah Islamiyah
- Jund al Khalifa-Algeria
- Kateeba al-Kawthar
- Lashkar e Tayyaba
- Minbar Ansar Deen
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad
- Salafist Group for call and combat
- Saved Sect (Al Ghurabaa)
- Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan
- Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari’at Muhammadi
- Taliban
- Turkestan Islamic Party
57 out of 81 proscribed terrorist organisations, a whopping 70%, very much in line with the 70% of people remanded for terror according to the review of Prevent and 80% of counter-terrorism investigations by the way, are related to Islam.
Yet the Labour party policy says stating that Muslims in general have a propensity to commit or support terrorism is potentially Islamophobic? Yes, I get the “Muslims in general” bit because we do not want to generalize but to discourage speech pointing out the link between Islam and terrorism appears ridiculous. The numbers, and more importantly, Islam’s most trusted sources do not lie on this matter. People, at the very least, should be allowed to talk about this.
c. Suggesting that Muslims, individually or as a group in British society, pose a threat to British or European society, civilisation or values, for example, by claiming that Muslims are a demographic threat to British people, by claiming that Muslims are taking over British society or civic or political institutions through their presence in the same, or by catastrophising immigration from Muslim majority countries.
I have had a more robust view on the compatibility of Islam and British values in another article. Suffice it to say here that the calls for Jihad, terror and violence against unbelievers and non-Muslims are necessarily against the British values of respect, tolerance and individual liberty. However, let us see what the independent review of Prevent says,
“The Islamist endeavour is an imperialist one — one that strives to implement sharia governance as widely as possible. Yet for ‘non-violent’ proponents in the UK, their perceived religious cause has a variety of more practical motivations that I have divided into several non-exhaustive themes.”
(Paragraphs 3:16)
Islam also calls for the death of anyone who leaves the religion. But again kindly refer to the linked article for a more robust treatment.
d. Requiring Muslims to act in a way not expected or demanded of any other group.
e. Requiring Muslims to criticise terrorist acts more vociferously than other people, or requiring Muslims to apologise for terrorism committed by extremists in the name of Islam, or holding Muslims collectively responsible for the acts of Muslim majority countries, paramilitary groups or terrorists.
Agree with both above. A person should not necessarily be made to apologise for bad things people have done in the name of their religion. A person should not be punished for the sins of another, as even the scripture says,
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.”
(Deuteronomy 24:6)
The only comment here is that the conflating of Islam here with Muslims, whether intentionally or unwittingly, muddles the waters. Islam as an ideology is different from Muslims and their individual beliefs, however there could be an argument based on Surah 4:65, 4:80 and 33:36 that anyone who does not agree with everything Muhammad and Allah say, including Jihad and such, is not really a Muslim. Again here, I would say, thank God they do not believe in these things but Islam teaches it so by extension, they really cannot be Muslims if they disagree with their own books.
f. Using slurs or grossly offensive imagery about Muslims, portraying Muslims as sexually untrustworthy or dangerous, or that Muslims or their contemporary religious practices are cruel or violent.
Agree with the first part and middle part. Conflation between Islam and Muslims as flagged above is going on once again.
However, we know, from the Quran and Hadith that Islam in itself is problematic in sexual matters. The Prophet Muhammad married a six year old girl and had sex with her at nine years old,
“Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 67, Hadith 69)
The Quran also expressly allows marriage to children,
“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women — if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah — He will make for him of his matter ease.”
(Surah 65:4)
Context of Surah 65:4 is the stipulation on divorcing girls who have not yet seen their menstrual cycles by reason of their young age. If they can be divorced, this presupposes that they had to have been married in the first place.
Question for members of the Labour party. Would you trust your infant daughter alone with a person who believes he has the right to marry and have relations with a girl irrespective of how young she is? If you would not, are you not deeming such a person sexually untrustworthy on the grounds of their belief?
Again, Islam permits the forceful “relations” of female captives of war,
“And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you…”
(Surah 4:24)
The hadith giving context to this is the below,
“It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri that the Prophet of Allah sent an army to Awtas. They met the enemy, fought them, and prevailed over them. They acquired female prisoners who had husbands among the idolaters. The Muslims felt reluctant to be intimate with them. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime revealed:
“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess,” meaning, this is permissible for you once they have completed their ‘Iddah.”
(Sunan An-Nasa’i Book 26 Hadith 138)
Again, there is a connection between this and the largely Islamic grooming gangs that ravaged the UK for decades. Islam declares war on unbelievers per the statements of prophet Muhammad earlier cited. Female captives of war are lawful for a Muslim to bang as war booty. If Islam is at war with you because you do not believe in it, it follows that the females you care about are fair game for Muslims at war with you. And then according to this ideology, a girl yet to see her first menstrual cycle can be married and divorced. No guidance or limitation on how young people can be in order to be banged. Put this together and the grooming gangs make sense from an Islamic point of view. You can dismiss this as a conspiracy theory and count this as an interpretation no Muslim on the planet holds. Fair enough…but how can you explain that the overwhelming majority of culprits were practicing Muslims? Some of them were families of Muslims meaning this was seen as acceptable behaviour in the household. How do you explain that the victims’ claims that their abusers were reciting the Quran while abusing them? How do you explain the girl that had “M” for Muhammad tattooed on her? How do you explain that HAMAS all the way in the middle east did the exact same thing with Israeli women on October 7th 2023?
Yet for all of this, we cannot link Islam with sexually dangerous behaviour or saying their practices (e.g executing apostates, stoning for adultery, blasphemy laws) are cruel or violent according to the very progressive minded Labour Party.
i. Making irrelevant references to the protected characteristic of being Muslim. This practice is often a form of discrimination and stereotyping. It is perpetuated in media reports of alleged crime, routinely referring to the perpetrators as “Muslim”, when no other equivalent reference would be made to any other faith.
Again, in light of all the sources we have quoted and every damnable thing Islam calls for, the media is not allowed to draw attention to the Islamic connections in these things. The independent review of Prevent flagged this,
“fears of being accused of being racist, anti-Muslim, or culturally insensitive may inhibit Islamist-related referrals in a way that that does not appear to be the case for other types of ideological concern”
(Paragraph 4.37)
“Prevent must address all extremist ideologies proportionately according to the threat each represents. However, my research shows that the present boundaries around what is termed by Prevent as extremist Islamist ideology are drawn too narrowly while the boundaries around the ideology of the extreme right-wing are too broad. This does not allow Prevent to reflect accurately, and deal effectively with, the lethal risks we actually face.”
(Foreword)
So fears of being called racist are already shutting people up in terms of reporting and flagging Islamic terrorism. Prevent is very narrow in its view of Islamic terrorism but has a very wide view of far right terrorist related activities. Provisions like (i) of the Islamophobia policy provides a backdrop for the kind of problems flagged by the Independent review. It is no surprise that when there were riots in the UK, the media was very quick and very free to trumpet this as “far right” and link it to “far right activists” like T. Robinson but when things like the grooming gangs and concert attacks happen, we should not be bringing Islam into it. We should remain very obtuse, scratch our heads and wonder what in the world the motive for the terrorist attack was from a guy screaming “Allahu Akbar!”.
J. Accusing Muslims of being a “fifth column” or of lying or acting in ‘stealth’, and/or implying a Muslim, or Muslims in general, are inherently antisemitic, homophobic and/or misogynist.
We have shown how Islam calls for Jews and Christians to be fought. However, there is a specific pronouncement against Jews in the Hadith,
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 56 Hadith 139)
The above is a hadith used specifically by HAMAS in their 1988 charter. A key cause of the current war between Israel and Gaza.
The Quran also says,
“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah…”
(Surah 5:82)
Muhammad also blamed Jews for the fact that food decays,
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “But for the Israelis, meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 60 Hadith 5)
Again, I might be misinterpreting something here but it might not be coincidental that hatred of the Jews is steeped deep into the religion.
Regarding misogyny, Islam teaches that men can beat their wives,
“ Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance — [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”
(Surah 4:34)
Muhammad says as much in the hadith,
“It was narrated that Ash’ath bin Qais said:
“I was a guest (at the home) of ‘Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me: ‘O Ash’ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah” A man should not be asked why he beats his wife…”
(Sunan Ibn Majah Book 9 Hadith 142)
The prophet Muhammad specifically said a woman’s mind is deficient,
“Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 52 Hadith 22)
The Prophet also had this to say about a nation led by a woman,
“Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Book 92 Hadith 50)
Who or what is to blame if people read things like this and end up hating Jews and thinking less of women?
Coincidentally, the independent review says the same thing about “Islamist Ideology”,
Terrorism is only one manifestation of Islamist ideology. The Islamist worldview is by nature supremacist. Islamists have encouraged the hatred of Jews, homosexuals, minority Muslim sects, Muslim liberals and human rights advocates, and the harassment and abuse of Muslim women and girls.”
(Paragraphs 3:18)
The final paragraph of the Islamophobia policy is instructive,
11. The Labour Party must remain a forum for discussion about important social and political issues that involve Islam or Muslim people. However, these discussions about important social and political issues that involve Islam or Muslim people must always be undertaken sensitively and respectfully. All Labour Party members are required to act with and to promote tolerance and respect. Personal abuse has no place in political discussion and such abuse is, for the purposes of the Labour Party, always unacceptable.
I cannot stress how ironic I find the Labour party’s stance that these Islamic discussions must be undertaken sensitively and respectfully while Islam has nothing but contempt and disrespect for non-Muslim members of the Labour Party and the principles upon which the UK, the very same UK the Labour party is supposed to serve, were built. Tolerance and respect for unbelievers and the UK as a non-Islamic nation is a joke according to the Quran and the Hadith.
Now if to be Islamophobic is to be racist against expressions of Muslimness but the expression of Muslimness in question is that I should be subjugated for saying that Jesus is the Son of God, is it wrong to be wary or “phobic” of that? I don’t know about you but I quite like being unconquered and unsubjugated.
It is interesting the Labour Party is desperate to pretend there is no problem with Islam when the Quran, the Hadith, the Independent Review of Prevent and the list of proscribed terrorist organisations in the UK all unequivocally say the opposite. Islam is a very big problem worldwide. The UK buries its head in the sand to its own detriment, Jihad is a relentless machine and only an informed population of free people can be an effective defence against it.
Finally, the policy, whether deliberately or accidentally conflates “Islam” and “Muslims”. The effect of this is subtle but devastating. Any criticism of Islam becomes the harassment or demonisation of Muslims and will fall under the umbrella of “Islamophobia” and “Inciting attacks”.
Nobody in their right mind wants anything harmful to happen to Muslims but everybody in their right minds is against Jihad. Islam brings Jihad thus people should be allowed to freely express their opinions on this and criticisms about it without being smeared with the paintbrush of “Islamophobia”. “Muslims” as people and “Islam” as a religious ideology are two different things and expressing concerns about the latter, which if successful, would have very unpalatable implications for the UK, is not Islamophobic.
