Anti-Muslim hatred like hatred towards any other group must be tackled. However, we have campaigned against defining the vague and problematic term ‘Islamophobia’, since a definition was formulated by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims (there are several in circulation). We warned ‘Islamophobia’ is a catch-all term – indeed, it captures anti-Muslim hatred, but also criticism of religion, the bad behaviour of some adherents, and when non-Muslims (like Sikhs, Coptic Christians) are subject to prejudice based on mistaken identity. We gave evidence to the APPG in 2018 and are referenced in the report that launched the contested definition Islamophobia Defined.
Last year we wrote to the deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner indicating we would be forced to take legal action if the government adopted the disputed APPG definition. The definition defines ‘Islamophobia’ as ‘a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness’. We stated adoption would not only serve to create a hierarchy of religions in England and Wales, but risk censoring seminal moments in Sikh history – like the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur, and the Sikh prohibition on consumption of ritually slaughtered meat like halal. Both would fall foul of the definition the Labour party, The Mayor of London and many Labour councils have already adopted. Lord Khan responded on behalf of Angela Rayner confirming the APPG definition was ‘not in line’ with The Equality Act 2010.
In February this year, we wrote to Lord Khan on hearing about Angela Rayner’s Working Group to define ‘Islamophobia’ (a non-statutory definition). We requested inclusion of a Sikh representative on the group given:
‘Sikhs have faced a significant backlash following Islamic extremist attacks here and overseas. The first person killed in retribution for 9/11 was a Sikh. The first place of worship to be targeted after the 7/7 bombings was a gurdwara in Kent. A former Sikh heritage minister had a pig’s head thrown in his drive, and there was an attempted beheading of a Sikh dentist in Wales by a member of a now proscribed far-right organisation (National Action), in revenge for Lee Rigby. Sikh women have also been targeted with bigotry. Sikhs are targets for both far-right white nationalists and Islamic extremists.’
Lord Khan did not respond to our request, nor provide an explanation why Sikhs and others, should not be included. Earlier this month, we again wrote to Angela Rayner:
‘We have had no response to our letter [to Lord Khan] dated 14th February 2025, and were hoping your office would heed our request for a more inclusive faith approach. If not, please provide us with reasons why Sikhs and other victims of so-called ‘Islamophobia’, should not be included.’
Historical freedom of information data from the MET police, indicates non-Muslim victims (and those of no recorded faith), like Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and Buddhists are recorded as victims of ‘Islamophobic’ hate crime. We went on:
‘The government’s decision to conduct a national inquiry into grooming gangs must surely now be taken into consideration. We believe in justice for all victims. Sikh girls have also been targeted by Pakistani Muslim heritage men. The issue was highlighted in Baroness Casey’s national audit further to representations made by us. Given the importance of this issue, and censorious claims (from some quarters), suggesting merely discussing the heritage of perpetrators in ‘grooming gang’ cases amounts to ‘Islamophobia’, we need assurances that any definition the Working Group comes up with will protect Article 10 Rights. We believe it’s right, as had been suggested by others, to halt the work of the Working Group until completion of the national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. Victims and survivors of these horrendous crimes must surely come first, and any definition that risks stifling open discussion, will only serve to harm social cohesion, not enhance it.’
We urged the deputy prime minister to be inclusive of Sikhs within the Working Group, warning:
‘ongoing marginalisation of other communities will only reinforce the view that the government is perpetuating a hierarchical policy approach when it comes to Britain’s faith groups.’
Following pressure from the Free Speech Union (FSU), the government extended the consultation period (and widened consultees) for defining ‘Islamophobia’ to 20th July 2025. Prior to this, the consultation appeared to have been shared with select groups only, which risks creating an element of bias. At least one member of the Working Group, appears to support the concept of conflating race and religion, a central flaw in the APPG definition. Ascribing race, an immutable characteristic, onto a belief system through ‘expressions of Muslimness’, is clearly unworkable.
Last week our Director, Lord Singh of Wimbledon attended a meeting in parliament hosted by Dominic Grieve KC, who is chairing the ‘Islamophobia’ Working Group. Grieve provided a glowing foreword to the report which launched the contested APPG definition. Lord Singh emphasised the need for equal treatment for all groups as taught by the Sikh Gurus.
In what were considered barbaric times, the Sikh Gurus bravely criticised rituals, superstitions and the denigration of women, taught by the religions of the day. At the same time, they incorporated some teachings of Hindu and Muslim saints in the Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh scriptures) to emphasise uplifting ethical commonalities. They invited a Muslim saint to lay the foundation stone of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which has doors at each of its four sides to signify a welcome to anyone from any geographic or spiritual direction. Today we should all follow their courageous and enlightened example.
Earlier this week a group of 37 cross party peers wrote to Dominic Grieve KC, warning about the implications a non-statutory definition would have on free speech. Some of their recommendations, echo requests made in our correspondence with the government.
The NSO is still awaiting a response from the deputy prime minister’s office.
Network of Sikh Organisations
