Days after the British government rejected its preferred official definition of Islamophobia, the Muslim Council of Britain, the biggest Islamic special rights organization in Britain, called for the ruling Conservative Party to be officially investigated for “Islamophobia.”

“We are concerned that allegations of Islamophobia will be, indeed already are being, used to effectively shield Islamic beliefs and even extremists from criticism, and that formalizing this definition will result in it being employed effectively as something of a backdoor blasphemy law.” — Open letter signed by 40 British academics, writers and public officials to Home Secretary Sajid Javid.

“We have here a clash between two very different ways of viewing a society: broadly individualism and collectivism…. In a collectivist society the aim is for the rulers to determine how individuals should behave … those in power lay down a detailed code and threaten punishment for non-compliance. And they do not welcome criticism as a device for mutual learning and holding power to account.” — David Green, The Spectator .

The proposed definition has been opposed by many Britons, including some British Muslims, who warn that it would effectively shield Islam from scrutiny and valid criticism.

The long-running dispute revolves — most recently — around an effort by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, a cross-party formation of around two-dozen MPs in the British Parliament, to institutionalize the definition of Islamophobia in racial rather than religious terms.

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

The definition, the result of six months of consultations, was endorsed by hundreds of Muslim organizations, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, as well as several political parties, including Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservatives.

Proponents of the definition say that while it is true that Islam is not a race but a religion — a set of beliefs and ideas — and that Muslims are a set of believers from different races, ethnicities and nationalities, many Muslims experience prejudice, discrimination and aof racism, which, they say, is structural. The director of the anti-racism think tank Runnymede Trust, Omar Khan, explained

“Defining Islamophobia as anti-Muslim racism properly locates the issue as one in which groups of people are ascribed negative cultural and racial attributes which can lead to a wide range of experiences, either as an unconscious bias, prejudice, direct or indirect discrimination, structural inequality or hate incidents.”

During a parliamentary debate at the House of Commons on May 16, Communities Secretary James Brokenshire rejected the APPG’s definition — described as a “backdoor blasphemy law” — on the grounds that it is too vague and has “potential consequences for freedom of speech.” He said that the definition is not in conformity with the Equality Act 2010, which defines “race” as comprising color, nationality and national or ethnic origins — not religious practice.

A government spokesman said that the APPG’s definition had “not been broadly accepted” and needed “further careful consideration.”

The proposed definition has been opposed by many Britons, including British Muslims, who warn that it would effectively shield Islam from scrutiny and valid criticism.

“People who ascribe to that religion come from all kinds of places, are all kinds of colors and creeds, and adopt all kinds of different practices. Rather like Christians, some take a more fundamentalist view of their faith than others. To describe them as a race is, of itself, a bold, and some would argue contentious, view, yet that is what the report does by identifying Islamophobia as a matter of anti-racism….

“The [APPG] report essentially identifies Islamophobia as an exercise in racism, which presumes that the Muslim peoples of this country, or any country, are a race. Given that Islam is a religion, that proposition is of itself contentious, and has been described as such by some critics of the report.

Writing for, David Green, the founder and chief executive of Civitas, a non-partisan public policy think tank based in London, warned

“If this definition becomes law, no one would be sure which forms of words could land them in court. It is precisely such uncertainty that makes the difference between a police state and a free society.

“Using words with the intention of stirring up racial hatred is not protected [under British law] and — no doubt for this reason — the APPG definition claims that criticizing Islam is a form of racism. But race and religion are very different….

“We have here a clash between two very different ways of viewing a society: broadly individualism and collectivism. Individualism sees the primary aim of the state as being to facilitate development of our personal qualities….

“In a collectivist society the aim is for the rulers to determine how individuals should behave … those in power lay down a detailed code and threaten punishment for non-compliance. And they do not welcome criticism as a device for mutual learning and holding power to account.

“We have encountered these authoritarian ideas throughout the history of Europe and thought we had advanced beyond them…. The APPG definition is an attempt to recreate the atmosphere of the past….