An-Nisa Society Rejects APPG’s definition of Islamophobia as Brent Council moves to adopt the defintion

An-Nisa Society


An-Nisa Society urges Brent Council to reject the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s ill thought out and regressive definition of Islamophobia at the full Council meeting on Monday July 8th that has been tabled by for adoption by Cllr Ahmad Shahzad (Labour – Mapesbury).

An-Nisa Society rejects this definition which states that:

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

The definition and the arguments in the report are riddled with thinking that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

We reject that Islamophobia is a form of racism. Rather, it is a deeply rooted historical hatred and prejudice of Islam as a faith and of its adherents, who are Muslims from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. This manifests in prejudice, discrimination, abuse and attacks. It is a hatred of Islam and Muslims that drives the discrimination and attacks. This is not just the case in the West but also in places like China, India and Myanmar.

To subsume Islamophobia into racism, which is about colour and ethnicity no matter how much this definition is trying to manipulate it as a form of ‘cultural’ racism, is to minimise the alarming extent of the hatred of Islam. We cannot combat Islamophobia effectively if the root cause is not properly identified.

This definition of Islamophobia, like the Prevent policy and it’s Public Sector Duty, will do little to improve conditions for our local Muslim communities. It not only fails to identify the root causes but also fails to address the most important issues that are about implementation and resources for implementation.  This report does not offer any guidelines how it will be implemented in practice.

If racism alone was the issue then the anti-racism policies that have been implemented for decades would be enough to tackle this social exclusion of Muslims and the hate crimes perpertrated against them. But they clearly haven’t.

While there is often intersectionality with racism Islamophobia is a specifically anti-Muslim religious discrimination. Unless this is understood and taken on board then adopting any definition that says otherwise is not only not fit for purpose and unworkable, it is also detrimental as there will be a false impression that something is being done, thereby preventing a more relevant and meaningful definition to be worked at.

The definition is regressive and undermines all the work that has been done since the mid 80’s to identify Islamophobia as faith based and not race based. The campaign to tackle anti-Muslim exclusion and anti-Muslim hatred began in the mid 1980s in Brent, led and initiated by An-Nisa Society as a call for the government and the anti-racist movement to acknowledge anti-Muslim discrimination as a specific discrimination separate but sometimes intersectional with race. It is ironic that a movement that started locally by Muslim women and taken on board nationally has never been addressed in it’s place of origin. (1)

Our Director has worked for Brent Council in its Race Relations Unit and has served as a Commissioner with The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia and as a trustee for the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism. (1)

Getting the definition right should not be piggybacked on other existing recognised hatreds or as a defensive reaction to those who attack the very existence of Islamophobia. For example,


“In this definition of Islamophobia, the link to racism is made for both pragmatic and theoretical reasons.  Pragmatically, many large organisations already have in place mechanisms and protocols for dealing with racism; therefore, by articulating Islamophobia as a form of racism, there is no need to invent new procedures to deal with complaints and concerns that arise. Theoretically, racism is understood to be a form of regulation based on racialization by which collective identities are formed and placed in hierarchies.” (2)

If these race-based structures had worked for Islamophobia we wouldn’t have had to campaign for decades for separate recognition. And why should we be pragmatic? We have to be bold and courageous and chart our own experience of prejudice and discrimination and how to it needs to be addressed.

Lazy thinking

Should the definition be an almost word for word copy of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism?
“The authors of the report have taken the structure and content of IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism as their starting point and, in many places, done little more than cross out ‘Jew’ and insert ‘Muslim’ in its place. Most forms of bigotry have some common characteristics but diverge significantly in their details and form. Homophobia doesn’t take the same form as anti-Black racism. Transphobia isn’t identical to misogyny. If you start out with a definition of antisemitism and try to apply it to the sort of hatred that Muslims face, you will miss the mark.” (3)

Freedom of Speech & the Right to Criticise religion

And of course the issue of freedom of speech and the right to criticize religion. Yes we agree that any criticism of Islam that is made in good faith is welcome. What is not welcome where this is used as a cover to incite hatred of Islam and Muslims, either directly or indirectly leading to discrimination and attacks on Muslims. This needs to be addressed robustly through our laws around incitement to hatred, which at the moment it isn’t.

We urge Brent Council to reject this definition.


Please note this is posted here because the An-Nisa Society Website is under construction










Robin Richardson – An interview with Q-News


Below is a conversation with Robin Richardson, the man behind the Runnymede Trust Report with Fuad Nahdi, Q-News. The report is entitled Islamophobia – A Challenge to us all (1997).  A summary of the report on this link.

Apologies for poor copy as its very old newspaper print. 

RR1 1
Q-News May 1998
Q-News May 1998


Trevor Phillips & the Runnymede Trust’s Islamophobia report – what really happened

By Khalida Khan, Director, An-Nisa Society

Trevor Phillips Survey

(Image from the Daily Mail)

Trevor Phillips, is presenting a controversial documentary on British Muslims on Wednesday 13th April 2016 on Channel 4, where he has been asked to analyse the findings of a major survey on Muslim attitudes in the UK. This will form the basis of the documentary, What British Muslims Really Think.

While the inaccurate and inflammatory contents of this survey and documentary as reported in the media need to be unpicked and analysed, I am putting the record straight on the history of the Islamophobia campaign and focusing on why Trevor Philipps was the wrong choice to present and analyse this flawed programme that purports to go into the minds of 3 million Muslims. 

Phillips has presented himself as an ‘expert’ on British Muslims because while he was the chair of the Runnymede Trust, a groundbreaking report was commissioned entitled Islamophobia – A Challenge for us all (1997).  A summary of the report on this link.

“Twenty years ago, when, as chair of the Runnymede Trust, I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.” Trevor Phillips, The Sunday Times (London) April 10, 2016 ‘What British Muslims Really Think’

So when Phillips makes these claims, it is assumed that this background gives him a deep insight into British Islam and that if someone ‘behind’ this report could now ‘change’ his mind and do a ‘U” turn, this blatant vilification of a community and scaremongering must be taken very seriously indeed.

However, Phillips has never been an advocate for British Muslims or for anything to be done about Islamophobia. Indeed, some sources say that it was he who made sure behind the scenes that the report got nowhere with Jack Straw and New Labour. (see Q-News piece below)
In his Sunday Times piece (also see below) he gives himself credit for publishing the Runnymede Trust’s Islamophobia report back in 1997. The truth however is not as he presents it. He may have been chair of Runnymede at that time but it was Robin Richardson, the director of Runnymede and Kaushika Amin, a researcher, who took the report forward. This was following extensive discussions with us at Q-News and articles that were written in Q-News campaigning against anti-Muslim discrimination,
Robin Richardson and Kaushika Amin were behind the Report not Trevor Phillips.

From the mid 1980’s An-Nisa Society started the campaign against anti-Muslim discrimination and the recognition of ‘religious discrimination’ – it was totally unrecognised then. This was led by myself as the director. I was working in local government and race relations and saw first hand how Muslims were falling through the net in terms of equal opportunities and health and social welfare provision. They were faced with Islamophobia and institutional Islamophobia in all areas of life, including employment and so on. However, a race-focused approach to Britain’s diverse communities meant that Muslims became socially excluded. This is an area which still needs to be fully investigated – that is, the failure of government to address Muslim issues and needs as citizens for decades resulting in their social exclusion. 

No other male led organisation had taken this up this as frankly they had no understanding of the processes taking place that had rendered Muslims an underclass. (I would argue that most still do not). They were too busy campaigning for the blasphemy law to include Islam! We campaigned by writing in MuslimWise, which we helped found and in Q-News. This campaign was highly influential in the debate around Islamophobia. These articles came to the attention of Robin and Kaushika.
I also spoke to great academics and legal experts such as the late Sebastian Poulter and the late Professor John Rex who were very supportive of what we were doing. We brought the issue to the attention of Tariq Modood who was a researcher at the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) at the time and Khurshid Drabu, who was head of Legal there and who later went onto join the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Iqbal Sacranie, who was later the General Secretary of MCB used a report I had written (with my permission) about the inadequacies of the Race Relations Act 1976 as an appendix to one of the reports by UKACIA (the precursor to MCB who were campaigning for the blasphemy law). The male led organisations, who had little idea of the issues, muscled in. They cut us and Q-News out and it’s they that the government chose to take on board.  And the result is there to see. The issue was not taken seriously by the government and it took years for ‘religion and belief’  to be included in the Equality Act 2010. Meanwhile the community continued to suffer, with the added complications of 9/11 and 7/7 ensuring that anything done around Muslims was now security driven.
“Up until about 1990 the dominant terms in Runnymede’s discourse were race, race relations and colour – the Trust was imbued, at both staff level and trustee level, with the consensus established by the Race Relations Acts of the 1960s and 1976. Everyone, in the world constructed by such discourse, was either white or coloured – or, as terminology developed in the eighties – white or black. (Latterly, since about 1998, white or BME – black and minority ethnic.) The world-view reflected in this language was derived in part from the United States and in part from Britain’s experience as a colonial power. Alternative world-views were in due course advocated within the Runnymede staff team by one of the researchers, Kaushika Amin. She for her part was influenced by the magazine Q News and its predecessors; by the work of the An-Nisa Society, based in Brent in north west London; and by the writings of someone who in those days was an officer at the Commission for Racial Equality, Tariq Modood. She was supported in her advocacy by Runnymede’s new director from 1991 onwards.”

Challenging the Race Relations Consensus – the Runnymede Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, some notes and memories – Robin Richardson, Insted Consultancy, 2004 

We at An-Nisa Society are used to having our work hijacked or appropriated, not only in this instance but as also happened with our work on Prevent and when ‘Islamophobia issues, challenges and action A report by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia’ was published in 2004. Although, with the latter we provided material and advice, the credit was often given to MCB or not given at all. Something we complained about in a piece in Q-News. As women in particular, this happens all the time. Even Kaushika’s role in the first Islamophobia report has not been adequately acknowledged. In the Muslim community this problem is rife. Everyone wants to be the ‘expert;’  everyone wants to deliver the Muslim community to the government. We will never get the change we want in our community if this keeps happening. 
Robin Richardson and Kaushika Amin’s pivotal role in the crucial report Islamophobia – A Challenge for us all needs to be put on the record.

Why is this important? Is it simply because people want acclaim and kudos. No, it is because when people who don’t understand the issues use other people’s work and ideas so they can be seen as  the ‘experts,’ facilitated by the media and government, we will get people like Trevor Phillips claiming to speak about something they don’t understand or perhaps even want to misrepresent, for what ever reason. 

Q-News on Jack Straw 
 The directors of Runnymede
  • Sukhvinder Stubbs 1996 – 2000
  • Robin Richardson, 1991–1996

Daily Mail 11 April 2016

An-Nisa Society responds to Dr Musharraf Hussain on Prevent


By An-Nisa Society

First published on 18 Feb 2016

On 11 February Dr Musharraf Hussain posted an article on his blog which he stated was a ‘spiritual response’ to Prevent, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, and in which he singled out An-Nisa Society for its work on Prevent. In his confused piece, Dr Musharraf seems to imply that An-Nisa Society has acted in violation of Islamic guidelines by calling for the scrapping of Prevent in its robust dialogue with Brent Council. Dr Musharraf believes “that Muslims should protest little but work harder at winning the trust of the wider society by: Not having a sense of victimhood due to current events; Make less use of the term “Islamophobia” since the issue becomes desensitised”
We felt that this lack of understanding by many scholars and ‘leaders’ about what it means to be an engaged British Muslim citizen, their lack of insight into the issues that really affect us and their inability to constructively challenge government is an intrinsic part of the problem we face in the community and needed to be responded to. In our response we state:
“We believe Muslims communities should engage with the statutory sector and government with confidence and that it is not incumbent on us to accept these polices without question. Any leader that expects passive acceptance does not do justice to the British political system or British Muslim communities. Consequently they fail to understand the very nature of the grievances that makes young Muslims in particular vulnerable to charismatic and exploitative preachers and completely dismiss as irrelevant anything that comes from what they consider to be ‘sell-outs’. Young Muslim are looking for a leadership that is batting on their side, who understands the nature of the discrimination they face day in and day out and who do not accept the premise that we need to act as ‘spies’ on our own children. Our young generation deserve better from us.”

Read more on this link