Last month, M-Legal submitted evidence to the UK Government’s Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition — an independent panel tasked with recommending a national, non-statutory definition that can be used consistently across public policy and institutions.

Our submission was informed by three roundtable meetings with Muslim community organisations, legal practitioners, and civil society leaders, exploring how Islamophobia is experienced in education, policing, media, housing, and public life. These conversations ensured the proposed definition reflects lived realities and commands broad community confidence.

We also met members of the Working Group in person to present our legal analysis, community evidence, and recommendations.

A Comprehensive Definition

Drawing on the expertise of our Chair and informed by UN, EU, and OSCE best practice, our submission argues that Islamophobia must be recognised as religious bigotry, racial bigotry, or a complex combination of both — racialised religious bigotry.

It manifests across three interconnected domains:

1. Othering – dehumanising narratives, stereotyping, and exclusion from public life.
2. Discrimination – structural and institutional barriers in services, education, housing, and employment.
3. Hostility – hate speech, incitement, and violence.

While it can occur in purely religious or purely racial forms, it is most often an overlap of the two — a point that should be explicit in any agreed definition.

M-Legal has submitted detailed evidence to the Government’s Equality Law Call for Evidence, which is examining whether current legislation — particularly the Equality Act 2010 — is fit for purpose in tackling persistent inequalities.

Our submission focuses on where the law fails to fully protect Muslim communities, particularly in areas such as equal pay, harassment protections, and intersectional discrimination. Drawing on our legal expertise, case law, and engagement with affected communities, we highlight specific provisions in the Equality Act that result in unequal treatment and propose practical reforms to close these gaps.

Our Position

The Equality Act 2010 was intended to harmonise protections across protected characteristics. However, it does not provide equivalent protection for Muslims as it does for other ethno-religious groups, such as Jews and Sikhs, despite the well documented reality of racialised religious bigotry faced by Muslims.

This exclusion is most visible in:

• The omission of multi-ethnic religious groups like Muslims from the statutory definition of race under s9 Equality Act.
• The absence of equal pay provisions for religion or belief, leaving Muslim workers without the same pay transparency or remedies available for gender, race, or disability.
• Gaps in harassment protections for religion in key areas of public life, including service provision, education, and public functions.
• The lack of a legal route to bring combined discrimination claims, meaning that intersecting prejudice — for example, against Muslim women — is not properly recognised or addressed.

Why This Matters

Muslim workers, particularly Muslim women, face some of the largest pay gaps and employment penalties in the UK. Government statistics and independent research show that:

• Muslim men and women earn significantly less than White Christian counterparts, even after accounting for education, occupation, and region.
• Muslim women face compounded disadvantage due to gendered Islamophobia, with evidence of bias at recruitment, progression, and pay negotiation stages.
• Overrepresentation of Muslims in outsourced, insecure, and subcontracted roles limits access to equal pay comparisons, making it harder to challenge disparities.

Without reform, these patterns will remain embedded, and the Equality Act will continue to deliver unequal protection for equal harms.

M-Legal has submitted written evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee for its one-off inquiry into gendered Islamophobia. The inquiry examines the specific challenges facing Muslim women in the UK, including barriers to reporting, the difficulties in agreeing a definition of Islamophobia, and how gendered prejudice can be effectively challenged.

Our evidence is grounded in legal and policy analysis, engagement with Muslim women and community organisations, and international best practice. It sets out how gendered Islamophobia is shaped by the intersection of faith, race, and gender, and the compounded impact this has on safety, equality, and participation in public life.

Our Position

We define gendered Islamophobia within the same overarching framework as Islamophobia more broadly — religious bigotry, racial bigotry, or a combination of both — racialised religious bigotry — with gender acting as a compounding factor.

It manifests across three domains:

1. Othering – negative stereotyping and narratives about Muslim women’s identity, autonomy, and role in society, often perpetuated in public discourse and media.
2. Discrimination – structural and institutional barriers in employment, housing, public services, and civic participation.
3. Hostility – verbal abuse, harassment, and physical violence, disproportionately affecting visibly Muslim women, particularly those wearing hijab or niqab.

Why This Matters

Gendered Islamophobia is persistently underreported, due to:

• Low trust in reporting mechanisms and public institutions.
• Lack of confidence in achieving redress.
• The normalisation of prejudice and stereotyping in public and media narratives.

We also highlight significant gaps in equalities law — particularly the weaker harassment protections for religion in the Equality Act 2010 compared to race — leaving Muslim women without the same legal safeguards as other racialised religious groups. These gaps have real-world consequences for dignity, safety, and equal access to opportunities.