What exactly did the 2019 APPG definition of Islamophobia say and how was it used by institutions?

1. What the APPG definition actually said

The APPG’s report—published after two years of consultation—offered a concise working definition: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” wording that rested the concept explicitly inside the conceptual frame of racialised prejudice rather than solely religious offence ^{[1] [6]}. The report also included explanatory material and examples intended to clarify how behaviours, speech and structural exclusions might be understood as Islamophobic in context ^{[1] [7]}.

2. How the definition was developed and framed

The working definition emerged from the APPG on British Muslims’ inquiry, drawing on submissions from Muslim organisations and experts over 2017–18; the APPG framed the exercise as creating a practical tool to record and challenge anti‑Muslim racism across social, political and institutional spheres ^{[1] [8]}. Coalitions such as the Coalition Against Islamophobia (CAI) promoted accompanying guidance to operationalise the definition in institutional settings, emphasising structures and policies as sites of Islamophobia as well as individual acts ^[7].

3. Examples and guidance that accompanied the definition

Beyond the one‑line definition, the APPG and allied bodies supplied explanatory guidance and examples to help distinguish legitimate criticism of ideas from prejudice aimed at people—guidance that stressed context, intent and impact when judging incidents and that sought to protect free expression while identifying patterns of exclusion ^{[4] [7]}. Proponents argued naming a prejudice is not censorship and that the framework allowed nuanced responses, including when Muslims might be unfairly stereotyped or excluded from civic life ^[4].

4. Uptake: who used the APPG definition and how

The APPG formulation was formally adopted by a range of political parties and organisations: Labour adopted the APPG definition and its examples in 2019 as a statement of principle and a tool for internal codes of conduct, and other parties and local councils also took it up or referenced it in policy statements and anti‑racism initiatives ^{[3] [9]}. NGOs and campaign groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND promoted its use in local government and civil society, while CAI produced guidelines aimed at institutional adoption ^{[4] [10] [7]}.

5. Pushback and concerns about scope and speech

Critics—from Policy Exchange and civil‑liberties groups to signatories of open letters—argued the APPG wording risked expanding “Islamophobia” into realms traditionally protected by free speech and suggested the “Muslimness” framing could be vague or susceptible to misuse to suppress legitimate criticism of ideas or of extremist ideology ^{[11] [12] [5] [13]}. Parliamentary and legal commentators noted tensions between the APPG formulation and the Equality Act framework, warning of potential consequences for freedom of expression and the practical limits of prosecuting or administratively acting on a broad working definition ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Government stance and institutional effect

While many parties and councils adopted the APPG text as a reference point, the UK government did not formally adopt the APPG definition at Westminster and ministers publicly distanced themselves at points, citing concerns about free speech and implementation; nonetheless the definition became a de facto standard in much of civic life and policing/discourse about hate crime measurement has referenced it as a leading working definition ^{[2] [9] [4]}. The result was a patchwork: adoption by political parties, councils and NGOs in some places and official caution or rejection in others, with the debate focused less on the sentence itself than on how examples and guidance would be used in codes, training and disciplinary contexts ^{[3] [7] [2]}.