Are there any Muslim MPs in the House of Lords as of 2025?

1. Why the record looks contradictory — named peers versus no official religion tally

Multiple secondary sources and lists name specific peers identified as Muslim, including high-profile figures such as Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and Lord Wajid Khan, which supports the conclusion that Muslim individuals serve as peers in the House of Lords ^[1]. At the same time, the House of Lords Library explicitly states there is no official data on members’ religious affiliation, which creates room for divergent reporting and incomplete datasets ^[3]. The absence of an official religious register means journalists and compilers rely on self-identification, biographical entries, Parliamentary profiles, and community reporting; those methods can produce accurate named lists but cannot deliver a definitive, institutionally verified count. This dynamic explains why some analyses confidently list Muslim peers while others say they cannot confirm without formal statistics ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Sources that identify specific Muslim peers — named individuals and lists

Several analyses and compilations assembled in 2025 and earlier list Muslim peers by name, citing public biographical information and prior public statements that indicate religious identity. A contemporary list of British Muslim politicians included a dedicated House of Lords section naming peers such as Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Nosheena Mobarik, Baroness Zahida Manzoor, Lord Syed Kamall, and Lord Wajid Khan, which constitutes direct evidence that Muslim peers were serving in 2025 ^[1]. Separately, reporting and organizational profiles identify Baroness Uddin and Baroness Shaista Gohir as Muslim peers active on policy matters — one focused on community activism and the other on campaigning on Islamophobia definitions — reinforcing the picture of multi‑party Muslim representation in the Lords ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Sources that did not confirm Muslim peers and why they differ

Some pieces examining the Lords — notably advocacy or institutional summaries about Lords composition — stop short of listing Muslim peers or explicitly state they cannot confirm religious affiliation because no centralised, official religion dataset exists ^{[3] [5]}. These sources are technically correct: institutional materials avoid declaring members’ faiths and instead describe the chamber as “increasingly multi‑faith” without enumerating adherents. Where such sources find no confirmatory names, it reflects a methodological caution rather than evidence of absence. The omission can be misread as a contradiction to named lists; in reality, it highlights different evidentiary standards between named compilations and institutionally cautious reporting ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Reconciling the evidence — a balanced conclusion from mixed sources

Reconciliation requires accepting both sets of facts: that multiple reputable lists and biographical accounts identify named Muslim peers serving in the Lords, and that the House of Lords does not publish formal religious affiliation statistics, leaving official corroboration unavailable ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The practical consequence is that while one cannot cite a definitive institutional tally of Muslim peers, there is sufficient public evidence to say Muslims were represented in the House of Lords in 2025 through named individuals and peerage records relied upon by journalists and compilers ^{[1] [4]}. This balanced view recognizes both the presence of named Muslim peers and the institutional data gap that generates divergent phrasing in secondary reporting.

5. What to watch next — transparency, definitions, and potential reporting biases

Future clarity will depend on increased transparency or consistent self‑reporting by peers and on how media and compilers define “Muslim” (self‑identification, heritage, or public practice). Some sources, particularly advocacy outlets, emphasize ethnic or community representation and may compile lists for campaigning purposes; others adopt stricter standards and therefore avoid naming individuals without institutional confirmation ^{[5] [1]}. Readers should weigh named‑peer lists as credible but not institutionally certified and understand that different agendas — advocacy, academic caution, or political framing — shape whether a source states “there are Muslim peers” or “we cannot confirm.” The evidence available in 2025 supports the conclusion that Muslim individuals did sit in the House of Lords, even as official religious counts remain absent ^{[1] [3]}.