Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does Sadiq Khan's mayoral policy address Muslim community concerns?
Executive summary
Sadiq Khan’s mayoral record on Muslim community concerns combines proactive community funding and public unity messaging with controversial political choices that have sown distrust among parts of the Muslim and Jewish communities. The mayor promotes inclusion through city-funded anti-hate programmes and public interfaith events, while critics point to his handling of cultural events and remarks on protest language as evidence those policies sometimes fail to address security and communal sensitivities effectively [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why Khan says unity and celebration of diversity are his primary tools
Sadiq Khan’s public messaging frames London’s safety and cohesion as rooted in celebrating difference, hosting open Iftars, and urging Londoners to resist divisive extremism; these themes appear repeatedly in his October 2025 opinion pieces and statements that call for solidarity against hate targeting both Jewish and Muslim communities. Khan ties inclusivity to tangible programmes, pointing to the Shared Endeavour Fund and other mayoral investments that back grassroots projects aimed at preventing hate crimes and fostering cohesion [2] [1]. These interventions are presented as preventive and community-led rather than top-down policing measures. The mayor’s approach is designed to reassure Muslim Londoners that the capital’s leadership recognises rising anti-Muslim incidents and will resource community resilience, while also signaling to other faith communities that protection and tolerance are cross-cutting priorities [5] [6].
2. Concrete funding and security: Mayor’s programmes versus national money
City Hall under Khan has allocated money to community initiatives attacking hate and extremism, notably through the Shared Endeavour Fund, which aims to empower grassroots groups to reduce intolerance and support victims of hate crime [1]. At the same time, national government pledges such as Keir Starmer’s £10 million security boost for mosques were announced separately in October 2025 to directly fund CCTV, alarms and fencing in response to a recorded rise in anti-Muslim hate crime, illustrating a split between local cohesion investment and centralised physical security spending [3] [7]. This split matters: Muslim communities seek both safe public spaces and physical protection for worship sites; Khan’s emphasis on community projects complements but does not substitute the security measures financed by central government, and recent coverage notes both strands working in parallel rather than being coordinated by a single authority [3] [6].
3. Where critics say policy falls short: Diwali controversy and perception of neutrality
Critics argue Khan’s decisions have undermined trust among some Muslim campaigners who expected stronger action when groups linked to Hindu nationalist activism were allowed visibility at major civic events. Reporting in October 2025 documents complaints that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad UK’s participation in Diwali events sparked alarm because of alleged links to anti-Muslim violence in India, and Khan’s refusal to exclude the group prompted accusations he prioritises inclusion over security for vulnerable communities [3] [8]. Supporters of the mayor counter that excluding groups from civic celebrations risks politicising culture and stoking further division, framing Khan’s stance as a difficult balancing act between free expression and safeguarding communal harmony. The dispute underscores a tension between pluralist principles and community-specific safety expectations [3] [8].
4. The protest-language row: how remarks on a chant changed the conversation
Khan’s October 2025 comments that the chant “From the river to the sea” can be context-dependent reignited debates about whether some protest language should be categorically condemned as antisemitic; opponents including national figures framed his remarks as minimising harms, prompting the Prime Minister to assert the chant is antisemitic and to reiterate national security measures for Jews and Muslims [4] [9]. This controversy illustrates how rhetorical choices by the mayor affect perceptions of impartiality and victim protection, especially when high-profile remarks intersect with rising tensions over the Israel-Gaza conflict and local security fears. For many Muslim Londoners, Khan’s contextual reading signalled empathy for pro-Palestine expression; for many Jewish Londoners and some national leaders, it suggested failure to recognise language they regard as unequivocally hostile, leaving both communities unsettled about where City Hall stands [10] [11].
5. Bottom line: mixed record, distinct accountability channels, and what’s missing from coverage
Taken together, the evidence shows a mixed record: Khan delivers community cohesion funding and public solidarity initiatives that address long-term concerns, while high-profile event decisions and statements have provoked fears among some Muslims and Jews that City Hall’s policies sometimes inadequately address immediate security and communal grievances [1] [3] [4]. Reporting also highlights an institutional division: central government is funding hard security for mosques, while the mayor focuses on community resilience and inclusion, leaving coordination and gaps as salient issues for Muslim communities seeking both protection and political signalling [3]. What is less visible in the coverage is systematic evaluation of how mayoral funds translate into measurable reductions in hate incidents or improved feelings of safety among Muslim Londoners, a gap that, if filled, would help settle whether Khan’s blend of community investment and inclusive rhetoric is delivering the outcomes those communities most urgently need [5] [6].