How do crime and cohesion indicators compare between Muslim and non-Muslim communities in England?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Police-recorded religious hate crimes show Muslims are a prominent target: police data cited in reporting put 42–45% of recorded religious hate offences against Muslims (3,459 offences) in the year covered, and survey-based rates show Muslims experienced higher hate-crime victimisation than Christians or people with no religion (CSEW: 1.0% v 0.1%) [1] [2]. Official ONS/Ministry data on offending by religion are limited and usually unavailable — FOI requests exist but full breakdowns of offences by offenders’ self‑reported religion are not routinely published [3] [4].
1. What the data actually measure: victims, records and surveys
National crime reporting systems collect two fundamentally different signals: police-recorded crimes, which reflect incidents reported to and recorded by police, and the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), a victimisation survey that captures crimes not reported to police; the bulletin notes CSEW is “unaffected by changes in police recording practices” and provides separate estimates for hate crime and victimisation by religion [2]. ONS also states it publishes some ethnicity and religion breakdown tables for victims but does not generally publish comprehensive offender religion statistics [5] [4].
2. Hate crime: Muslims are a frequent target, but rates vary by metric
Multiple sources show Muslims are disproportionately targeted among recorded religious hate crimes: one set of figures attributes 42% of religious hate offences to attacks on Muslims (3,459 offences) while another release combining police-recorded and survey context reports 45% targeted Muslims, with the highest per‑population rate for Jewish people in some datasets (e.g., 106 per 10,000 for Jewish people versus 12 per 10,000 for Muslims in a recent bulletin) — a reminder that “most-targeted share” and “rate per population” tell different stories [1] [2] [6]. Reporting cautions that Metropolitan Police data were sometimes excluded, complicating year-on-year comparisons [6].
3. Offenders by religion: limited, incomplete and contested evidence
Direct comparisons of offending rates between people who say they are Muslim and those who do not are not straightforward because official national releases rarely provide offenders’ religion as a routine statistic; the ONS has fielded FOI requests for percentages of crimes committed by people identifying as Muslim or Christian but such bespoke data are not standard outputs [3] [4]. Independent commentators and advocacy groups point to over‑representation of Muslims in prison populations (examples: claims of Muslims comprising 14–18% of prisoners versus roughly 6–7% of the population), but these figures come from advocacy pieces and prison statistics summaries with methodological caveats about age, geography and ethnicity that alter interpretation [7] [8] [9].
4. Contextual drivers: age, deprivation, policing and recording practices
Research and commentary stress that population composition and structural factors shape crime statistics: Muslim populations in the UK are younger on average, concentrated in some deprived areas, and face differential policing and criminal justice outcomes — all factors that can increase their representation in some criminal-justice statistics without implying intrinsic differences in propensity to offend [7] [10] [11]. The ONS and analysts warn that changes in police recording practice and variable force-level data (e.g., Met exclusions) limit the reliability of raw trend comparisons [1] [6] [5].
5. Community cohesion indicators: mixed evidence, positive initiatives
Scholarly and policy research finds complex patterns: COMPAS local-area studies compared lived experiences of Muslims and other residents and highlighted both strengths and tensions in cohesion where diverse groups live alongside each other; other think-tank and civil-society reports emphasise Muslim civic contribution while calling for national strategies to tackle anti-Muslim hatred and rebuild cohesion [12] [13] [14] [15]. Ethnographic work documents experiences of misrecognition and exclusion among British Muslims that undermine belonging even where formal indicators may look mixed [16].
6. How to interpret and what’s missing from public reporting
Available sources show clear evidence that Muslims are frequently victims of religiously motivated hate crime [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a standard, nationally published breakdown of offending rates by offenders’ self‑declared religion for recent years, and bespoke FOI items and advocacy analyses cannot substitute for a consistent, age‑ and location‑adjusted offender dataset [3] [4]. That gap means claims about Muslims “committing more crime” rest on incomplete evidence and require controls for age, socio‑economic status, geography and policing practices [7] [8].
7. Competing narratives and policy implications
Public debate splits between security-focused narratives that spotlight over‑representation in custody and cultural critiques of cohesion, and civil‑society voices that prioritise tackling anti‑Muslim hatred and socio‑economic disadvantage; sources explicitly call for better data, targeted cohesion strategies and more engagement between criminal justice agencies and Muslim communities [11] [15] [12]. Policymakers should be cautious: recording artifacts, force-level exclusions, demographic structure and deprivation explain much variation; the remedy is better, transparent data plus policies addressing discrimination, policing practice and local inclusion [6] [5] [15].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied documents; many primary ONS and Home Office tables are referenced in summaries but full offender‑by‑religion time series are not available in the materials provided [3] [4].