The government’s forthcoming social cohesion strategy, alongside the announcement of a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility, marks an important moment. Recognising that hostility directed at Muslims requires a structured response is welcome. For too long, official discourse has hesitated to name the prejudice that Muslim communities experience, leaving both communities and policymakers struggling to respond effectively.

At the same time, the government must be careful not to repeat past mistakes. Having worked across cohesion, counter-radicalisation and hate-prevention policy, I have seen how easily distinct policy areas can become blurred. When that happens, clarity suffers and trust can erode.

The new strategy sets out three strands of action: confident communities, cohesive communities, and resilient communities. These are sensible objectives. Confident communities are about helping people feel proud of where they live, safe in their local area, and connected to one another. Cohesive communities focus on ensuring people from different backgrounds mix, understand one another, and share common values. Resilient communities aim to protect people from extremism, hate, and online harms that can divide society.

But the government will need to work carefully in constructing a narrative around these pillars that avoids conflation. Each strand touches on different policy domains. Building pride and belonging in neighbourhoods is not the same as combating hate crime. Strengthening relationships between communities is not the same as countering extremist ideologies. Protecting people from online harms requires different tools again.

Joined-up thinking across government is essential, but experience shows that merging cohesion, counter-extremism, counter-radicalisation and hate-prevention into a single policy conversation can produce confusion and dilute accountability. Each requires distinct expertise and clear departmental leadership.

The introduction of a definition of anti-Muslim hostility is therefore a positive step. However, I am disappointed that the term “Islamophobia” does not appear to be used. The government seems to be moving away from the language of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred in favour of  “anti-Muslim hostility”. The focus, quite rightly, is on protecting people rather than protecting a religion. Yet Islamophobia remains the term most widely recognised historically and internationally, and Muslim communities are rarely afforded the opportunity to name the prejudice they experience themselves.

What matters most is that the reality of anti-Muslim prejudice is acknowledged and addressed.

The proposal to appoint an adviser on anti-Muslim hostility is also welcome. I support the creation of this role, just as John Mann has served as the government’s independent adviser on antisemitism since 2019. An adviser can help build trust with Muslim communities, act as a bridge between communities and government, and provide the authority needed to guide both policy and public discourse.

Such a role is not simply symbolic. It can help coordinate policy across departments and ensure responses are informed by experience on the ground.

A few years ago, the need for that coordination became clear during the controversy surrounding Batley Grammar School. A teacher who had shown students cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as part of a religious studies lesson was forced into hiding after protests erupted. The school and local authority struggled to respond effectively. With clearer guidance and national leadership, the situation might have been handled differently, protecting both the teacher and community cohesion.

Debate has also focused on the removal of “racialisation” from the draft definition. In practice, this is less significant than it might appear. Anti-Muslim prejudice in Britain is deeply intersectional, operating at the intersection of race, religion and ethnicity. Many hate crimes targeting Muslims are recorded as racially aggravated offences because hostility is often expressed through racialised language and imagery.

Any serious policy response must recognise this complexity.

Ultimately, naming anti-Muslim hatred is only the starting point. The real test will be whether the government can maintain clarity across the different policy areas it is seeking to address. Confident communities, cohesive communities and resilient communities are valuable goals, but they require distinct strategies, clear responsibilities and sustained expertise.

Britain’s Muslim communities, like all communities, want policies that are fair, coherent and grounded in evidence. Recognition is welcome. Delivering it with clarity and trust will determine whether this strategy strengthens Britain’s social fabric or adds to the confusion that has too often characterised this policy space.

Mohammed Ali Amla is the Public Affairs Director at SNS, leading on countering antisemitism and Islamophobia and empowering young leaders. He is also a trustee at the Faith and Belief Forum and a steering committee member of ENCATE (European Network for Countering Antisemitism through Education).

‍