When Paul was in Athens, he was greatly distressed by the sight of all the idols there (Acts 17:16-34). So, he went to the marketplace and reasoned with the people there on a daily basis. He was accused of “advocating foreign gods” and brought before the council of the Areopagus.

There, he criticised the very concept of temples, proclaiming that God “does not live in temples built by human hands.” He also criticised the concept of idols: “we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone – an image made by human design and skill.”

Indeed, the Athenians were wrong to worship multiple gods. There is only one God “who made the world and everything in it.” Paul told the Athenians they needed to repent of their sinful ways and worship the one true God.

He warned that a day is coming when “he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed,” and that he has “given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

The accusation against Paul of “advocating foreign gods” was a dangerous one. It was well known that Socrates had been on trial in Athens, at least in part for introducing “new gods” to the Athenians. The trial of Socrates resulted in the death penalty.

Rowe argues that the connections are strong enough to assume that Luke was deliberately likening Paul to Socrates and reminding his readers of the “Athenian reputation for enforcing the death penalty upon those who brought in new gods.”  Paul was therefore fortunate not to receive the same treatment.

The mandate to criticise other religions

Paul was fearlessly challenging and confronting the false religion that he saw in Athens. He presented them with the true religion of one God who died and rose from the dead. Paul was merely doing his job as a church planter, a missionary, and an evangelist.

Indeed, it is impossible for an evangelist to do his or her job without criticising other religions. We are, after all, meant to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” (2 Cor 10:5). How can this be done without criticising false religions?

The early church did this all the time. In Damascus, Paul “confounded the Jews . . . by proving that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 9:22). In Ephesus, Apollos “powerfully refuted the Jews” (Acts 18:22). Paul, also in Ephesus, “spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading”.

Since we are all instructed to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim 4:5), we should all be confronting and criticising false religions at least on occasion.

How we are losing the freedom to criticise Islam

Up until recently, the law in the UK has protected the ability of evangelists or others to criticise other religions. The Waddington amendment to the Public Order Act reads:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

Notice that criticism, and even ridicule or insult of other religions, is specifically included here, as is proselytising.

Nevertheless, when Christian evangelist Hatun Tash has boldly confronted the Muslims at Speakers’ Corner by provocatively [questioning] Islamic teaching, she has been wrongfully arrested on more than one occasion by the police, who prefer to arrest her rather than respond to the violent threats of the Muslims. After receiving £10,000 compensation from the police for a wrongful arrest for the second time, Tash said: “We don’t live in Pakistan; we don’t live in Saudi Arabia. I am Christian and by default I believe that Muhammad is a false prophet. I should be allowed to say that in the UK without being stabbed or repeatedly arrested.”

Indeed. And one would have thought that would be obvious to everyone, not least the police, but instead the police seem intent on enforcing sharia law by arresting Tash and anyone else they believe is insulting Islam.

Street preacher Ian Sleeper was arrested for holding a sign which read: “Love Muslims, Hate Islam, Jesus is love and hope.” It is not an offence to say, “hate Islam”, and it is clear in context that Sleeper did not intend any hatred towards Muslims. Nevertheless, Sleeper was arrested and later released without charge. He sued the police for wrongful arrest, but lost his case in the High Court in January. Christian Concern intends to help him appeal. It cannot be right that you can be arrested for criticising Islam.

When a man burned pages from the Qur’an in Manchester in February, police were quick to arrest him and charge him. Burning pages from a book is not an offence in this country. But when it comes to the Qur’an, the police will inevitably get involved. The police then disgracefully released the perpetrator’s name, street address and local area, putting his life in danger.

When a pupil had his copy of a book knocked onto the floor at a school in Wakefield in 2023, four pupils were suspended! The police even got involved. How come? Well, this wasn’t just any book – it was the Qur’an. The headteacher said: “Their actions did not treat the Quran with the respect it should have, so those involved have been suspended and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.” The Qur’an, you see, must be treated with respect in this country.

The APPG definition of Islamophobia

The City of Wakefield council has formally adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia. Perhaps this is why the police were so keen to get involved, and there was such concern about the Qur’an being treated with respect.

The APPG definition of Islamophobia reads as follows: ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’.

At once, you can see many problems with this definition. For a start, Islam is not a race. Therefore, Islamophobia can’t be a form of racism. Secondly, ‘Muslimness’ is incredibly vague, and in case it wasn’t vague enough, ‘perceived Muslimness’ means that if someone perceives you to be Islamophobic, then by definition you are. Nevertheless, this definition has been formally adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and dozens of local councils.

Much more can be said about just how problematic this definition is for free speech when it comes to Islam. I wrote a report for the Free Speech Union, entitled: Banning Islamophobia: Blasphemy by the Backdoor. Professor Richard Dawkins was kind enough to write the foreword. There I outline multiple criticisms of the APPG definition and ways in which it has been used to silence or punish those who criticise Islam.

The government was forced to admit last year that the APPG definition of ‘Islamophobia’ conflicts with the Equality Act since, as we all know, Islam is not a race. No organisation that I know of has since dropped the definition on the back of this rather devastating admission.

Instead, the government has now set up a new Working Group tasked with proposing an official definition of Islamophobia. Dominic Grieve, who wrote the foreword to the original APPG report proposing the definition, will chair the new Working Group, which does not bode well for it recommending a definition friendly to free speech.

In seeking to adopt an official government definition of Islamophobia, the government is privileging Islam over all other religions and worldviews and thus discriminating in favour of Islam. Muslims, and most likely Islam too, will be given special protection by the government, justifying two-tier policing and two-tier justice by the authorities.

Conclusion

The freedom to criticise other religions is essential for the work of evangelism. While there is strong protection in law, the freedom to criticise Islam in particular is being eroded. Police have a track record of arresting people they view as insulting Islam, notwithstanding the Waddington amendment.

The widespread adoption of the notorious APPG definition of Islamophobia is an additional threat to freedom of speech. Government plans to formulate an official definition of Islamophobia will doubtless further serve to curb the freedom to criticise Islam.

As Christians, we should be mindful of these trends, whilst also seeking to push back and counter them wherever possible. Fear should not be a motivating factor when engaging Muslims evangelistically, no matter what the law says.

Christian Concern is a UK advocacy group of the Christian Legal Centre which works to safeguard the freedom of Christians to live and speak for Jesus Christ, and to provide legal support for those taking a stand for Jesus.