Labour Councils Tell Schools Children's Drawings Could Be Blasphemous
Labour councils in northern England warn teachers students' art could violate Islamic law. Government simultaneously unveils definition of anti-Muslim hostility, drawing criticism from free speech advocates.
Labour councils in northern England have reissued guidance warning teachers that children's art could be deemed blasphemous under Islamic law.
The document titled "Sharing the Journey" instructs schools not to ask students to reproduce images of Prophet Mohammed or Jesus. Three-dimensional figurative imagery of humans is considered idolatrous by some Muslims, the guidance states.
The warning reaches beyond art class. On music, the document notes that in Islam, music is traditionally limited to the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments as in the days of the Prophet, when they were only used in marriage ceremonies and on the battlefield.
Drama and dance classes face similar scrutiny. Parents may have reservations regarding participation involving physical contact between males and females or performing in a manner that might encourage immodesty or sexual feelings, the guidance warns.
Schools are advised to consult with parents and seek positive, workable solutions.
The reissue arrives five years after a religious studies teacher at Batley Grammar School was forced into hiding following an incident in which he showed a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in class. Kirklees council, which includes the school, is now distributing the guidance.
The Khan Review, published in 2024, found the teacher had been let down by the council, police and the school trust. It described him as a victim of freedom-restricting harassment.
As councils distribute the guidance, the government unveils a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility. Communities Secretary Steve Reed announced the non-statutory definition on March 9 as part of the government's Protecting What Matters social cohesion strategy.
The definition states that anti-Muslim hostility is intentionally engaging in, assisting or encouraging criminal acts including acts of violence, vandalism, harassment or intimidation that are directed at Muslims because of their religion or at those who are perceived to be Muslim.
The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech about religion in general or any religion in particular and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected, Reed said.
"There is absolutely no question of blasphemy laws by the back door." Reed said.
Critics have voiced concerns about both the school guidance and the government's definition. Lord Toby Young, founder and director of Free Speech Union, said Labour's idea of integration is that the indigenous population of Britain has to change its behavior to fit in with the non-indigenous population.
Paul Holmes, shadow communities minister, warned that the definition risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism, and it risks creating a backdoor blasphemy law.
Jonathan Hall KC, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, expressed concern about loose language. The worry will be with loose language people will feel inhibited about talking about things which are genuinely important today, he said.
Supporters of the definition argue it addresses rising hate crime. Muslim hate crimes totalled 4,478 offences recorded in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025, up from 3,866 in 2023/24, according to Home Office statistics.
Shabir Randeree, chair of the British Muslim Trust, said the definition published today is welcomed and should be a step forward that will help guide institutions that have too often been too slow or too weak in their responses to incidents a tolerant and respectful country like ours must never accept.
The Muslim Council of Britain took a more cautious position. Wajid Akhter, secretary-general, said the government's working definition of Islamophobia - which it has renamed anti-Muslim hostility - appears to be a diminished version of that recommended by the government's own Independent Working Group last year.
Given the concerns about dilution, the motivations of some of those driving the dilution, the lack of transparency and meaning engagement with grassroots community representatives throughout the process and the need for us to consult widely on this important matter - we are unable to endorse this definition at the present time.
In classrooms across northern England, teachers now navigate a curriculum shaped by competing imperatives: fostering creativity while avoiding offense, protecting students from harm while preserving their freedom to express. The balance between accommodation and principle remains unresolved.