Report on Mosque Attacks in Britain Faces Scrutiny Over Alleged Inaccuracies
The British Muslim Trust (BMT), which receives government funding to monitor anti-Muslim hatred in the United Kingdom, has faced criticism over its claim that a mosque is attacked every five days. An article published by The Spectator questioned the accuracy of the organisation’s figures, alleging that several incidents included in its tally were not attacks on mosques or lacked supporting evidence.
Following the criticism, the BMT published a report titled A Year of Division: One Mosque Attacked Every Five Days, covering the period from July 2025 to July 2026. The report claimed 78 attacks during the year, broadly corresponding to its assertion that a mosque was targeted approximately once every five days. However, The Spectator argued that the document listed only around 40 incidents, even when multiple reported incidents involving the same location on the same day were counted. The publication further alleged that approximately one-third of the listed cases were incorrectly classified.
Among the incidents questioned were protests outside the Al-Mahdi Islamic Centre in Glasgow. The BMT reportedly classified these demonstrations as anti-Muslim targeting, while the article argued that many participants were Iranian protesters opposing the Tehran government and its alleged repression of demonstrators. The report’s classification has therefore raised questions about whether protests directed at an institution should automatically be counted as attacks on Muslims or mosques.
Other cases cited in the report involved demonstrations against proposed mosque developments in Dalton, Cumbria, and a planned Islamic complex in Harefield, Middlesex. According to The Spectator, the demonstrations were largely peaceful, and neither proposed site was operating as a mosque at the time. The publication questioned whether opposition to construction projects should be included in statistics measuring attacks on religious institutions, particularly when protests do not involve violence or property damage.
The article also challenged the classification of several other incidents. One involved an arson attack on a building identified as a former synagogue in Tower Hamlets, while another concerned an outbuilding near a community centre in Worcester that police reportedly did not consider racially or religiously motivated. Other cases involved a derelict building adjacent to a mosque in Blackburn and a fire involving rubbish near a mosque construction site in Batley.
Additionally, the report reportedly included two alleged plots targeting mosques. The Spectator argued that planned attacks that have been prevented should be distinguished from attacks that have actually occurred, as combining the two categories can affect how the figures are interpreted.
The controversy highlights the importance of transparent reporting and clearly defined criteria when measuring religiously motivated incidents. Reliable statistics are essential for understanding threats to religious communities and informing public policy. At the same time, organisations responsible for monitoring hate incidents need to distinguish between confirmed attacks, suspected crimes, peaceful protests and thwarted plots so that their findings accurately reflect the nature and scale of the problem.
Comments