Mauao Man

Who Defines Islamophobia?

Is New Zealand’s Hate Speech Law Being Shaped by Sharia?

How a Simple Word Can Become a Tool for Censorship

Introduction: A Dangerous Question — But One That Must Be Asked

After the Christchurch attacks, New Zealand began a national conversation about hate speech. Muslim organizations, including the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ), were consulted on how to define and combat “Islamophobia.” This seemed like a compassionate response — but it raises a critical question that few are willing to ask:

Who Gets to Define “Islamophobia” in New Zealand?

Before we answer that, let’s be clear about one thing:

What Is a “Phobia”?

A phobia is an irrational fear — an extreme, unreasonable fear of something. Arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders. Claustrophobia is an irrational fear of confined spaces. But is criticism of Islam an irrational fear — or is it a legitimate concern?

When the term “Islamophobia” is used, it suggests that any criticism of Islamic beliefs is not only wrong but driven by an irrational fear or hatred. But is that fair? And more importantly, is it true?

This post explores how "Islamophobia" is being defined in New Zealand, who is being consulted, and why this question matters more than ever.

The Power of Definition: Why It Matters Who Defines “Islamophobia”

In a free society, words matter — and how those words are defined is even more important. The definition of “Islamophobia” is no exception. But there are two very different ways to define it:

A Secular Definition: Islamophobia means discrimination or hatred against Muslims as people — treating them unfairly because of their religion.
An Islamic Definition: Islamophobia means criticism, disrespect, or questioning of Islamic beliefs, teachings, or figures — including Muhammad and the Quran.

The difference between these two definitions is the difference between protecting people and protecting ideas. And that difference is the line between free speech and censorship.

Who Was Consulted in Defining Islamophobia?

After Christchurch, the New Zealand government began working with Muslim organizations, including FIANZ, to define and address Islamophobia. But were these the only voices consulted?

1. Muslim Organizations Like FIANZ:

FIANZ has become the primary voice of New Zealand’s Muslim community.
Their perspective on Islamophobia is likely influenced by Islamic teachings, which see criticism of Muhammad, the Quran, or Islamic beliefs as disrespectful — even blasphemous.
But what does this mean for free speech?

2. Were Secular Free Speech Advocates Consulted?

Were any organizations that protect free speech — such as the Free Speech Union — consulted?
Were human rights organizations involved in balancing the right to free expression with protection from discrimination?
If only Muslim organizations were consulted, it means that one side of the debate was given a privileged position.

3. Were Ex-Muslims or Critics of Islam Consulted?

Ex-Muslims are among the most vulnerable members of the Muslim community, often facing rejection, threats, or violence for leaving Islam.
Were their voices heard? Or were they ignored because their criticisms were seen as “Islamophobia”?
Critics of Islam — including academics, journalists, and former Muslims — can offer a critical perspective that helps balance the conversation.

How Does Sharia Define “Islamophobia”?

Under Sharia law, criticism of Islam is not just offensive — it is a crime. In many Muslim-majority countries, “Islamophobia” is simply another word for “blasphemy.”

Blasphemy Laws in Sharia: Insulting Muhammad, questioning the Quran, or criticizing Islamic teachings are all considered blasphemy.
Severe Penalties: In countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, blasphemy can be punished by death.
Is This the Definition Being Imported to New Zealand? If New Zealand’s hate speech laws are influenced by this Islamic perspective, they could be used to silence criticism of Islam.

What Counts as “Islamophobia” Under Sharia?

Criticizing Muhammad or his actions? (Blasphemy)
Questioning the Quran? (Blasphemy)
Arguing against Sharia law? (Blasphemy)
Criticizing how women are treated under Islamic teachings? (Blasphemy)

Would these same ideas be treated as hate speech in New Zealand?

The Danger of a Double Standard

If Islamophobia is defined in a way that protects Islamic beliefs from criticism, New Zealand will be embracing a double standard:

Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Atheism can be criticized without fear.
But criticism of Islamic beliefs — even when well-reasoned and respectful — could be considered hate speech.
This is not about protecting people from harm — it is about protecting ideas from criticism.

Real-World Examples:

Criticizing the Quran’s Teachings on Women: Hate speech?
Questioning Muhammad’s Actions: Hate speech?
Debating the Validity of Sharia Law: Hate speech?

Free Speech vs. Religious Sensitivity: The Line New Zealand Must Not Cross

A free society must protect people from violence, discrimination, and harassment — but it must not protect ideas from criticism. Once ideas become a protected class, free speech is lost.

Protect People, Not Beliefs: New Zealand’s hate speech laws should protect people from discrimination, but not protect ideas from criticism.
Equal Standards: All religions should be open to criticism — not just Christianity, but also Islam.
Consult All Voices: If the government is defining Islamophobia, it must consult free speech advocates, ex-Muslims, and secular critics — not just religious leaders.

Conclusion: Who Defines “Islamophobia” — And Why It Matters

If the definition of Islamophobia in New Zealand is being shaped by Muslim organizations and influenced by Islamic teachings, it is not just about protecting people — it is about protecting ideas from criticism. This is a direct threat to free speech.

Will New Zealand’s hate speech laws become a form of blasphemy law?
Will criticism of Islam — even well-reasoned, respectful criticism — be treated as hate speech?
Or will New Zealand choose to protect free speech, ensuring that all ideas, including religious ideas, can be openly challenged?

This is not just a question of law — it is a question of New Zealand’s identity as a free and open society.

The Power of Victimhood: How Sympathy Became Silence After Christchurch
The Christchurch Effect: How a Tragedy Gave New Zealand’s Muslim Community Unprecedented Influence
In the Shadow of Christchurch: When Sympathy Becomes Silence
Islam in New Zealand: A Step Behind, But Catching Up? (Part 1)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author

Mauao Man is a blog created by a New Zealand writer who believes in following the evidence wherever it leads. From history and religion to culture and society, Mauao Man takes a clear, critical, and honest approach — challenging ideas without attacking people. Whether exploring the history of Islam in New Zealand, the complexities of faith, or the contradictions in belief systems, this blog is about asking the hard questions and uncovering the truth.

If you value clarity over comfort and truth over tradition, you’re in the right place.