Labour’s Islamophobia definition risks silencing Iranian protesters, a former leading diplomat has claimed.

Sir John Jenkins, who was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria, claimed that any criticism of the Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime in Tehran would “involve hostility towards Islam” and would fall foul of the definition.

He said that protests against the regime were a “worked example” of the consequences of an Islamophobia definition.

“If you have a definition which seeks to stigmatise hostility toward Islam, you are potentially preventing anyone from saying anything at all about Islam,” Sir John told The Telegraph.

“The connections between the Iranian regime and organised Islamism are absolutely central to what the regime is. Protests against the Islamic Republic take on an anti-Islamist flavour.”

Sir John’s warning comes as Steve Reed, the Communities Secretary, is finalising the definition, based on a draft from an advisory group. He said this week that it would be published “very shortly”.

He insisted that the new official definition of Islamophobia would not place any restrictions on the right of people to criticise either a particular religion or religion in general.

The non-statutory definition is aimed at providing guidance for behaviour codes that public bodies, councils and businesses could adopt to combat prejudice, discrimination and hostility towards Muslims.

‘Wrapped in Islamic symbolism’

Sir John, who served as the Foreign Office’s director for the Middle East and North Africa, said the Iranian regime had “wrapped itself so much in Islamic symbolism” that protesters would be open to criticism that they were attacking Islam.

“If you make a point of criticising the way the Islamic Republic seeks to oppress women by mandatory veiling you will be criticised for expressing hostility to a particular facet of being Muslim,” he said.

“Khameini claims to be the supreme leader, he claims to be divinely guided… Anything you do, any criticism you want to make, will involve hostility towards Islam.”

Sir John co-authored a report for Policy Exchange, where he is a senior fellow, which said any official definition of Islamophobia would “almost certainly turbocharge ‘cancel culture’” and would “be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone”.

His concern about the definition was echoed by Iranian dissidents. Shahin Gobadi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran said: “The notion that people have to face some restrictions of criticising this regime or exposing it, or divulging its true nature, is totally, totally unfathomable”.

He added that the Tehran regime had “nothing to do with Islam”.

Mr Gobadi said: “In my view this regime is the number one enemy of Islam. Its main victims have been Muslims in Iran… Sunni and Shia alike.”

More than 2,500 people have been killed since protests began in Iran in December, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, and the death toll is expected to rise substantially once the regime lifts an internet blackout.

Mahyar Tousi, the Iranian dissident and TousiTV founder, said an Islamophobia definition sounded reasonable “on paper” but added: “Unfortunately Islamists often claim that they are offended when people criticise any part of Islam – like doctrine in the Koran.”

Ms Tousi continued: “The Labour Government risks giving more power to Islamists who may be able to take people to court for legitimately criticising the text.

“We can see with these heroic protests in Iran why it is so important to be able to criticise extremist Islamic dogma. And that is why this new anti-Muslim hostility definition could pose a danger.”

Niyak Ghorbani, an Iranian dissident and activist, said: “As an Iranian living in England, I can see that a word that is meant to prevent hatred has become a tool to silence criticism of ideology.

“In practice, Islamophobia has become a word that disarms free societies – protecting Islamists who have not yet reached power.”

Lily Moo, another Iranian dissident and activist, said: “I have lived under radical, extremist Islamist rule before I ran to freedom in the UK so I know what that feels like.

“I am outraged by this Labour government who are threatening the British public’s freedom of speech. We must be able to criticise Islam.”

‘Anti-Muslim hostility’

The working group’s definition has avoided the word “Islamophobia” and instead called it “anti-Muslim hostility” so that it focusses on hate towards Muslims rather than Islam.

It follows a backlash over its potential impact on free speech and fears of a backdoor blasphemy law. Critics remain worried about the “lack of clarity” in the draft definition.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman said claims that the Islamophobia definition would silence Iranian protests were “nonsense”.

He said: “The secretary of state has been very clear there will be no restrictions on the right to criticise a particular religion, or religion in general, on his watch.

“We’ve stated repeatedly any definition must be compatible with the right to freedom of speech and expression. This is about tackling hatred, not preventing criticism of a religion or state.

“The UK Government has been unequivocal that Iran must protect fundamental freedoms and condemned violence against peaceful protesters.”