Proposed New Jersey bill would establish ‘Islamophobia’ definition to be used in criminal prosecution

The bill’s definition extends beyond physical violence and discrimination to encompass certain forms of expression and alleged prejudice.

By Corey Walker, The Algemeiner

New Jersey Democrats are advancing a controversial proposal that would establish a state definition of Islamophobia for use in civil and criminal investigations, raising concerns among free-speech advocates that criticism of Islam and its doctrines could become evidence of discriminatory intent.

Assembly Bill A1146, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, would require public officials and law enforcement officers to consider a sweeping definition of Islamophobia when reviewing alleged violations of existing state laws and policies prohibiting discrimination.

Although the legislation does not independently criminalize criticism of Islam or create a new criminal offense, its critics argue that incorporating such a broad definition into government investigations could have significant consequences for religious debate, public discourse, and the enforcement of existing bias-related laws.

The proposal defines Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” and provides 13 examples of conduct that could fall within that definition.

Some provisions address clearly objectionable conduct, including physical assaults, harassment, threats, and discrimination against Muslims.

Others, however, venture into considerably more contentious territory, including references to hostility toward Islam, stereotypical allegations about Muslims, and claims of a demographic threat posed by Muslims or a Muslim takeover.

The inclusion of these categories has raised fundamental questions regarding whether the legislation suppresses speech critical of Islam as a religion and political ideology.

One of the most contentious aspects of A1146 is its requirement that public officials and law enforcement officers take the proposed definition into consideration when determining whether an alleged violation of existing civil or criminal law was motivated by Islamophobia.

That language is significant because New Jersey already has laws addressing bias-motivated offenses.

Under the state’s bias-intimidation statute, a finding of bias can increase the severity of criminal penalties.

Consequently, critics argue that introducing a broad and potentially subjective definition of Islamophobia into the investigative process could influence how authorities interpret evidence of motive in criminal cases.

The legislation does not mean that someone can be arrested simply for criticizing the Quran, opposing Islamic religious practices, or discussing controversial aspects of Islamic history.

Nor does it establish that expressing any of the listed viewpoints automatically constitutes a crime.

Nevertheless, the requirement that officials consider the definition creates concerns about how speech could be interpreted when investigating an otherwise criminal act.

For example, critics argue that discussions about Islamic teachings on homosexuality, women’s rights, religious taxation, the historical treatment of religious minorities, or demographic trends could become relevant to an investigation if authorities interpret the surrounding circumstances as evidence of anti-Muslim prejudice.

New Jersey’s proposal is modeled partly on a definition developed by the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, a cross-party group of lawmakers.

The British debate over defining Islamophobia has long been controversial, particularly because of concerns that broad definitions could discourage criticism of Islam as a religion and suppress freedom of speech.

In March 2026, the British government adopted a separate, non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility.

Although that framework explicitly protects criticism of Islam, including academic and political discussion of its practices and historical development, it also encourages public institutions and other organizations to use the definition in developing policies and responding to alleged hostility.

The British government’s decision to make its definition non-statutory is an important distinction. It does not create new criminal offenses or change existing criminal law.

Britain’s experience nevertheless illustrates the difficulties governments face when attempting to distinguish hostility toward religious believers from criticism of religious doctrines.

In Britain, citizens have infamously faced arrest over social media posts deemed “Islamophobic” by official authorities.

Supporters of the legislation argue that a uniform definition would help officials identify and address discrimination against Muslims.

The legislation’s supporters point to FBI statistics indicating that Muslims accounted for approximately 19 percent of reported religion-based hate-crime incidents between 2015 and 2019, despite representing approximately 1 percent of the American population.

They also emphasize that the bill explicitly states that nothing in its provisions should be interpreted as diminishing First Amendment protections or rights guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution.

The proposal further clarifies that criticism of Muslim-majority countries comparable to criticism directed at other countries would not constitute Islamophobia.

Nevertheless, the bill’s definition extends beyond physical violence and discrimination to encompass certain forms of expression and alleged prejudice.

Its use of terms such as “severe disparagement,” “hostility and fear of Islam,” and “stereotypical allegations” invites questions about how officials will distinguish legitimate religious criticism from discriminatory animus.

The legislation also does not provide an exhaustive list of protected forms of criticism of Islam comparable to the more explicit protections contained in the British government’s 2026 framework.

A constitutional disclaimer cannot, by itself, resolve ambiguities in the underlying language or guarantee that every government agency will interpret the definition consistently.

The First Amendment protects the right to criticize religions, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

That protection extends to unpopular, controversial, and even offensive opinions.

Religious beliefs and institutions cannot be insulated from public scrutiny simply because their adherents find certain criticism objectionable.

A1146 was introduced by Danielsen on Jan. 13, 2026, and referred to the Assembly State and Local Government Committee.

The bill’s additional sponsors include Assemblywomen Verlina Reynolds-Jackson and Mitchelle Drulis, along with Assemblyman Roy Freiman.

The proposal has not yet received a committee hearing or a full legislative vote. It would need approval from both chambers of the New Jersey Legislature before being sent to the governor.

Republican Assemblyman Paul Kanitra has emerged as a vocal critic, arguing that the proposal threatens the ability of New Jersey residents to openly criticize Islam without potentially having their statements interpreted as evidence of discriminatory intent.

“The bill gives the state a broad new tool to treat factual criticism of Islamic texts, history, and demographics as proof of Islamophobic motive in existing discrimination cases, workplace investigations, schools, and bias-enhancement decisions,” he wrote on X/Twitter

“Prepare yourself for the same path the UK already took where Grandpas have been getting dragged out of their homes for social media posts,” he continued.