A new body paid millions of pounds to be the Government’s official monitor of anti-Muslim hatred has made multiple false claims about attacks on mosques, and other claims for which it refuses to provide evidence, The Spectator can reveal. One of the most serious supposed attacks on mosques was actually on a building labelled as a synagogue. At least two of the supposed attacks on mosques never took place.
One of the most serious supposed attacks on mosques was actually on a building labelled as a synagogue. At least two of the supposed attacks on mosques never took place
The British Muslim Trust (BMT) was the source for an alarming report on ITV News on 25 September which claimed, quoting the BMT, that “a mosque is now attacked every five days in the UK,” with “over 70 attacks on mosques” in the 12 months to July 2026. “Serious harm from arson or violence” made up almost 20 per cent of attacks on mosques in the most recent nine months of that year, compared with less than four per cent in the first three months of the 12, the BMT claimed.
“For many Muslims in Britain, the mosque is a place of safety,” said the ITV presenter. “But new figures suggest that’s changing. The British Muslim Trust…says attacks are not only more frequent, but more severe.”
In emotive interviews for the piece, Muslims said they felt like “moving targets” and there was a “huge sense of fear.” The BMT’s chief executive, Akeela Ahmed, said its work showed “we are facing unprecedented levels of anti-Muslim hostility and Islamophobia.”
For the best part of a week, I have been asking the BMT for the data behind these frightening claims, including a list of all the “over 70” (in fact 78) supposed attacks on mosques which they say happened in the year to July 2026. They said they would publish this data by the end of August – six weeks ago – but have still not published it. At the third time of asking, they told me that they “do not have time” to send me a full list.
Attempting to justify their claim that attacks were becoming more serious, the BMT did send me a list of what they said were six arson attacks on mosques during the year in which they said “life-endangering harm occur[red]:” at Maida Vale, Blackburn, Batley, Worcester, Peacehaven and in Nelson Street, east London.
Of these six, only two were in fact arson attacks on mosques: Peacehaven and Maida Vale.
The arson in east London was on a building, the former East London Central Synagogue, that is not even under Muslim ownership. It was at the time of the attack, and is today, in Jewish hands. Though disused, the building is still clearly identified as a synagogue, with the Star of David above the door and a board next to it reading “East London Central Synagogue.” The attack was described by the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, as anti-semitic. The police bracketed the attack with other anti-semitic arsons which took place around the same time. A Muslim group had expressed an interest in purchasing the building but had (and still have) not completed the purchase.
The arson attack in Worcester was not on a mosque but on an outbuilding of a community hub owned by the Worcester Muslim Welfare Association. The actual mosque is some distance away. The police have stated that the attack was not racially or religiously motivated; it is believed to relate to a dispute between homeless people.
The arson attack in Blackburn was not on a mosque but on the rear of an empty and derelict property next door to a mosque. The arson attack in Batley was not on a mosque but, according to police, “involved someone setting fire to some rubbish outside a building under construction” near a mosque.
Nor is it true that “life-endangering harm” occurred in any of these incidents. Even the most serious, Peacehaven, only caused a risk of life-endangering harm. No actual life-endangering harm or even injury harm occurred. All the other incidents involved fires outside or near buildings which were empty at the time of the attacks. There was no-one there to be harmed.
The BMT’s tally of 78 “attacks” also includes what it calls two “mass-casualty plots” against mosques. But a plot, of course, is not an attack. A plot is an attack that was foiled. No actual mass-casualty attack on a mosque happened in this period. Even the plots are so far only alleged; neither has yet come to trial, and we do not know how serious they were, such as whether they got beyond the online chatter stage.
The BMT’s claim that attacks on mosques became more frequent are also contradicted by its own figures. The group did publish a full report for the first three months of the period, covering July to October 2025, in which it said there were 27 attacks on mosques. That is an average of nine per month (or 6.75 per month if it was a four-month period, as ITV News stated). According to a table the BMT gave ITV News, in the following nine months, between November 2025 and July 2026, there were 51 attacks. That is an average of 5.7 attacks per month.
The appointment of the BMT – a startup with no experience in monitoring incidents or supporting victims – has been controversial from the start. It is co-run by the Aziz Foundation, which says the Government’s counter-extremism programme, Prevent, is “actively harmful to Muslims” and which co-funded the highly controversial campaign for a restrictive state-sponsored Islamophobia definition. Tell Mama, the body doing the monitoring job and getting the government funding previously, had 13 years’ experience. But it withdrew its bid after what its director, Iman Atta, called a “smear campaign” against it by supporters of the BMT. The BMT is due to receive up to £2.65 million from taxpayers for its work to 2028.
Now, it appears clear that if anything is a “moving target,” it is the BMT’s definition of an “attack,” which need not be an actual attack, and its definition of a “mosque,” which need not be an actual mosque.
And if anything is creating a “huge sense of fear,” it is the BMT, a state-funded body which should be about protecting Muslims, not terrifying them with exaggerated claims about their places of worship being under attack.
