On June 5 this year, Andrew Gilligan published a deeply concerning investigation into the direction of the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP). His article raised fundamental questions about how far the organisation has drifted from its original purpose as a body intended to advise on policing and engagement with Britain's Muslim communities. Rather than focusing on policing matters within the United Kingdom, NAMP has increasingly ventured into highly contentious geopolitical debates that have little to do with British policing and much to do with ideological positioning on Israel and the Middle East.
One document, produced in late 2025 and authored by NAMP's Vice-Chair, Khaldoun Kabbani, described Zionism as "one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred". It went further still, referring to the Israel Defence Forces as a "Zionist terrorist group", criticising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and discussing colonialism in North Africa. The paper also claimed that "Zionism represents one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity and portraying them as 'human animals', 'monsters' and 'Amalekites'."
The obvious question is: what does any of this have to do with British policing? Police representative bodies should concern themselves with policing standards, operational practice, community confidence and supporting serving officers. They should not become vehicles for contentious foreign policy positions or ideological campaigning.
The document also demonstrated a striking lack of understanding of what Zionism represents to many British Jews. Whatever one's views of the policies of successive Israeli governments, Zionism is, for many Jews, the national movement for Jewish self-determination born out of centuries of persecution and culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel. Reducing it to little more than an expression of anti-Muslim hatred does little to foster understanding and instead deepens communal division. It aggravates Muslim and Jewish relations and feels deeply insulting to many of Britain’s Jews.
Unfortunately, this apparent politicisation did not emerge overnight.
As far back as 2014, NAMP entered into a partnership with Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), an organisation whose activities and public positions have repeatedly attracted scrutiny, including in the pages of this newspaper. MEND helped establish what became Islamophobia Awareness Month, but it had already attracted criticism over a number of its campaigns and public messaging. It was therefore entirely reasonable to ask why an organisation representing serving British police officers would choose to align itself so closely with such a controversial body.
The following year, NAMP's logo appeared prominently on promotional material for a MEND event entitled Let's End Islamophobia in Manchester. The event was chaired by Azad Ali, then MEND's Head of Community Engagement. Ali lost a High Court libel action against the Daily Mail in 2010 after the newspaper described him as a "hardline Islamic extremist who supports the killing of British and American soldiers in Iraq."
Again, the question remains: why would a body associated with British policing seek such close association with individuals and organisations that had already generated significant public controversy? The pattern has continued.
NAMP's website directs members of the public to the Islamophobia Response Unit (IRU), an organisation originally established through MEND before becoming a separate legal entity. It also links to the British Muslim Trust, a company that had remained largely dormant from 2018 with no service activities until receiving £2.5 million in government funding during 2025 to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims. Curiously, however, NAMP has never signposted Tell MAMA, the national anti-Muslim hate monitoring service that I established and which spent thirteen years supporting victims and documenting thousands of incidents across the United Kingdom. Given Tell MAMA’s extensive operational experience in supporting victims of anti-Muslim hate, it is entirely legitimate to ask why NAMP chose to ignore that expertise.
There are further concerns. I understand that NAMP has argued for removing the term "Islamist" from aspects of counter-terrorism terminology, preferring instead broader references simply to "extremism". Similar objections have reportedly been raised to the use of the word "jihadist". As a British Muslim, I find this deeply troubling.
The Manchester Arena bombing that murdered 22 people, including children attending an Ariana Grande concert, was driven by Islamist ideology. That does not mean Islam itself is responsible; indeed, Islamism is a political ideology that distorts and weaponises Islamic theology. But if we are serious about confronting the threat, we should be prepared to describe it accurately. Precision in language matters. We routinely distinguish between far-right extremism, Irish republican terrorism and other ideological movements. Islamist extremism should be no different. Avoiding accurate terminology does not reduce prejudice; it risks weakening our understanding of the ideological drivers behind terrorism.
NAMP's continued engagement with organisations such as MEND and the Muslim Council of Britain has also remained evident into 2026. At its recent Annual General Meeting, hosted at Greater Manchester Police premises, representatives connected with the Islamophobia Response Unit and the Muslim Council of Britain participated in proceedings. That is significant because successive governments of different political colours have maintained a policy of not engaging officially with the Muslim Council of Britain for well over a decade. Let us also not forget that the Muslim Council of Britain maintained a six-year so-called boycott of the nationally recognised Holocaust Memorial Day from 2001-2007.
Taken together, these developments suggest an organisation that has increasingly moved beyond its original remit. Rather than acting primarily as a professional association supporting Muslim officers and improving policing, NAMP appears to have become a vehicle for broader political and ideological advocacy. Perhaps NAMP fulfilled an important role sometime in the distant past, when policing relationships with Britain's Muslim communities were still developing and cultural understanding was often limited. Today's policing environment is markedly different. Forces have extensive equality training, established community engagement structures and far greater awareness of religious and cultural diversity.
Against that backdrop, the question is no longer whether NAMP once served a useful purpose. The question is whether it still does. In my view, the answer is increasingly clear. When a police representative body becomes associated with divisive political positions that risk undermining confidence across multiple communities, it has lost sight of its core mission. Muslim police officers deserve representative structures that focus on professional excellence, public confidence and policing – not ideological campaigning. I believe that NAMP can no longer fulfil that role and it is time to wind it up and allow Muslim officers simply to do what they joined the service to do: police without becoming entangled in divisive political activism.
Fiyaz Mughal is the founder of Faith Matters, Tell MAMA and Muslims Against Antisemitism
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.