The Met may make appeal to the definition of the Runnymede Trust, but there is a world of difference between a think-tank developing guidelines for community and fraternity, and an agency of law enforcement incorporating these definitions into a definition of criminal activity. How many police officers are aware of the history of Islam? How many grasp the theology of the long-prophesied Caliphate? How many understand the theo-political differences and divergences between its multiple sects? (May one say ‘theo-political’ or does that fall foul of equating the religion with a political ideology?) Is Wahhabism or Saudi Salafism an expression of Islam? If so, how can it be Islamophobic to articulate the bald truth of its violent, aggressive “clash of civilisations” theological genesis and political nature? Doesn’t the Met understand the fundamental difference between abusing Muslims and criticising a religion; between being anti-Muslim and anti-Islam? Why have they adopted a sharia-compliant definition of ‘Islamophobia’, and not one which is informed by the superior enlightened approach to religion which is a hallmark of Western civilisation and founded upon the fundamental freedom of religion?