Council “Anti-Islamophobia” Training Tells Staff The Virgin Mary WORE A HIJAB

[Stone]

Council “Anti-Islamophobia” Training Tells Staff The Virgin Mary WORE A HIJAB
And instructs “the hijab was prevalent in the UK 100 years ago”

Steve Watson | 2nd October 2026

North Yorkshire staff who handle anti-terror work were shown a slide stating that “Mother Mary wore a hijab.” The line was used to argue that Islam’s attitude to women does not conflict with Western values. The same presentation told them “Jesus grew a beard,” as Muslim men are instructed to, and that “the hijab was prevalent in the UK only 100 years ago,” illustrated with pictures of British shawls that have nothing to do with Islam.

Mary was a Jewish woman in first-century Judea. She lived about six centuries before Islam, and centuries before the hijab as it is understood today. No image of her, or of Jesus, was made for centuries after their lifetimes. Early Christian art first showed Jesus as a beardless youth.

None of that stopped a publicly funded programme from feeding the claim to council staff, and from putting related material in front of police officers, students and civil servants who run the Prevent counter terror program.

The session was delivered by Abbas Najib, a former police officer and chief executive of Better Communities Bradford, the charity behind Project Unity. The Telegraph reported that the charity has received £490,000 from the National Lottery Community Fund since 2019, including a £35,000 grant to roll the programme out. Najib has said Project Unity has been delivered to more than 2,500 people across West and North Yorkshire.

Najib confirmed the slide to LBC and said the programme stands by it. “Hijab is an Arabic word meaning a covering, and in everyday use it simply means a woman’s head covering,” he claimed.

He further suggested “Mary is depicted wearing one in Christian art across the centuries, and headscarves were common among women in Britain within living memory. The point of the slide is that covering the head is a shared tradition across faiths and cultures, not something foreign or unique to Islam.”

That is a semantic trick dressed up as history. A veil in later Christian art is not a hijab. A headscarf worn by a British woman in 1920 is not Islamic dress. Calling either one a hijab writes a seventh-century religion backwards onto a first-century Jewish woman, then presents the rewrite as proof that criticism of modern Islamic practice is a myth.

The Mary slide was not an isolated flourish. Project Unity material, which has also reportedly been presented to students, police officers and civil servants responsible for Prevent, includes a defence of Sharia.

One slide states: “Sharia is not a foreign threat. It is a moral tradition – like any other – shaped by faith, reason and a commitment to human dignity.”

Another says one element of Islamic jurisprudence requires that “children cannot be struck on the face, cannot be marked, and must freely consent to marriage.” Pro-Palestinian marches are described in the talks as “protesting genocide.”

Written material accompanying the sessions claims women are not oppressed by the stipulations of Islam, and that “Muslims, the immigrant, the brown person” were scapegoated for a flatlining economy, with the blame laid on “the rich.”

North Yorkshire Council has tried to put distance between itself and the content. Odette Robson, the council’s head of community safety and CCTV, said the session was a guest presentation at the York and North Yorkshire Hate Crime Conference in 2025, a joint event with City of York Council and North Yorkshire Police, and that Najib was not paid.

“Attendees were free to question evidence, test assertions and explore alternative viewpoints,” she said, adding “The purpose was to encourage discussion and reflection rather than to promote any particular standpoint.”

The councillors who have seen the material are not buying the distinction. Reform group leader Tom Seston said: “A Reform council would scrap all DEI initiatives such as this and put council staff back to work delivering for residents, instead of receiving political lectures from anti-British activists. North Yorkshire Council should ban this activist and his charity from all work with the council.”

Independent councillor Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff, a Roman Catholic, said she was “deeply disturbed that taxpayers’ money was used to fund political propaganda being fed to council staff members. In particular, the reference to Mary, the Mother of God, wearing a hijab is both inaccurate and unacceptable.”

She added: “Mary is not just some random historical figure to be used to justify Islam. These types of references are not intended to explain Islam. They are a Trojan horse designed to diminish Roman Catholicism and Christianity as a whole. North Yorkshire Council should apologise and ensure that training of this nature never happens again.”

The same Project Unity material was used at that 2025 hate crime conference in front of North Yorkshire Police officers. Najib played a 2024 clip of Nigel Farage warning that “we have a growing number of young people in this country who do not subscribe to British values, in fact loathe much of what we stand for,” and clarifying that he meant Muslims, citing marches over Israel’s actions in Palestine. Officers were then shown footage of a man racially abusing a Muslim bus driver and asked to weigh the two.

Najib’s question to the room: “Ask yourself, who is going to get into trouble between those two gentlemen? And who did the most harm?” He added the comparison he wanted them to sit with: “Sitting in a national news studio and saying ‘Jews hate Britain’, he’d be locked up before he left the studio, and too right, too.”

The police force has said the talk was not part of its training programme and was not delivered by a police employee. That does not change who was in the room, or what they were asked to conclude: that a politician’s words about integration may have done more harm than a racial assault.

Najib’s defence of that exercise is the same line he uses for the Mary slide. “Project Unity exists to reduce anti-Muslim hostility and strengthen trust between communities,” he said. Participants, he argued, were being asked to apply one standard, and to consider how the same words would land if said about Jewish people or black people.

The standard on offer is not equal treatment under the law. It is a demand that doubts about integration, grooming, Sharia, or the compatibility of political Islam with British institutions be treated as a species of hate.

This is not a rogue workshop in Yorkshire. In March 2026 the government published a non-statutory definition of “anti-Muslim hostility,” the rebrand it adopted after dropping “Islamophobia” under free-speech pressure, and promised a special representative to push it into schools, universities and public services.

The working group that shaped the definition was chaired by former attorney general Dominic Grieve. Every member of that panel has links to organisations successive governments have kept at arm’s length, including the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Engagement and Development.

The definition is not a criminal offence. Ministers have been careful to say so. What it is, in practice, is a script. Project Unity is what that script looks like when it reaches a conference room: Christian history renamed, Sharia redescribed as a moral tradition “like any other,” and an elected politician measured against a hate crime. The audience included people whose job is counter-terror work.

The other half of the machine is record-keeping. Officials at the Standards and Compliance Unit, the body set up to handle complaints about Prevent, have been logging social media posts that criticise the programme, including posts that accuse it of fixating on the “far Right” while soft-pedalling Islamist extremism. The database was withheld for more than a year and released only after an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Between March 2024 and February 2025 the unit made 77 such observations, mostly from X.

Jacob Smith of Rights & Security International, whose team forced the release, said: “It is shocking that the government has been trawling X and Reddit to find out who has been critiquing Prevent – and then storing that information. You should be allowed to criticise government policy without being put on a list.”

Put the pieces together. A lottery-funded charity tells anti-terror staff that the mother of Christ wore a hijab and that Sharia is not a foreign threat. The same charity asks police to decide whether Nigel Farage’s words did more harm than a man abusing a bus driver. A government panel with Islamist-linked members writes the definition those sessions are built to serve. A Home Office-linked unit keeps a list of people who say the counter-extremism programme has its priorities backwards.

None of this required a new blasphemy statute. All it required was grants, a conference slot, a working definition, and a database. The people supposedly paid to protect the public were the ones sat in the room being indoctrinated.