They and opposition MPs accuse ministers of creating a dangerous, unnecessary law that would leave it unclear whether preaching, discussing religious practice or believers or even telling jokes could be criminalised.

Paul Goggins, the Home Office Minister, said that the Government had restructured the offence in response to criticism of the Bill in the Lords and said that safeguards against unwarranted prosecutions were more explicit.

A series of MPs from all sides challenged him, however, to say whether specific comments about religions would be outlawed under the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, on which MPs were discussing Lords amendments.

The Labour MPs Claire Curtis-Thomas and Bob Marshall-Andrews asked whether the statement “the prophet Muhammad’s marriage to a 6-year-old girl was immoral” would be liable to prosecution if the Bill became law. Mr Goggins replied that for a prosecution to proceed it would have to be proved that the author of the statement either intended to stir up religious hatred or was reckless as to whether religious hatred was incited.

Moving fresh government amendments as alternatives to those added by the Lords, the minister said that these made clear that playwrights, preachers, comedians and commentators remained free to criticise, insult or ridicule any religion or religious belief or practice.

Asked by Tony Wright, a Labour backbencher, to cite a case that would be outlawed under the provision, Mr Goggins said that a poster of white and Asian women wearing a burkha alongside verses from the Koran and claims that such women could be suicide bombers would fall outside current law, but be caught by the offence of inciting religious hatred. The minister told MPs: “We don’t expect dozens of prosecutions every year but there is a gap in the law.” In repeated interventions, MPs expressed fears that other religious activity or comment could fall foul of such a law.

Mr Marshall-Andrews said: “This legislation is not unclear, it is blisteringly clear. For 300 years we have turned our faces against protecting by legislation because you cannot protect faith without also protecting bigotry.”

Some Labour backbenchers, led by John Denham, Denis MacShane and David Winnick, backed the new offence, saying that the courts would ensure that frivolous prosecutions would not proceed and that Muslims should have the same protection as Jews and Sikhs, who are already protected.

Dominic Grieve, for the Conservatives, described the proposals as a lawyers’ field day because they were so badly drawn.

He called for religion not to be made the subject of new incitement to hatred laws.

“Those of us who have a belief have just had to lump it when someone comes along with something which we find offensive. It worries me so much that the Government is asking me and everyone else to take a step backwards on this issue rather than saying these are our values and you have jolly well got to subscribe to them.”

Times Recommends

• Forces chief faces new battle - the economy
• Seven days that shook the world
• Icelanders wake up and smell ... the fish