The forthcoming vote on assisted dying has sparked a furious red-on-red row within the Labour Party, fuelled by claims of Islamophobia by proponents of a change in the law.

On Sunday, a key ally of Keir Starmer’s and a party grandee Charlie Falconer accused Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood of imposing her religious beliefs on others, after she explained to constituents why she will be opposing a change in the law.

He accused her of being motivated by “religious beliefs” which “shouldn’t be imposed on everyone else”.

Despite a number of senior Labour politicians opposing assisted dying, including Wes Streeting, Jonathan Reynolds and Bridget Phillipson, Lord Falconer’s singling out of Ms Mahmood has sparked furious criticism.

The Labour Muslim Network accused him of perpetuating “the culture of Islamophobia” and demanding an apology.

The Justice Secretary was also backed by Labour Christian MP Rachael Maskell, demanding he apologise for the “offensive and discriminatory” comments.

This morning Home Office minister Jess Phillips insisted that the debate around assisted dying has been handled in an “exemplary” way.

She denied there is any “bad blood” within government over the divisions.

The forthcoming vote will be a ‘free vote’, meaning MPs will be able to decide for themselves whether they back the changes or not, free from the interference by party whips.

The Cabinet itself remains divided, despite the Cabinet Secretary asking members not to get actively involved in the debate.

14 members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, are thought to be supportive, while 9 are expected to vote it down.

Yesterday the Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall reiterated her support for Assisted Dying, insisting that the safeguards in the Bill “are much stronger” than the last time it was voted on in 2015.

She argued: “I believe in giving people as much power, say and control as possible over the things that matter to them most”.

“I believe the Bill has the right safeguards to make sure that can be done properly.”

In an astonishing intervention this weekend, the Justice Secretary blasted the legislation as a “state death service”, warning constituents she is “profoundly concerned” in a letter to her Birmingham constituents.

She argued that recent scandals in the public sector, including Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon affair, should act as a reminder that the State and those acting on its behalf “are not always benign”.

She continued: “I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”

“It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.