February 25, 2025 - 4:40pm
The launch of the British Muslim Network (BMN) this week — bringing together prominent individuals from the spheres of politics, media, business, entertainment, and sport — is the latest religious lobby group in town. But will it lead to healthier relations between Muslims and the state, or will it be yet another addition to Britain’s grievance-industrial complex?
The BMN is well-placed to impact policymaking, especially with successive governments — including the present Labour ministry — pursuing an approach of “non-engagement” with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). While social entrepreneur Akeela Ahmed, co-chair of BMN, has insisted that the new network seeks to “complement” organisations such as the MCB rather than replace them, an initiative that highlights the contributions of Britain’s socially and culturally diverse Muslim population would be a significant improvement.
However, there is much reason for pessimism, due to the groups and individuals involved in the BMN’s conception. This includes former Conservative Party co-chair Baroness Warsi, whose journey, from being egged by Islamists in Luton to standing accused of handing official Whitehall roles to those linked to Islamist groups, has constituted a fascinating case study of identitarian self-preservation in modern Britain. In the build-up to this week’s launch, Warsi justified the creation of the fresh lobby group on the grounds that “for too long British Muslims have been made to feel their voices do not matter”. Indeed, this was the prevailing theme in her recent book Muslims Don’t Matter, which argued that Islamophobia is Britain’s primary bigotry blind spot.
This new organisation follows plans announced by Labour earlier this month, concerning the establishment of a council to devise an official Government definition of Islamophobia. The proposed body has met with widespread criticism, including from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who said last week that the creation of a new definition would be akin to introducing a “blasphemy law […] through the back door”.
While anti-Muslim prejudice remains a problem in British society — evidenced by the spreading of conspiracy theories and violence following the Southport murders last year — there is a risk of the BMN pigeonholing itself as an Islamophobia talking shop if the power and influence lies with the likes of Warsi and organisations such as Hope Not Hate, which is backing the initiative. Indeed, the evidence shows that British Muslims do matter in mainstream political decision-making — ranging from the Home Office’s Protective Security for Mosques Scheme to Government’s plans to provide capital funding towards the cost of a memorial specifically for Muslim servicepeople.
The BMN’s mission should go well beyond just tackling anti-Muslim prejudice, but the track record of its high-profile figures means there is a risk of it being oriented around liberal-Left conceptions of “Islamophobia”, as opposed to providing practical solutions to issues such as the cost of living, employment, education, healthcare, and law and order. If it is a truly daring enterprise, it will not only highlight British Muslim contributions but also point to relative strengths within British Muslim communities which have eroded in the relatively atomised and individualistic mainstream. These include valuing marriage as an institution in which to raise children, and taking care of elderly relatives.
The BMN must operate from the central principle that British Muslims do matter, and that they are largely privileged when compared to many of their co-religionists in the world. Without that patriotic sentiment, it will fall just as flat as many of its predecessors.
Dr Rakib Ehsan is a researcher specialising in British ethnic minority socio-political attitudes, with a particular focus on the effects of social integration and intergroup relations.
rakibehsan
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI will never allow the term ‘islamophobia’ to hold any meaning for me, due to the fact that it was coined by the Iranian ayatollahs to be deployed against women who didn’t want to wear hijab, resuscitated in a Runnymede thinktank report in the 1990s, and now is a signifier for any kind of questioning or criticism of Islam. As someone who has studied the religion at university level and taught it to postgrad, I can confidently say that it is entirely incompatible with a liberal, pluralistic society. Our values of tolerance predicate the necessity of questioning intolerance. We cannot have tolerance if we cannot question. Should blasphemy laws be resuscitated, the population will turn sullen and potentially do hideous things. Grouping people into identarian little boxes, framing them in a victim/oppressor narrative, performing the racism of low expectations by granting extra privileges (in policing, for example, greater leniency has been recorded for Muslim individuals or groups – the underlying premise being that they cannot understand our laws; the Western Renaissance rests on the work of Greek philosophers mediated through Arabic scholars, who critiqued, developed and overturned arguments in every subject from astronomy to medicine), has done incredible damage to our society. We are now a low trust society. It grieves me greatly to write that.
We need to resist any governmental attempt to impose said blasphemy laws via peaceful means – peaceful protest, writing to our MPs, creating and signing petitions, making our voices heard. And we need no more separate groupings, whose existence becomes divisive and exclusionary. Warsi frames herself as the victim, because she will not countenance the idea that certain cultural practices and religious tenets are justly to be criticised. There is ample room for an enlightenment in Islam, and a turning-away from literalist Wahhabi doctrines; perhaps that is where she should start.
In terms of intolerance, i take the view that the relegation of females to a lower status than males in Islam is a result of something very basic: fear. Males fear the power of females and therefore ingrain their subjugation into the very heart of their religion and its practices.
If anyone can produce an argument which contradicts this view, i’d like to hear it.
Fear, then, resulting in an authoritarian worldview which seeks “peace” only insofar as compliance is maintained. Fear also, of traditional Western values, and the potential for dilution of the Islamic value-system if their offspring are exposed to Western culture. Hence, no female born into Islam would be allowed to marry and have children outside their religion. (The same doesn’t apply to males, where it’s assumed the male would be the main influence on the religious upbringing of their children.)
Fear is a very human trait, but based on weakness, not strength. The extremely over-the-top actions of Islamic ‘jihadists’ and fundamentalists occurs as a result of feeling threatened by Western values and freedoms. As the basis for any religion, fear is just about the most insidious of all human emotions. In terms of an Islamic Enlightenment then, when will followers of the prophet stop being afraid?
Islam means “submission to the will of God” in Arabic.
This is somewhat different from the concept of a contract in Judaism:
“We, the undersigned, Jews on one side and God on the other side…”
You actually haven’t made an argument, just an assertion. What exactly is it that Moslem men fear in their women? And why is this specific to Islam?
Yes, it’s an assertion, and i asked if anyone could produce an argument that contradicts it. Feel free.
It’s just one example, and perhaps an extreme one, but the reasoning given by the Taliban for banning women from wearing shoes that “clatter” or clothing which allows any indication of their femininity is that it “distracts” males from ‘communion’ with their god. Females then, have the power to take men away from their position of interpreting their religion in the terms which they prefer, and which confers primary status to males. If that were not the case, they wouldn’t require compliance. We have the same, if slightly lesser, insistence with the regime in Iran. It’s fear of distraction, fear of being cuckholded, fear of being “un-manned”.
Ok, so fear of distraction, but that’s scarcely a major fear. Fear of being cuckolded is pretty much universal. Not sure what “un-manned” means. I thought you meant something bigger.
What Islam claims to do is create a peaceful society by removing sources of conflict. In its strictest forms, the sexes are kept separate because it is believed that if they mix adultery or premarital sex will happen (or the fear or suspicion of it) and this will cause conflict. It is important to note that in general in Islam female desire is assumed to be equal to male desire.
Now, I’m not defending Islam. I think the attempt to remove all conflict from society is a fools errand, and to even try to do so will require draconian measures. Basically I see it as a failed utopian experiment.
But they are not wrong about adultery and jealousy: they are major causes of conflict and violence. And the fear of cuckoldry is a reasonable fear.
The sexual revolution has removed morality from sexual relations, primarily with the contraceptive pill. If there is no marriage, there cannot be adultery.
In children born outside marriage, no stigma. And in the blended family, and serial partners, no opportunity for jealousy.
Another attempt at removing conflict. A utopian experiment that like all such things would succeed if it had any other material to work with but the human.
In the lyrics of Joni Mitchell, we really don’t know life at all.
I think jealousy is more likely to ramp up. And yes, we are engaged in our own, probably failing, utopian experiment.
And I would suggest that the possibility of being murdered by a man who is made insecure by women’s sexuality is also a ‘reasonable fear’.
Of course – which is why a moral free for all is dangerous, while restrictions on our behaviours limit the danger. Jealousy is a basic universal emotion which almost certainly serves a biological function. If by “women’s sexuality” you mean cheating (or propensity to cheat) then yes this will arouse jealousy, and violence may be a risk.
I’m not supporting any of this – I’m saying that any functioning society must find a means of dealing with the tensions and conflicts which arise from human nature.
Well…You don’t get to make an unfounded assertion and then demand a well thought-out argument in return, because you haven’t proved that your contribution is worth the time of the person that has to respond to you. First let’s see if you have any actual substance behind your assertions.
Who told you that women have a lower status than men in Islam? What absolute nonsense. We, like all traditional societies, understand that men and women are fundamentally different. Women generally are more suited to traditionally female roles, and men to male ones. I’m sorry if that bothers your modern sensibilities. But your women are out of control these days. They don’t even want to have kids anymore, let alone listen to their husbands. Young girls are being pushed by a mainstream that has normalized sex work. Everything has broken down and is in a state of chaos. And that’s the fault of modernity and globalization and the sexual ‘revolution’. I know it’s a horrible problem to face, but Muslims didn’t cause it. We just watch and shake our heads as western society keeps pushing in all these weird directions. In the last decades it was promoting homosexuality as ‘normal’. Now it’s transexuality. What it’ll be next, only God knows. But sticking to traditional gender roles doesn’t mean that women have a lower status than men. The advent of Islam increased the status of women immeasurably.
Fear. It’s good you can sense it. But I’d say that the fear lies in the hearts of the anti-Islam brigade types. They know their culture is in a state of total confusion and probable decline, and see a cohesive religious community in their midst that don’t seem to as badly bothered by the current tribulations. We know where we came from (God), and how to live (according to God’s rules) and where we’re going after this world (back to God).
The thing is, you needn’t be afraid. All we want to do is to not be discriminated against, and left to contribute positively to society and maybe humbly exemplify a more tried-and-tested way of life for those that are interested, and for those that aren’t – fine: “to you your way of life, and to me mine.”
I’ve heard it all before, many times.
Why won’t you allow females equal status? You discriminate against them. You say “our females are out of control” – which demonstrates my point perfectly. Control… by whom?
Why do you need to control women, unless you’re afraid of them? The basic human psychology is clear, and you’ve built a religion around it, lathered it with machismo and then complain because western values threaten to undermine your children. If they step out of line – your young women are murdered by their own kith and kin.
You’ve heard it all before, yet apparently still can’t come up with a convincing response. Men are, in every traditional society, viewed as the leader of the household and take the big decisions. It’s not just Islam. Go to the countryside in Thailand or Brazil or China. Likewise, in all traditional societies, women tend to have control over the household’s affairs, the kids etc.
Women prefer it too, providing the man is a real man and worthy of respect. That puts a healthy pressure on men to grow up and man up. A healthy woman has a natural urge to sacrifice for her family, to raise the next generation in an environment of nuptial harmony. Right now, that inbuilt urge to please is being misdirected towards her manager at her bullshit job in a marketing department in some office.
Again, tell me what these “western values” are that you quote? Can you? I guess it’s not Christianity anymore? Is it trans rights? The right for impressionable young girls to parade their bodies on social media and one day even join Only Fans? Western women are the most depressed they’ve ever been.
My friend, it’s not that your “western values” threaten to undermine our (and your) children… it’s the ABSENCE of traditional western values that’s the problem.
But it’s easier to point the finger at the conspicuous brown people with shawls and beard, so stick to that by all means…
I bet they are not nearly as depressed as Afghan women . Or Iranian women fighting for their freedom. Islam is a religion of slavery- slavery of all to their wretched God ,of women and children to men. It is full of OCD crap with it’s ritual washing and bobbing prayers and it’s so called theology is designed to rot the brain from an early age. Islamic societies offer less to their people than modern Western democracies . Most are run by dictators of one sort or another and are among the most corrupt countries on Earth.
I don’t expect Unherd readers to come running to the defence of Islam – but quite a few might feel that western females are out of control.
High divorce rates, Onlyfans, Instagram, girls on a Friday and Saturday night dressed like prostitutes. Women breaking records for the number of men in 12 hours. Children out of wedlock. Failure to even produce replacement levels of children. From a traditional point of view (even our own) it doesn’t look that great.
Some good work in the pipeline from Tracy Vaillancourt on how women exert social control over other women.
One of the great missteps of feminism was to assume that if something was bad for women, men must be the cause. Female researchers are now calling that into question.
That’s a very interesting angle!
One your wider question about what is it that Muslim men fear about women, I suggest one need look no further than the consequences of aggressive feminism over the past seven decades, which has spawned the Woke/DEI madness we now suffer, and inversion of human rights to promote minority interests (i.e. the oppressors throwing of the oppressors). Cancel culture is driven by female perspectives and attitudes, and the ‘Girl Boss’ culture has not demonstrably improved life generally – viz global conflicts, corruption, cynical exploitation of tax income for propaganda purposes (e.g. USAID), transgender perversion, etc. – as much if not more than when the toxic patriarchy ruled the world.
Your Sharia does. 50% that of a man.
Women are equal in intelligence to men. But they’re more emotionally inclined.
Look at your own experience. Think about the kind of arguments you have with women. (Or those that you avoid because you know better!) Is there any doubt that women are less rational than men?
This isn’t sexist, it’s just reality. We’re different. Women are superior to us in emotional intelligence, in the whole realm of relations, compassion. Even in western culture where decades of feminism has tried so hard to wipe out all that “socialization”, we see clearly that men are better for some things than women. And vice versa.
I don’t know if that’s the reason for the 50% weight given to women’s testimony when cf a man’s. I’m not a scholar, but this is my best guess.
Well find out then! It’s your religion you’re talking up, you should know…
Just to ask politely, what was the purpose of God sending people (is that all them or just Muslims?) to this veil of tears only to have them back in paradise at the end of it all?
If it was to exemplify a tried-and-tested way of life, where did all those who don’t know about such a life come from? Did they arrive first? And how long did the trying and testing take before it became tried-and-tested?
What of those who are not persuaded of this tried and tested life? What if they want to do what is right – is that by rules or conscience? – but constantly find that they end up doing the wrong they don’t want? From whence is their help?
To every eye but that of faith, it looks like there are two sets of people. But your women are out of control these days…
Or is it just faith or rules? …let alone listen to their husbands.
Much of what is in the culture that looks like it’s in chaos, confusion and decline has been derived from Christianity by however many evolutions. Equality being but one example. The very idea that there are things called religions being another. It was the Apostle Paul who first defined same sex relations as they are understood today. (See, for example, Tom Holland’s Dominion).
To every eye but that of faith it looks like there is confusion and decline.
There’s a difference between tried-and-tested and ossified. Somewhere in the difference even a faithlessness.
What it’ll be next, only God knows. Well, God being God, no doubt. Hopefully he has a sense of humour. That’s always necessary to gain a sense of proportion. And any deity that can create human beings must need both.
Who are we mere mortals to understand the reasons of the Divine plan?
As for those before Islam or those today who die without ever hearing the true message , we believe God is perfectly Just. “He will never punish a people to which he hasn’t sent a messenger” (Quran). And there were around 120,000 prophets before the final messenger.
God’s Justice, though, is eclipsed by His mercy: The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“Allah the Almighty says: ‘O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and then you sought forgiveness from Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth, but you met Me without associating anything with Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.’”
(Tirmidhi, Hadith 3540)
Churchill compared Islam and rabies. I suspect he knew of which he spoke.
Exactly my point.
If Islam is so great what are you doing in the land of the Little Satan when there are so many counties to chose from that are more Islamic in nature?
I don’t live in the UK anymore, left ages ago.
Good.
Answer is obvious, they are all shiteholes full of morons (just check IQ od Muslim countries population).
Some of them developed thanks to the West discovering oil and telling them what to do with it.
Low IQ probably partly due to cousin marriage, partly due to inability to reason due to the brain rotting influence of Islam.
Ever the victimsof discrimination, aren’t you, not you and your savage ways? Respect, 30 years abusing young white girls all over our country? Cohesive community, committed to annihilate the Jews and the destruction of Israel, terrorising Gaza, using human shields? Western society, that same one you leech because you’re too fragile to take criticism? Fear, of what?
Om Ar, that is such a blatant mis-representation of authentic Islam; utterly deceitful.
“The advent of Islam increased the status of women immeasurably.” is, presumably intended as humourous. Muhammed said that a woman’s testimony was only worth half that of a man’s! (Qu’ran 2:282) Muhammed said that this is because women are “mentally deficient” compared to men! (Sahih al-Bukhari 2658 & Sura 4:34) The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said: “Yes.” He said: “This is because of the deficiency of her mind.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 2658) “the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense”. (Sahih Muslim Book 1, 0142) Muhammed says that Hell is mostly occupied by women! The Prophet said: “I saw paradise and…. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked: “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet said: “Because of their ungratefulness..to their husbands.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 1052) Muhammed said that men could “scourge” their wives if they were insufficiently submissive! (Qu’ran 4:34) (Sahih Muslim 2127) Muhammed said that the man has the authority to beat his wife. Abu Dawud 2146, 2147 Muhammed’s child-bride Aisha was overruled by Muhammed when she complained about the beatings which Muslim wives were receiving! (Sahih al-Bukhari 5825)
The list could go on & on & on! Mohammed makes Andrew Tate look balanced by comparison! Add to this what he said about black people (his slaves), Jews, Christians, ex-Muslims, people who draw pictures, dog-owners, & what he said you can do with little girls, & it is NOT a “tried & tested way of life” but I certainly DO recommend that people test it & put it on trial by actually READING the Quran & Hadiths to meet AUTHENTIC Islam, rather than the fake, “reasonable” pseudo-version which Om Ar just tried to fool you with.
Saying that “women are out of control” shows that you are of the view that women should be controlled. You don’t seem to think that “men are out of control” which shows that you clearly gives women a lower value.
Some men in the west are out of control – hence knife crime and the rest – though for reasons that aren’t wholly clear the average man seems to be far less prone to violence than at some points in the past. Think 70s football violence for example.
We don’t need Muslims in the West.
You are nothing but savages with zero culture, history (apart from violence) and achievement.
Why do not you fix your disgusting shitholes instead of coming here?
Soon we will have leaders who will have you remigrated one way or another.
How can you deny women have a lower status than men in Islam when in law the testimony of 2 women equals the weight of the testimony of 1 man? Also single women do not have the right to certain decisions (getting married, writing a will, for example) whereby single men can.
He didn’t make an argument – he expressed a view.
And it’s quite clear that the Taliban for example are afraid of the sexual power that they perceive women to have over men. They have been known to kill women for wearing the ‘wrong’ colour under their burkas. If you can provide a rationale for such vile behaviour
by all means disagree & offer some other reason for it.
As for why this is ‘specific to Islam’, I have no idea whether that’s the case. But it’s certainly behaviour that’s specific to men. And some Islamic men appear to excel at it.
I asked for an explanation of the fear he was referring to. I actually think there is something in the idea that men are at least disconcerted by the sexual power women have – disconcerted and enticed. Indeed much of what feminists see as “oppression” is an attempt to right that power imbalance.
I’m not supporting Islam in this – but I am saying that there is an issue which societies must address if they are to be successful. In the west our approach has been far more based on trust. In the past a woman was expected to be a virgin at marriage, and to “forsake all others” afterwards. She made this vow and was trusted – with partial success: there have always been high rates of false paternity. In return the man was expected to stick around and support her and her children. That “contract” is now breaking down.
Essentially the position of Saul of Tarsus. He could see that liberty would destroy law. Without law, what would he be? He had been made by rules.
This is not the distinction between religions, or between religions and something else. For Saul after his conversion there was only faith or law. Religion as it is understood today is a concept developed much later by Christians.
This difference between liberty and law as Paul saw it alienated him from his former society. As law only condemned, introduced because of transgressions of the original – faith, it could never free, it could never make perfect.
As Tom Holland observes, once the concept of religions had been established by Christians it became advantageous for Jews living in Germany at the beginning of the 19th century to think that had something called a religion, rather than simply law. He also points out that for Muslims to think they have a religion is to have adopted an exclusively Christian way of looking at the world.
In a secular society, again an ultimate evolution of Christianity, as Holland explains, religion is a private matter. It has no universal application. The exclusive claims of religions become mere matters of opinion. Each to his own. And as each to his own in a way that only a society created by the evolutions of Christianity could make.
In a society of the cultural and sexual revolutions it is the individual’s conscience that is the umpire, not rules or law that are associated with ‘religion’. As Paul put it, “Why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience.” The only constraint that Paul allowed was that while everything was allowed, not all things were helpful.
Not all things of the operation of the society of the cultural and sexual revolutions is helpful to another society formed by law or rules associated with ‘religion’. For, like Saul of Tarsus, without those rules, what would they be?
It can be put the other way. Following Paul, if what is done in the society of the cultural and sexual revolutions is unhelpful to people in it, it is for conscience’s sake – the conscience of the other – for a Muslim not to partake of it.
Tom Holland is a great storyteller but his revisionist ideas aren’t taken seriously by the consensus of actual experts.
The question is: do you believe in absolute truth? As an ontological reality.
If anything is absolute truth it wouldn’t need to be tried and tested. It would be self-evident. There is no need to test the colour green to determine if it is green.
Belief is belief. Take someone off the street, dress them in the uniform of the Foot Guards, give them the title of grenadier, and they will behave differently from others. That’s both a universal and a relative.
Religions are full of stories and storytellers. None better than the Greeks.
Even ontologists disagree. The experts require a consensus of their own kind to validate themselves. Holland is the sand in their oyster.
What Hollander says about St Paul as referenced above is hardly revisionist or controversial.
Who said anything about blasphemy laws being introduced? Seriously, where in the article is that even mentioned?
Who says Islam is intolerant? 99% of Muslims in the UK mind our own business and want to get along with our lives and contribute positively to society, even as the society becomes more and more degenerate. Again, you’re just stating opinions and presenting them as fact. Historically, Muslim polities have been the most tolerant of all empires.
Otherwise I agree with your stance against identitarianism, and don’t think Muslims should be treated with kid gloves, but neither should they be subjected to the virulent hatred that one sees in places like… Unherd comments sections.
Wahhabi doctrines?! How many British Muslims are wahhabi? The vast majority of us are traditional orthodox sunni Muslims and have no time for that Wahhabi/Salafi nonsense.
Something you might need to explain here is that “traditional” in relation to Islam does not mean the same as fundamentalist.
You may not agree with my take on this – but it’s fair to say that traditional Islam has made it more tolerant and humane. It is the radicals who are hardline.
Yes good point David. I could use “classical” instead which is often used interchangeably with “traditional”
Then again, the Democrat Party in the USA has spent decades slicing & dicing the electorate into myriad individual ‘grievance groups’, playing one off the other. It seemed to work well for them until October 7…now people wonder if the Democrat Party still exists….
Testing
This new group, alas, is the consequence of grouping people in arbitrary groups, and dealing with them as if all Muslims, blacks, etc. thought the same way. Then it becomes a question of who shouts loudest.
We need an entirely fresh approach, which treats all people equally.
I don’t think they are arbitrary. What I fear is that this is the beginning of politics operating along ethnic lines.
While anti-Muslim prejudice remains a problem in British society — evidenced by the spreading of conspiracy theories and violence following the Southport murders last year
.
Does it make sense to read this article further?
My thoughts too … strangely no reference to grooming gangs.
So the Southport murderer was a regular Muslim? Not a mentally broken nutjob with a fascination for genocide?
And so anti-Muslim prejudice is OK because some lunatic does something and justifies it in the name of religion?
Muslims would be the first to say that the Southport killer should be given the death penalty. He has nothing to do with Islam.
The Manchester Arena terrorist also had nothing to do with Islam?
You know, it’s starting to get tiresome… Can you find new arguments?
The Manchester Arena terrorist should be given the death penalty. I say that as a Muslim.
You and your bigoted ilk use tragedies like that to tarnish an entire faith of ~2bn people. Very tiresome. Can’t you find a new argument?
Believe me it’s far more tiresome for us. It’s clear that you do not really fit into our liberal democracies and that many of you are dangerous.
Islam is about conquest and control and we need to halt and reverse Islamic immigration to the west now before we are swamped. It will only lead to genocide as our cultures clash ever more violently. Most westerners I know are allergic to Islam now.
You’re actually a Hindu living in India though
I have a new argument. In general, the West has lost religion. Perhaps people feel that they are too clever for religion. I am not religious because my mother and father brought me up in that way and I didn’t see the need to change. So there is a religious vacuum, certainly in the UK.
If you then introduce a strong religion, it is a bit scary. Everyone is going about their business thinking about themselves and their families and suddenly there appears before them a united front of religious ‘maniacs’. I choose the latter word, not because that is what I think, but because many people must automatically think like that. So there is a fear.
With that fear in the background, if one of this group commits an atrocity, then another, and another.. then it must be the religion which is responsible? No? Even if that is not true, there must be an onus on the group to ensure that all fears are quelled. So the Muslim community has a lot to prove – not just to be here but to be welcomed as well.
About 100 years ago in the UK, women were seen as homemakers. Not inferior as such, but homemakers. This attitude led to families sticking together, held together by the women. Now women are not considered to be homemakers and very few families stick together. There must be a correlation. Perhaps women were unhappy before and perhaps they weren’t. Whatever you think about the role of women, there won’t be enough children in the future. There won’t be enough children to pay for normal services, for the NHS, to support old people. Nobody has an answer to this despite all the clever people around.
Nice to read something intelligent and reasonable and rational here.
I agree with you completely. When I’m talking to people attacking us, I defend my community. And when I’m talking to my community, I say much of what you recommend. I wouldn’t say that every Muslim is responsible for denouncing every random terrorist. But. We need to actively be part of healing and bettering this country, and many of us are. Like Prof. TJ Winter (Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad) of Cambridge Uni says, European Muslims attitude needs to be one of service to the countries they live in. Service. Not hiding in our communities, and certainly not being antagonistic in rising to the bait of the anti-Muslim crowd.
Problem with your argument is that in surveys about 40 percent of Muslims support sharia law in the UK, 25 percent have sympathy with jihadis, etc. So it’s not just about nutjobs and lunatics, but a large and rapidly growing group (serious Communists probably have views similarly destructive to other groups and esp to the mainstream national culture but they are not a large and growing group) many of whom have views inimical to our national culture, including our traditional national culture.
Those percentages might support armed resistance against aggressors. Such as the jihadi resistance in Chechnya against the Russian state. Or a wish that someone stood up for the Muslims of Bosnia when they were subject to the most horrific war crimes while Europe watched. And not to mention what the Palestinians have long suffered under the psychopathic Zionist state.
But:
I can guarantee you that support for aggressive beligerent jihadis like ISIS is almost non-existent among British Muslims. In fact, A 2016 ICM poll for Channel 4 found that 0% of British Muslims expressed support for ISIS, with over 85% explicitly condemning the group.
It’s not psychopathic Zionist state, it’s psychopathic “Gaza state”.
.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Well Om, what’s your view on the Oct. 7 massacre?
Horrendous. The position of mainstream classical Islam is that attacks on innocents are Haram. However while I don’t condone it, I do understand it. Abuse people, shoot their kids in the back of the head, imprison and rape their women (and men), steal their land, bulldoze their olive trees, kidnap and torture their medics… over decades… and you don’t think some of them are eventually going to turn nasty?
Re your first para, maybe.
Your second para, your personal guarantee and only 15 percent of UK Muslims not explicitly condemning ISIS, again maybe. Though I’d remind you that trends tend to be pushed by the extremes, the 15 percent answering the ICM poll is very important but the 85 percent not so much.
I’m a Chesterton-type conservative, ie I don’t think we should take unnecessary risks with our national inheritance. As far as I’m concerned, it’s the only one I have and once it’s gone, that’s it. I have no problem with individual Muslims, in fact I live near lots of them in Bradford and some are very decent people, as I’m sure that you are also (and I actually have appreciated reading about your perspective on here). I’ve also worked in fairly-mildly Islamic Malaysia. On the other hand, I want to preserve my/our own unique inheritance as much as I can, and ethno-cultural replacement will only ever produce the opposite effect.
I also think that any more than small numbers of Muslims pose a special threat in a way that, say, lots of Norwegians or even HK Chinese don’t. Islam is ideological – it can be and is often interpreted by Muslims to cover all aspects of religious, political, social life and takes precedence over non-Islamic systems.
The West needs to ban Islam and quickly. The 7th C death cult is a real and present danger to our weak liberal democracies. All Muslim immigration has to be halted and remigration must start if we are to remain a Christian continent.
If you want to remain a Christan continent, tell your people to start believing in the Trinity and going to Church again, before you start you ethnic cleansing campaign. It’ll be a lot cheaper, and better for the UK.
Indeed and bravely put.
It really is as simple as that. Prayer, penitence, praise, duty and faith are the only proven solutions to spiritual decline. And the disquieting truth for many will be that they may discover in the process that British Christians have rather more in common with pious Muslims than they do with Godless materialists. I know I have.
The paradox of the situation for many insitinctive ‘conservatives’ in Britain is that Islam, the great ‘threat’, is actually the single strongest organised force for political and social conservatism still remaining in the West. That seems unarguable.
Many who say they want a Christian Britain more truthfully mean they want religion comprehensively vacated from public life altogether. National Liberalism of the Lockeian, post Wolfenden variety, effectively. They would baulk at the serious, rigorous and exacting standards of British Christian life 100 years ago.
Amen/Ameen!
This is heartening to read, thank you.
I see an alliance of faiths being the only way forwards. The type of conservatives you mention at the end have faith in nothing; they just know what to fight against. No wisdom, no answers.
True religion, on the other hand, gives man something to live for.
It is not ethic clansing to remove invaders from our land.
You don’t belong in Europe.
Wrong. Dead wrong. You are assuming that the primary loyalty of Muslims is to their faith. It may interest you to know that Muslims in the British Indian Army fought the Turks in Mesopotamia during the First World War.
I have utmost faith in the loyalty of British Muslims to Britain. If they are treated fairly.
Visit some Northern towns or East London … you won’t say that … I grew up in Harrow … I went back recently and there are Islamic centres everywhere and the whole town is ringed by mosques … its third world squalor … Edgware was like the Sahel … how is this good? Why would England do this to itself? There are no English people there anymore … black and Muslim kids go to totally black or Muslim schools … a sea of burkas at the gates in the afternoon … you think that’s a strength??? Why for crying out loud???
You forgot the West Midlands. Areas such as, Alum Rock, Saltley, Small Heath, Sparkhill, Sparkbrook, Balsall Heath to name a few!
An interesting acid test to bring up. Look up the Khilafat Movement in British India. It almost caused an uprising.
I rather object to banning religions, but after all I’m just some yank that has “Freedom of religion” enshrined in the central legal document of our nation.
But hey why stop there let’s ban the Mormons too since their weird, and well we’re at it let’s get the Catholics after all the papcy has too much money and influence, maybe we can even ban the Jews, in fact let’s ban everyone that doesn’t believe the way they should, that should have no issues at all.
Clearly the solution isn’t to reinvigorate and reintroduce true devotion and faith into British life by living our principles no matter how difficult and sharing our beliefs kindly and with sincerity. No the solution is to use government fiat to force people to behave the way they ought and prevent them from believing as they ought not. I see no problem with that.
Indeed. That one sentence in our Constitution’s original Bill of Rights is probably central to the different experiences that the US has had with Muslim immigrants. We don’t protect all religions, we protect none.
We do criminalize terroristic activities; which is why laws against anti-Semitic speech will likely fail in the Supreme Court, while supporting Hamas, with anything more than words, will likely bring serious legal trouble. Or, at least it should.
The west needs to ban Islam and quickly.
Um, as far as I can see it’s back-to-front, as a Phobia is an irrational fear of something, so it doesn’t matter in the end how you define it, or what words are used, as unless the Fear itself is addressed the phobia will remain eh ?
In my view, to begin to dispel all the Fear, what’s necessary is a frank and open discussion about it where “taboo” subjects can be Voiced eh ?
Oh, now naturally for all of us, we fear what we don’t understand but some would say that’s what Religion is all about eh ?
Yet in the UK where Atheism is on the rise, year on year, for many Religion is mere superstition that unfortunately “raises the hackles” of some Adherents when questioned about it eh ?
The entire reason for “Islamophobia” laws (and as an aside, a phobia is an irrational fear, not a sensible wariness of; hence my “quotes”) is itself a fear of Islam, what certain Muslims may do if we persist in calling attention to certain phenomena that always seem to accompany its presence.
Where are the Bhuddophobia, the Hinduphobia, the Mormophobia laws? Now those might be genuinely irrational fears.
The claim of izzlamofobya is deployed as a weapon to close legitimate debate on the basis that to criticise a minority cult group is by definition an act of prejudice. I recall a report from 2004 from the commission on British muzzlims claimed British society was institutionally izzlamaphfobic and it was Britain that was responsible for muslom extremism. Every disadvantage of the muszlims , poverty, overcrowding, poor school results, unemployment was evidence of islarmofobia. Likewise the Runnymede 1997 paper, they were driven to extremism.
Muslims have to deal with the fact that in the West mandatory veiling of women is highly offensive. They’re free to cover their hair and dress modestly, but a restrictive second class just for women will not be accepted for long.
In the US, a nation chock-a-block with immigrants, we’re used to dealing with stubborn attitudes from the ‘Old World’. But after a generation or two they’re expected to ‘get with it’. For a long time, that was a major purpose of public education.
Islamic Party incoming. Call for Sharia in ‘Muslim’ areas, Muslim police patrols, Muslim schools. And don’t blame the Muslims it is what they do. Blame ourselves for abandoning our own culture and heritage. Nature abhors a vacuum, physical, cultural or moral.
Why does it feel like the monarchy is next on the chopping block?….
This is the same Baroness Warsi who called Rishi Sunak a ‘coconut’. A perfect advocate for better race relations in the UK!
Muslims bring this so called victimhood upon themselves. Their savage ways encourage destruction of the west, hoovering up benefits of freedom while getting away with hatred in our streets in support of Hamas . They’re wedded to destroying Israel , Jews, Christians and cry discrimination when they meet force to repel them. And so it goes round. Until their mosks are shut down for promoting hate, the English grow spines to deport moslim terrorists and desist in their appeasement , entertaining Sharia for family disputes, polygamy , blasphemy (but only for one way for mosselmen) and workplaces structured by law around prayer times, then regrettably there’s only civil disturbance ahead. Islamophobia, another progressive idea bestowing specialness on the enemy within. WTF do these morons think will happen, we’ll sit back and supinely accept their backward violent religion that’s determined to destroy our way of life? I’m very angry that all this was predicted and despite warnings from M15&6 in the late 80’s, the elite colonialists thought they’d made a deal with the terrorists they’d admitted and they wouldn’t bite hand that fed them. Then 9/11, then 7/7, then sickest of all 7/10. And still the BBC and elites side with murdering Hamas……
Well said
May I make a suggestion?
Could we make “Islamophilia” a crime, instead?
It could be defined as any unreasonable affection for religious founder-leaders whose views are openly misogynistic, antisemitic, slavery-supporting, child-abusing, anti-cartoon & art, anti-dog owning, brutal, racist, subjugating, intolerant, violent & responsible for (statistically) approximately 89% of the world’s most dangerous & cruel terrorist organisations…… (I checked).
Just a thought…….
At some point, this group will say or do something that favors muslim more than non-muslims.It will be time for honest judges to eviscerat ethem via anti-discrimination laws.
The claim of izzlamofobya is deployed as a weapon to close legitimate debate on the basis that to criticise a minority cult group is by definition an act of prejudice. I recall a report from 2004 from the commission on British muzzlims claimed British society was institutionally izzlamaphfobic and it was Britain that was responsible for muslom extremism. Every disadvantage of the muszlims , poverty, overcrowding, poor school results, unemployment was evidence of islarmofobia. Likewise the Runnymede 1997 paper, they were driven to extremism.
If Hope Not Hate are backing it, it must be specious.