Some people are so allergic to the truth you’re better off assuming they’re always lying, merely in the interest of time. Keir Starmer is, I believe, one of those people. Despite a successful career as a human rights lawyer, the British prime minister appears to have missed the ‘Lying for Dummies’ module at the University of Leeds. Thus, when the Labour leader during his inauguration address referred to “a return of politics to public service,” I naturally inferred ‘raging authoritarian.’ When Starmer and the authorities assured us that Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Welsh choirboy with no known terror links, I feared the opposite was the case, fears Starmer would eventually corroborate. And when Donald Trump recently commented that London “wants to go to Sharia law”—remarks the PM described as “ridiculous nonsense,” I knew which of the two I was more inclined to believe.
Of course, Trump is no stranger to hyperbole, but he has been known to be ‘on the money’ from time to time. It is not for nothing that Britain has been described as “the Sharia capital of the West”. More to the point, I suspect Trump has less reason to lie about the Islamisation of Britain than our own prime minister does.
An interesting test of the influence of Sharia law in the capital was the attempted murder which took place outside the Turkish Embassy in Knightsbridge in February of this year. An activist, Hamit Coskun, was burning a copy of the Koran while yelling “F**k Islam” when he was suddenly attacked by Moussa Kadri. Brandishing a bread knife (initially referred to as a palette knife), Kadri proceeded to slash repeatedly at Coskun while screaming, “this is my religion … I’m going to kill you!”
Coskun (the victim) was convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence back in June. Meanwhile, Judge Adam Hiddleston appeared less concerned about the attempted murder and took Kadri’s defence—“I protect my religion”—to heart. Sparing Kadri jail last week (in lieu of a 20-week suspended sentence), Hiddleston’s summing up was notable for its obvious self-contradiction:
This case clearly crosses the custody threshold, The use (of) blades is a curse on our community. There cannot be separate standards based simply on the type of person who chooses to behave in this way. There has to be, it seems to me, a clear message, that these courts take this type of offence extremely seriously and that prison sentences will be imposed.
And yet, in the next breath:
That said, in your case, I see no reason for that sentence to result in immediate custody. I have already observed that your mitigation reflects a highly respected and valued individual. I accept your remorse and I accept that there is an almost non-existent chance of repetition of this behaviour. The effect of your incarceration now on others would be wholly disproportionate.
Contrast this verdict with the 31-month sentence Lucy Connolly got for an ill-judged tweet, and you start to think Trump has a point.
Anecdotally, it is obviously the case that Islam is treated with kid gloves by the British authorities. Whichever metric you care to examine—the policing of pro-Palestine protests vs. Unite the Kingdom marches; arrests for saying “we love bacon”, looking “openly Jewish”, or opposing the terror group Hamas; and school children facing death threats for accidentally damaging a book some consider holy—we all know there is only one religion that has the power to send blasphemers running for cover. Remember the Batley schoolteacher, hounded into witness protection for showing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad? Yep, he’s still in hiding.
A two-tier society is quite evidently at play in Britain; that much is undeniable. But Sharia law is another matter entirely. Is it possible that the authorities are turning a blind eye to the incorporation of Sharia, or is this overstating the matter?
According to the Civitas report in 2009 (The Institute for the Study of Civil Society think tank), there are around 85 Sharia courts operating in Britain—the practice going back to the early 1980s. Sharia councils operate in a legal grey area in the UK, as the Arbitration Act of 1996 allows religious institutions to settle disputes “according to their beliefs.” Almost two decades ago, it was obvious that the councils were overstepping their remit, for instance, in terms of marriage:
“About two-thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal,” said Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in the law on religion. “A woman with such a marriage would have no choice but to go to a Sharia tribunal … But it’s not the way arbitration is supposed to work.”
Fast forward to 2025, and it is clear that the influence of Sharia is far more widespread than the authorities might care to acknowledge:
Sharia-compliant food:
Sharia-compliant or halal food must not contain prohibited ingredients such as pork or alcohol and must be processed and prepared using clean equipment and procedures that adhere to Islamic law—this includes non-stun slaughter. It is widely apparent that Britain has been force-feeding the population such food secretly in schools, supermarkets, canteens and even to the military.
Polygamy:
While illegal in Britain, polygamy is common in Islam. It used to be the case that Muslim men could claim additional benefits for their extra wives in Britain. After public outcry, successive governments believed they had solved the problem by allowing the practice only where the marriages had taken place in countries where it was legal. But seeing as polygamy wasn’t legal in Britain in the first place, this appears disingenuous in the extreme.
While official estimates of polygamy in Britain stand at fewer than 1,000, the website secondwife.com (designed to help Muslim men extend their harem) claimed to have 25,000 users in the UK—and that was back in 2017. So either the British government is dramatically understating the issue, or the private sector is mysteriously rushing to accommodate a non-existent need. Draw your own conclusions.
Sharia-compliant dress:
Islamic schools in Britain are forcing girls as young as 11 to wear burkas, full-face veils and headscarves during lessons as part of strict uniform policies. These ‘modesty demands’ also extend to teachers, leading a Christian teacher to be dismissed from a state-funded Islamic school after she refused to comply.
Misogyny:
According to a Home Office review, over 90% of those seeking advice or rulings from Sharia courts are women seeking an Islamic divorce. It is widely reported that religious texts are used to control the women, that elders suggest religiously sanctioned ‘pleasure marriages,’ and that cases of abuse are either excused (“A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves”), or are often referred to extremist clerics (e.g., Anjem Choudary).
Clearly then, there is a discord between the official position on Sharia and the reality. Successive governments have failed to grasp the nettle, and we are now living with the consequences—a dilemma perfectly summarised by the Home Office independent review in 2018:
Sharia councils have no legal status and no legal binding authority under civil law. Whilst sharia is a source of guidance for many Muslims, sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales. Thus if any decisions or recommendations are made by a sharia council that are inconsistent with domestic law (including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010) domestic law will prevail.
So far, so good. Except that moments later, the report acknowledges the problem:
A key finding was that a significant number of Muslim couples fail to civilly register their religious marriages and therefore some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce.
Precisely. There is no need to work in opposition to or in parallel with English law if you do not recognise its legitimacy in the first place. Having identified the problem, the Home Office weasels its way out of taking responsibility:
It should also be noted at the outset that those proposing a ban on sharia councils provide no counter proposal or any solution for anyone seeking a religious divorce. It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce and this is currently being answered by the sharia councils. This demand will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain divorces, putting themselves at further risk.
Of course, it would never occur to the Home Office that it could simply enforce the law!
This political double-shuffle on behalf of the authorities—refusing either to regulate or to ban—played out in plain sight two weeks ago in Parliament. Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin asked the Secretary of State for Courts Sarah Sackman whether she recognised Sharia law and Sharia courts in the United Kingdom. Sackman replied with a straight face:
Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith where people choose to put themselves before those councils—that is part of the religious tolerance which is an important British value.
The fact that the widespread influence and implementation of Sharia law in Britain is denied by Keir Starmer tells you everything you need to know: Labour is already operating de facto Islamic blasphemy laws. Things are set to get even more controversial, however, thanks to Labour’s manifesto commitment to impose a definition of ‘Islamophobia.’ While Starmer is currently under pressure to walk this back (over fears of ‘social unrest’), that leaves him the problem of the huge number of MPs whose constituencies are likely to be swayed by the Muslim vote.
The question, then, isn’t whether the British government is tolerating Sharia. The question, instead, is how much longer before the adherents of Sharia stop tolerating the British government?
europeanconservative
