Our earlier posts in this ongoing series on the Islamisation of Britain have looked at some of the distributing demographics of Europe’s emerging Islamic majority. I suggested that the Islamization of Britain could occur without a single bullet being fired through a combination of procreation and political maneuvering.
In Part 2 of this series I explored some of the many factors that make British Muslims so successful at evangelism and in transmitting the faith to the next generation, with a number of lessons that Christians can apply.
This was followed by an article in which I showed that the spurious concept of “Islamophobia” is being used to close down public discussion of Islamic beliefs and practices, with the result that Muslims in Britain are quickly become a class immune from critique. The present article builds on the last three by showing what happened on ground level throughout 2013 as Britain’s Muslim population grows in influence and power.
2013 Year in Review
Videos posted on Youtube showed gangs of Muslim vigilantes accosting Londoners and demanding that they conform to Islamic Sharia law. The, so called, “Muslim London Patrol”, repeatedly shouted to non-Muslim pedestrians, “this is a Muslim area.”
In another video, the self-proclaimed Muslim army shouted,
“Allah is the greatest! Islam is here, whether you like it or not. We are here! We are here! What we need is Islam! What we need is Sharia!…We are the Muslim Patrol. We are in north London, we are in south London, in east London and west London….You can go to hell! This is not a Christian country. To hell with Christianity….Allah is great! Allah is great! We are coming!”
(Read more about this in Soeren Kern’s article ‘Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London’)
Also in January 2013, Radical Muslim preacher, Anjem Choudary, told the International Business Times, that the work of the Sharia vigilantes is “a wake-up call for society.” He described “a clash between Islam and liberal democracy in hotspot areas of London.” The extremist preacher has also led a campaign to turn twelve British cities into autonomous Islamic states governed by Sharia law.
In February, Choudary continued his campaign by pushing his followers to engage in “holy war,” which they would be able to wage if they quit their jobs and file for unemployment benefits.
The extremist preacher derided non-Muslims for living meaningless lives working nine-to-five jobs, and said that it is a Muslim’s job to take money from the kuffar, non-Muslims. That is what a Muslim’s work should be. (Read more in Soeren Kern’s article ‘Unemployment Benefits to Finance Jihad.’)
Even more shocking is the fact that many British officials seem to have no problem subsidizing Muslims in their indolent lifestyle. In February ’13 it was reported that two Pakistani brothers submitted false rental agreements in the attempt to rip off British taxpayers of £315,000 ($520,000). Despite finding the men guilty, Judge Neil Sanders allowed the men to go free because they had both “worked hard in terms of making a life for [them]selves and in many ways the greatest punishment is the loss of [their] good name.”
In March 2013, Syria replaced Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia as the place where militant Islamists go to join armies in the cause of jihad. On 13th March, The Independent reported that Syria has around 100 British Muslims serving as active jihadists.
St. John’s Episcopal Church in Aberdeen, Scotland opened its doors to practicing Muslims, whose nearby mosque was overflowing with worshippers. This is the first UK church to open its doors to worshipers of Allah.
In April, BBC secretly produced a documentary that filmed the inner workings of several Islamic Sharia Law courts located in Britain. These courts routinely give rulings that conflict with current British law, especially enforcing a systematic discrimination of women. The Muslim judges who run these courts often rule in favor of women remaining in abusive marriages. Women are constantly threatened with violence by these rulings but feel pressured to obey them because of religious beliefs and familial pressure.
The issue of female genital mutilation (FGM) achieved renewed prominence in April. A two-part story that aired on BBC exposed the problem to the mainstream. The hideous practice is widespread in Britain, with at least 66,000 women and girls in Britain having undergone the barbaric “procedure,” with another 20,000 girls under 15 currently at risk. More disturbingly, this might just be the beginning: a 2011 Department of Health policy paper says that “FGM is significantly more prevalent” because of immigration and an increasing population.
Unfortunately, the British government’s involvement has been minimal. While Scotland Yard has requested more information to find perpetrators performing FGM, members of the public have been reluctant to participate because of “cultural sensitivity” and political correctness. This hesitation is also a result of religious sensitivity: despite claims to the contrary, FGM is undoubtedly connected to Islam in many ways—such as doctrinally and historically—and an attack on FGM might be seen as an attack on Islam. (This is what David Littman found when he attempted to raise concern about FGM and other barbaric practices at the Human Rights Council, as we reported in our article about ‘Islamophobia’ and censorship.)
In May, the Government published data showing that Islam will soon become the dominant religion in Britain. Even though Christianity is still most prevalent, this is primarily among people who are over age 50. In addition, 1 in 10 people under the age of 25 call themselves Muslims. If current trends continue, Islam will overtake Christianity in Britain within 20 years.
Additionally, the Islamic practice of temporary marriage—religiously allowed prostitution which unites a man and unmarried woman in “marriage” for a short time—is also becoming more widespread. Temporary marriages, as well as polygamy, demonstrates that Shari Muslims are using their religion to practice otherwise illegal forms of marriage for non-Muslim British citizens. This is just one example of the parallel legal infrastructure that is being allowed to exist on grounds of religious toleration.
the severity of the crimes perpetrated against British children because they were afraid of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’ or racism
The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales in June convicted seven members of a Muslim child grooming gang with the rape, torture, and trafficking of girls as young as 11. They were sentenced to up to 95 years in prison.
This trial revealed that once again police and other authority figures sidestepped this issue for fear of being seen as “Islamophobes.” “The 18-week trial,” Soeren Kern reported, “drew unwelcome attention to the sordid reality that police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media have for decades downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated against British children because they were afraid of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’ or racism.” (Italics mine).
Also in June, Muslim taxi driver Mohamed Hacene-Chaouch received jail time for raping a female passenger. Although information about taxi-rape rates are not easy to obtain, a British judge issued a warning to female passengers that it is unsafe to commute by cab. The London Metropolitan Police Service reported that around 1,125 sexual assaults occur each year involving taxi drivers.
During this time, two counter-jihad activists, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, were denied access to Britain because of the Unacceptable Behavior policy, due to Home Secretary Theresa May’s intervention. May said that individuals whose presence is negative in the UK will not be permitted entry. However, the British government allowed a religiously radical Saudi Sheikh to begin a speaking tour in Britain, as well as Mohammed al-Arefe, a Saudi hate-preacher who has said “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.”
In July, a report by the House of Commons showed Muslim convicts over-represent the criminal population. While Muslims make up about 5% of the British population in general, Muslim convicts now represent 13% of convicts. From 1997 to 2012, Muslim inmates in Britain have increased by more than 200%. Many fear that British prisons will turn into “hotbeds” for Islamic radicalization.
The July 2013 issue of Inside Time reported that a “long serving prisoner” says that “if we attempt to cook pork in the communal kitchen it is deemed dangerous, even a threat to your life. The kitchen is occupied by 90% Muslims…people have been targeted…and bullied into converting to Islam.” Additionally, “no official steps are being taken to control them…I hope we get some feedback from this.”
In August, Noor TV, a Birmingham-based television channel that airs Islamic programs throughout Europe, was fined £85,000 for airing a live show that featured a Muslim hate preacher who urged followers to kill people who disrespect the Prophet Mohammed. Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, imposed this fine, as well as another fine to a separate television company called DM Digital Television. This company aired a very similar program to the one Noor TV’s program.
DM Digital Television aims to bring together “Asian and English cultures” that exist in Europe, with an estimated audience of 30 million viewers. However, Ofcom ruled that such programs may encourage young Muslims to commit crimes or become disorderly. They warned that comments “unambiguously stat[e] that [Muslims] had a duty to kill anyone who criticizes or insults the Prophet Mohammed and apostates.”
186 Muslim inmates at three different prisons, after finding that their halal food had pork in it, are suing the British government on the grounds that their human rights were violated. The prisoners are appealing to Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which, among other things, allows for the freedom of religion.
A taxpayer-funded Muslim school, Al-Madinah, in Derby, was found to be operating under Islamic Sharia Law, which caused an uproar among citizens. The fundamentalists in charge of the school ordered all females to wear an Islamic scarf called a hijab, and all students were banned from other “un-Islamic” activities such as singing songs, playing musical instruments, and reading fairytales. Although initially promising to be an “inter-faith” school with a 50% non-Muslim enrollment, the administrators are now following Islamic law within the school and hope to have an all-Muslim population in the future. This switch has happened after the school received £1.4 million ($2.25 million) in government funding.
A BBC survey from September 25 showed that out of 1,000 18-24 year olds questioned, 27% did not trust Muslims, and 28% believed Britain would be “better off” without them. 60% of the overall population negatively views Muslims, and 44% believe Muslims have different values then the overall population. A 1st September survey published by Lord Ashcroft Polls revealed that 6 in 10 Britons believe Muslim immigration disadvantages outweigh the advantages—17% thought the opposite. Most people worried about the benefits and public services that immigrants were claiming.
A London judge on September 16 allowed a Muslim woman to wear her full-face veil for her court trial, except when she was giving evidence. According to Judge Peter Murphy, allowing the woman to wear her niqab would disrupt justice throughout England and Wales. Although he believes in “freedom of religious expression,” this should not stand in the way of courts of law.
After more than 8,000 enraged Muslim students signed a petition, Birmingham Metropolitan College reversed a ban on Islamic veils that allegedly discriminated against Muslims and other religious groups that wear coverings such as niqabs or burqas, as well as caps, hoodies and other types of head coverings. The college initially announced the policy on September 9th that stated both students and employees would be required to remove face coverings so they are “easily identifiable at all times.” It reversed the decision by September 12 after the issue became controversial.
Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, told The Independent he was ashamed that the college had reversed the ban, and he called for legislation to ban the niqab in all public places. He expressed concerns that society won’t be able to function properly if everyone’s faces are obscured; this makes it difficult to “identify troublemakers” and is “common sense to most people.” He asserted that this legislation does not target Muslims: “We have to be quite clear—the burka isn’t religious clothing. It’s a choice.”
(As an aside, the true political significance of the burqa is often overlooked, but was observed a number of years ago by Melanie Phillips, who pointed out that “Wearing the burqa is not a religious right: Islam merely requires women to be modestly covered. The burqa is an act of religious war. It is a political symbol, designed to intimidate others by sending the most visible signal possible of the presence of those who want to replace secular rule with theocratic Islam. It is also an act of hostility towards human society. We cannot see the face, expression, and identity of the individual concealed beneath it, whereas she can see everything about us. It thus creates a radical imbalance of power and destroys the basis of equality on which human beings deal with each other. Countries that have banned the burqa understand that the threat it poses is not just to the women it enslaves but to themselves.”)
Marrying off young girls is becoming more prevalent in Britain due to Muslim law. The legal marriage age in Britain is 16, but Sharia law says that a girl is marriageable as soon as she reaches puberty. Over a dozen Muslim clerics in Britain were filmed agreeing to marry off girls as young as 14. One Muslim cleric openly derided British laws concerning marriage, and said that one girl, despite not wanting to get married, was compelled to by the “grace of Allah.” This is just one other instance of parallel Muslim laws in Britain. (See here for more information.)
A Muslim couple sought the right to shave their disabled daughter’s pubic hair, which is the parents’ duty according to Muslim law. However, caretakers didn’t think the young woman was mentally capable of consenting to the act. A “cultural expert” said that exceptions should be made for such disabled persons, and the couple dropped the case. Unfortunately, British taxpayers were left to pay the bill, which amounted to £350,000.
In attempts to be “one of the world’s leading centers of Islamic finance,” the London Stock Exchange announced the launch of a new Islamic bond index, as well plans to be the first non-Islamic country to issue sovereign Islamic bonds, called sukuk. These plans were announced by British Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech at the ninth World Islamic Economic Forum held in London.
The Islamic finance market, run by Sharia law, is quickly growing; the British government wants to get their hands on as big a piece of this financial pie as they can.
Meanwhile in Scotland, one of the biggest immunization programs ever was called off because a “small number” of Muslim parents in Pollokshields complained that the Fluenz vaccines contained pork gelatin. However, 100 Islamic scholars from the National Health Service of Greater Glasgow and Clyde (which contains the majority of the Muslim population) agreed that pork gelatin was permissible according to Islamic law. They postponed the vaccines anyway due to the parents’ concerns. In September a similar vaccination program was desisted when the vaccine supposedly became “insensitive” to Muslims.
November revealed that a British man named Choukri Ellekhlifi funded his al Qaeda extremist trip by mugging people in a well-off part of London, threatening victims with a taser-like gun and then stealing their valuables. He skipped bail and fled to Syria about a year ago, and has since joined the Islamic extremists warring against the Assad regime. His party attacked pro-government forces, and he was killed in the ensuing fight.
In a separate incident, Ifthekar Jaman, a jihadist from Southsea, Hampshire, said in a BBC news program that he was a jihadist before he left Britain. He told that BBC that his beliefs “began from the book [the Koran]…Islam is peace…but it requires fighting…I am actually a Muslim following the way I should be.”
In addition, Andrew Parker, who is the MI5 (British domestic intelligence) leader, reported that many British citizens support al Qaida. Sir John Sawers, head of MI6 (British foreign intelligence), said that terrorist attacks in Britain are at risk of increasing. According to Parker, 34 terrorist attacks have been foiled by British intelligence since the July 7 bombings in 2005. (Read more in this report.)
A Muslim clerk at Marks and Spencer refused to sell pork or alcohol products, and she asked customers to use another checkout lane. As a result, the company incorporated a policy which allowed Muslim staff members to refuse to sell pork and alcohol products to customers. However, they removed the policy when thousands of angry customers produced a boycott. Critics of this pro-Islam policy cite this as one more example of British law conforming to Sharia law.
December found two Islamic radicals guilty of murdering British soldier Lee Rigby near the Woolwich Barracks in London. The men attacked Rigby, ran him over with their car and tried to decapitate him with a meat cleaver and kitchen knives. Although raised as Christians, the men converted to Islam in their teens. During the trial, one of the defendants, Michael Adebolajo called himself a “soldier of Allah” fighting in the “war between the Muslims and the British people.” Asserting that the threat could never be eliminated, Cressida Dick told The Telegraph newspaper that British soldiers will always be at risk of these terrorists with such “perverted ideolog[ies].”
In the meantime, the “Muslim Patrol”—three self-named Muslim men—was sentenced at the Old Bailey on 6 December for assaulting and otherwise abusing citizens whose actions disagreed with Sharia law. They sealed their own fate by later posting these videos of their actions on YouTube.
- The Islamisation of Britain (Part 1): a crisis in demographics
- The Islamisation of Britain (Part 2): retention and conversion
- The Islamisation of Britain (Part 3): Censorship and ‘Islamophobia’
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.