You are here

Douglas Murray

  • Summary: 

    The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

    In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.


    There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    Admin:  Our view is that Tony Blair and his Institute are extremely biased and frankly, they are ignoring the realities of sharia law as spelt out clearly in our  Also as spelt out by this brave who wishes to see Islam reformed.

  • Summary: 
    • The first problem of the European Court of Human Rights decision against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is that it means that, at least in cases of blasphemy, truth is not a defence.

    • Such a judgement hands over the decision on what is or is not allowed to be said not to a European or national court, but to whoever can claim, plausibly or otherwise, that another individual has risked "the peace."

    • There have been similar mobster tricks tried for some years now. They all run on the old claim, "I'm not mad with you myself; I'm just holding my friend back here."

  • Summary: 

    Asia Bibi should be able to come to the UK. It is those who would threaten her who should not be here.

    — Douglas Murray ()

    Almost nothing is discussed as badly in America or Europe as the subject of immigration. And one reason is that it remains almost impossible to have any sensible or rational public discussion of its consequences. Or rather it is eminently possible to have a discussion about the upsides (“diversity,” talent, etc.) but almost impossible to have any rational discussion about its downsides.

    When I wrote , I wanted to highlight the sheer scale of change that immigration brings. Some people might be happy with it, others unhappy: but to pretend that the change doesn’t occur, or won’t occur, or isn’t very interesting so please move along has always seemed an error to me. For instance, as I noted then, an internal document from the Ministry of Defence that leaked a few years back said that Britain would no longer be able to engage militarily in a range of foreign countries because of “domestic” factors. It takes a moment to absorb this. We’re used to wondering about how immigration changes domestic politics. But foreign policy as well?

    See also: 

  • Summary: 

    Unwittingly, perhaps, the ECHR has brought us to something of an impasse in this ruling. For the hadith are – next to the Qur’an – the most important foundational texts of Islam. And they state, repeatedly and without caveat, that the founder of Islam had sex with a girl of nine, who he had married when she was six. Mohammed was 53 at this time.

    Today we would call this paedophilia, and would have no difficulty in identifying it as such. Of course most of us would also remember that in the past different norms existed and we should try to understand their context. But deciding that nothing critical might be said of such a person or set of actions is a problem isn’t it? And an exceedingly bad precedent to set.

  • Summary: 
    • How expert are these two clerics at 'interfaith relations'? Well, they are so good that their main credential is their enthusiastic support for the murderer of somebody accused of 'blasphemy'.

    • Despite criticism from Shahbaz Taseer... the UK government had no problem allowing into the UK these two men who, as Shahbaz Taseer said, 'teach murder and hate'.

    • In the past year, the UK has banned a fair number of people from entering the country. It has, for example, barred the Canadian activist and blogger Lauren Southern. It has also banned the Austrian activist and 'identitarian' Martin Sellner. Whatever anyone's thoughts on either of these individuals, it is not possible to claim that either has ever addressed a rally of thousands of people which they have used to extol a murderer... Yet Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman has done these things – and yet has been allowed into the UK three years in a row.

  • Summary: 
    • What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities to go on, doing nothing to stop them?

    • Families of some of the abused girls related that they had tried consistently to raise the alarm over what was happening to their daughters, but that every door of the state was closed in their faces.

    • If Britain is to turn around the disgrace of its culture of 'grooming gangs', it should start by changing the risk-reward ratio between those who identify these monstrous crimes and those who have been shown to have covered them up.

  • Summary: 
    • Any government genuinely interested in promoting peace would withdraw funding from any entity -- wherever in the world it was -- which taught violence as such a core part of its curriculum.

    • Another textbook urges that "Giving one's life, sacrifice, fight, jihad and struggle are the most important meanings of life."

    • This is the true scandal for Britain: that while the UK government fails to pump the resources needed into helping young British children to grow up literate and numerate in Britain, it pumps millions of pounds into the Palestinian Authority to make sure that Palestinian children think that a career of violence is a career worth pursuing.

  • Summary: 

    The future of modern Britain looks set to be an unusually complicated affair. Take just one piece of news that came out of the trial of Darren Osborne over recent days. According to relatives of the Finsbury Park attacker, the first trigger towards his radicalisation was watching the BBC drama Three Girls about the Rochdale grooming gangs. Evidence suggests that this drama put him on the path to deciding to hire a van and drive it into a group of Muslims in Finsbury Park a few weeks later, murdering 51-year old Makram Ali. Now of course the BBC’s drama department should not be held responsible for the death of Mr Ali. Though I would love to see a real debate on Newsnight or the like in which the BBC questioned its own apparent role in this terrible business. But just how much more complicated can things get?

    Admin: The only complicating factor is the denial of the role of islam-sharia in jihad, .

  • Summary: 

    It is all part of a much bigger pattern. Elsewhere, I have recently  the strange British and European sickness whereby we don’t really have the societal fortitude to deal with (or even address) problems such as the organised gang-rape of children and console ourselves by attacking anyone willing to acknowledge the truth. We attack the response to the problem because we lack the societal fortitude to address the problem. You have to stand back to recognise the full consequence of such societal sickness. Imagine if Shah, Corbyn and their eggers-on among the Twittering classes were able to summon up even a quarter of the rage they reserved for Kavanagh and Champion, and saved it instead for the rapists who  their initials on girls they regard as ‘chattel’

  • Summary: 
    • What excuse is there in a country which has now seen and suffered the effects of Islamist terror so many times, a country that the Prime Minister has claimed has had "enough" of this terror, for precisely the same two clerics to return to the UK for another tour?

    • On their visit to the UK last summer, the two clerics were allowed to talk at mosques up and down the UK, including in Prime Minister Theresa May's own constituency. By way of explanation, as the imam of the Madina Mosque and Islamic Centre in Oldham, Zahoor Chishti, said of the two clerics, "They have got hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK." For his part, the son of the murdered Punjab Province Governor Salman Taseer, Shahbaz Taseer, criticised the UK authorities for letting people who praised the murderer of his father into the UK.

    • Last year, members of the British government could have claimed to have been ignorant of the views of these two clerics. They could have pretended that they did not know that they were allowing into the UK two men principally known for encouraging the murder of apostates. They could have pretended to have been ignorant of the beliefs of two men who like to whip up crowds to praise murderers. But they cannot be unaware this year. So what are the excuses for letting them in? Are there any?

  • Summary: 
    • Were terror attacks like this simply something that the British public would have to get used to, as the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had suggested? What if the public did not want to get used to them?

    • That the UK authorities allowed the "Al-Quds Day" march to proceed through the streets of London and for Palestine Expo to assemble such an array of speakers just down the road from one of this year's terror attacks, suggests that all that has happened this year in Britain is extremely very far from "enough".

    • So, rather than expecting resilience, the British people will have to be prepared to accept still more terror -- and doubtless more pointless platitudes to follow each attack -- as surely as they have followed all the attacks before.

  • Summary: 

    Needless to say, none of this is true. Nowhere has Heather Mac Donald suggested that black people or any other type of person has "no right to exist". The accusation is levelled without evidence. But as with all anti-free-speech activists today, the line is blurred not merely between actual words and violence, but between wholly imagined words and violence.

  • Summary: 

    But what Holland at no point mentioned was why he had not gone to film in another city which – mistakenly or otherwise – is far more important in Islam: Mecca. The reason is that Holland is not a Muslim and so is not only unable to film in Mecca but also is not allowed to go there.


    ‘The British Muslim community will not allow Channel 4 to distort our faith and our history.’

    Is that a threat? It doesn’t seem a very moderate way of responding to an interesting programme. He concludes:

    ‘The Ramadhan Foundation calls on Channel 4 to apologise for this programme, withdraw it from online viewing and also order an immediate inquiry into why this was allowed to be broadcast. How many Muslims Scholars, community leaders were given a copy of this programme before transmission? Whether historic facts in relation to Islam were verified by the presenter and who his sources were.’

    Gosh! Did Channel 4 know that they had to pass their programmes by ‘community leaders’? Who will censor programmes for the rest of us?

  • Summary: 
    • Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by?

    • Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim?

    • Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

  • Summary: 

    Last July, after the truck attack in Nice, the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that France ‘must learn to live with terrorism’. He was fairly heavily criticised for saying this. As was the present Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when he said last September that terror attacks these days are just ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’. In a sense Khan and Valls are correct. Terror is indeed something that the residents of London, Paris, Antwerp and many other cities are going to have to learn to live with. In the same way that the residents of Istanbul, Beirut and Islamabad have had to learn to live with the same.

    Yet why it might be that London, Paris and Antwerp are having to accustom themselves to the security status of Istanbul, Beirut and Islamabad is a question that nobody in any position of power seems keen to ask.

    Admin: What our politicians won't admit and even writers like Douglas Murray have to be wary about is saying jihad is part and parcel of Islamic doctrines. It was a large part of Muhammad's life and the way that Islam was established in the first place.

  • Summary: 
    • The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) presented themselves in the manner of debt collectors: standing beside a big bruiser stressing how sorry they were to have to demand this payment, but that they were only just holding back their big, angry friend.

    • Unfortunately for them, during the last Labour government in Britain the MCB's behaviour and beliefs were exposed by the more progressive Muslim voices who were by then coming along, and also by a wider society which had become wise to the tricks of these self-appointed "community leaders."

  • Summary: 

    An eight-year-old girl balances on one foot to point out the bullet wound on the other, a hallmark of the snipers sitting in the hills around us. Villages have been persuaded to keep records of the attacks to show anyone who cares. One of the very few from outside who does — Britain’s own Baroness Cox — came here recently. Her vehicle was spotted by the Fulani, who came out hunting for her and only just missed their target. Because of attacks like this, almost nobody comes. Just one more reason why these atrocities do not attract the West’s attentions.

    The task of chronicling the outrages continues nonetheless. Village leaders keep ring-binders of their dead. Some have photo-graph albums of what their villages have been through: old women set alight; young women raped and shot; babies hacked to death.

  • Summary: 
    • When just about every other magazine in the free world fails to uphold the values of free speech and the right to caricature and offend, who could expect a group of cartoonists and writers who have already paid such a high price to keep holding the line of such freedoms single-handed?

    • Most of the people who said they cared about the right to say what they wanted when they wanted, were willing to walk the walk -- to walk through Paris with a pencil in the air. Or they were willing to talk the talk, proclaiming "Je Suis Charlie." But almost no one really meant it.

    • If President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel had really believed in standing up for freedom of expression, then instead of walking arm-in-arm through Paris together with such an inappropriate figure as Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, they would have held up covers of Charlie Hebdo and said: "This is what a free society looks like and this is what we back: everyone, political leaders, gods, prophets, the lot can be satirised, and if you do not like it then you should hop off to whatever unenlightened hell-hole you dream of."

    • The entire world press has internalised what happened at Charlie Hebdo and instead of standing united, has decided never to risk something like that ever happening to them again.

    • For the last two years, we have learned for certain that any such tolerance is a one-way street. This new submission to Islamist terrorism is possibly why, in 2016, when an athlete with no involvement in politics, religion or satire was caught doing something that might have been seen as less than fully respectful of Islam, there was no one around to defend him.

  • Summary: 

    Various papers who made the mistake of trusting ‘Hope Not Hate’ have now had to un-publish their stories or print corrections. Perhaps they won’t trust the group again. Anyhow – to return to the point at the top – I’m afraid I won’t be available to give out this week’s lottery numbers or announce in advance the winners of the Boxing Day racing. Calling this stuff doesn’t require any mystical abilities. It simply requires an averagely observant person to notice what is going on time and again before our eyes. It really doesn’t require much. But it is our civilisation’s tragedy that the people in charge of our future can’t even rouse themselves to this task.

  • Summary: 

    Since the revelation that the Christmas Day Bomber, Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab, was radicalised at University College London, the Centre has decided to follow up our 2008 report with a resource demonstrating the astonishing carelessness and indifference still shown by University bodies towards the threat of radical Islam. This report provides the first comprehensive list of extremist speakers who have addressed audiences on British campuses since the Centre last wrote about vi Radical I slam on UK campuses this issue. The speakers have often appeared despite the full prior knowledge of university authorities of the presence of such speakers and, provided by us, full knowledge of such speakers’ views. In the days and months following the attempted terror attack on Christmas Day, the Centre has been at the forefront of the debate on what role Universities should play in ensuring that British students do not fall victim to the ideology of violent Islamism. Islamic extremism on campuses not only continues unabated, it continues – as this report demonstrates – to flourish.

  • Summary: 
    • Tommy Robinson has not been -- as Choudary was -- at the heart of a nexus of terrorists and terrorist-supporters going back years. He has not been on friendly terms with numerous people who have beheaded civilians and carried out suicide bombings.
    • Robinson is in an exceptionally unfortunate position. He is not a radical Islamist and nor is he from any discernible minority. He is a white working-class man who, it appears, can thus not only be harassed by certain authorities with impunity, but can find few if any defenders of his rights among the vast panoply of people in our societies who are only too keen to defend the rights of Islamists.
    • Civil liberties groups such as "Liberty," which are so stringent in protecting the rights of Islamist groups such as "Cage," are silent on the case of Tommy Robinson.
  • Summary: 

    Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors, initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics.

    By prosecuting Wilders, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer "more," or he will be committing a crime.

    At no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of, say, British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

    The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalising a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

    The Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

  • Author(s):


    Earlier today the judge in the case dismissed Begg’s case and his judgement is damning. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave described Begg as ‘something of a Jekyll and Hyde character.’ He went on:

    ‘He appears to present one face to the general, local and inter-faith community and another to particular Muslim and other receptive audiences. The former face is benign, tolerant and ecumenical. ‘The latter face is ideologically extreme and intolerant.’ The Judge also went on:

    ‘The various core extremist messages which emerge from the claimant’s speeches and utterances would, in my view, have been quite clear to the audiences.
    ‘The claimant’s ostensible cloak of respectability is likely to have made his [extremist] message in these speeches all the more compelling and seductive. For this reason, therefore, his messages would have been all the more effective and dangerous.
    ‘It is all too easy for someone in the claimant’s position of power and influence as an Imam to plant the seed of Islamic extremism in a young mind, which is then liable to be propagated on the internet.’

  • Summary: 

    The same week that Mr Yousaf was extolling the idea that Britain is a proto-Nazi state and Pakistan a potential safe-haven, the Pakistani authorities saw the latest round of the interminable and unforgivable saga of Asia Bibi. This is the woman who has been on death-row in Pakistan for no crime other than the crime of being a Christian. Bibi has been awaiting execution for five years, purely because a neighbour claimed that Bibi had insulted Mohammed during an argument.

    They attack the Conservative government of the UK for Nazism while not merely praising, but lauding as a safe haven, a state which actually persecutes and murders people because of their religion.

    Which means that he is doing what many other people today are doing, which is knowingly to cover for a racist despotism, so long as it is despotism with an Islamic face.

  • Author(s):


    . Smith has apparently been getting death threats since then. All of which tells us nothing new about the world’s most intolerant religion. But as ever it is the response of our own society that is so bizarre and disturbing. Already Smith’s career looks in jeopardy as various sports authorities are actually seriously looking into banning him from competing because of this non-event. But if you want an even finer distillation of the stupidity, consider the following interview with Smith yesterday on ITV’s ‘Loose Women’ (I know, I don’t normally watch it either). Here, a quartet of women interrogate and berate Smith over his drunken behaviour. He is asked to explain himself and ‘his recent behaviour.’ It is so surreal that it really is worth watching. It begins with a shocked Janet Street-Porter berating Louis Smith for his drunken behaviour and telling him how unacceptable it is. Yes, indeed, Janet Street-Porter tells someone off for coarseness and drunkenness.

  • Author(s):


    In a speech yesterday at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies the former Lord Chief Justice chose to explain why Muslim sensitivities should be especially respected. He also used this pulpit to warn people in Britain not to exercise their rights as free citizens. Here is an excerpt:

    ‘By now it must surely be appreciated that depicting the prophet in a derogatory way will cause grave offence among many Muslims and can lead to an explosive reaction with dreadful consequences.
    ‘The power of the pen can be mighty and even cartoonists who rely sometimes on gross exaggeration to make their point do need to exercise self-restraint, particularly in sensitive areas where religion is involved.’
    In fact the power of the pen isn’t very mighty at all. Because on the one hand people with Kalashnikovs can kill and silence the pen-wielders. And on the other hand the sort of people who would once have defended the rights of people with pens – people like Lord Woolf – will use the aftermath to explain why people with Kalashnikovs should now make our laws.

  • Summary: 
    • Mohammed Shafiq was quoted in the Sun saying of Smith: "I think he should apologise immediately. Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended."
    • Shafiq does not explain why his faith should not be mocked. Nor does he seem to know anything about the right of free people in free countries to do or say whatever we like about Islam or any other faith whenever we feel like it.
    • There is nothing special about Islam that means it cannot be mocked. In fact, it would be a very good thing (both for Muslims and everyone else) if it were mocked rather more.
    • But there in that sentence is the implicit threat again. All insist that their faith "should not be mocked." And for those who say they are moderates, and are presented as such by the press, it seems to be exceptionally useful that they do not have to be much more explicit than this.
    • But in this not-so-subtle intimidation do we not see precisely that thing which most worries the public? That despite what our politicians say, the allegedly vast chasm that separates the extremists from the "moderates" seems at times to be almost paper-thin
  • Summary: 
    • Anjem Choudary has gone to jail. He was the most visible part of the problem. But he was not the greatest or deepest problem in this area. That problem is shown when two extremist clerics with pre-medieval views come to Britain they are welcomed by an ignorant British establishment.
    • "These people teach murder and hate. For me personally I find it sad that a country like England would allow cowards like these men in. Why are they allowing people [in] that give fuel to the fire they are fighting against?" — Shahbaz Taseer, the son of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who was murdered for opposing Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
    • "They have got hundreds of thousands of followers in the UK," the imam of the Madina Mosque and Islamic Centre in Oldham, Zahoor Chishti, said of the two clerics.
  • Summary: 

    If Mr Shah's murderer had been a non-Muslim, there would be a concerted effort by the entirety of the media and political class to find out what inspirations and associations the murderer had. Specifically, they would want to know if there was anybody -- especially any figure of authority -- who had ever called for the murder of Muslim shopkeepers. Yet when a British Muslim kills another British Muslim for alleged "apostasy" and local religious authorities are found to have praised or mourned the killers of people accused of "apostasy," the same people cannot bother to stir themselves.

Subscribe to Douglas Murray