You are here


  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 

    A man has been arrested and imprisoned in Scotland for painting the words “Islam is questionable” on his house, in what Police Officers claimed was a “breach of the peace”.

  • Author(s):


    Theresa May thinks that Islam is compatible with Human Rights – stated in her speech following the terrorist attack at London Bridge and Borough Market.  Read the .

    She criticises those who know they are incompatible, rejecting the clear evidence.  An important purpose of UKIP, beyond Brexit, is to force politicians to stop deceiving us regarding Islam.  Thus we must put in the effort to read the source material and collate the evidence.  Everyone in UKIP should read at least chapter 9 of the Koran, understand the terms “” and “”, and watch the videos and read the writings of scholars such as , and .

    Source documents are the , the  (UDHR), and the  (ECHR).  The Declaration and the Convention have a similar core set of Articles, however the ECHR addresses an apparent anomaly in the UDHR.  The ECHR has numerous Articles relating to the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights, which are irrelevant for us when we have our own Bill of Rights.

    The thirty clauses of the UDHR do embody what we should aspire to, for the whole world.  Below are examples where the Koran is incompatible with it.  This is not a complete list, however it does show the severity of the problem and that Theresa May is utterly mistaken.

    UDHR Article 1 states that we should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.  Islam, when it can, subjugates non-believers as second class citizens, who exist in a state of Dhimmitude and pay the Jizya tax as a sign of inferiority.   .

    Article 2 states that everyone is entitled to these rights irrespective of who they are.  Under Islam women are regarded as the property of men, either her father or husband.  The husband determines what she does, and how many children she has.  .

    Article 3.  “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”  Not in Islam.  .

    Article 4 opposes slavery.   allows a Muslim man to keep female captives as sex slaves.  ISIS does so.  Grooming gangs own girls by hooking them on drink and drugs.

    Article 5 disallows cruel and inhuman punishment.   mandates cutting off hands and feet on opposite sides.

    Article 6:  “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”  Under Sharia Law the testimony of women is half that of a man, with grave miscarriages of justice – a rapist can accuse his victim of seducing him, and he is let off while she may be stoned to death for adultery.

    Article 7 states that all are equal before the law.  Sharia Law: the inheritance of a woman is half that of a man.    Sharia Councils in the UK have de facto jurisdiction regarding family matters and inheritance, in contravention of Human Rights. They must be abolished.

    Article 16: marriage cannot be coercive.  In Muslim community there can be huge pressure to marry.  Marriage between first cousins is explicitly allowed, , producing thirteen times the cases of recessive genetic disorders compared to the non-Muslim population.  Islam seriously harms Muslims themselves.  UKIP must campaign against this –  must be outlawed.

    Article 18 states that there must be freedom of religion, and freedom to change religion.  Islam is incompatible, there is the death penalty for apostasy, , etc..  A Saudi citizen has been sentenced to death for .

    Article 19 states that we must have freedom of opinion, and freedom to express it.  Islam abjures freedom, witness the fatwa against .  Attacks on cartoonists have de facto created the death penalty for blasphemy.  The UK has prevented the scholar Robert Spencer from , breaching this Article.

  • Summary: 

    “There are accounts of Sharia patrols questioning and even attacking” British citizens. Gangs intimidate and pester “those who are complying with British law but not their own.” “Muslim grooming gangs prey upon kafir, namely non-Muslim girls, and regard them as legitimate targets to violate.”

    “Many, if not most, state schools in our big cities compel halal-only menus to be offered, with no alternatives to their children.” Rather than serve bacon, “Holiday Inns now routinely observe Islamic dietary laws” and supermarkets sell insufficiently labelled halal meat. “It would seem consumer choice must now bow before the writ of the Imam.” (They were quick to allow options for consumers who wanted to deviate from a traditional British diet, but they refuse to consider those that wish to return to one.)

  • Author(s):


    Theresa May thinks that Islam is compatible with Human Rights – stated in her speech following the terrorist attack at London Bridge and Borough Market.  Read the .

    She criticises those who know they are incompatible, rejecting the clear evidence.  An important purpose of UKIP, beyond Brexit, is to force politicians to stop deceiving us regarding Islam.  Thus we must put in the effort to read the source material and collate the evidence.  Everyone in UKIP should read at least chapter 9 of the Koran, understand the terms “” and “”, and watch the videos and read the writings of scholars such as , and .

  • Author(s):


    “We respect religious groups to carry out slaughter in the UK according to how they define and read their scriptures. What we do not allow however is for the rights and demands of groups within those religions override the UK’s compassionate traditions of animal welfare.

    “There are a significant number of UK consumers that would prefer not to eat meat killed by religious slaughter. So, UKIP will also write into law that all animal meat produce will have mandatory labelling – providing clearly both the method of production and slaughter – giving people greater transparency and choice.

    “UKIP’s forthcoming manifesto on animal welfare will be the strongest of any major political party in the UK.”

  • Summary: 

     »  » British Law and Sharia Law

    British Law and Sharia Law

    The law of the land and alien legal systems: can they co-exist? A Matter of Allegiance.]

    Posted on March 19, 2017 by  in  // 33 Comments

    It’s important to talk about the law and to clarify what we mean. If we say “the law” we tend to mean the law of the land. So if I’m in Britain and I say “the law”, I mean British Law, the law that governs Britain.

    Upon questioning about the presence of sharia law in the UK, the government response has essentially been that there is no sharia law in the UK. What this means is that because sharia law does not have the weight of state behind it, i.e. the state does not enforce sharia law, there is no sharia law. But there is.

    Sharia is not ‘the law’, but it is a set of laws. Sharia law exists in an objective form, as a set of laws, and is adhered to across the world – often imposed by islamic nation states. Just like membership of an association obliges us to obey the laws of that association, sharia law, for many, is to be obeyed in order to be a devout Muslim. Vast numbers of Muslims take that requirement very seriously.

    It’s unfair to claim that sharia law is always a choice, for many it isn’t. Apostasy is widely condemned in even the most ‘moderate’ Muslim communities, and people take great risks if they question Islam. But even if sharia was a choice, even if an individual does choose sharia law, should they be able to in the UK? Should that choice be available? The answer has to be no. Sharia, or other sets of laws, should not be available for use if they run contrary to the law of the land.

    The Law governs our practical daily life in areas such as driving or taxes, but it is also a reflection of our morals as a nation and a people. It is a reflection of what we believe to be moral and right. One of its primary functions is to protect. Who is protected and from what, is derived from our common morals and values.

    The Law prohibits violent physical assault as a criminal offence so we can protect ourselves from violent physical assault, but also to reflect our moral position that we believe violent physical assault is wrong. The Law prohibits sexual engagement with minors so we can protect minors from sexual exploitation and abuse, but also to reflect our common moral position that sex with minors is wrong.  

    The Law of the land is built on several foundational and fixed principles that don’t change as new laws are introduced.  Fundamental principles in criminal law for example don’t change: the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on the state etc.

    Family law, the area of law most pertinent when discussing sharia law in the UK, is of the most fundamental importance. Family law also demonstrates who we are as people, what kind of society we seek to be. Like criminal law, there are fundamental principles in family law. Like criminal law, family law principles are consistent, there aren’t exceptions made when new laws are introduced. For example, the equal rights of the parties to a family law dispute don’t change. A husband and a wife have the same status in law, their word carries the same weight. This is fundamental. Also fundamental is the status of children in disputes, the fundamental principle being that the best interests of the child is paramount in any decision involving that child.

    Family law determines the status of women (in the family) and of children. In the UK, the woman is equal to the man, and the child’s protection is paramount. We cannot veer from these principles – it is against the spirit of British Law that reflects who we are.

    Given this, can we allow a system of laws to be practiced, if they are not consistent with the spirit of our law or the principles on which it is built? No, we cannot.

    Sharia law is inconsistent with the spirit of our British Law and its principles. In deciding on a case involving a Lebanese mother who would lose her children under sharia if deported to her home country, the House of Lords called it “wholly incompatible” with human rights legislation.

    Many politicians will argue that sharia is not being practiced in Britain, but it is. It has pseudo court rooms, judges, parties, and a decision. The decision might not be binding according to British Law, but it is binding according to sharia law, and that is what gives it its power.

    In sharia family law, a wife is worth less than her husband. She cannot divorce of her volition, even if she is subject to violence and abuse. Her testimony in a family law dispute is worth only half of her husband’s. This is intended to make it as difficult as possible for women to ‘win’ in any family law dispute. The reason for this is simply because the Koran deems women to be worth less than men.

    Furthermore, in sharia family law, the best interests of the child are not paramount – again in defiance of the standards, principles, and spirit of British Law. The best interests of the child do not come first in sharia because Islam deems that children are the property of their fathers, who has sole power over their lives. Mothers have no input and no rights.

    In the practice of sharia law here in Britain, decisions as to child custody are being made. This inevitably means that children will be placed with their fathers irrespective of circumstances, including if he is violent. Because mothers have no rights, they can’t stop this.

    Sharia law practice takes on different guises in Britain, including under powers of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act allows parties to a dispute to agree to appoint a ‘judge’ and agree to be bound by the decision.

    Arbitration per se is not a problem. In principle, it is a legitimate way for free people to conduct their affairs. But the law itself, i.e. the Arbitration Act itself, places restrictions on this practice that ensure arbitration adheres to the principles of British Law. For example, the Arbitration Act requires that arbitration be fair, impartial, and in the public interest.

    Sharia law is not fair, not impartial, and given its terrible treatment of women and children, it is hardly in the public interest.

    For the most part however, sharia councils operate as charities.  The problem here is that charity laws tend to view religion as a force for good. It does so without examining the detail of what the religion teaches. Across the board, in public life, religions are deemed to be essentially the same, and are deemed to encourage moral behaviour.

    If we are going to oppose sharia law, and we should, we must stop designating unquestioning privilege to religion. We must look at what the religion teaches and the impact these teachings can have on its followers. 

    We must also stop pretending that there is nothing specific to sharia that should worry us. There is. It is a system predicated on female subservience, on violent punishment, on oppression, on arbitrary whims of clerics, and on complete disregard for the rights of children.

    Sharia is not compatible with Britain; it’s not compatible with our social values, our legal principles, or who we are as a nation. Its practice should therefore not be permitted. The fundamental principles of British Law should instead be upheld as supreme.  

  • Summary: 

    Theresa May talked tougher than usual yesterday, but nothing will really change, we know this.  We know it because Theresa May, or any other major political figure in Britain, will not tackle this in the way that it needs to be tackled.  They are far too concerned about “alienating” Muslims or upsetting Saudi theocrats. What we need is a leader who prioritises neither of those, but who stands for the British people, no ifs or buts.

    Here is how we do it:

    • Internment
    • Prioritise spending on policing and defence
    • Scrap the Human Rights Act
    • Raid known Jihad mosques
    • Stand up to Saudi Arabia
    • End (or severely restrict) immigration from Muslim countries
    • Write a British constitution
    • Acknowledge the root of the problem

  • Author(s):


    Why do politicians and other religious illiterates intone the vacuous mantra that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’every time there is an atrocity like the Manchester bombing, last week? 9/11 should have stopped such nonsense in its tracks sixteen years ago. But no, they continue to inform us that Islamic terrorism has nothing whatever to do with ‘peaceful’ Islam.

  • Author(s):


    I suggest that there are things we can do. For a start, we should set aside the ECHR and deport foreign nationals whom we realistically suspect of jihadism.  Second, we should deny entry and withdraw passports from British citizens who seek to return from jihad (yes, there are legal problems, but we face an emergency). We should identify imams who preach jihad, and deport them (or if British, detain them – incitement to violence is a crime). We should close mosques that give a platform to hate preachers.

    Then schools. It is evident that some Muslim schools are hotbeds of Wahhabism and anti-Western values. They should be closed. I’ve struggled for a long time with the apparent discrimination of closing Muslim schools but not other faith schools. But it seems that only in Muslim schools (or some Muslim schools) are anti-Western values systematically promoted, and when we are faced with Islamic terrorism, there is every justification for closing them.

    We should ban the burqa. You cannot be integrated into Western society with your face covered. And if you aren’t prepared to be part of Western society, you shouldn’t be here.

    Finally, perhaps the most radical point. As a broadly libertarian politician, I am hugely reluctant even to type the word “internment”, but I am coming around to the view that the threat we face – the children slaughtered in Manchester – is on such a scale that we have to think the unthinkable. No, Mr. Brendan Cox, we do not want to build internment camps for the world’s billion Muslims. But we need at least to consider internment for the 3000 or so jihadist suspects on our streets. We are horrified that the Manchester bomber was “known to the police” yet still allowed to go to Libya, to return, and to carry out his atrocity. Yet we have to recognise that it is impossible for the security forces to monitor 3000 people.

  • Summary: 

    When things go wrong, that’s when leadership is both tested and defined.  Only weeks after innocent people were murdered in Westminster, we have again in Britain have had our way of life assaulted by Islamic killers.  The aim of Islamic killers is clear, regardless of how it is sanitised by our politicians; Islam won’t tolerate freedom and we are attacked for being free.

    It is written in every other page of the Koran, the persecution and punishment of the unbeliever.  Some say these verses apply only to defence, but rarely do they describe (or even know) what it is that Islam defends itself from.  It defends itself from disobedience to its rule.  To clarify, our freedom is deemed an attack on Islam, and killing us for our defiance is deemed an act of defence.

  • Author(s):


    How many times have we warned about a mass terrorist attack here in our country? How many times have we said that, yes, islam is to blame? How many more times do our government, media and Chief Constables think they can get away with their mantra of ‘lone wolf – mentally ill – nothing to do with islam’? How big must that elephant in the room become before they accept the truth: it is everything to do with islam?

  • Summary: 

    [Ed: This article is a view written by Indian-born women’s rights activist Dr Deeba Abedi who now lives in the USA. Please note that Dr Abedi consistently attacks sharia, not Muslims. Attacking a system of law is fair game, especially when the potentially controversial things Dr Abedi is saying about Sharia are there for all to see in countries that already live under Sharia law.]

    Those who cry for the introduction of sharia are often quick to blame the West for terror attacks because the West has so often meddled in affairs that . While this is surely true, it does not explain why the Chinese are seeing the same kinds of violence. China has been nowhere on the battlefield of the West’s war on terror. Such a notion also does not explain the abuse that sharia has rained down on countless African nations. It is simply a tactic to pull at the heartstrings of Westerners in order to get a foot in the door.

    If the UK does not soon awaken to this, then the British People will find that before long the beauty of their country will be gone. TV will be free from any news that does not have a sharia message attached, music will be forbidden except at times of prayer, dancing will be outlawed, women will be treated as chattel, and public beatings and executions will be normalized. Hands may be severed for stealing, and stoning for adultery.

    If this sounds like a nightmare, that is because it is. It is with visceral hatred that violent sharia law comes into a land. Sometimes it poses as a friend. Other times it comes with a sword. There are times that it has come, as now, dressed in “acceptance and tolerance” in a “time of need” – only to strike like a viper at the hands of those who have accepted them inside. Once inside, sharia does not leave, and it kills those who attempt to vote it out in any way. Now is the time to wake up, people of Great Britain: you have been warned!

  • Author(s):


    Today at his first Mayor's Question Time at City Hall UKIP London Assembly member Peter Whittle asked the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, about the prospect of bringing about the prosecution of the perpetrators of female genital mutilation (FGM) and asked whether he would ensure that the Metropolitan Police Service bring to bear the full force of the law on the perpetrators of this appalling practice.

    In his question Peter Whittle noted that between 2009 and 2014, 4,000 women and girls in London were treated for FGM, yet, despite being a crime, of which there is a much increased public awareness, there has yet to be a successful prosecution.

Subscribe to UKIP