Do we need 'Zero Islam'?
Can Islam be compatible with British / Western values?
Islam seems to be at the heart of the questions surrounding British identity and immigration. For example, after the Southport stabbing and subsequent riots, Laurence Fox said that we needed ‘Zero Islam’. (I can’t find the tweet on X so I think it must have been deleted). But I suspect that he speaks for many people - the fact that mosques were targeted shows that many people believe the real problem is not simply immigration in general but Islam in particular.
This is a very difficult issue to grapple with (to put it mildly!), which is largely why I haven’t said much about it on the podcast up until now. However, I think the time has come to speak up: I believe the debate is becoming polarised to the point of being dangerous. In particular, I am not sure that speaking about ‘zero Islam’ is really helpful. Issues like this need calm and rational thinking, rather than tribal loyalty - and that applies to everyone. The truth requires everyone to confront their biases and prejudices, and ask awkward and uncomfortable questions.
We’re going to think about whether Islam is compatible with British (or Western) values, so let’s begin by thinking about what those values are in the first place.
What are ‘British values’?
I believe the underlying reason why the political class struggles to with this is because they don’t really know what British values really are. A few years ago the government produced a list of ‘British values’, which was to be used in schools. But they are brief and clearly do not represent the sum total of what it means to be British. For example, people traditionally associate the Brits with formering orderly queues. So, is queueing a British value? What about other aspects of our culture - good and bad: is football hooliganism a British value? Or a sense of fair play, or teen pregnancy, or garden parties, or gambling?
To say that Britain has a distinct culture and values is to state the obvious. But it cannot be reduced to a set of simple and straightforward points like ‘the rule of law’ (one of the government’s so-called “British values”, in case you didn’t know). I’m also not sure that ‘values’ is the right word to use - a value is a neutral word, they can be good or bad. Football hooliganism is bad, but a sense of fair play is good. There are good things about Britain and there are bad things. I’m not saying this to try and denigrate Britain, but simply to make the point that ‘values’ do not go far enough. There is no point talking about values if there is no God and therefore no transcendent good.
Instead of talking about ‘values’, I think it would be far better to say that Western culture derives from Christianity. Western countries — formerly Christendom — have had centuries of their laws and practices being shaped by the Bible and the Christian faith. Many people have written recently about how Christianity shaped the modern world - none more influential than Tom Holland in his book Dominion. It’s not so much that Britain has a certain set of values, but that Britain has been shaped by Christianity over the centuries.
What does this mean for Islam? It means that the question, “Is Islam compatible with British values?” could be put more bluntly: “Is Islam compatible with Christianity?” Here, on a basic level, the answer has to be ‘no’: both Christians and Muslims believe that their faiths are exclusive. Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Whereas Muslims say: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” Clearly they cannot both be right!
If a society’s values derive from the transcendent - i.e. from God - then ultimately, Christianity and Islam are going to arrive at very different ideas about what is good. This is because they do not believe in the same God, and this is freely admitted by both Christians and Muslims. This is the most important point to make: there is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and Christianity, because they are mutually exclusive.
However, it’s important to stress that this doesn’t mean that Muslims and Christians can’t live together peacefully in the same society. This is where we need to be very careful, because there is plenty of nuance required. Clearly there are some Muslims who seem to do pretty well in the Western world. I can think of several examples off the top of my head - for example Rakib Ehsan, or Zia Yusuf (the businessman who is now chairman of Reform), or Maajid Nawaz. I’ve encountered a number of Muslims in my own life who have lived a happy and peaceful existence in this country.
Of course, you might argue that there are far more examples of Islamic groups who are not integrating well into British society - you need look no further than the grooming gangs scandal. And it’s important not to sweep these problems under the carpet. But we need to ask the question, why is it that some Muslims seem to be able to integrate into British society, whereas some don’t?
To help us answer this question, let’s turn from Western values to look at Islamic values.
What are Islamic values?
Something we need to acknowledge from the outset is the complexity of defining what Islam actually is. Islam is not like Christianity: although there are different branches of Christianity (I talked about denominations not long ago), there are unifying features of Christianity. There is only one Bible which the whole church agrees upon. There are ecumenical creeds which almost the entire church subscribes to. And, the most important thing, there is only one Christ - and all Christians are seeking to emulate Christ. In other words, if you want to know what Christianity is all about, it’s pretty easy to go straight to what Jesus actually said and did. It’s not hard to tell people who are not true Christians, because they have little concern for living in the way that Jesus commanded.
Islam is not like that. For one, we could talk about the differences between Sunni and Shi’a. For another, there are big differences in Islamic practice within Islamic countries. Some countries are very ‘secular’, while others are much more strict. With Christianity, the differences between different denominations (e.g. Baptist and Anglican) are really quite trivial - although they might have a few minor differences, they are both recognisably Christian. I am not sure that we can say the same thing about Islam - and these differences have led to a lot of conflict.
A few years ago, Colin Chapman wrote a very helpful article about Islam and extremism. (I heard him speak on this subject as part of my curacy training - it was probably the best session in my curacy training — as in, it was genuinely interesting and useful, rather than… all the other sessions). I hope that you will read the article in full, because I think it’s extremely helpful and nuanced about the issues here. He spent many years in the Middle East and knows what he is talking about from the inside.
What I like about his article is the way that he explains the complexities and shades of grey within Islam itself. Let me quote you from the article to illustrate:
Many Muslims dissociate themselves completely from the militants and terrorists. There are significant numbers of British Muslims, however, who would not actively support the use of violence, but would not openly condemn it. And many would argue that if violence cannot be justified in the British context, it can be justified in certain other contexts like Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel/Palestine. Neat categories with clear labels do not fit this debate, and even among Islamists there is a wide spectrum of approaches from moderates (in sympathy, for example, with the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain) to extremists (like Hizb ut-Tahrir, Supporters of Sharee'ah and the Saved Sect).
As he says, ‘neat categories with clear labels do not fit this debate’. Just because someone owns the label ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ doesn’t mean that they all think the same way. This tension can be found in the interpretations of the Qur’an itself:
It is difficult to point to one consistent attitude towards Christians in the Qur'an since it contains a wide spectrum. Some verses are very positive (e.g. 2:62), and the verse already quoted which speaks of the Jews' hostility continues: '...and you will find the closest in affection to the believers those who say: “We are Christians.” ...' (5:82-83). Other verses are more critical and argumentative (e.g. 3:64; 3:84; 4:171; 29:46; 5:51; 5:72-73). The most hostile verse instructs Muslims: 'Fight against those who do not believe in God nor in the last Day and who do not hold forbidden what God has prohibited and who do not adhere to the religion of truth, being among those to whom the Book was given. Do so until they pay the Jizyah [tax on tolerated communities] personally, once they have been reduced to submission.' (9:29). Since there is such a wide range of attitudes expressed towards Christians in the Qur'an, Muslims have to work out principles of interpretation to show which of these verses are most relevant in their relationships with Christians today.
The important point here is that you can’t say there is one clear, consistent way of relating to Jews, Christians and others within the Qur’an. There are several - and Muslims today have to work out which are the “most relevant … today”. This is deeply significant, because it means that ‘extremist’ Muslims can find support for their agenda within the Qur’an - but so can secular Muslims. The debate is within Islam and the Qur’an itself. Allow me to quote one final time from the article:
An alternative approach is for Christians to recognise that, while they can make their own judgements about the Qur'an from a Christian perspective, they have no right to tell Muslims how the Qur'an should be interpreted. If Christians don't like Muslims telling them how they should interpret the Bible, they shouldn't try to tell Muslims how to interpret the Qur'an. Christians must therefore recognise that while some Islamist terrorists use Qur'anic verses calling for violence as a theological justification for terrorism, many orthodox Muslims and Islamists totally reject this way of interpreting the Qur'an. There is a convincing logic that lies behind both these ways of interpreting the Qur'an, because both are based on accepted principles of interpretation. [My emphasis] Both groups are singing from the same hymn-sheet, but singing very different tunes. Christians therefore need to be cautious about claiming that one approach or the other is the only way of interpreting the Qur'an.
What I take from this is that we, as Western Christians, shouldn’t go telling Muslims what they believe. That’s obviously a foolish thing to do! But the important point here is that both extremist and moderate Muslims can find support within Islamic tradition and within the Qur’an.
I think this is enormously helpful — albeit challenging — for formulating a way of relating to Muslims:
There are many Muslims who are able to fit into British society and find they are able to live in peace with their Christian neighbours. I believe there are many Muslims who are happy to acknowledge that this is a Christian country and do not wish to change it;
However, the Muslims who are perpetrating violence believe they are correct in their interpretation of the Qur’an, and would have just as great a claim to being Muslim as Westernised Muslims.
I appreciate that the picture here is complex, but I hope that this helps to provide a little nuance to the debate. I’ve seen far too many people characterise Islam as violent and bloodthirsty, and the problems in our society and on our streets makes that accusation all too easy at the moment. But I believe if we are to progress, we must open our eyes and see that it’s not quite as simple as that. I hope that we can at least recognise that the problem is not Islam in and of itself, but rather which particular ‘brand’ of Islam is believed. And we must ask an uncomfortable question about the relation of Western governments and Islamists.
The relationship between Islamism and Western governments
One of the points which I believe Maajid Nawaz was trying to make to Laurence Fox was the fact that the globalists want us to be divided. It’s the old “divide and rule” strategy - cause people to hate one another in their communities, cause violence on the streets, and then provide a ‘solution’ in the form of more authoritarian control. This is a strategy that Western elites have been pursuing for decades now.
If you don’t believe me, check out James Corbett’s documentary on the history of Al-Qaeda (who, of course, took the blame for 9/11 and launched the ‘War on Terror’). Tragically, 9/11 is far from the only example of a Western government cynically using and manipulating Islamists to further its own agenda. The British government had its own 9/11 in the 7/7 bombings - also a false flag operation - as well as the Manchester Arena Bombing.
If this is new to you, please do take some time to go through those links. It took me a very long time to come to terms with - I couldn’t believe that a Western government, especially in my own country, could be so evil. But I have been persuaded by the overwhelming evidence that Western governments DID do such terrible things. We have to trust the evidence, not what we would prefer to believe.
This ties in with the way that mass migration has been promoted by successive governments since New Labour came to power in 1997. Mass migration is not an accident, but it suits the agenda of the elites. Social instability is good for them, because in the end (they believe) it will give them more power to implement their own agenda. I think this explains why the response of the government to the riots over the last few weeks has been so ridiculously unfair to the white working-class people protesting: it’s almost like they were goading people to riot. I wonder if that was the plan all along: cause civil unrest, then (they believe) people will be begging them for a solution.
All of this is to say that radical Islam is a very useful tool of Western governments. They like Islamists, because having enemies gives them more power. When people feel afraid, they are controllable. It’s important to understand this because it helps us to recognise that, behind the social issues around Islam and mass migration, stand politicians and elites who have an interest in keeping us divided and afraid. If we recognise the game that they are up to, I hope it will help us to keep these issues in perspective.
A note on multiculturalism
One of the problems with trying to be nuanced is that it can be weaponised by politicians to deflect attention away from issues they don’t want to confront. “Oh no, the problem isn’t anything to do with Islam, it’s something else instead…” I fully appreciate the frustration people have when politicians and the media will not acknowledge the issues.
At the same time, I do not believe that the solution is to try and make everything blunt. I think we need to do better than reaching for the ‘obvious’ option - that the problem is simply Islam.
Let me give a few examples of issues which are not the fault of Islam:
Two-tier policing is a big part of the problem, but not the fault of Islam. Why have certain communities got the idea that they can get away with breaking the law? The breaking down of the rule of law did not originate with Islam. If we as a country could recover our traditional values like policing without fear or favour, and expecting the same standards of everyone in the country - regardless of ethnicity or religion - we would go a long way to solving the problem.
Why have some communities got the idea that their national / tribal loyalties are more important than their British identity? Is this maybe because young people are being taught all the way through school to virtually hate their heritage and their country? And again - this is not the fault of Islam. If young people in schools were taught to be proud of Britain and British history, if young people were encouraged to think critically about their worldviews, and taught the Bible and the Christian faith, it would make a huge impact.
Would the grooming gangs have got away with it for so long if our society wasn’t so tolerant and permissive about sex outside of marriage? If we lived in a society where getting married was the norm - like it used to be, prior to the sexual revolution - grooming gangs wouldn’t have been able to get a foothold. The sexual revolution is not the fault of Islam.
I could go on and on and on here! Islam has exposed the failures of our society, rather than causing them.
The important thing I am trying to say here is that we mustn’t blame Islam for all our problems. Islam is a factor, and a major factor in some communities. But it’s not THE problem. Removing Islam is not going to remove the problems - and there are many more which I could mention. The problem will only be solved when we agree on what we, as a country, are trying to do.
Which rock are we building on?
I believe that the only way forward for Britain and the Western world is to be clear that its values come from Christianity. The problem we have at the moment is that the West thinks it has ‘values’ independently of any religion. This is unsustainable.
Jesus finished the Sermon on the Mount by telling a very famous parable about wise and foolish builders:
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:24-27
Jesus says that there are two choices when it comes to life - and, indeed, when it comes to governing a country. Either we are building on the rock - that is, Christ - or we are building on the sand. If we build on the rock, the house will stand. If we build on sand, the house will fall.
I believe our fundamental problem as a country is that we have accepted the lie that God has very little to do with life. We believe that our values simply fell out of the sky, fully-formed, and had nothing to do with God or the Bible. We believe that God is basically a consumer choice in life - fine if you like church, but not necessary for life and especially running a country. In other words, what we have done is built on sand. Removing Islam from the country would not solve that problem. If we had ‘zero Islam’, we would still not have British values. The only way forward is for us to return as a nation to Christian foundations.
It is my opinion that we would have not have the societal problems we have now if we as a country had kept on building on the rock - that is, Christ. But unfortunately, we as a country - along with most of the Western world - have been building on sand for so long that the house is in danger of collapsing. Western governments have not only been going down dangerous authoritarian roads, they have been actively encouraging unrest in our own communities in order to further their own agenda. They have not been encouraging children to grow up with a knowledge of Christianity and our history.
My hope and prayer is that we will recognise this before it is too late.
Thank you Phil, very balanced, thought provoking and enlightening!