Labour, Naz Shah and Sharia Law in the UK

Naz Shah MP
Naz Shah MP

Naz Shah. A Labour luvvie.

Lovely Naz has recently castigated attempts to conduct an inquiry into Sharia courts in the UK. More specifically, she denounces such attempts as, wait for it, ‘Islamophobic’.

Sharia law is Islamic law. As a religious law, it governs the actions and behaviour of those who subscribe to the Islamic faith. It is derived from a range of teachings pertinent to Islam, principally the Qu’ran and the Hadith.


Installing Sharia

As can be expected from a system of laws derived from religious texts written centuries ago, Sharia mandates the use of severe punishment (e.g., death, torture) for homosexuality, adultery and apostasy (i.e., unbelief in Islam). It is easy to see how all this might clash somewhat with Western values. Y’know, those values that facilitate unbridled prosperity, innovation and creativity – liberty and freedom of expression.

I support Naz’s right to believe that Sharia law has a place in the UK. What is more troubling for me however is that she is a politician who is actively taking steps to secure its existence in the UK. This is where the game changes.

In her interview with BBC Radio 4, Shah stated that Sharia law in the UK is simply a complementary ‘code of conduct’ and that there is only one rule of law, that of the British courts. She also stated that:


‘Sharia councils sometimes are last resorts, where people have lost legal aid, we’ve had austerity kicking in and the courts don’t want to deal with small disputes.’


The influence of government policy to impose an imported worldview (i.e., a system of laws) on a population whose beliefs and values are antithetical to that worldview is destructive, provocative and clear in its intent to subjugate. Calling this worldview a ‘code of conduct’ is mere fluff. More importantly, such an attempt is also likely to fail or come up against resistance.

There are a number of facets to this argument, but two will suffice here. The first is the undeniable reality that the existence of two systems of law operating in any one jurisdiction violates the principle upon which Western civilisation has made it this far; the rule of law. The second is that using political office to embed what is essentially an imported way of life from the Middle East is an act of subterfuge, and reflective of efforts to install Islam into UK political life wholesale, albeit incrementally. It is immaterial that the practice of Sharia law in the UK would be confined to Muslims. A broader principle is at stake, namely, that everyone must live under one law. Incorporating multiple systems of law seeds uncertainty, inequality, arbitrariness and great opportunities for tyranny to take advantage and flourish.


The Soft Coup

My thesis underpinning this blog is set out in my first blog post and describes Labour’s evolution under Corbyn as a cloaked vessel through which the principles and doctrines of Islam are ‘bootlegged’ into the centre of British politics. Shah’s recent attempts to influence the government’s approach on Sharia courts is yet another feature of this complex landscape; Shah, as a Labour MP, is one of the many interests in and around Corbyn’s Labour party who is playing an active part in this ‘bootlegging’. She may have honourable reasons (arguably) supporting her actions (e.g., ensuring that women are not trapped in abusive marriages by virtue of there being no system of laws to apply to end the marriage). It is nonetheless incredible that Shah is basing an argument to deface the rule of law because a minority of persons who seemingly ‘benefit’ from an imported system of laws require it.  I say that this is incredible because it means one of two things; either that Shah is unintelligent to the point that she does not understand the significance of this contradiction or that she does understand it and wishes to see it enshrined. Either way, this is a danger that cannot be ignored.


Fusing Islamic and Socialist Agendas: Taqiyya in Action?

Ultimately, Shah is a perfect illustration of what is happening with Labour. Her statement that Sharia law is needed in the UK because it helps women who cannot obtain access to legal aid in an era of austerity embodies my thesis perfectly; this is a clear fusion of socialist dogma with Islamic ideals that serves to bootleg the latter into the centre of British politics and bring about a soft Islamic coup over an extended period of time.

To reiterate a point from my first blog post, a soft Islamic coup is a process that takes years, even decades, and maybe a century or two. Nevertheless, the Islamic imperative of doing God’s work (i.e., spreading the religion) transcends time. Any steps taken by adherents (no matter how small or trivial these steps may be) to advance the spread of Islam is part of a ‘sacred’ effort to spread Islam over time and in any way possible. This applies, even if those efforts involve combining the advancement of Islam through combination with other political ideologies. Indeed, the Islamic concept of ‘Taqiyya’ justifies followers to engage in deceptive practices and to even denounce Islam itself, but only if this advances the cause of Islam. Combining the spread of Islam with socialist reasoning is a perfect example of this. Among other things, this combination increases the palatable nature of the idea and to give the idea traction in radical Left circles (e.g., Momentum)

Shah is a perfect embodiment of an attempt to disguise the spread of Islam into British political life. In the long term, this is simply one small feature of a larger attempt to install a soft Islamic coup.

Stay vigilant.

Cups of Tea With ISIS?

Christine Shawcroft.


In some circles she is known as Christine Trotsky:


She is not a well-known Labour figure. She is more on the shadowy end of Labour’s current line of stage actors, although the elevated profile of Momentum – for which she is a senior figure – has put her more into the spotlight.

She is most notable for her comments on British soldiers earlier this year:

I think we should bear in mind that [soldiers] having cups of tea [with ISIS] might actually be the best kind of system of defence and national security that you could have.


Let us not be mistaken. Labour is undergoing, and in many ways has undergone, a process of ‘DNA mutation’. It is essentially an anti-Western faction, commandeered by a strain of politics that serves as a useful smokescreen for anti-Western, anti-British values to infiltrate British politics. Corbyn’s Labour is an agent of change in this country, a type of change that will alter the character of our democracy, for the worst.

And do not get me wrong. This is a trend that other political parties (e.g., Tories, Liberal Democrats) exhibit too. In Labour however, this process is especially complex and more far-reaching.


The Thesis: A Re-Cap

A few posts back, I discussed my thesis. This argued that Corbyn’s Labour is a vehicle through which a range of interests and actors are seeding change in this country that could result in an Islamic coup. I have mentioned a few already in previous posts; Diane Abbott, Muslim Charities Forum, and now Christine Shawcroft. The list goes on. These actors all have their differences and predilections, but they conveniently meet in the middle on the role radical Islam should play on the world stage. More than that, they argue for a British politics that meaningfully links up with radical Islam, whether that be through donations (e.g., Abbott) or tea and biscuits with British soldiers (e.g., Shawcroft).

Let me stress this point. The seeding of change I refer to above is not an intentional conspiracy, in the sense that Corbyn and his followers are in league with radical Islam to subvert the British way of life. Rather, this seeding of change is a complex process of different interests coming together, acting on the party and its direction, merging together and providing complexion to Corbyn’s ‘21st century politics’.


A Simple Case of Entryism?

I reject those banal, simplistic theories from the likes of Britain First, who claim that there is a simple plot to directly install Islamic governance into British politics through specific appointment. Otherwise known as ‘entryism’, this process involves the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives. Indeed, entryism is a real phenomenon. It does happen. One can only look to Douglas Carswell and Caroline Evans in UKIP, who have done all they can to undermine the party and derail the interests of those who call for a return to Parliamentary sovereignty, tightly-controlled borders and an end to discriminating between EU and non-EU nationals when it comes to immigration. Even on the Labour side of things, Tom Watson’s letter to Corbyn dated 10th August 2016 raised concerns about ‘Trotskyist entryism’ in the Labour party, particularly through Momentum:

But, the type of change being seeded through Corbyn and Labour is more than basic entryism.

Rather than just entryism, which is limited in the level of change it can bring about, the synthetic creation of ‘movements’ like Momentum go further in their ability to stoke change. I describe Momentum as ‘synthetically-created’ for reasons I will explain another time. For now, it is salient to point out that this group and key figures within it appear to be calling for radical Islamic groups to have ‘status’. I eschew Watson’s fixation on a ‘Trotskyite entryist’ problem in Labour. Let us be honest. This has been happening for decades. A more holisitic approach is called for, which requires framing Momentum and Labour’s fixation with hard-left politics as a fantasy, a wet dream, a perfect opportunity for useful idiots to come together under the cloak of old Communist cheer and chest-prodding. However, beneath this pathetic fantasy is a set of ingredients which serve to bootleg radical Islamic values into the centre of UK politics.

The Momentum/Labour fantasy is a distraction of sorts, although many useful idiots will believe in the compatibility of this fantasy with radical Islam. Shawcross may be one of them. All in all, Corbyn’s new kind of politics is certainly a new faith. It is nonetheless a dangerous one. It will certainly be exploited by some interests in order to bootleg radical Islamic values into UK politics. But this will also depend on the psychological predilections of Labour members, Momentum members and a confluence of events and interests that ultimately will carve out a road to disaster if it is not checked and halted.


Giving Radical Islamists Status

As for Shawcroft’s suggestion to ‘get the teabags out’, this is clearly an effort to contribute to a narrative that radical Islamic groups deserve ‘status’. Through the hard-left rhetoric on Trident, migrants and austerity is an ambition to elevate the status of radical Islam. Whether that is to rally extra support from the Muslim community, or something else entirely, we do not know for sure. What we can clearly see however is Labour’s desire to hand over status to these groups

The question is, how much status do these Labour actors want to give?

Stay vigilant.

Diane Abbott: An Agent of Islamic Extremism?

Diane never fails to surprise.

Not only has she been caught red-handed receiving bungs from organisations affiliated with Islamic extremists, she has now been exposed as an agent for these extremists; she is on record as OPPOSING the proscribing of al-Qaeda as a terror group and voted against making it a crime to glorify terrorism.

I understand why the Islamic jihadists are bunging her a few quid.

Do not be mistaken. The Labour-Islamic extremist link is not a cosy arrangement purely for financial gain. Labour are a vehicle through which Islamic interests are gaining a foothold in UK political life. We are in the throes of an Islamic coup, albeit in slow-motion. Jezza, Abbott and company are willingly connecting themselves to a network of interests that bring with them an age-old desire to conquer Europe.

Stay vigilant.

Diane Abbott and Islamic Extremism

Here we go again.

Behind all the soap-boxing and the grandstanding and the ‘standing up for ordinary people’, bloated Diane Abbott has been shown to be receiving Islamic extremist cash.

So, what do the extremists get in return I wonder? Tea and biscuits?


Muslim Charities Forum

The organisation from which Abbott accepted ‘donations’ is Muslim Charities Forum.

This organisation was stripped of UK state funding in 2014 over its ties to Islamic extremist groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Muslim Charities Forum (a cute friendly name, isn’t it?) formed in 2007 and they promote ‘collaborative working and knowledge sharing while supporting our member organisations through advocacy, training and research’.

How quaint.

The Forum ‘have a collective income of £150,000,000 and work in 71 countries’. Going off of these basic details, we are looking at an organisation with considerable reach and engages in a lot of money-changing. But of course, it is absolutely inconceivable to think that any of this money goes to Islamic terror groups. To think such a thing would be offensive and Islamophobic. 


Labour and Islamic Extremism

Do not be mistaken. Corbyn, Abbott and elements in and around Labour are being influenced by interests that seek to embed Islam into the DNA of social and political life in the UK.

Corporate and charity vehicles are one method through which this influence is managed. Just like Corbyn’s ‘socialism for the 21st century’, the use of companies and charities act as a smokescreen behind which an Islamic agenda is being bootlegged into the centre of UK political life. The donations to Abbott are the tip of the iceberg.

We, however, must be the tip of the spear and we must drive it through the heart of this take-over.

Stay vigilant.

Jezza and Abbott

Diane Abbott has been appointed Shadow Home Secretary by Jezza.

Many are saying that this is a big nail in the Labour political coffin.

In many ways it is, but not for the likes of Corbyn and Abbott. The tendency to dominate is quite palpable with those two and, what is more, an eventual Labour split (precipitated by unpopular Shadow Cabinet appointments) will simply give them an opportunity to further exercise their political will, but in another form (i.e., a new party).

‘Labour’ might be a dead man walking (*ahem, dead ‘person’ walking – must not be politically incorrect now), but Corbyn’s vision of a ‘socialism for the 21st century’ is simply taking shape with these kinds of appointments.

Creative destruction is the theme here. Implode Labour with unpopular political appointments, and from the ashes will arise a new political phoenix that will cast a new complexion on British politics. This complexion will consist of a more focused, concentrated method of delivering a series of aims and objectives that will be ‘classically socialist’ in appearance but highly sympathetic to anti-Western values and Islamic jihad in substance.

Stay vigilant.

The Thesis


Corbyn’s Labour leadership win in September 2016 will lead to a Labour Party split and seed the ground for an eventual Islamic coup. This thesis may surprise some of you and may even induce a Victorian fainting spell/an angry urge to retreat to a safe space, so let me explain why I make it.

Corbyn’s links with the Muslim community in the UK and beyond are well-documented. His support for the Palestinian cause, his anti-Israel stance, his willingness to enter into ‘talks’ with ISIS and the reports of his anti-semitism within the Labour ranks are just a few hallmarks of his Labour leadership that have led some of us to question where his priorities are.


The Fantasy

On the one hand, Corbyn comes across as ‘Old Guard’ Labour. The beard, the edgy attire, the soap-boxing and the hammering of the rich conjures up classic ‘socialist’ imagery. But therein resides a cosy relationship between him and the Muslim community that is more than just a background feature of his leadership. This feature is, in fact, integral to his leadership in ways that are often difficult to capture, owing to the loud Union noises, mouthy millennials and red Labour banners taking up the room. This cosy relationship makes for interesting reading. Indeed, the Leftist rag Morning Star paint a romantic picture that would rouse even the passions of Shakespeare:

A close analysis of this relationship suggests however that a case of ‘Wag the Dog’ is on the table. The phrase ‘Wag the Dog’ is used to indicate that attention is purposely being diverted from something of greater importance to something of lesser importance. Through Corbyn, we (or should I say many of his followers) are being diverted into a socialist fantasy that is nothing more than a ‘smokescreen’ behind which an Islamic ideological agenda is being bootlegged into the centre of British politics. In short, Corbyn is a precursor for an Islamic coup by stealth. This is my thesis. If you don’t like it, piss off.


A Coup by Stealth

I want to refrain from painting this thesis with a broad brush however. In brief, what I’m saying (rather bluntly) is that Corbyn is a means to an end. In other words, Corbyn is an instrument of creative political destruction, put to the service of a range of special interests in and around his party who see a Labour split as an opportunity for a unique kind of ‘power-grab’. That is, an opportunity to fashion Corbyn’s faction of the party into a formal Islamic presence inside Parliament. In short, an Islamic coup conducted by stealth.

This is not a straightforward argument, in the sense that Corbyn is in league with a ‘5th column’ that seeks to install itself (through its representatives) into Parliament and take it over wholesale. On the contrary, I believe that Corbyn considers himself a socialist, albeit with some modifications attached. These modifications have led him down some paths of support-shopping that, in my view, are helping him found a ‘new’ vision of what socialism in 21st century Britain should be. Islamic support is certainly part of this vision. But, be under no illusion. Given the special interests orbiting his political world, my argument is that Corbyn is a fantasising patsy who is unwittingly providing the ‘mother of all smokescreens’ for a fresh seeding of the UK political landscape to take place.


The ‘Grease on the Rails’

Corbyn’s considerable Muslim support, and indeed the special interests around him who feed into his brand of Labour politics, his Momentum movement and his political future, are critical elements that form the basis of what could well be (unless stopped of course) an Islamic coup in the UK. Corbyn, his rugged appearance, the useful idiots over at UNITE, the red banners and the hapless virtue-signalling Corbynites who cannot think for themselves are the ‘grease on the rails’.

Let me reiterate. An Islamic coup of this type is not a straightforward conspiracy to take over Parliament that involves Corbyn, the special interests and his followers (although of course they all want power in a straightforward political sense). On the contrary, this coup must be seen as ‘long game’, involving an entangled web of interests and events over years and even decades. It requires a gradual escalation of representation in Parliament, of media bias, of incremental cultural domination and deep political influence which perhaps cannot be described as a coup in the classic sense, but should certainly be regarded as an overall movement towards the establishment of a coup in years to follow. In short, people and events (e.g., Corbyn, a Labour split) will ‘grease the rails’ for a subtle power-grab (perhaps through the ballot box) much later.


The Key Ingredients

A possible key element to the coup would be to install ‘formal’ Islamic representation in Parliament. Indeed, the growing Muslim population in the UK would make this a real possibility, in time.  How would this representation look? Would it be a hijab-donning, beard-sporting political party calling for Sharia law? As I stated earlier, this is not a straightforward prediction that I am making. The UK does however have a rapidly increasing Muslim population, helped along by an extremely relaxed immigration policy. Indeed, it was reported recently that Labour aides feel the party is ‘relaxed’ at the prospect of rising immigration in this respect.

My thesis advances this observation in the following way: it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the rising Muslim population in the UK, driven by a relaxed immigration policy and combined with the political manoeuvring in and around Labour, will open up a vacuum into which an Islamic agenda will enter and mature thereafter. Indeed, we are witnessing brazen attempts to implement Islamic ideas and practices in law, education, health and local politics:

We can only look to politically corrupt areas of the country (e.g., Tower Hamlets) to see that Western values have been exiled and replaced with backwardness and intimidation. Formal Islamic representation might well not be observable until much later down the line, but features of political life in the UK are completely at odds with the basic values of Western democracy.

A coup of this nature takes time to implement. It takes patience. But it must be remembered, such a coup will be religiously motivated. Religious doctrines (from the perspective of those who feed into it) transcend time. They make take 10 years to implement, 20 years, 100 years or 1,000 years. However long they take, what matters is that they happen because God wills it and God transcends time.

Stay vigilant.

There’s a problem in the UK…

…and this problem is the subversion of Western values. Freedom, democracy, liberty, freedom of speech. You know the ones.

I have a thesis.

My thesis is that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership will lead to a party split, thereby creating a political vacuum inside of which a virulent anti-Western agenda will fall into and foment.

This agenda (unless frustrated) will sew the seeds of an Islamic coup in the UK. This would not be an overnight development. It may take 10 years to fully implement. It may take 100 or 1,000 years. The point of importance is that Labour and Corbyn are surrounded by key actors and interests that seek to stimulate this agenda.

This blog aims to map this problem closely, to explore its layers, to identify the figures on all sides of the political spectrum who seek to embed it, to keep a close eye on it and to highlight events of relevant interest.

In a word, this blog is about vigilance.