There is a peculiar irony in being lectured on tolerance and cohesion by a senior representative of the oppressive Saudi state, Sheikh Mohammad bin Abdulkarim al-Issa.
The former justice minister of one of the world’s most restrictive regimes and now head of the Muslim World League, which has been linked with Islamic terrorist activities, has warned Britain that without urgent attention to “integration,” we may face dire national security consequences.
The context? Britain’s young Muslims, we are told, are becoming increasingly disillusioned — alienated by foreign policy decisions in the Middle East, particularly the ongoing conflict in Gaza. And unless the Government does more to promote social cohesion, this discontent could foster extremism.
In polite diplomatic language, this is framed as a call to unity. But scratch the surface, and something more sinister begins to show: a veiled ultimatum. If Britain does not do more to accommodate the grievances of a disaffected minority — grievances rooted not in domestic policy but in faraway geopolitical struggles — it risks unrest, radicalisation, and social breakdown.
True integration means adapting to Britain — not demanding that Britain adapt to you.
This is not how a free society should be spoken to. Sheikh al-Issa’s warning isn’t just unhelpful — it is patronising, hypocritical, and deeply troubling. The idea that our national security hinges on how well we appease foreign-born resentments is nothing short of ideological blackmail.
Let’s be clear: Britain is not perfect. No country is. But to describe it as a place of intolerance is a breathtaking inversion of reality. Britain has bent over backwards to welcome Muslim communities from across the globe. Our laws protect religious expression. Our institutions fund multicultural outreach. Our monarch receives Islamic dignitaries at Buckingham Palace.
And yet here we are, being told that if we do not do more, we may face a domestic crisis.
What more is expected? The answer seems to lie in the Muslim World League’s own polling, which suggests that younger Muslims are less committed to integration, less interested in British politics, and more inclined to believe that religion should play a greater role in public life. Meanwhile, non-Muslims — the vast majority — are increasingly uneasy about the trajectory of British diversity.
These are not just “gaps in understanding,” as Sheikh al-Issa politely frames them. These are cultural chasms. And if integration is failing, it is not because Britain has refused to accommodate. It is because some communities, or rather their ideological leaders, have refused to reciprocate.
Britain is tolerant. But tolerance must never mean surrender.
The most insidious element of Sheikh al-Issa’s intervention is the suggestion that unless we change, “evil-doers” will fill the vacuum. This is a hostage note masquerading as advice. It is the language of those who shift responsibility for extremism away from the perpetrators and onto the host country. In effect: change your ways, or suffer the consequences.
We’ve heard this before. We heard it after the 7/7 bombings. We heard it after Manchester. We were told to ask why — as if Britain’s foreign policy, not fanatical hatred of Western values, was to blame. We’re hearing it again now, but dressed up in diplomatic robes.
And yet no such charity is extended in the other direction. Saudi Arabia — where Sheikh al-Issa once presided over courts that sentenced dissidents to flogging and beheading — offers no such tolerance for non-Islamic faiths, or for Western culture. Integration there does not exist. Diversity is not a virtue. Yet we are the ones being told to worry about “Islamophobia.”
The truth is, integration must be built on shared values, not constant negotiation. We cannot endlessly redefine Britishness to avoid offending those who feel permanently aggrieved. A nation must know what it stands for, or it will fall for anything — including the false promise that appeasement buys peace.
Foreign clerics do not get to dictate the terms of our national survival.
Britain must not allow its cultural confidence to be eroded by international guilt-tripping. Integration, if it is to mean anything, must start with a clear and unapologetic commitment to the values that built this country — democracy, free speech, equal rights, and the rule of law. Those who wish to be part of Britain must adopt those values wholeheartedly. No exceptions. No equivocations.
Sheikh al-Issa’s message should be politely but firmly rejected. Our country’s cohesion cannot be secured by funding projects and hosting interfaith seminars, important though those things may be to some. It will be secured when our leaders have the courage to say: “this is who we are, and you are welcome — but only if you truly want to be part of it.”
From the European perspective.
Prominent Flemish politician Filip de Winter (Vlaams Belang) told EU Today “This is not just a warning, it is a threat. Under the guise of friendly advice, Europe is being threatened. The radical Islamic agenda is clear: to always push the boundaries and to make new demands.
“We must never forget that the Islamization of Europe is the end goal. Pretending, lying and cheating, threatening and giving ultimata… it is all part of it.
“The World Muslim League uses the power of numbers. The more Muslims in Europe, the more radical the demands. The warnings about the so called ‘threat of radicalism’ are ridiculous but also dangerous. It is a form of ‘takiya’ (deception) typical for Islam where the truth is turned around and where under the name of ‘good advice’ one wants to achieve the opposite of what one claims and warns against.
“In fact we can never trust Islam in Europe. Gaining power and influence – as the Muslim Brothers and the World Muslim League is doing – is the strategy and the end goal is the hostile takeover of Europa.”
Main Image: – Own work (via Wikipedia.)
