A Western Dilemma: Islam and the Freedom of Expression

"Given the Prime Minister's desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burka?"

This was the question Sarah Pochin MP chose to ask Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, at Prime Minister's Question Time on June 4th 2025 (1). Naturally, Keir Starmer, whose approach to British policing has justly earned his nickname "Two Tier Keir" (2), dismissed the proposal, following a longstanding British trend. Proposals to ban the burqa have surfaced repeatedly for as long as I can remember, but they have never gained the necessary support to get it done.

With such a firmly pro-Islamic government in power, and such a weak-willed opposition (including members of Pochin's own party standing opposed to her), it seems highly unlikely that the burqa will be banned in the UK any time soon. But in light of both the push to do so, and the fact that some countries already have, we must ask whether or not it should?

The issue of freedom of expression

This question is a small part of a greater question about the freedom of expression. All civilised societies consider freedom of expression to be an inalienable right, whereas the suppression thereof is seen as an act of tyranny. Paradoxically, however, there must be some limits to the freedom of expression. Otherwise, we must allow tyrants to freely express their opposition to freedom of expression. Therefore, the question is not "can we limit the freedom of expression?", but "what limits should we put on the freedom of expression?"

A short Biblical overview

As this article was originally published on a ministry called "Bible Brain", by a man going by the pseudonym "Bible Brian", these words should surprise exactly no one: Christ is King. More specifically, the Bible calls Him "King of kings, and Lord of lords" (Revelation 19:16). He has all authority in Heaven and Earth (Matthew 28:18), He is the final judge of all (John 5:22), and a time is coming when every knee will bow to Him (Romans 14:11). Thus, His law is the law.

Historically, God made a specific covenant with a specific nation. To these, He gave specific laws and required them to be followed. It was a rocky start. Twice in the book of judges, we read these words: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (17:6; 21:25) The result of this anarchy was not a free and fair society, where all people are equal, and all who are able give to all who have need. Rather, it was a brutal time, in which violence was the norm.

According to Romans 13:1-7, God still raises up governments for a particular purpose. He tells us "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

But here is the strange thing. Paul, the Apostle to whom this oracle was committed, was not living under a Christian regime. In fact, such a thing has never truly existed. Pretenders have arisen, wars have been fought, and attempts have been made, but at no point in history, anywhere on Earth, has there ever been a Christian theocracy. This is for one simple reason: "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”" (John 18:36).

Already, we seem to have another paradox. If there is no authority except from God, yet Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, then why does He raise up rulers on this Earth, and why should we care what they do when He does? In short, the answer is because He is still the judge. Regardless of whether or not the government do a good job, they are still in place for a purpose, and they will be judged on the basis of that purpose. Similarly, "The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice." (Psalm 37:30).

This enables a disconnect between what is right and what is practical. God Himself did not command perfection in His law, but accounted for the weakness of the flesh (Romans 6:3), and the hardness of the Jewish heart (Matthew 19:7-8; Mark 10:4-5). Similarly, if the government demanded perfection, it would very swiftly implode, because the people in government are, themselves, sinners. Thus, there are some things that are sinful that do not necessarily need to be illegal.

So how do we relate this to Islam? On the one hand, God commands Muslims (and all people, everywhere) to repent (Acts 17:30-31). But for us to enforce this would require us to do what Jesus says we won't do: Fight to establish His Kingdom in this world.

Interestingly, there is an account in which Jesus' disciples ask for the power to do this on a small scale. In Luke 9:51-55, in which we read "When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them."

When His disciples asked for the miraculous power to punish those who rejected Jesus, Jesus refused to grant it. In fact, He rebuked them. Textual variants suggest that this rebuke is “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy people's lives but to save them”. Whether or not we take this variant as historically accurate, the sentiment behind it is entirely Biblical, and this passage, at the very least, shows us that we do not have to forcibly impose repentance.

So, on the one hand, we do not need to legally enforce perfection, or even faith. God grants His enemies permission, in this life, to reject Him. He'll sort that out in His own time. On the other hand, we cannot allow injustice to run unopposed, even if there is something about a man's religion that allows him to commit it.

If we can't limit all freedom of expression, but can't allow it all either, what limits, if any, do we need to impose on the freedom to express Islam, and why?

Islam as a whole

Unlike Christianity, Islam is a very authoritarian religion. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad was a notorious warlord. Some Muslims even use this to argue that he is mentioned in Isaiah 42:13, which says He "...goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes." Oh, and by "He", I mean "The Lord goes out like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his zeal; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes." (Emphasis added). But Muslims are so desperate to put Muhammad in the Bible that they argue he is prophesied there since he was a mighty man of war who stirred up zeal and was mighty against his foes.

Aside from Muhammad being a warlord, he was quite clear that Islam was entirely based on him. He is the pattern of conduct (Qur'an 33:21), and one can have no faith unless they make Muhammad judge in all disputes and find no resistance to his decisions (Qur'an 4:65).

This is extremely problematic. If Islam requires such rigidity, it is technically impossible to be a Muslim without being a violent warmonger intent on taking over the world. However, two things prevent us from saying "Islam is dangerous, and so we should ban it". The first is that Islam is incoherent, and the second is that humans are hypocrites.

Because Islam is incoherent, it is impossible to apply the rigidity it demands of its followers. You can pick and choose which parts to believe because you have to pick and choose which parts you believe. And because human beings are hypocrites, Muslims are inclined to pick and choose.

To that end, I occasionally claim to be a Muslim myself. I am a hypocritical Muslim, because I only believe the parts of the Qur'an that are true. Like Qur'an 5:68. Qur'an 5:68 says "Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “O People of the Book! You have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And your Lord’s revelation to you ˹O Prophet˺ will only cause many of them to increase in wickedness and disbelief. So do not grieve for the people who disbelieve."

This is true! The people of the book do have nothing to stand on unless we observe the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to us from our Lord. And this revelation to Muhammad did indeed cause many of them to increase in wickedness and disbelief. Show it to a Muslim and watch as they not only continue to reject the Torah and the Gospel, but even to lie in order to sustain this wickedness. Because this verse of the Qur'an is true, I absolutely believe it. But I do not believe the parts of Islam that are not true.

Just as I only believe the true parts of the Qur'an, Muslims are forced to reject certain true parts of the Qur'an. And just as a Muslim is able, and indeed required to pick and choose which parts of their religion they express, we are similarly forced to pick and choose which aspects of Islam to ban. Of course, here, there is the simple caveat that there is no truth in Islam that doesn't come from elsewhere. It's not as if you have to believe Qur'an 5:68 to know the Gospel and the Torah are the ground upon which Jews and Christians must stand. That truth comes from our religion, not Islam. But if a Muslim wants to obey Qur'an 5:68 and start reading the Bible, no law should forbid them.

We also have another thing to consider. Compromise, generally speaking, breeds compromise. Look at what has happened within the Christian faith. Unlike Islam, Christianity is coherent. Yet, it is not rigid in all areas. We are able to tolerate errors for sake of peace (and indeed, are commanded to live peacefully with all people where possible).

An unfortunate drawback of this is that we are able to rebuke, but not forcibly suppress error. The result is a disconnect between Christianity, as it is laid out in the Bible, and "Christianity" as it is practiced by all who call themselves Christian. There are even atheists who call themselves Christians.

Now, if tolerance for compromise allowed compromise to spread in the Church, then tolerance for Westernised Muslims may lead to a Westernised Islam. But we can only permit such things here in the West. In the Middle East, compromised Muslims are silenced by the conservative majority. If we silence them in the West, they have nowhere else to go. But if we protect them, we reinforce their Westernisation, and allow it to spread. Thus, we would actually be doing ourselves a disservice to enforce a blanket ban on Islam. Far better to ban only the parts of it that are so thoroughly incompatible with Western values that to allow them would be to commit an injustice in itself.

The Qur'an

The Qur'an actually poses two equal and opposite questions, simply because of the way it is viewed. A Muslim, wholeheartedly devoted to Islam, will honor the Qur'an, and want to outlaw its desecration. But the reason such a law would even be considered necessary is that some do seek to desecrate it. Others support outright banning the book.

Typically, burning a book grinds the gears of Western minds. Even those who speak against legally banning the practice will often clarify that they feel opposed to doing it themselves. As Christians, we should have no such emotional resistance to burning a false book. In fact, it may well be a Spirit-lead expression of zeal. As we read in Acts 19:19, "And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver."

When a Muslim turns to faith, they may feel a similar desire to burn the book that almost burned their soul. Book burning is, therefore, entirely Biblical. Christians are not required to burn books, but as our faith permits it, so also must the law.

There is a strange spiritual aspect at play here, because it's almost always a one way street. Those who kick off about burning a Qur'an have no issues with burning the Bible (which, I'll remind you, the Qur'an says is also revealed by Allah). This does raise questions about equality, and returns us to the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance, for sake of tolerance, prevents us from being intolerant towards book burning. If we are to promote intolerance to Qur'an burning, we must first say there is something special about Islam. At that point, you are advocating Islamic intolerance, and are being inherently intolerant to non-Muslims.

As I will explain shortly, while I'm not personally motivated to simply desecrate a false book on a whim, I am quite in favor of desecrating them for a purpose. As an example, David Wood, a popular apologist to Muslims, regularly desecrates the Qur'an by tearing it, making origami out of it, and even eating it. This is not because he is simply inclined to do so, but because he is making use of Qur'an 6:108: "˹O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance."

Muslim apologists, in particular Muhammad Hijab, can be extremely vile. They will toss insults, make threats, and sometimes even commit violence in their attempts to spread Islam. At one point, the aforementioned Muhammad Hijab even attempted to start a campaign of harassment of people's wives in order to silence their husbands. In response, Wood ate the Qur'an, sparking an outrage that very quickly died down. The practice has now been normalised. Every time a Muslim throws insults around, the Qur'an is damaged, forcing Muslims to either obey Qur'an 6:108, or become subject to the consequences for failing to do so.

As I live in the UK, where Qur'an burning is practically illegal, and may soon become actually illegal, I also think the practice should be normalised simply for sake of making a ban unenforceable. If you believe people should have the right to burn the Qur'an, it makes sense to encourage and participate in it simply so the right is retained. I have already promised that if a law is enacted to ban Qur'an burning, I will immediately burn my Qur'an.

So, clearly, I am firmly opposed to banning the desecration of the Qur'an. But I believe it should be done tactically. Not that I'd want the law to agree with me on that either. If someone wants to burn the Qur'an just because it is the Qur'an, there should be no legal consequences. It's freedom of expression, it's not hurting anyone or committing injustice, it's simply an insult to the errant. Therefore, there should be no law restricting it.

Similarly, there should be no legal consequences for owning, reading, or even claiming to believe the Qur'an. My reasoning for the latter is in the former section, but when it comes to possession of the Qur'an, I actually own two. This article shows why. Notice I have repeatedly weaponised the teachings of the Qur'an against Islam.

There is Biblical precedent for this, too. In Acts 17:16-23, we read "Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you."

Paul deals with a range of idolators in this passage. This, again, reinforces that we do not need to suppress idolatry by law, but more importantly shows us how to deal with it regardless of the law. We pass through and observe the objects of their worship, picking up on anything they may have in order to guide them to the truth. To ban the Qur'an would mean banning the Islamic Dilemma, but to permit the Qur'an is to let Christians use it to evangelise Muslims. Education is a far greater weapon than handcuffs and prison cells.

The Burqa

And so we come to the question that sparked this article: Should we ban the burqa?

To straight up ban the burqa is a particularly dangerous game to play. I often like to warn that "whatever you give the government the right to do to others, you give them the power to do to you." Thus, if we can ban the burqa, it is equally possible to ban the mantilla.

The mantilla is a laced veil, commonly worn by women during worship services in Catholic or Orthodox Churches. They are not burqas, but are sufficiently similar to the hijab that some struggle to tell the difference. Thus, if we ban the burqa, we may even inadvertently ban mantillas by default. Even a sufficiently worded law that bans the burqa, but not other forms of female headgear, would have to justify making the distinction. Otherwise, what prevents the same logic being used to ban other forms of religious clothing?

The reverse argument can also be used. We can ask "if we ban the burqa, what stops us banning the mantilla?", but we can also ask "why should we ban the burqa, but not ban the mantilla?" A specific burqa ban seems to unfairly target Muslims, and of course affects them disproportionately.

As the burqa is a peaceful expression, it is covered by First Amendment-style freedom of expression, and to ban it without due cause is tyranny. But some may disagree with this particular principle. On the one hand, we may argue that the burqa should be a woman's choice. On the other hand, we might rightly point out that the burqa often isn't the woman's choice.

This is fairly obvious in regions where it is compelled. Most notably, on May 7th 2022, the Taliban ruled that women must wear clothing, preferably a burqa, that reveals only their eyes (3). Even this has lead to some pushback and noncompliance from women in Afghanistan (4). Similarly, as recently as 2023, Iran extended its longstanding legal compulsion for women to cover their hair, leading to opposition (5).

When given the choice, such as when living in Western nations like the UK or Canada, only a small minority of Muslim women opt to cover their faces with burqas. Most prefer either a hijab, or to simply remain uncovered.

If the burqa is so undesirable that it must be compelled, still faces opposition when it is compelled, and is very rarely chosen when it is not compelled, we do have to be open to the possibility that when we see a woman wearing a burqa, she is being compelled. For this reason, while I am opposed to a burqa ban in principle, it is not a hill I am willing to die on. I would certainly prefer a woman be forbidden, than compelled, to wear a burqa.

But even here, I believe there is a better approach. First, if a woman holds to an interpretation of Islam that requires her to wear a burqa, she should be allowed to under normal circumstances. But there are normal circumstances in which headgear is considered inappropriate.

To begin with, what do you imagine would happen if I, a Christian man, walked into a bank wearing a balaclava? The chances are high security would be all over me, the police may be called, and I might have already passed a sign that says "no headgear". The airport is another brilliant example. To board a plane, you need photo ID, and you can't hide your face when passing through security.

If, in these situations, one can be asked to remove non-religious headgear, especially for security reasons, then it makes sense to be asked to remove religious headgear, for the same reasons. This can hardly be considered "Islamophobic", because it is a rule that is applied equally. Demanding an exception is asking for discrimination. Positive discrimination, but discrimination nonetheless. You must therefore prove you have good reason to receive this special treatment. "I hold to a particular interpretation of an incoherent religion" does not sound like a valid exemption to normal rules to me.

A further principle, which I haven't addressed in this article so far, is that every right has a corresponding responsibility. In the case of the burqa, having the right to wear it carries responsibilities like using it only for the purposes required. If you're going to claim it's about modesty, then wear it for sake of modesty. Using it to conceal your identity while committing crimes at a pro HAMAS rally, by contrast, is abuse of privilege.

It is my personal opinion that the use of face coverings of all kinds should be an aggravating factor in crime, simply because it is a way of attempting to elude enforcing authorities. It's not that it somehow makes the crime worse, but that extra effort is required to ensure justice is done. When justice is harder to enforce, justice should be enforced harder.

In short, while I am not in favor of a full burqa ban, nor am I opposed to the responsible use of face covering, I do believe there are acceptable regulations which could be brought in to reduce the nuisance a burqa may cause. These, ironically, will make wearing the burqa more trouble than it is worth. It also would not be a restriction on Islam, because it does not explicitly target it. It's also possible, according to many Islamic sources, to settle for a hijab.

Furthermore, while I admit I do not study this particular issue in great enough depth, I am not aware of any Islamic source that would conflict with these scholarly opinions. Whenever I see Muslims argue that a woman should be covered, I see opinions, but never actual sources. Thus, if the sources do exist, they are sufficiently obscured to allow a Muslim woman, living in a Western country, to choose a hijab over a burqa, without contradicting her Islamic religion. Therefore, the laws I have proposed are fair restrictions on the freedom of expression.

Halal

Halal is yet another common talking point. For Muslims, to flat out ban halal is "xenophobic". But for Westerners, and for Christians, it's more a case of animal rights.

The term "halal" simply means "permissible", and it deals with what Allah permits Muslims to eat. In the Christian faith, all food is effectively "halal". During His ministry, even before He went to the cross, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and one cannot declare unclean what the Lord has declared clean (Acts 10:9-16). All food is permissible if it is eaten with thanksgiving, and to forbid it is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Islam, by contrast, holds to the aforementioned doctrine of devils, imposing some extremely strict food regulations. To be considered halal, the animal must be healthy at the time of slaughter, it must be killed by a Muslim reciting "Bismillah, Allahu Akbar" over it, and it must be killed swiftly by cutting the throat, windpipe, and blood vessels with a sharp knife. The main controversy comes from whether or not stunning is required prior to slaughter.

It's important to note that this is semi-controversial in the Islamic world, too. While it tends to be either prohibited, or uncommon in the Islamic world, pre-slaughter stunning is a regular practice in the Western world. That includes when it comes to halal meat, at least 58% of which is pre-stunned (6). In other words, there are some interpretations of Islam that allow pre-stunning "halal".

This means the issue is not with halal per se. Rather, it's animal welfare. Currently, UK law requires stunning prior to slaughter, but allows a religious exemption for Jews and Muslims. This actually makes it very easy to disarm the "xenophobia" defence by simply being consistent. If we make animal welfare the rule, then we have to take away all religious exemptions, not just the Islamic one. At that point, anyone still crying about imaginary xenophobia just sounds insane.

Furthermore, if we ban all non-stun slaughter, that doesn't require us to ban pre-stun halal. This still allows peaceful freedom of expression of Islam. It just requires that the peaceful freedom of expression is the only legal expression. To me, this feels like it should be non-controversial, even before we bring Christianity into it. If you are able to interpret Islam in a way that permits stunning, mandating it shouldn't be a problem, because you're not being asked to violate your conscience. If you can't reconcile stunning with Islam, anyone who cares about animal welfare should put up a united front against you.

That includes God, whose Holy word tells us "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." (Proverbs 12:10). This, ironically, means that Muslims can, and should, be in favor of pre-slaughter stunning, because as previously shown, the Qur'an affirms the revelations given to the "people of the book". That is, the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, according to Muhammad, are from Allah. Therefore, Allah is in favor of animal welfare.

But as Christians, we get to skip Muhammad and just say God expects us to have a certain degree of care for the animals with which we share our world. Yes, we may eat them as our conscience dictates (Romans 14), but this does not allow us to prolong their suffering unnecessarily. We can't pretend there is a "nice" way to kill an animal, but there is a way to avoid being unnecessarily cruel. Religion should not be an excuse to take the cruel option, and if you're going to claim any form of allegiance to the Lord God of Israel, that just shouldn't be a problem. Thus, we do not have to ban halal, we just need to avoid privileging Muslims. This is a fair restriction on the freedom of expression.

Apostasy and conversion

Islam is a religion with an exceptionally low rate of conversion, and a shockingly high rate of apostasy, especially here in the UK. Ironically, this is due to the relatively high levels of freedom of expression in the UK (7). I say "relatively high" because it is legally permissible to apostatise, and even speak against Islam in the UK. In spite of its low conversion and high apostasy rate, Islam is growing very rapidly in the UK, rising from 4.9% of the British population in 2011 to 6.5% in 2021 (8).

If Islam has such a low conversion rate, and such a high apostasy rate, how is it growing so fast, either locally, or at all? Globally, the answer is birth rates (9). Locally, this remains a factor, but a second factor is immigration. With these elements combined, Islam is able to offset its apostasy rates without raising its conversion rates.

As a Christian apologist and so-called "Islamophobe", I probably don't need to stress how foolish I believe it is to convert to Islam. It is a false religion, and in its purest form, it is dangerous, in this life, and the next. But I cannot stress enough how opposed I would be to any law which either forbids one to convert to Islam, or commands apostasy. Aside from being an act of tyranny, it is also ineffective, and as I have already shown, quite counterproductive.

"...capital punishment, in Islamic law, would be applied to you, we have no doubt, and we're proud of that!"

Protecting apostasy is fairly easy in a Western society. You do have a population of Muslims who admit that Islam prescribes capital punishment for apostates, "and we're proud of that" (10). But unless you're a wholeheartedly devout Muslim, which is less than 7% of the British population, you're probably not going to object to laws protecting the right to leave Islam.

Encouraging apostasy is going to be a little less popular. While most people accept that Muslims have the right to leave Islam, speaking against it is a whole other matter. Muslims will naturally cry "discrimination", and many Libertarians will join that particular chorus. Some will vocally express the view that it's wrong to vocally express a view, all for sake of "tolerance".

As shown previously in this article, and as should be obvious from the way I phrased it, this is a paradox. You cannot logically be intolerant for sake of being tolerant. Thus, the question is which form of intolerance do we enforce?

I feel no shame in saying Islamic intolerance absolutely needs to be squashed by any means necessary. If you feel it is ok to murder apostates, violently persecute the LGBT community, treat women as sex slaves (with no minimum age, or even concept of consent), extort money from Jews and Christians, or... basically commit any atrocities common throughout the Islamic world, yes, it is absolutely acceptable for the government to disseminate whatever information it takes to immunise the population against the religion that prescribes and promotes these things.

But they don't actually have to. By far the best way for the government to encourage apostasy is to get out of the way of people who are already doing so. Anti-Islamic apologists do exist, and they're very effective at what they do. Yet, they regularly encounter problems with censorship, ironically in the name of "tolerance". Hatun Tash, for example, is a regular visitor to Speaker's Corner in London. Yet, when Muslims get offended by her, she is often harassed, removed, and even threatened with arrest, by local police (11).

But Hatun Tash follows a long and brave tradition of martyrs, whose battle cry has been "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:17-29). For the government, this is the red line. It's one thing to refuse to preach to Muslims, but you cannot stop Christians from doing so. Furthermore, Scripture says "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:1-4). This gives Christians a responsibility to pray for our leaders, but gives those leaders a responsibility. The government protects our peace and dignity, the Church protects our faith. Granting us our freedom of expression will control Islam without robbing Muslims of theirs.

Islamic sexuality

With apostasy protected, and conversion unlikely, the only reason Islam can continue to grow is to continue to outbreed the rest of the population. This cannot be legitimately stopped. In fact, to do so is an act of genocide. Reproductive autonomy is also a basic human right. 6,000 years ago, long before Islam, and even before sin, God gave us this command: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:28). Furthermore, just as Paul describes forbidding food as a doctrine of devils, he says the same of forbidding marriage. Thus, Muslims have every right to marry, and every right to have children. To remove, or suppress that right is tyranny.

However, the disproportional birth rate in Islam isn't due to anything positive within Islam, but rather, due to Islamic privilege. Specifically, male chauvinism. In Muslim countries, women have very few rights, and even fewer opportunities. Even in Western nations, they are still treated quite unfairly, and there are a number of ways this is accommodated.

The first is the British legal system regarding marriage. Bigamy - the crime of taking a second wife while already married - has been a crime in the UK since 1861 (12). However, there are loopholes which are both exploitable, and commonly exploited by Muslim men.

Specifically, while the law forbids a second marriage while the original spouse is still alive, a religious marriage is legally invisible (13). Yet, a significant portion of Muslim women only have a religious marriage (14). This is unfair to both the women involved, and to the British taxpayer.

It is unfair to the women involved because a legally unrecognised marriage, logically, means the woman does not have the same legal rights as a registered wife. Thus, when divorce occurs, the women can be left utterly destitute.

But it's also unfair to the taxpayer because legally speaking, for all intents and purposes, an extra Muslim wife, with children, can be legally classified as a single mother. This entitles her to all the same benefits, of course making a tidy profit.

All of this means the current British system is rife for exploitation by Muslims, encouraging a high birth rate within dysfunctional families. By tidying up a few laws, the British government could simultaneously end, or at the very least reduce male chauvinism, which would also indirectly reduce the birth rate within Islam, without violating their human rights, or reducing their dignity. In fact, it would protect the dignity of Muslim women by ensuring they enjoy the same protections as any other Westerner.

Of course, Westerners would also take a slight "hit" in that the current system is designed not for reproductive autonomy, but for reproductive hedonism. This actually allows Westerners to raise their own freedom of expression issue. If I'm not a Christian, do I have to follow Christian sexual ethics?

The answer to that, in one sense, is technically yes. Just as you still have to fall if you don't believe in gravity, Christian sexual ethics are grounded in the same reality we all inhabit. Therefore, God will judge you by them. Furthermore, because they are not arbitrary, you are still going to see some natural consequences for disobedience. It's called "cause and effect". Every STD, every unwanted pregnancy, every drunken regret, is squarely on the head of those who are unwilling to follow God's commands, even before the law gets involved.

But how should the law get involved? The temptation is to flat out forbid them to. Marriage, after all, is a religious matter that precedes any government besides the Lord's own. "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”" (Matthew 19:4-6).

So, there is a sense in which the government are utterly powerless. They do not have the power to forbid, or invalidate, a legitimate marriage. Nor do they have the power to permit, or validate, an illegitimate marriage. This may well upset LGBT advocates (who should be just as motivated to limit Islam), but it is a fact; the government exists to protect, not define marriage.

But it also exists, as we have established, to ensure we can live peaceful lives in Godliness and reverence and dignified in every way. Thus, first of all, the government can ensure there is an age of consent. Sadly, many Islamic countries have either a shockingly low age of consent, or none at all. This is likely due to the fact that Muhammad, that "beautiful pattern of conduct", married a 6 year old girl, and consummated that marriage when she was 9. To make matters worse, the Qur'an allows a prepubescent child to be married, divorced, and remarried (Qur'an 65:4).

In Britain, this atrocity absolutely can be, should be, and thankfully is prohibited by law. However, protections do not extend far enough. To begin with, the legal age of consent in the UK is currently 16, and yet the legal age for marriage is 18 (15). This means a Muslim girl is eligible for a legally invisible mosque marriage before she is eligible for a civilly recognised, legal marriage. And the law does permit that marriage to be consummated. In other words, a Muslim girl can have her first child - maybe even her second - before a non-Muslim is even legally old enough to say her "I dos".

There are two things we can do here. First, simply raise the age of consent to match the age of marriage. This will protect young women, both within the Muslim faith, and outside of it. Second, simply start requiring all marriages to be legally recognised. No more loopholes. No more religious-only marriages. If you claim a woman as your wife, she must be registered as such, giving her all the legal rights and remedies available to any other wife. As long as bigamy remains illegal, this also prevents the sneaky, exploitative, misogynistic practice of taking multiple wives. If any of these limit the free expression of Islam, so be it. These barbaric practices need to be limited.

Of course, this leaves us with the unclosed loophole of extra children. You can demand all marriages be registered, but there is nothing you can do to enforce that. It will just force Muslims to conduct religious marriages in secret. Meanwhile, they can continue living and sleeping with their extra wives, allowing those wives to continue producing children and making use of state benefits.

The unpopular, yet worthwhile solution is to first criminalise adultery as readily as bigamy. As we have already established, every right comes with a corresponding responsibility. Reproductive autonomy is a right. No one can force, or prevent, your reproduction. But the corresponding responsibility is to exercise self control.

Criminalising adultery will, first of all, protect the first wives. Much to the chagrin of chauvinists like Ali Dawah, Muslim women are not often willing to "share" their husbands. And why should they? Did Eve share Adam? When Abraham went into Hagar, did it not put a strain on his relationship with Sarah? When Jacob unfairly lavished his love upon Rachel, did God not take pity on the unloved Leah? Women do not like sharing their husbands, and they should never have to. It is a an unnatural cruelty that no man should seek, and no woman should be forced to tolerate.

Second, it will prevent extra wives from being used as sexual objects or baby factories, as well as ensuring they are never placed in a position in which they can be taken and cast aside at the whims of a Muslim man with no self control.

Finally, it protects the state from fraud. If an extra marriage is counted as bigamy, and sexual activity outside of a marriage is counted as adultery, and both are illegal, then he cannot safely exploit extra "wives", or even mistresses, to produce children who will subsequently be classed as fatherless and given certain welfare status.

Finally, while it is essential to protect children regardless of how they were created (after all, that's their parents' sin, not their own), we can disincentivise exploiting the welfare state by tightening that up, too. Specifically, by ensuring their needs are met, but not exceeded, having children outside of wedlock becomes significantly less profitable. This, again, may result in non-Muslims being equally incentivised to behave responsibly, but I would say this is actually a good thing, and even shows that this is not a targeted effort to persecute Muslims and reduce their freedom of expression. Rather, it is an effort to ensure Muslim women retain their dignity, and children are not treated as a commodity. Thus, this is a fair limit on the freedom of expression.

Immigration

Aside from reproduction, which contributes to Islamic growth worldwide, Islam grows locally through immigration. The good thing about immigration is it is not directly related to the freedom of expression. Rather, it is about who has the right to cross a given border. With a few exceptions, anyone has the right to leave a sovereign territory, but there is no natural right to enter.

Immigration, when wisely permitted, can be a boon. The key is to let in the right kinds of people at a manageable rate. Letting in too many people at once, no matter who they are, makes accommodation more difficult, both for the locals and the immigrants. Similarly, letting in people who are unwilling to assimilate into the culture, and especially people who are willing to subjugate the culture, is unwise, even at lower levels.

One key question to ask is what are the motivations for immigration? Personally, I am prevented by finance, but motivated by heart, to flee the UK and seek residence in the U.S. This is because the U.S. has enshrined, within its legal system, certain rights which I value, and have been infringed in the UK. Specifically, my right to keep and bear arms, and my right to freely express my religion, are both infringed here.

While I find these infringements unforgivable, and would swiftly flee if it became financially viable, the UK is at the very least tolerable. Thus, I can afford to migrate legally, rather than hopping a fence, or overstaying a visa. More importantly, I would be fleeing a Western nation to a better Western nation.

Muslim migrants follow different patterns. Generally, when they leave an Islamic country, they do not flee to another Islamic country. Rather, they flee to the West. More specifically, they actively seek out the UK, in many cases coming through France, and crossing the English Channel in small boats (16).

So, we have two questions to ask. Why do Muslims flee Islamic countries to the West, and why do they specifically aim for the UK?

The answer to the former is quite obvious. Islam is a terrible religion that improves nothing, and degrades everything, whenever it enters a nation. To make matters worse, Islam is simultaneously rigid and ambiguous, leading to violent sectarian disputes. The result is that people tend to flee Islamic countries to Western countries, but few flee Western countries to Islamic countries. It's rarely safe, and even more rarely pleasant.

The answer to the latter is equally obvious. Aside from offering all of the benefits previously mentioned (and more that were cut for time), the UK is simply the weakest country in Europe. While some European countries have the backbone required to ban the burqa (the catalyst for this article), the UK is more likely to arrest a journalist for protesting against terrorism than in its favor (17).

We must acknowledge, first and foremost, that we do not want the problems common in the Islamic world to become common in our own countries. If Muslims so often flee Islamic countries, we should seek to remain a country worth fleeing to. That means ensuring our legal system does not allow for those same problems to occur.

In fact, just as we would attach our own oxygen mask before assisting our child on a plane, so also should we, as a nation, focus on solving our own problems before rushing to the aid of others. While homelessness is prevalent among British natives, they should take priority over incoming migrants. Similarly, we should expect any migrants we do let in to contribute to society. As Paul said to the Thessalonians, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10). So if a migrant will not work? Neither shall he eat.

Assimilation should be likewise expected. In ancient Israel, foreigners were permitted to immigrate (so long as they did not have war-like intent), and they were given the rights of the native born (Ezekiel 47:21-23). However, Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, and Numbers 15:15-16 all enforce the fact that they were to be treated exactly like the native born. That means they had the same rights, but also the same responsibilities. This includes following the same law.

So, what are we to make of religious exemptions for certain laws? Put simply, if a law requires a religious exemption, there are two possibilities. 1. The exemption is wrong, because it permits one to use his religion as an excuse for injustice. 2. The law is wrong, because it requires one to use his religion to justify his rights.

Conclusion

As previously stated, freedom of expression is an essential feature of a free, fair, and just society. However, in order to preserve such a society, it is also necessary to suppress the expression of oppressive ideologies.

Islam is one such oppressive ideology, founded by a 7th century tyrant. To allow its full expression is detrimental to a free and fair society, as it inevitably results in tyranny. Yet, due to both the inconsistent nature of Islam, and the hypocritical nature of man, there are also peaceful interpretations of Islam that need no such interference.

The answer is fairly simple. We can reasonably have the same expectations of Muslims that we would have for everyone else. There should be one law for everyone, without exceptions. Where religious exemptions exist in the law, there are two possibilities: The exemption is wrong, because it allows a religion to be used for sake of privilege, or the law is wrong, because it requires one to claim a religion in order to enjoy his natural rights. When it comes to peaceful expressions of Islam, there need be no law. When it comes to oppressive expressions, the law needs to act.

Specifically regarding Islam, we have around 50 countries to prove this. Wherever it takes a foothold, we see the immediate decrease in rights and dignity for everyone, ironically including Muslims themselves. The result is that they often flee their own nations into Western nations, where the rights they lost are, to a degree, retained. This serves as strong proof that these rights are worth protecting, even at the expense of limiting the freedom of those who would take them away.

While Islam was the focus of this article, in large part because it was the catalyst for its existence, the principles discussed apply broadly to all worldviews. But it is no coincidence that, of all religions, Christianity never suffers these problems. "Yes it does, look at this example". Ok, compare that example to Jesus. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors. Speak justice, love mercy, walk humbly. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peacefully with all. Pray for your leaders so that we may live a quiet life in all godliness and reverence, and dignified in every way.

Love.

Peace.

Justice.

Mercy.

Humility.

Dignity.

None of these Christian values are compatible with the tyranny we see across the world. Christianity is the only worldview that benefits even those who reject it. Even secular society, lacking both foundation and consistency, inevitably oppress the religious.

But there is one benefit that Christianity uniquely offers. In this world, it leads to peace. In the world of which Christ's Kingdom is, it grants irrevocable entry. There will be no oppression. There will be no suppression. There will be no injustice. There will be no tyranny. All will be aligned with the King in heart, body, and mind.

But there are no religious exemptions here. The command to repent is universal. Muslims are commanded to repent. Jews are commanded to repent. Atheists are commanded to repent. Without exception, God commands all men, everywhere, to repent, and believe the Gospel. The peace He brings on Earth is a down payment.

References

1. Herbert, Charlie - Reform’s Sarah Pochin asks Keir Starmer if he’ll ban the burqa, The London Economic, June 4th 2025 (link)

2. Wastell, Laurie - Why the ‘two-tier Keir’ jibe isn’t going away, The Spectator, September 15th 2024 (link)

3. Hadid, Diaa - "The Taliban orders women to wear head-to-toe clothing in public", NPR, May 7th 2022 (link)

4. Nader, Zahra - "‘We Have to Fight Back.’ Afghan Women Are Losing Their Hard-Won Right to Work Under the Taliban", Time, May 17th 2022 (link)

5. HRW, "Iran: New Hijab Law Adds Restrictions and Punishments", October 14th 2024 (link)

6. British Veterinary Association – Non-stun slaughter, accessed June 9th 2025 (link)

7. Nadwi, Mohammad Akram - "Apostasy among Muslims in the UK", Al-Salam Institute (link)

8. Religion, England and Wales: Census 2021, Office for National Statistics (link)

9. Lipka, Michael & Hackett, Conrad - "Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group", Pew Research Center, April 6th 2017 (link)

10. OpIndia - Old video of Leicester violence provocateur Ali Dawah, calling for the execution of apostates in Islamic land, goes viral, October 3rd 2023 (link)

11. "Police remove preacher from Speakers’ Corner", Christian Concern, September 26th 2020 (link)

12. Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 57 (link)

13. Sherwood, Harriet - Islamic faith marriages not valid in English law, appeal court rules, The Guardian, Feb 14th 2020 (link)

14. Sherwood, Harriet - "Most women in UK who have Islamic wedding miss out on legal rights", The Guardian, November 20th 2017 (link)

15. Coalition For Marriage - "STOP AGE OF CONSENT BEING IGNORED", April 23rd 2025 (link)

16. Pylas, Pan - "New 2025 record as nearly 1,200 migrants reach UK in small boats in one day", Independent, June 2nd 2025 (link)

17. "Police de-arrest exiled Iranian who held anti-Hamas placard at London Palestine demo" - Jewish News, March 13th 2024 (link)