How can a devout Muslim safeguard security and freedoms built on Western values?
RICHARD NORTH
THERE is an iron rule in modern politics that just when you think things are at rock bottom and cannot get any worse – they get worse.
That rule, with all its terrible implications, was highlighted with Starmer’s appointment of Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary, replacing the lacklustre Yvette Cooper who takes over as Foreign Secretary from David Lammy.
The move was followed in short order by a Home Office statement: ‘For over two centuries, the Home Secretary has safeguarded the nation. Today, we begin a new chapter as we welcome Shabana Mahmood to the Home Office as the new Home Secretary,’ a phrasing which seems to imply that the Home Secretary will no longer safeguard the nation.
Mahmood’s duties, as has been quickly pointed out, include taking charge of law enforcement, national security and counterterrorism, immigration and border security, and oversight of the Security Service (MI5). As a Pakistani (Kashmiri) heritage woman, she also inherits responsibility for the national inquiry into the Pakistani rape gangs scandal.
Yet this woman is a devout Muslim who has said: ‘My faith is the centre-point of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life’; who, when she entered parliament as a newly elected MP, swore her oath on the Koran.
It is worth noting that, beginning with the Test Act of 1673, Roman Catholics were excluded from high office and the crown in England, motivated by fears of Catholic influence, when loyalty to the Pope was seen as incompatible with loyalty to the crown. Most restrictions on public office were lifted by the Catholic Relief Act 1829, but the bar on a Catholic monarch remains to this day, although the 2013 Succession Act eased restrictions on royal marriages. The essential reason for the lifting of the restrictions is that Roman Catholicism is no longer a political force in this (largely secular) country (not forgetting Northern Ireland).
However, that is not the case with Islam. In a previous article I cited Steve Bannon’s warning that Britain is on the brink of civil war. What I did not mention was the sub-head to the Telegraph piece which had Bannon saying that Britain has a problem with ‘radical Islam’ that is getting worse. The only point with which I would disagree is the use of the word ‘radical’. There is Islam, and there is Islam, where the adherents to the faith owe their loyalty not to the nation (any nation), but to the ummah, the transnational, global community of Muslims which has become a fundamental concept in Islam.
Therefore, asks Dan Burmawi, a Christian convert from Islam, how can a woman whose moral and ethical framework has been shaped by Islamic ideology be entrusted with safeguarding the security and freedoms of a nation built on Western values?
The Home Secretary, he observes, is not just another cabinet post. The office directly impacts the safety, rights and future of every British citizen. According to the Home Office’s mandate, the Home Secretary must uphold the rule of law without bias; defend free speech and civil liberties, and protect the nation from threats, foreign and domestic.
Islamic ideology, he says, is not compatible with these standards, as he asks: ‘How can someone shaped by a system that subjugates women credibly defend women’s rights in Britain?
‘How can someone whose religious doctrine criminalises free speech as “blasphemy” protect Britain’s centuries-old tradition of open debate?
‘How can someone whose worldview is rooted in Islamic supremacy guarantee equal treatment for Jews, Christians, atheists, and other minorities?
‘How can the overseer of counterterror policy belong to an ideology that has produced global jihad for 1,400 years?
‘Britain is blindly placing its national security in the hands of someone formed by an ideology that views Western freedoms as sinful and temporary.
‘When Sharia-influenced decision-making begins shaping immigration, counterterrorism, and policing, who will stop it?’
Jim Chimirie, another prominent X commentator, agrees. In his view, this appointment is not an accident. It is the logical outcome of a political class that treats multicultural optics as more important than national survival. Starmer, he says, wants to prove his ‘diverse’ credentials. The price, he says, is that MI5, counterterror strategy, immigration policy and the fight against grooming gangs are now in the hands of someone whose primary worldview it is hard to see can possibly align with the very freedoms she is meant to defend.
‘The Home Secretary is not a backroom role – it’s the fulcrum of state power over law, order, and borders. To put someone shaped by Islamic doctrine into that seat is not “representation”, it’s surrender.’
This is how a civilisation hollows itself out, he concludes, not with tanks on the streets, but by handing the keys of its core institutions to those who do not believe in its foundations. The Home Secretary’s oath is to Britain. The question is whether her first loyalty lies elsewhere. And if it does, then Britain has crossed a line from which there is no easy way back.
in a separate post, Chimirie asserts: ‘This is calculated. Starmer is making a point. He’s signalling to the Leftist-Islamist alliance that he will put ideology and optics above the nation’s safety.
‘And he’s spitting in the face of every Briton who still believes this country should be governed according to its own values, not those imported from outside. It’s a message dressed up as “diversity”, but the real translation is contempt: we’ll decide who rules you, and you’ll swallow it. That’s why this appointment matters – it isn’t just personnel, it’s policy. And it shows us exactly where Starmer’s loyalties lie.’
Looking at Mahmood’s past performance, observer The Stark Naked Brief recalls that, in January, as Justice Secretary, she and her department quietly enforced new probation service rules. They should have provoked utter outrage but not that many took notice.
Under her rules, judges were instructed to ‘prioritise’ cases involving ethnic minorities, women and trans-identified suspects. This was on the assumption that they face a ‘disproportionately higher risk’ of being remanded in custody. But they went further than identifying potential vulnerabilities. They explicitly called for judges to consider factors such as ‘important historical events which may have had a greater impact on those from specific groups and cultures’.
In short, she installed a two-tier bail procedure while no one was looking. It’s very likely that white male Brits have been subject to bail guidelines that ‘positively’ discriminate against them since the start of the year.
Connor Tomlinson predicts: more migration from the Muslim third world; more proscribing of reasonable right-wing concerns about culture and identity; more psyops telling you ‘Don’t look back in anger’ whenever a Jihadist butchers children at a pop concert; reluctance to explore the racial and religious motivations of the rape gangs; two-tier policing between British patriots and Palestine protesters.
Britain now has a Pakistani Muslim Home Secretary, presiding over a 700+ Islamic Network in the Home Office.
She is in charge of immigration, counter-terrorism policy, and supervising the Pakistani grooming gangs inquiry.
Expect to see:
• more migration from the Muslim… https://t.co/EA14LbhKez— Connor Tomlinson (@Con_Tomlinson) September 5, 2025
That is just a sample of the social media view. The legacy media, on the other hand, thinks that ‘Shabana Mahmood’s elevation points to the right’. Not anywhere from the establishment press do you get a hint of the outrage that has Tomlinson declaring that ‘the scale of treachery is unfathomable’.
That, perhaps, is another of the reasons why X has overtaken the legacy media as the primary source of news.
This article appeared in Turbulent Times on September 6, 2025, and is republished by kind permission.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply