Jihad UK
This is an interesting article from a liberal leaning Moslem, who slyly seeks to advise the West not to treat Mohammedans like they treat unbelievers. Please read it all and leave your thoughts in the comments….
There is a difficult but important thought experiment worth considering.
What would Europe look like if it adopted a “mirror policy” applying to its Muslim minorities the same types of legal and social restrictions that Christian minorities face in certain Muslim-majority countries?
In many Muslim-majority countries (MMCs), the legal and social treatment of Christian minorities is governed by a mix of constitutional religious preference, Sharia-influenced family law, blasphemy statutes, and restrictions on proselytization.
If Europe were to adopt a “Mirror Policy” by 2026, applying the same legal frameworks found in countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia to its Muslim populations, the continent would undergo a fundamental structural transformation.
The point of this exercise is not to argue that Europe should do this. Quite the opposite.
It is to expose, clearly and uncomfortably, why religious freedom cannot be conditional, selective, or based on reciprocity, and to show the duplicity of thinking of many Muslims immigrating to the West. If a society only protects minority rights when other countries do the same, then it has already abandoned the principle.
A Mirror Policy Would Transform Europe
Imagine Europe in 2026 under a new legal order built around “defensive heritage” laws.
Instead of liberal constitutional protections, countries would begin defining themselves primarily through religious identity. Senior public offices might be limited to practicing Christians. Political legitimacy would become tied not only to citizenship, but to religious belonging.
Blasphemy laws would return under modern language, perhaps framed as protections for “sacred heritage” or “civilizational dignity.” Insulting Christianity, the Bible, the Church, or national religious symbols could become a criminal matter. Leaving Christianity for another faith might carry civil consequences: loss of inheritance rights, family-law complications, or restrictions around marriage, child custody or even death.
xxxxxxx
Proselytization would also be restricted. Muslims sharing their faith publicly could be accused of undermining social cohesion. Dawah could be treated not as religious expression, but as a threat to national identity.
These are the obstacles that many Christians today face in MMCs.
Europe would still look familiar on the surface. The flags would remain. The parliaments would remain. The language of democracy might even remain. But the underlying operating system would have changed.
Citizenship would no longer be enough.
The City Would Become a Legal Statement
The transformation would not only be legal. It would be physical.
Mosques in cities like Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, and London would face severe restrictions. New construction could be blocked through zoning, security reviews, or heritage-protection rules. Existing mosques might require special permits for expansion, repairs, or even basic maintenance that would rarely get approved.
Minarets could be prohibited or limited so they never exceed the height of nearby church towers. The call to prayer would likely be banned from public broadcast. Public expressions of Islamic identity, including hijabs or other visible symbols, could be framed as incompatible with the “Christian character” of public space and thus carry a social stigma that may spill into economic duress.
.
The message would be clear: you may exist, but only quietly; you may believe, but not visibly; you may belong, but only conditionally.
This is how minority rights often erode in MMCs, not always through one dramatic law, but through a thousand administrative barriers that gradually turn equal citizens into tolerated outsiders.
From Citizens to “Protected Minorities”
Under this mirror model, Muslims in Europe would move from being citizens with equal rights to “protected minorities” whose rights are managed by the state.
Education would be one of the first battlegrounds. Islamic schools would be heavily regulated. Christian theology could become mandatory in public education, while Islamic instruction would be pushed into private homes or tightly monitored institutions.
Family law would become another pressure point. Interfaith marriage could be restricted. A Muslim man wishing to marry a Christian woman might be required to convert. Children of mixed families could be legally presumed to belong to the majority religion.
Economic policy could also be used symbolically. A special “integration contribution” or civic fee could be introduced for those outside the national religious tradition, not necessarily called a religious tax, but functioning as one.
Again, the point is not that this should happen. The point is that if we would immediately recognize these policies as unjust, we should expect the same type of tolerance in MMC’s for their minorities as Europe and the West affords to Muslims and other minorities living in the West.
A Europe built on religious hierarchy would not become more stable. It would become more brittle.
Muslim communities would not disappear. They would move underground. Worship would shift into private apartments. Informal schools would emerge. Religious life would become quieter, more guarded, and more suspicious of the state.
That, in turn, would invite surveillance. Governments would justify monitoring “unauthorized religious gatherings” in the name of security. Trust between communities and institutions would deteriorate.
The professional consequences would also be significant. Many Muslim doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, academics, and business owners would leave. This is why we see many Christians fleeing MMCs over time. Others would stay but disengage. Europe would suffer not only a moral loss, but an economic and social one.
When a state tells a minority that it is permanently suspect, it should not be surprised when that minority stops feeling invested in the national project.
The International Fallout Would Be Severe
A European mirror policy would also trigger major geopolitical consequences.
Muslim-majority countries would condemn it. International organizations would raise human-rights concerns. Trade, energy, migration, and diplomatic relationships would all be affected.
Europe would lose much of its moral authority. It could no longer credibly present itself as a defender of pluralism, minority rights, or freedom of conscience. Its criticism of religious authoritarianism elsewhere would ring hollow.
More importantly, Europe itself would change. To enforce such a system, governments would need to become more centralized, more intrusive, and more authoritarian. A state that polices religious identity cannot remain genuinely liberal for long.
The Real Lesson: Minority Rights Cannot Be Based on Religious Identity; where a person’s religion determines one’s legal standing, safety, and future.
This thought experiment leads to one simple conclusion: minority rights cannot truly exist under an enforced, state-mandated religious identity.
A Christian in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia should have full dignity and protection because they are human beings. A Muslim in France, Germany, Canada, or the United Kingdom should have full dignity and protection for the same reason.
The standard cannot be: “We will treat your minority based on our religious identity”
That is not justice.
Liberal democracies should not mirror the worst instincts of other systems. They should model something better. The answer to religious discrimination abroad is not religious discrimination at home. The answer is consistency defending freedom of conscience everywhere, for everyone.
Europe’s strength has never come from enforcing sameness. It has come from building institutions strong enough to manage difference.
The real test of pluralism is not whether we protect beliefs we share. It is whether we protect the rights of people whose beliefs, customs, and identities are different from our own.
If Europe ever abandoned that principle, it would not be defending its civilization.
It would be surrendering the best part of it.
Somalian Migrant Arrested After Driving Into Pedestrians in London
We can but dream. Even Trump has not the spine to crush them and treats them as “fellow humans” while the Marxist/Globalist fools who rule most of the west are all eager for the muslim vote not realising that it will disappear once a muslim party is created.
The globalists do not like whites as they make less cooperative slaves than do all of the other races and they fear them as they resist more often.
By the time it sinks in that muslims are all ideological animals and should be treated as such by ALL in the west, it will be too late.