Tim Dieppe’s The Challenge of Islam deals directly with the difficulties posed by the UK’s swelling, and in part unassimilated, Muslim population. The book successfully addresses topics including Islamic radicalism, antisemitism, and attempts to legally restrict criticism of Islam. Yet, at heart, The Challenge of Islam is a much needed critique of the ideological multiculturalism which has permeated the West; if our societies are unwilling to judge some cultural tenets and practices as morally superior to others, Western democracy is unlikely to survive.
Dieppe’s book is compiled of essays he’s written over the course of the last 10 years. The work takes its title from the 2003 book, The Challenge of Islam to Christianity, in which author David Pawson predicted “that Islam would take over Great Britain.” Though Dieppe is uncertain whether Pawson’s prediction will fully come to pass, he reasserts that Islam poses a great and present challenge to British Christians. A challenge that “at its root… is a battle for the soul of the nation.”
From the outset, Dieppe makes no bones about his position. While rightly maintaining the dignity and humanity of Muslims, he frames Islam’s standing in relation to Christianity in stark terms: “Islam is a spiritual entity. This is a spiritual battle… We need to clearly understand that Muslims are redeemable whereas Islam is not… Muslims are not our enemies, but Islam is an enemy of Christ.” These convictions have a political dimension too, as Dieppe asserts: “[the UK is] a Christian country whose laws and culture are based around biblical values.”
The statistics Dieppe provides are striking. Citing a 2016 report, he writes, “96% of British Muslims believe[d] that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Al Qaeda,” and “43% of Muslims supported the introduction of Sharia law broadly defined.” On more radical issues, 7% of Muslims supported the creation of the Islamic State; 3% supported the caliphate of ISIS; “78% believed that no publication should have the right to publish pictures of Muhammad”; 31% supported British Muslims keeping multiple wives, despite its illegality; 35% believed Jews are too powerful in Britain; 29% viewed Hamas positively.
Even without quantifying the precise proportion of Muslims in the UK who are unassimilated, it’s apparent that Britain has a problem its government is reluctant to directly address. This hesitance stems from adherence to multicultural liberalism, an ideology which departs from the classical liberalism enshrined in the British legal tradition. Instead of merely tolerating differences in religious practice or opinion, it entails—according to one 2004 journal article—the “acceptance of different cultures in a society and the active support of these cultural differences by both the majority and minority group members” (italics added). Dieppe’s definition is more direct. Multiculturalism is “based on the idea that all cultures are equally valid.” Multiculturalism is therefore a form of relativism, dedicated to the proposition that all cultures—and all religions—are created equal.
Dieppe wastes no time in exposing this farce: “Every culture proclaims certain values… which can be in direct conflict with another culture… Is a culture that values free speech equal to one that does not?” What about women’s rights? What about homosexuality, promiscuity, slavery, racism, and polygamy? “All these are cultural practices, and they are evidently not equal.”
And yet, this is what a significant proportion of Westerners claim to believe. They don’t thoroughly believe it, of course—consistency would demand allowing unlimited freedom to white supremacists and Nazis—but when it comes to non-white, non-Western cultures, many Westerners are reluctant to cast judgement.
The best tenants of our culture—protection of speech, press, and religious practice; laws forbidding rape, polygamy, and honor killings; equal treatment of all before the law—are not universally accepted principles. They are distinctly Western with deeply Christian roots. Many—perhaps even most—immigrants to the West embrace these ideas. Yet some interpretations of Islam stand in direct opposition to these precepts and thus cannot be tolerated in Western nations. Those enthralled with multicultural liberalism, so dedicated to the equal validity of all cultures and religions, turn a blind eye to this reality. They insist on platitudes like “Islam is a religion of peace,” in the hopes of obfuscating the fact that for many Muslims, it unquestionably is not.
Western countries, if they are to maintain social order and distinctively Western principles, cannot allow their laws and institutions to rot from within. They must erect guardrails which no appeal to “differing cultural values” can breach. Dieppe outlines many instances of Britain’s Western—and at root, Christian—principles being undermined, but one is particularly illustrative.
Many Britons have promoted and adopted legal and cultural protections for Islam far exceeding those afforded to other religions in the UK, including the All Party Parliamentary Group’s (APPG) definition of Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” As Dieppe points out, this definition is broad enough to include anything. Reading further in the APPG’s 70-page report in search of a robust definition of “Muslimness,” or even “Islam” is fruitless. The definition, which has been adopted or endorsed by a plethora of political parties, dozens of MPs, and many councils and local authorities, can be wielded by its users to cut down anyone for supposed “targeting of perceived Muslimness.”
These initiatives create a de facto blasphemy law which stifles criticism of Islam. Already, accusations of “Islamophobia” broadly construed have been used to punish politicians, professors, and journalists who make good-faith criticisms of Islam or Muslims. While His Majesty’s government has so far refused to adopt the definition, Westminster is under continued pressure to do so. In 2018, over 40 experts from a strikingly wide array of beliefs and backgrounds signed a letter—included in Dieppe’s book—arguing that the definition threatens civil liberties.
Dieppe’s response is that of a Christian realist: open-eyed and clear-headed, he perceives and addresses threats to his country’s cultural foundations and societal order, even when they hide among words like “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” and “love.” He argues for “a principle of ‘reasonable accommodation’…which allows for people to obey their conscience,” but which upholds British values and civil order. Dieppe should be commended for his insight and courage. Unfortunately, among critics of Islam in the UK, Dieppe is actually notable for his restraint. One of the consequences of ignoring the cultural problems posed by radical Islam in Europe is the creation of an increasingly reactionary and racist electorate. Spend time in any online space discussing these issues, and it’s not long before criticisms of Britain’s Muslim policies turn overtly white supremacist, bleeding over into calls to deport Jews and non-whites as well. It is vital that moral, well-reasoned people follow in Dieppe’s steps and courageously call out the challenges posed by Islam. If righteous leaders fail to rise, unrighteous ones assuredly will.
