Four in 10 feel Muslim immigrants have negative impact on UK, polling suggests
The polling was commissioned by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ahead of a gathering for what it described as the UK's biggest Muslim convention – the Jalsa Salana – this weekend in Hampshire, expected to be attended by 40,000 followers of the faith.
This year's convention is 'opening its doors to sceptics of Islam and those with any questions about the faith', organisers said – noting that two Reform UK voters are due to attend to hear about the religion.
The YouGov survey of 2,130 adults in Great Britain in mid-July asked people if they felt different groups of immigrants by religion generally have a positive or negative impact on the UK.
While 41% said Muslim immigrants have a negative impact, the proportions feeling this way were much lower for other groups.
Around 15% felt this way about Hindu immigrants, 14% about Sikh immigrants, 13% about Jewish immigrants and 7% about Christian immigrants.
Just under a quarter (24%) of respondents felt Muslim immigrants had a positive impact on the UK, lower than for any of the other religions stated.
Earlier this week, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner urged Labour colleagues to acknowledge people's 'real concerns', pointing out that immigration was one of a number of factors having a 'profound impact on society', as she updated Cabinet on her work on social cohesion.
Some 53% of those polled said they believed Islam is not compatible with British values, while 25% said it is and 22% said they did not know.
Sabah Ahmedi, aged 30 and known as 'the young imam' online – where he has a large following, said he believes fear among people 'stems from a lack of understanding of Islam'.
He said: 'These findings are deeply worrying, revealing high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country.
'As a British Muslim, it is tragic to think that we are disliked or hated because of our religious beliefs. It is unfair and unjust considering that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants to the UK are contributing positively.'
He encouraged people to 'meet Muslims to see we are not a threat' and urged the media to 'play a role as well'.
He added: 'Instead of focusing on the tiny minority of Muslim immigrants who cause harm, focus on the majority who are on the frontlines serving the NHS, our armed forces, the police, educational institutes and the like.
'We love this country and cherish its values of freedom and tolerance.'
The Union flag will be raised at this weekend's gathering 'alongside the Islamic flag of our community, to symbolise that love of our faith and country go hand in hand', he said.
The survey findings also indicated younger people were less likely to feel Muslim immigrants have a negative impact and that Islam is incompatible with British values.
Mr Ahmedi said he was 'encouraged by these findings that seem to show that the younger generation is more open-minded and that I hope it indicates a brighter future where Muslims are not considered a threat but an asset to this society'.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the UK is mostly made up of people and their descendants who generally fled Pakistan in the 1980s in the face of religious persecution.
Members said they now face challenges and discrimination in the UK, from some Muslims who do not agree with their version of the faith and from other people who have subjected them to racist bullying because of their Pakistani ethnicity.
A Government spokesperson said: 'British Muslims have played an integral role in shaping modern Britain and have long contributed across every part of our national life.
'Nobody should face hatred, intolerance or feel unwelcome as a result of their faith or belief – and we are committed to tackling anti-Muslim hate in all its forms.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Spectator
The state will do anything but fix the migrant crisis
Migrant hotel protests are erupting across the country, as 'tinderbox' Britain catches fire. What began with a series of protests in Epping, Essex, over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a recently arrived Ethiopian migrant, has now spread, as Brits air long-standing grievances about asylum seekers they have been forced to host in their own communities. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity Demonstrations have so far been reported in Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, Norwich, Leeds and Wolverhampton, Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Altrincham and even at Canary Wharf in London. With years of unaddressed anger rapidly making themselves felt, the police, pulled in all directions, are struggling to keep up. 'Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps', admits the head of the Police Federation. Still, it seems there is one thing the government is more than happy to devote resources to: trawling the internet for anti-migrant sentiment. The Telegraph reports that an elite team of police officers convened by the Home Office is set to monitor social media to flag up early signs of unrest. Working out of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) in Westminster the new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team will 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering in order to 'help local forces manage public safety threats and risks'. If this new division was just about intelligence-gathering that would be one thing. It's true that social media is in invaluable resource for following events on the ground at such gatherings, while local Facebook groups are often where grassroots protests are organised. Yet we know that when it comes to the British state and social media, censorship and punishment for online speech is never far behind. Ever since Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly linked the Southport unrest last year with social media, the idea has firmly taken root in Whitehall that the best way to stop unrest is to aggressively police the internet. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, already takes this view, and the link has even been drawn in Department for Education guidance on how to talk to schoolchildren about the Southport disorder. In a recent report, the police inspectorate said that that forces must be 'better prepared and resourced to monitor, analyse, use and respond to online content', which it argues was a risk to public safety. This general zeal for social-media policing is why Big Brother Watch believes the new unit is very likely to infringe on free speech. The investigations team is 'Orwellian' and 'disturbing', says interim director Rebecca Vincent, creating the possibility that it 'will attempt to interfere with online content' as other government bodies are known to have done during Covid. As if there weren't enough threats to free speech already. This week age verification provisions in the latest stage of the Online Safety Act (OSA) kicked in, meaning that some footage of protests is now inaccessible on social media for many users. Not even parliamentary privilege is safe from the censorship regime. Katie Lam's searing April speech on the rape gangs, in which she quoted court transcripts and survivors, could not be watched on X without age verification. We are beginning to look like North Korea with rainbow flags: for the public's 'safety', footage exposing grievous failures of the British state now cannot be viewed in the UK. Little wonder, given the OSA explicitly earmarks content relating to 'child sexual abuse' and 'illegal immigration and people smuggling' as the 'kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from'. The Conservatives, who bequeathed us this blank cheque for digital authoritarianism, certainly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. The claims that the OSA is merely about restricting access to pornography has been exposed as a mere fig leaf. And still things could still get worse. As the Free Speech Union has noted, shortly after last year's riots, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship lobby group with ties to Morgan McSweeney, 'hosted a closed-door meeting under the Chatham House rule to discuss the role of social media in civil unrest'. In attendance were officials from the Home Office, the Department of Science, Information and Technology, Ofcom and other organisations. The CCDH proposals that emerged included amending the OSA to 'grant Ofcom additional 'emergency response' powers to fight 'misinformation' that poses a 'threat' to 'national security' and 'the health or safety of the public''. This would give Secretary of State Peter Kyle the ability to directly flag unapproved content to be taken down at a time of 'crisis'. Should the unrest continue this could well be coming down the track. What all this illustrates is just how ill-equipped the people in charge are to deal with Britain's problems, as The Spectator's Madeline Grant noted earlier this week. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity. Spin doctors 'manage' the news. Police surveil social media. The government shuffles asylum seekers from hotel to hotel, or to HMOs, or even to privately rented accommodation (which it uses your own taxes to outbid you for). For his part, the prime minister has been tweeting about the women's football. As the unrest grows, leading politicians continue doggedly insist that Britain remains a 'a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith country'. In reality, there are answers to the asylum hotels crisis, it's just that the government simply lacks the will to act. Large numbers of illegal migrants need to be deported, while those that are here should be placed in a secure holding facility somewhere remote. What is surely obvious by now where they should not be: in hotels, in an Essex market town 500 yards from a school; on the Bournemouth beachfront; in the London's financial district; in a Leeds suburb right next to a shopping centre. As it is, however, it seems the regime will try anything and everything before addressing people's real concerns.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
