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'.
Imam Sabah Ahmedi said fear is born of a lack of understanding of the Islamic faith (Family Handout/PA)
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
Times
19 minutes ago
- Times
Jimmy Savile would have targeted children online today, says minister
It is 'inconceivable' that Jimmy Savile would not have targeted children online today, a cabinet minister has said, as she appeared to double down on accusations that Reform was aligning itself with predators. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, had accused Nigel Farage siding with 'people like Jimmy Savile' with his opposition to new online safety laws. On Wednesday, Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, repeatedly refused to repeat the comment but told Times Radio: 'I think the point that Peter was making is that predators today, sexual predators today, operate online. 'And if social media had been around in the same way as it is today, when Jimmy Savile was committing those crimes against young children, then it's inconceivable that Jimmy Savile wouldn't have been in the online space as well. 'It is a fact that Nigel Farage and the Reform Party have said that they would repeal the Online Safety Act in its entirety, when of course some of the most significant provisions of that legislation is to protect children from predators, from seeing pornographic material on their phones and on their computers. 'And so Nigel Farage doesn't like the truth of the matter when my colleague explains to him the importance of the Online Safety Act and why he is so wrong to be wanting to repeal it.' Farage has said Kyle's comments were 'below the belt' and 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'. He said: 'I bow to nobody in my determination to protect families and children. But I will not allow the government to hide behind children while attacking the fundamental British value of freedom of speech — and the liberty to tell the truth.' However, the technology secretary stood by his comments. Writing in the Telegraph on Tuesday night he said: 'When Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, boasts about his plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, it makes my blood boil.' He said repealing the law would 'benefit' registered sex offenders and 'other disgusting predators who contact children and groom them online'. He said: 'I cannot understand how anyone can be against these measures. How could anyone question our duty to keep children safe online — particularly when it comes to child sexual abuse content and from online grooming? 'That's why I am so angry that Mr Farage thinks it's OK to promise to get rid of an act of parliament he clearly has not read and does not understand. It shows he is not serious about governing or keeping children safe. Instead, he is deliberately misleading the public. 'Now I've been criticised for getting angry at Mr Farage for his wilful disregard for the safety of children online, but I make no apologies for putting the interests of vulnerable children ahead of the interests of predators and child abusers, and the Reform leader's ego.' Under rules that came into effect on July 25, online platforms such as social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. Zia Yusuf, the former Reform chairman, has said that the laws work to 'suppress freedom of speech' and 'force social media companies to censor anti-government speech'. Kyle had told Sky News earlier in the day: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Farage said: 'Just how low can the Labour government sink in its desperation? Yes, of course they're in trouble. They're well behind us in the opinion polls. But frankly, to say that I would do anything that would in any way aid and abet people like Jimmy Savile, it's so below the belt it's almost not true.'
New Statesman
19 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer's Palestine stance risks pleasing no one
Photo by Toby Melville / AFP via Getty Images Keir Starmer found himself politically cornered on Palestine. More than a third of the cabinet, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, privately – and in Wes Streeting's case, publicly – pushed for faster recognition of statehood. Over 130 Labour MPs signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding the same. Only a month after the welfare vote debacle, Starmer could not afford to become isolated from his party once more (recall how Tony Blair's support of Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon hastened his downfall). The result was an emergency cabinet meeting yesterday and the dramatic announcement that the UK will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel abides by a ceasefire and commits to a two-state solution (a shift that Jonathan Powell, Starmer's national security adviser, prepared the ground for in the US last week). Support for Palestinian statehood in principle isn't new – it first became Labour policy under Ed Miliband in 2014 – but this plan most certainly is. Until yesterday, the government's stance was that recognition was dependent on a prior ceasefire and a long-term peace plan (including the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas). In short, non-recognition of Palestine was the default outcome. Now this position has, in effect, been reversed: a ceasefire is no longer a precondition, making recognition by far the likeliest result. In practice, government sources make clear, they do not expect Israel to follow the UK's conditions (Benjamin Netanyahu has never favoured a two-state solution). While there are still 'demands' on Hamas, including the release of the hostages and the acceptance of a ceasefire, it's telling that these are not being presented as conditions (though No 10 emphasises that 'we will judge both parties on their progress before making a final decision in September'). Not for the first time in Starmer's premiership, it's a nuanced position that has managed to upset both sides for different reasons. 'Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims,' Netanyahu declared last night, a critique echoed by Nigel Farage and much of the British right (though No 10 will be relieved by Donald Trump's unusually phlegmatic response: 'That's OK, it doesn't mean I have to agree'). Hostage families have warned that 'the UK's approach risks disincentivising Hamas from releasing the hostages'. Meanwhile, a striking array of left and liberal figures, including Ed Davey, Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens' likely next leader Zack Polanski all level the same charge at Starmer: that he is treating Palestinian statehood as a 'bargaining chip'. Labour critics take much the same view: recognition should have been both faster and unconditional. 'It's certainly not a moral awakening, more a strategic repositioning,' one prominent MP tells me. Downing Street insists that Starmer's move is both principled – he regards Palestinian statehood as an 'inalienable' right – and pragmatic: the announcement is timed to advance peace amid a humanitarian catastrophe. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe But the danger is clear: that a decision driven by politics may have all too few political benefits. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels] Related
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Farage investigated for possible breach of MPs' code of conduct
Nigel Farage is being investigated by Parliament's standards watchdog over a potential breach of the MPs' code of conduct. Daniel Greenberg, the parliamentary standards commissioner, has launched an inquiry into a possible infringement of the rules relating to a 'registration of interest'. The investigation into the Reform leader was opened on Monday, according to the commissioner's website. It relates to a potential breach of Rule 5 of the MPs' code of conduct that states MPs must declare any change to their interests within 28 days. An inquiry being launched does not mean any rules have been broken. Inquiry unclear In March, Mr Greenberg was urged to investigate whether the Reform UK leader should have declared support he received from a PR firm whose former boss is now a Donald Trump official. However, it is unclear exactly which declaration, or absence of a declaration, is being investigated. Mr Farage has been approached for comment. Rule 5 of the MPs' code states: 'Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. 'New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days.' Labour's freebies scandal Rachel Reeves faced a similar investigation by the standards watchdog earlier this year over her declaration of free theatre tickets. The Chancellor was found to have inadvertently broken the rules by missing the 28-day deadline for registering the gifts. She acknowledged and apologised for the error. The tickets to the National Theatre, used by Ms Reeves and three members of her family, were worth an estimated £276. Sir Keir Starmer also faced a backlash last year after it emerged that he initially failed to declare money towards clothing he received from Lord Alli, the Labour donor. The Prime Minister originally recorded the donation, worth £16,200, in April 2024 as 'private support for the office of the leader of the Opposition'. But a month later, his office updated the register of members' financial interests to say the money was for 'work clothing, value £16,200', the Financial Times reported. Sir Keir also moved the section in which the donation was recorded from 'any other support' to ' gifts, benefits and hospitality '.
