Conservative Woman readers

In response to Karen Harradine: Protests prove Sara Khan is the right choice to counter Islamist terrorism, Mikebloke wrote:

Some of these points are fair, despite claiming every British Muslim group and politician who is against this is an Islamist or extremist.

You’ve forgotten to mention the two other comments against Sara Khan, firstly that her organisation Inspire is questionable in regards to the amount of work actually done. It’s debated whether they hold even a single public event a year and whether internally any actual work is done. Secondly, the fact that Sara Khan has no actual experience of talking about general terrorism beyond the impact that disadvantaged wives of potential Muslim extremists can do to prevent their husbands going down a dark path.

Northern Ireland terrorism, while placated for now, and far-Right extremism, now responsible for death and fury on our streets, will still be part of the remit, if it’s followed.

I say this as a relatively supportive Muslim of Sara Khan, I have her book and have actually bothered to read it, and I hope she takes her position to completely ignore the terrorism remit and hit out against Mosques that prevent women from entering; the mosques of breveli and deobandi descent that fund, put forward candidates and win elections for . . . The Conservative and Unionist Party.

It is perhaps ironic that Sara Khan will have to attack Tory supporters in order to bring mosques that support them in line with liberal and Salafist mosques and force them to allow women inside buildings, mix with men, and be included inside committees.

As a Leftie Muslim who doesn’t hate the west, I’m hoping Sara Khan will use her position to push for change in the UK that will benefit individuals like myself and ensure that I’m not the only one constantly badgering old Asian men with Tory membership cards to let women into a prayerhall.

Let’s be honest. She’s not going to stop a married man with kids committing a terror attack; what we really want her to do is address the lack of integration of Muslim migrants who’ve chosen to segregate, and how that might . . . in another generation or two change the mindsets of a wider community and prevent terror attacks in the far future. And I’m all for it.


  1. History has yet to record or show a Muslim-ruled country that genuinely maintained rights for non-Muslims.
    Islam means submission and the submission of the population of this country to Islam is what is intended by all the parties now in Westminster.

    • Maybe not what is intended, though it will be the outcome.

      (This below is in response to the original poster).
      BTW. What “far-right extremism, responsible for death and fury”?
      A lone man with mental health problems driving around in a van looking for Jeremy Corbyn to run down?

      Don’t be silly.

  2. “and far-Right extremism, now responsible for death and fury on our streets”
    Sorry could you please provide evidence for this deluge of death and fury?
    I like the “its all the Tories” fault narrative of this piece and old conservative supporting Muslims!
    I doubt that any of those who travelled to join Isis or committed terror attacks here, voted conservative. Just saying!

    • With the author expressing his left-wing sentiments the ageism against “old conservatives” was to be expected. It’s a theme regularly peddled here by the sneering leftist trolls.

      It’s become a sort of aggravated pejorative. Bad enough being conservative but if you’re an “old” conservative . . .

  3. So when Islamic Terrorists quote violent passages form the Koran( Sura of the Sword ) and The Hadith to justify their actions, Sara will argue against it?

Comments are closed.