This article examines the increasingly incendiary rhetoric of far-right factions openly advocating for an anti-Muslim civil war. It traces their recurring narratives, and asks how these ideas have moved from the fringes into academic discourse.
“If we need to go to war to take back our country, then so be it!”
Many assume this rhetoric is confined to radical far-right terrorists, thugs at Tommy Robinson’s hate marches, the private convictions of certain politicians, or the oligarch and preposterous spectacle that is Elon Musk. But the underlying sentiment that Britain is so deeply fractured that it is drifting towards an anti-Muslim civil war — is also being advanced by a number of skewed academics, historians, and scholars. These arguments, cloaked in the appearance of scholarly analysis have reinforced and in many cases ignited the perception among those frustrated with “Broken Britain” that violent rupture is no longer unthinkable. Moreover, it is a framework that disguises ideological projections and insincere evaluations as objective truths.
This is where the work of King’s College Professor (Jewish-Zionist) David Betz becomes particularly revealing. His title, Professor of War, confers institutional authority and positions him as a credible expert on contemporary conflict. Yet this authority is mobilised in his work as part of the broader ideological mechanisations through which the figure of the “Muslim enemy” is constructed and legitimised. Betz achieves this through discursive scaffolding and the continual repetition of familiar securitising tropes.
His most unsettling and chilling rhetoric is his blueprint on how an anti-Muslim civil war could be cultivated within the United Kingdom.
Betz lays bare methods which will force Muslims to flee from demographically mixed areas in the UK to more densely populated Muslim ones: “no-go zones” as he falsely describes them. He divides the U.K. into three sections:
Zone A: urban enclaves where non-native populations dominate, often non-contiguous but defensible, akin to France’s ‘zones urbaine sensibles’ (sensitive urban zones) or the migrant-dense corridors of northern England.
Zone B: mixed regions where instability will be fiercest, particularly capital cities where state authority still exerts influence.
Zone C: largely contiguous native-dominated areas, comparable to the French regions voting National Rally in 2024, forming bases for counter-mobilisation.
When elaborating on “Zone A,” he writes :
“For example, take the city of Bradford, a medium-sized UK city located in the north, one of the kind of hotbeds now for these issues. How many petrol stations do you need to destroy to make the fuel supply basically turn Bradford into a pedestrianised city because you can’t get fuel? The answer is very low. It’s probably about 25 you could do. So one could map it out.”
Betz argues that the most effective strategy for destabilising a city would be a siege that “targets the city’s life-support system,” much of which lies outside its boundaries. “Food distribution, energy and utilities are inherently vulnerable; their disruption multiplies instability and intensifies demographic reshuffling,” he says.
The significance of targeting petrol stations, therefore, lies not simply in depriving the population of fuel, but in the cascading effects that such disruption could produce: restricting mobility and interrupting the provision of essential goods and services. His reference to “demographic reshuffling” is particularly disturbing, suggesting that the consequences of such disruption extend beyond infrastructure to the composition and movement of the population itself. It should be noted, Muslims account for 30.5% of Bradford’s population.
Given his role within academia, it could be concluded that Betz is merely offering a foresight, an analysis of what might be, given his expertise. However, when considered alongside substantial evidence of Betz’s role in amplifying far-right ideas, endorsing anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, and advancing narratives that target the Muslim community, the framing of Muslims as the intended subject of ethnic cleansing raises serious concerns.
In his paper, ‘The Future of War is Civil War’, the Canadian professor writes:
“Society has already passed the tipping point after which prevention of the eruption of violent civil conflict is impossible.” Once the civil war begins, the native population will aim to exterminate and remove the Muslim population.”
In a 2025 article he asserts:
“In the UK, this divide is particularly pronounced between the indigenous and Muslim populations. Because of their size, growth rate, strong internal cohesion and solid religious identity, they remain largely impervious to assimilation. In many cases, second- and third-generation Muslims are even further removed from the host society than their first-generation counterparts.”
Such statements employ alarmist rhetoric. However, the facts paint a very different picture. John W. Berry’s peer reviewed paper on acculturation does not support the premise that minority identity and social integration are mutually exclusive. It shows that integration is characterised not by the abandonment of religious or cultural identity, but by the capacity to participate fully in the wider society while maintaining meaningful aspects of one’s heritage. Therefore, the continued expression of a minority religious or cultural identity cannot reasonably be treated as evidence of failed integration. Therefore, assimilation is not necessary for the flourishing of a society, nor for the maintenance of social cohesion and harmony, integration is. British Muslim integration is reflected in myriad facets of society, with a notable case in point being in the medical practitioner workforce. Muslims comprise of 6.5% of the general UK population, approximately 15% of all doctors in the UK identify as Muslim, making them significantly overrepresented within this sector.
Yet when hatred becomes entrenched, even the clearest evidence is dismissed because prejudice does not seek truth, it seeks confirmation of itself.
We are currently witnessing an unprecedented rise of attacks against Muslims across the UK. For instance, a UK mosque is reported to be attacked every five days. Tell Mamma found that Islamophobic assaults surged by 73% in 2024 – 6,313 cases of anti-Muslim incidents were reported in the UK. Additionally, they reported a 103% increase in targeted anti-Muslim hate against women who are visibly Muslim, particularly Muslim women who are “usually wearing Islamic garments such as the hijab or niqab”, and that they are “often singled out for public harassment or attacks.”
As Muslims, we do not know what the future holds for the nation in which many of us were born, raised, and care for. Allah alone knows what lies ahead.
Nonetheless, the surge of hate towards the British Muslim community shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. After all, we have been vilified for years without the perpetrators being held accountable — The Sun and Daily Mail remain unchallenged in the realms of winning headlines. The normalisation of anti-Muslim narratives online, alongside their proliferation in political and media discourse and misinformation, has evidently fuelled hostility in everyday life and instigated harm against Muslims who are simply trying to go about their everyday lives.
A report by the Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) has taken stock of the true scale of the British media’s Islamophobia problem. By analysing over 48,000 online articles and 5,500 broadcast clips from between September 2018 and October 2020 found that almost 60 percent of the articles examined across online publications were identified as associating negative aspects and behaviours with Muslims or with Islam.
Let us return to the scholars — the people of knowledge whom we trust to guide us in matters beyond our understanding.
Earlier this year, in an episode of his podcast David Starkey Talks this month, Starkey, a once highly acclaimed historian and professor at LSE, asked Carl Benjamin, (online pseudonym Sargon of Akkad) “What is an Englishman?” Although the episode title sounds like a piece of exquisite and complex satire, it is not. During the course of the hour long conversation, Starkey and Akkad repeatedly referred to feeling constrained by restrictions on free speech in the U.K, as if their narrative so far hasn’t been alarming enough.
Starkey has warned in interviews that “Mass migration is the biggest threat to Europe and a collapse of the free world and Middle class. And, that “the last time we were in territory like this it was settled by Civil war.”
There isn’t a scintilla of truth in the majority of Starkey’s statements. His views steeped in white supremacy are beyond a matter of speculation, “Slavery was not a genocide: otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there? You know, an awful lot of them survived,” he once said.
There’s more.
Critical race theory is not primarily about racial justice but about undermining “white culture” and the legitimacy of the Western cultural tradition, conservatives should defend the “uniqueness of the Anglo-American against barbarians,” he said in the annual National Conservatism Conference in 2023.
The National Conservatism Conference is a forum in which antagonistic political discourse is articulated, a prominent gathering for a coalition of far-right politicians, journalists, academics, public commentators, and ideological activist who all promote Islamophobic, xenophobic, and exclusionary narratives advancing sovereignty.
The conference was established by the Edmund Burke Foundation, led by Yoram Hazony, a leading authority on Zionism. Hazony has played a significant role in demonising Muslims and migrants across Europe and North America. He is also the founder of the Herzl Institute, which sits in Jerusalem, an organisation that states its focus is Jewish philosophy, political thought, and the legacy of Theodor Herzl.
Through these institutions and his writing, Hazony continues to seek to reshape the trajectory of Western politics via far-right political groups, positioning the United Kingdom as a nation in acute crisis. Such narratives are often presented as hard-headed realism. Its advocates speak about the preservation of Western values. They speak in the language of emergency, invasion, demographic collapse, and national survival, imagining themselves as the last adults in the room, willing to say what others fear to say.
Recently appearing on Starkey’s podcast, Betz claims that the “Muslim population in the UK is networked and quite organised,” presenting Pakistani Muslim communities as the enemy. Dangerously and falsely asserting that community leadership is “parallel governance.” And that religious differences is indicative of a “subnation”. Predictably, Betz avoids addressing the 2024 investigation, which found that thousands of Hasidic boys in Stamford Hill (Londoners, born and raised) “can barely speak English” due to receiving no secular education in their unregistered yeshiva high schools. They are consequently unable to integrate with the wider community or participate in contributing to British society.
Vertovec (2002) argues in “Islamophobia and Muslim Recognition in Britain, that “British Muslims increasingly developed forms of civil society engagement through institutions such as mosques, community organisations, welfare groups, and advocacy organisations. These networks emerged as mechanisms through which Muslims could maintain religious and cultural practises to provide social support, and seek identity within British public life. However, Vertovec does not present these forms of organisation as evidence of a single coordinated Muslim agenda; rather, they reflect the normal processes through which minority communities establish institutions and participate in society whilst adhering to the laws of the host nation. Therefore, the existence of organised Muslim civil society should not be interpreted as proof of a unified political bloc or collective threat, but as part of the broader negotiation of identity, belonging, and citizenship in a multicultural Britain.
Broken Britain
To any patriots who maybe reading this:
Britain is indeed broken.
51.4% of all children in the UK are born outside of marriage.
According to a poll conducted in 2021, almost one in ten mums in the UK did not know who fathered their child. “7.8% admitted to lying over the biological lineage of their children.”
ONS data from April 2025 reported that 26% of adults aged 16 to 29 years in Great Britain are experiencing moderate to severe depressive symptoms.
Christianity is in rapid decline with approximately 20 churches closing in England a year. Atheism is on the rise.
But is any of this the fault of the Muslims?
Between 2024 and 2025, gambling addiction increased by 73%, contributing to an industry now worth £7.8 billion annually. This is driven in part by the accessibility and convenience of online gambling apps.
Furthermore, there are more pet dogs in UK households — (41%) than children under the age of 12.
97.5% of the elderly in Britain care homes are caucasian.
A Longitudinal study conducted by the Marriage Foundation analysed 14,562 mothers in the UK and their nine-month-old babies from 2000 to 2001. The study found that ‘Muslim women have a winning recipe for relationship success’. The Mothers were surveyed again when their children were aged 3,5, 7, and 11. It was found that Muslim women are more likely than any other religious group to be in long-term, happy relationships, with 94% of mothers being married, compared to 79% of Christian mothers and 59% of non-religious mothers. It should be noted that this research completely refutes the possibility that Muslim women stay with their husbands because they are somehow repressed. This is because Muslim mothers reported 31% higher relationship happiness than non-Muslim mothers.
The Great Replacement Theory
The current birth rate in the UK is 1.6. For a stable population it is claimed that a nation’s birth rate should be 2.1. Among British Muslims it is between 2.7 and 2.9. Britain’s ageing population is at 11 million (18.6%), in the top 10 in Europe.
Again, is any of this the fault of the Muslims?
Islam is on the rise and the largest group of converts to Islam in Britain are white women between the ages of 25–50.
Ask yourselves why. There is no compulsion in Islam.
“For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”
(Qur’an 109:6)
Are Muslims trying to take over through Shakira Law?
In the UK, Sharia councils are not courts of law. They are voluntary religious bodies that primarily provide guidance and rulings relating to Islamic marriage and divorce. Their decisions have no legal authority under UK civil law, and UK courts remain the only bodies with legal jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, and family law.
As for Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs
In her report, Dr Ella Cockbain concludes:
“‘Grooming gangs’ are a poorly defined and inherently racialised subset of child sexual exploitation, which is itself a vaguely defined subset of both child sexual abuse and ‘modern slavery’”. She concludes it is an “inaccurate and racist stereotype” that “stigmatises whole minority communities, empowers the far-right, and fuels extreme violence, including terrorist attacks and murders in the UK and internationally.”
How should Muslims respond?
“And not equal are the good deed and the bad deed. Repel (evil) with that which is better; and behold, the one between whom and you there was enmity will become as though he was a devoted friend.”
(Qur’an 41)
We must never be deceived by those who seek to turn neighbours into enemies. Muslims have lived alongside Christians and people of other faiths for centuries: from Andalusia to modern day Egypt — building communities through trade, scholarship, cooperation, and shared daily life.
Islam espouses a profound ethos of benevolence and goodwill towards all of humanity. Classical mufassirun, including al-Ṭabari, Ibn Kathir, and al-Qurṭubi, emphasise the universal nature of the prophets’ concern, highlighting their compassion and sincere desire for the guidance and well-being of not only Muslims, but also those who do not share the faith.
However, when we are attacked, we must defend our lives and protect our dignity within the realm of the law.
“Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair.”
(Qur’an 60:08)
Muslim men who have been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting their families should be prepared to defend themselves and those in their care when necessary.
The Muslim community must remain vigilant, and sisters should report every incident to the relevant authorities, regardless of how minor it may seem. Even if a report does not receive the response it deserves, it still serves an important purpose by contributing to the Islamophobia database.
British patriots and fellow citizens: Now ask yourselves this, are you really going to keep rounding up the troops or is it time to admit that your time could be spent far more wisely?
