Hey, Muslim! Are you paying too much for YOUR car insurance? If so, call ‘Starmer Direct’, and try yelling the magic word “Racism!!!” down the phone.
This would appear to be the advice of The Muslim Vote (TMV), a newly-formed religio-political pressure group who, ahead of the U.K. General Election called for 4 July, issued Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer with a list of 18 demands for Islam-friendly policy-changes if he wanted to retain or regain the ballots of Britain’s estimated four million or so Muslim voters, whom TMV were seemingly claiming to represent.
The most comical of these demands was number 15, which ordered Starmer to “Ensure insurance quotes don’t cost more for someone called Muhammad”. This request-cum-order was seemingly based on a 2018 investigation by the Sun, amusingly headlined ‘Mo Compare’, which purported to find that, if you applied for a new car insurance policy under the false name ‘Muhammad Ali’ rather than ‘John Smith’, you might be quoted a premium of up to £919 more. Bosses denied this represented racism, however, saying insurance firms used anti-fraud software to calculate premiums automatically, to detect “inaccurate details” or “implausibly changed” ones – maybe the computers just thought ‘Muhammad Ali’ sounded like a made-up name? If the Sun had tried applying for quotes under the pseudonym Cassius Clay instead, I’m sure everything would have been fine.
Is this discrepancy in fees really true? Maybe it was back then, but according to a new replication of the Sun’s 2018 investigation performed by the Daily Mail following TMV’s recent petitioning of Starmer, it isn’t now. Earlier this month, the Mail ran “dozens of quotes” on leading price-comparison website GoCompare finding that, on average, people with the white kuffar-sounding names ‘John Smith’ and ‘Darren Smith’ now paid higher premiums than people named ‘Muhammad Smith’: in one case, £553.89 higher. Why could this be? Had standards of Islamic road-safety for some reason increased exponentially in the interim?
Possibly not. According to sensible commentator Rakib Ehsan, who wants his fellow Muslims to integrate into British society, not pose as perpetual victims in an attempt to dominate it from within:
Yes, insurance costs more, on average, for British Muslims. But only because of the community’s relatively youthful population, which is disproportionately located in denser, inner-city areas. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that these two factors are strongly associated with a higher incidence of road accidents [and car-thefts], and therefore irritatingly higher insurance quotes.
Hello Jihadi John, Got a New Motor?
My mother was once ferried back home from a railway station by a Muslim taxi-driver who insisted upon driving part of the way along a motorway with his eyes closed tight-shut and his hands completely off the wheel whilst he offered up muttered devotions to Allah via the use of Tasbih prayer-beads. If this pattern of low regard for road-safety is replicated elsewhere across the Muslim community in Great Britain, perhaps their insurance premiums should be higher. And yet, according to the Daily Mail, they aren’t, at least not any more. How come?
Could it perhaps be that, following public pressure being placed upon them after the Sun’s 2018 investigation, insurance companies quietly tweaked their algorithms so that, rather than Muslims being discriminated against when it came to paying high premiums, they were instead discriminated in favour of? I’ve no idea, because I am not skilled enough to be able to hack their computers and find out, but certain Left-wing commentators back in 2018 certainly seemed to be calling for something broadly like this to occur, at least between the lines. Here is journalist Ruqaya Izzidien, whose name tragically means she probably can’t even afford to drive a car at all, writing in Left-wing house-journal the New Statesman in light of the Sun’s findings:
Perhaps Mohammeds live in high-crime areas… as the benefit-of-the-doubters on social media claim. But in that case, how is this anything more than a poverty tax? And if so, shouldn’t we contest it?… If Mohammeds are being quoted a higher premium than John it would simply be a symptom of the structural biases and discrimination that permeate throughout the commercial and corporate worlds. If Mohammed can’t get a foot in the ladder at work, or can’t rent a flat in a better postcode, then he will be paying a discriminatory premium his entire life – or until this unethical and illogical insurance practice is outlawed. It should not be the responsibility of marginalised communities to hold companies to account for their discriminatory practices… Mohammeds don’t get to choose their name or ethnicity.
This is presented as simply a benign means of levelling out an uneven playing field, but in fact it is not. Ultimately, insurance companies exist purely to make money for their shareholders, and if they feel forced by social or political pressure to lower premiums for one high-risk group in an unwarranted fashion, then they will simply make up for this by passing on costs to an alternative, lower-risk group in compensation – i.e., non-Muslims, primarily white people with names like ‘Smith’. John Smiths “don’t get to choose their name or ethnicity” either, you know, Ruqaya.
Charity Begins At Home
Artificially subsiding Muslims’ car insurance isn’t the end of it, however. The Muslim Vote’s demand number 12 to Keir Starmer was as follows:
Increase council and public health funding for the 10% most deprived areas in the country to finally address systemic and chronic health inequities as detailed in the Marmot Review and revisited by the Health Foundation 10 years later.
How generous-sounding of them! Well, charity towards the poor is one of the traditional Five Pillars of Islam. But is it really charity at all, if what you are actually giving away is other people’s money? According to 2022 analysis by the good folk at MEND – Muslim ENgagement & Development, a controversial pressure-group and backer of TMV decried as “Islamists masquerading as civil libertarians” in a 2017 report by the Henry Jackson Society – “nearly half of British Muslims (46%) live in the poorest 10% of local authority districts. They also earn the least of any religious group and have experienced poverty at a rate 10 times higher than the general population since the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Appallingly, “nearly one-third of Muslims in the U.K. have had to skip meals” due to poverty, says MEND – still, helps keep them on the straight and narrow during Ramadan.
So, the actual true nature of TMV’s demand 12 of Keir Starmer, stripped of any camouflaging language of ‘charitable’ intent, is that more government money should be funnelled into various Muslim-dominated areas on the grounds that they are more deprived financially.
But ‘government money’, of course, is simply an obfuscatory euphemism for ‘taxpayers’ money’: here, mainly that of non-Muslims. Taken together, it sounds an awful lot like such demands are in effect simply for a ‘non-believer tax’ to be placed upon all U.K. taxpayers who are unfortunate enough not to have been either born or received into the ever-growing ummah of Islam. In other words, it is a form of jizya.
No Taxation Without Dhimmification
What is jizya? According to wikiIslam, whose definition seems a little more honest than that of the ordinary Wikipedia (which is possibly why the ordinary Wikipedia presents the site as being ideologically biased in nature, completely unlike Wikipedia itself, of course):
Jizyah or jizya is the extra, lunar-yearly taximposed on Dhimmis, that is non-Muslims who live [as inferior, second-class citizens] under Muslim rule … It is the linchpin of the system of religious apartheid and Islamic supremacism which is the dhimma. Its payment is both a payment for the cessation of the state of Jihad upon the dhimmi, as well as a sign of the humiliation and degradation of the dhimmi before the authority of Islamic religion. The jizya itself was only one of many special taxes paid by non-Muslims to their Muslim governments, but amongst them it is the only one which was specifically delineated in the Qur’an … various other traditions of humiliation and abuse accompanied the jizya; the dhimmi was required to pay it … “an yadin” that is “by hand” and “saaghiruun” that is “humiliated/lowered/in subjugation.” As such … while paying the tax the dhimmi must [traditionally] receive blows about the head and/or neck from the Muslim collecting it to symbolize his humiliated state … Upon payment of the tax the dhimmi would receive a receipt of payment, either in the form of a piece of paper or parchment or as a seal humiliatingly placed upon their neck, and was thereafter compelled to carry this receipt wherever he went within the realms of Islam. Failure to produce an up-to-date jizya receipt on the request of a Muslim could result in death or forced conversion to Islam of the dhimmi in question.
An organisation like The Muslim Vote would not be so stupid as to openly come out and demand that the jizya tax be introduced in (currently) white-majority Christian or post-Christian lands like the United Kingdom. Instead, it would be far more practical to exploit the ostensibly non-religious language of social justice, financial equity, redistribution of wealth, and institutionalised victimology to get such a thing introduced under no particular name instead, by purest stealth.
In fact, the more you look, the more you see ordinary taxpayers’ cash being systematically siphoned away from them and used to subsidise Islam in any number of ways. This March, the U.K. Government (again, that’s a euphemism for ‘you, the taxpayer’), guaranteed £117 million of ‘their’ money to provide security arrangements for mosques and suchlike, while leading dhimmi Jeremy Hunt notoriously opened his last (in both senses of the word) Budget by announcing a new £1m war memorial for all those Muslims who fought for Britain in WWI and WWII (apparently including all those who were descendants of the Ottomans, one of our main military foes in WWI, but hopefully most people were too historically illiterate to notice that awkward little fact).
According to a 2022 assessment from MigrationWatch, meanwhile, the estimated cost of keeping an asylum seeker in a U.K. hotel was £4,300 per migrant, per month – 1.5 times the average monthly salary of a nurse (who, unlike the asylum seekers, actually pays tax) at £2,782 per month. By 2023, even the BBC admitted this had risen to a total cost of £8 million per day. During this same year, the top five nations asylum seekers entered the U.K. from were Afghanistan, Iran, India, Pakistan and Turkey. As most of these settler-colonialist agents of the neo-Ottoman Empire will by definition have been Muslims, does this not essentially mean that a native non-Muslim nurse will be paying at least part of her taxes purely in order to put random Mohammedans up in four-star accommodation?
Islamic (Welfare) State
It’s not just car insurance ‘redistribution’ in the name of ‘social justice’, then, but a thousand more things besides. Jizya by stealth represents a bigger potential jackpot for Islamists than a full-house at Mecca Bingo. I wouldn’t suggest that the average Muslim in Britain necessarily consciously views matters in this way, but some certainly do: remember Anjem Choudary’s notorious old definition of welfare benefits for unemployed Islamists as “Jihad-Seekers’ Allowance”? Reporting on this in 2013, the Daily Mail claimed the leading radical Mr. Choudary lived in a £320,000 house in East London and raked in £25,000 a year in benefits. The Mail said he justified this fact in various speeches to followers thus:
People will say, “Ah, but you are not working.” But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. So we take jihad seeker’s allowance. You need to get support… The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS listening to this.
Tabloid investigators were listening, though, and recorded Choudary saying it, too. But the preacher claimed he was only “joking” and so escaped any action. By 2021, Anjem told the Sun he had finally given up the dole and managed to find gainful employment, however… as a work-from-home book-keeper for a charity.
Forget Suleiman the Magnificent knocking at the Gates of Vienna back in 1529. This is what jihad actually looks like in modern-day Europe – invisible, fundamentally boring, bureaucratic, low-key and immensely ignorable, at least for now. Terrorism is not necessary to achieve the Islamists’ wider aims of total societal domination, and is indeed rather counterproductive, as, unlike quiet manipulation of the welfare-system, unknowing dhimmis do tend to notice that kind of highly visible outrage, and to object most vociferously. Perhaps T.S. Eliot was correct: this is how the (Western) world ends after all, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
In the meantime, I have but one small consolation available to me: I can’t drive, so at least I’m not subsidising Anjem Choudary’s no-claims bonus premiums myself personally.
Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.