On February 20 and 21, approximately 2000 Muslims gathered in Times Square, New York City’s main tourist hub, for a Ramadan-related mass-prayer event. The Islam call to prayer was broadcast over a public address system. On March 16, 2026, approximately 3000 Muslims gathered in London’s Trafalgar Square, the city’s main hub, for a Ramadan-related mass-prayer event. The Islamic call to prayer was, once again, broadcast via a powerful loudspeaker system. London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, attended.
The appropriateness of these two events depends on who one asks. One group sees all such gatherings as a sparkling symbol of religious diversity and tolerance, while skeptics question the use of high-traffic tourist areas for religious services they believe mosques are better venues for. New York City is home to around 400 mosques, while London’s count is about 475.
These outdoor religious events in high-profile areas are great PR. In Times Square, the visuals of thousands of people gathered for spiritual reasons juxtaposed against flashing billboards and bustling commercialism sends an intentional message. Such gatherings are guaranteed to go viral, spreading the message worldwide. In this sense, both London and NYC are allowing Christians and Muslims to use what are meant to be neutral spaces to promote their religions on a global basis, which brings no benefits to their residents.
When Conservative U.K. frontbench MP Nick Timothy posted a critical comment on X about the Trafalgar Square religious service, it sparked a row. Some were grateful that he'd articulated what they felt others were unwilling or afraid to say in a nation where saying the wrong thing on social media can trigger a police house call. The naysayers responded with accusations of Islamophobia, a useful tactic for shutting down free speech.
The Shadow Justice Secretary’s most polarizing remark was that prayer services are, beneath the surface, a power move. He wrote: “The adhan (call to prayer), which declares there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger, is, when called in a public place, a declaration of domination.”
As both Christians and Muslims are granted public spaces in the U.K. for self-promotion, it's hard to make the case that Muslims are receiving special treatment. The delicate question is whether or not there are more potential negatives associated with granting such freedom to one of these two religions. The challenge is that getting to the bottom of this matter requires the sort of brutal frankness that, especially in the U.K.’s current self-censoring political atmosphere, isn't for the faint of heart. Those familiar with the mass denialism and cowardice associated with that nation’s horrifying “rape gang” scandal, in which girls as young as 13 were abused, know what I’m talking about. When so much effort goes into sparing the feelings of one group, even at the expense of the well-being of children, it's a sign society’s lost its bearings.
Timothy pulls no punches. He believes Muslims should do what they did in Trafalgar Square in their mosques, because prayer staged in a national square is a statement about who controls such spaces. I haven't found any statements from the MP suggesting he feels this applies to Christians, so it appears that Islam is a particular worry for him. Such a sentiment, coming from a British person, is hardly inflammatory or panicky. Christianity’s been the main religion in Great Britain since the time of the Roman Empire.
Imagine Christians trying to stage a prayer service in a public square in, say, Iran. The government would view this as a threat to the Islamic Republic, and never allow it. One hard fact that the U.K.'s liberal citizens don't understand is that while there's zero energy within British Christianity to impose itself upon Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other Muslim nation, the same can’t be said of Islam. The ideology known as “Islamism” is a legitimate threat to the world in that it's a political movement set on replacing secular political systems with Islamic rule.
Polls indicate that 10-15 percent of Muslims support Islamism. London’s Muslim population is now at 15 percent, with a median age significantly lower than the general population and a fertility rate well above it. In 20 years, around 25 percent of Londoners will be Muslims, meaning that the city will have 337,000 residents who support the Islamist agenda. As younger British Muslims are more vulnerable to radicalism than their immigrant parents, this is probably a conservative estimate.
Any non-Muslim not viewing that figure as chilling lives in a DEI fantasy land where “our diversity is our strength.” Except that, in this case, that strength will apply to a faith-hardened militant group intent upon imposing its rigid, authoritarian approach to religion on a population largely unable to see what's coming at them.
Great Britain has spent decades reassuring itself that the danger Islamism poses is merely extremism on the margins. London mayor Sadiq Khan, more concerned with fighting “Islamophobia” than “Islamism,” can't be counted on. His statements on Islamism have been confined to condemning acts of terror in London and the U.K., which he must do for political reasons. As Islamism is a more sub rosa threat, the mayor can get away with ignoring it.
Thinking that Islamism is reducible to terrorism is tantamount to underestimating its danger. The U.K. has been able to accept sporadic acts of terror as a price to pay to live up to progressive ideals regarding immigration. But Islamism's fundamental threat is its core claim that Islamic principles should determine political authority, law, and public life. What puts the U.K. in a particularly precarious position is a lack of awareness due to the myopic commitment to pluralism and concurrent refusal to educate themselves.
Nick Timothy, in reacting against this blind spot, represents the concern shared by so many British citizens. If not for fighters like him, the U.K. would’ve already reverted to blasphemy laws— abandoned long ago—in order to protect Islam from public criticism. He's aware of the plans that powerful Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood have for the U.K. Choosing institutions over insurgency, they’ll focus on community organizations, student groups, advocacy networks, and local politics.
Fighting Islamism has many parallels with the fight against Soviet-era communism—a cause that the Left, with its soft spot for authoritarianism, opposed. Both totalitarian ideologies are universalistic and revolutionary, and call for realigning society according to a single, illiberal blueprint. As Timothy has pointed out, the British government has been too timid to confront political Islam directly, relying instead on funding anti-terrorism security measures that miss the real Islamist threat. It's crucial to develop a strategic initiative designed to directly confront the extremist narratives used to radicalize individuals.