Donald Trump’s UN attack on London and Sadiq Khan revived an old charge — that Britain’s capital is sliding into “sharia law.” The claim is false as a matter of law, but it draws force from genuine controversies in London: religious councils that disadvantage women, free speech curtailed in the name of public order, and Britain’s catastrophic mishandling of grooming gangs.
Driving the news
Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Trump accused London of wanting “to go to sharia law” under its “terrible” mayor Sadiq Khan. Almost simultaneously, the Daily Mail published a long report branding London “the Sharia capital of the West,” highlighting Islamic councils issuing fatwas, discriminatory divorce practices, and a case where a Quran-burning protester was slashed on the street while his attacker was spared jail.Also Read: Your countries are going to hell’: Trump blasts Europe’s migration at UNGA; accuses London mayor of ‘seeking Sharia law’Trump’s claim is legally baseless: English law remains supreme. But it resonates because it amplifies very real failures and contradictions in Britain’s handling of religion, justice, and integration.
Sharia councils — de jure vs de facto
- Origins and scale. The first Islamic Sharia Council opened in Leyton in 1982. Today there are at least five in London, and perhaps dozens more informal bodies across the UK. A 2017 review estimated 85 nationwide, with London, Birmingham, Bradford and Dewsbury as hubs.
- Function. These councils deal with marriage, divorce, inheritance, and financial disputes. They have no power over criminal law. But in practice, many Muslims turn to them first, giving them social authority that far outweighs their legal standing.
- Discrimination. Reports to Parliament and NGOs document councils denying women equal divorce rights, asking wives to pay husbands to secure release, or pressuring women into mediation that leaves them at a disadvantage. Because many Islamic marriages aren’t registered civilly, women often cannot access English family courts. The result is a shadow system that traps women in abusive marriages.
Free speech and the charge of “back-door blasphemy”
The Quran-burning case exposed a glaring tension:
- The protester. Hamit Coskun set fire to a Quran outside the Turkish consulate, shouting anti-Islam slogans. He was convicted of a public-order offence on grounds of “hostility towards Muslims.”
- The attacker. A Muslim man slashed Coskun with a knife but received only a suspended sentence. Judges insisted they were following sentencing guidelines, but the perception was unmistakable: blasphemy was punished more harshly than violence.
- The reaction. Secularists warned this amounted to reinstating
blasphemy laws through the back door. They argued that offensive expression, however distasteful, must be tolerated, while violence must never be excused. - The Starmer controversy. The issue returned to Parliament in late 2024, when Labour MP Tahir Ali asked Keir Starmer if the government would legislate against desecration of religious texts and prophets of Abrahamic faiths. Starmer condemned the act as “awful” but stopped short of ruling out new laws, framing it instead as part of tackling hatred. Secular groups warned that this was a fresh attempt to smuggle in blasphemy protections, years after the UK had abolished them. For critics, Labour looked once again like it was pandering to religious sensitivities at the expense of free expression.
Fatwas and English courts
Concerns escalated when a High Court judge in the Tafida Raqeeb case mentioned “the benefit of a fatwa” while allowing parents to seek further treatment for their brain-damaged child. The ruling made clear that English law was decisive, but even citing a fatwa gave the impression that religious rulings were creeping into secular judgments.
Grooming gangs — the scandal behind the rhetoric
Trump’s “sharia London” claim gains traction because it taps into Britain’s failure to confront group-based child sexual exploitation:
- The scandal. In towns like Rotherham, Rochdale and Telford, thousands of girls were abused over decades. Many perpetrators were Pakistani-heritage men, often working in groups.
- Institutional cowardice. Authorities ignored victims for years, fearing that acknowledging the ethnic pattern would be branded racist. This allowed abuse to flourish unchecked.
- Political fallout. The far right seized on the scandals as proof of Muslim exceptionalism. The left was accused of denial. Communities were left mistrustful of police and councils.
- National inquiry. In 2025, Keir Starmer finally announced a statutory nationwide inquiry — a recognition that piecemeal reports had failed. But decades of neglect had already cemented the impression that Britain bent its institutions to avoid offending minorities.
This history is the fuel behind Trump’s rhetoric. When he says “sharia law,” he is exploiting the memory of grooming gangs — a real British failure — and spinning it into a narrative of London as a city already lost.
Trump vs Khan — a personal feud on a global stage
Trump and Khan have been at each other’s throats for nearly a decade. Khan opposed Trump’s travel ban; Trump called him a “stone cold loser.” For Trump, Khan is the perfect foil: a Muslim mayor of a global city, liberal, pro-immigration, pro-diversity. By linking Khan to “sharia law,” Trump casts him not just as a political opponent but as a symbol of Western weakness.
So, is London the ‘Sharia capital’?
- Legally: No. UK law governs London. Sharia councils have no binding authority.
- Practically: Yes, sharia councils exert influence in family and community disputes, and their practices often disadvantage women. Combined with lenient treatment of religious vigilantism and decades of institutional silence on grooming gangs, London does appear to operate with double standards.
- Politically: The “Sharia capital” label is a caricature. But it gains traction because it exaggerates genuine problems Britain has failed to solve.
London is not under sharia law. But it is a city where informal tribunals disadvantage women, where courts have blurred the line between public order and blasphemy, and where authorities failed catastrophically to protect vulnerable girls. Trump’s rhetoric is crude, but it draws power from these unresolved failures, which the UK hasn’t recognised in the first place.