A recent radio show appearance on the ‘Jewel of Medina’ controversy, with myself and Sheikh Tauqir Ishaq on the ‘Jazbae Haq’ show on Nottingham’s ‘Radio Faza’
The blog of a Muslim man troubled by the situation of his Ummah.
Danish cartoons again!
The insults continue[i] so I’ve decided to reprint my own response to the Danish Cartoons from February 2006.
[i] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7242258.stm
When Cartoons are no longer funny
13 February 2006
A global crisis?
Muslim reaction to caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has both shocked the world and produced a new level of tension between Islam and the West. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasmussen, held a press conference and stated “we are now facing a growing global crisis”.
Moreover the scale of the response with boycotts, flag-burning and the destruction of foreign embassies has forced many to re-evaluate what they thought the view of the ‘Muslim street’ actually was.
A clash of civilisations?
The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, issued an apology on 31st January, 2006, four months after initially publishing the twelve offending cartoons but the row really took off after the reprinting of the set by editors of twenty-seven different newspapers across thirteen European nations co-ordinated for the very next day. The line of reasoning was that self-censorship due to Islam was unacceptable therefore they would uphold free speech even if Muslims felt insulted. Others, including this author, felt they had to insult Islam in order for free speech not to seem to have been devalued, diminished and cheapened by Jyllands-Posten’s apology. Anger at this move has not yet abated, condemnation of the artist’s work is growing and Muslims often ask why depict their beloved Prophet at all?
There are those on both sides who keenly perceive the need to engage in a more productive debate than is currently the norm with more tasteless cartoons due to appear. It is clear the way forward for those who wish for a genuine debate lies neither with malicious and offensive cartoons nor with violent protests. So where could one begin in order to piece together why Muslims reacted in such a manner and what is the way forward?
Freedom of speech?
The first question to ask is whether this issue is truly about freedom of speech. After all isn’t there always some element of sensitivity about the application of the principle?
Anti-Semitism is rightly condemned and opposed despite freedom of speech and decisions are routinely taken in consideration of the feelings of others such as the censorship of images of dead British soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan out of respect for their families.
In fact there is no shortage of laws and norms that restrict free speech. Where was the outcry when the British Government took out an injunction against the infamous Al-Jazeera memo (where Prime Minister Blair is said to have talked President Bush out of launching “military action” on the television channel’s headquarters in Doha, Qatar)? What about the Official Secrets Act, ‘Spycatcher’ and proposals for Anti-Terror legislation that makes ‘indirect glorification’ of terror a crime?
All nations limit free speech. Film censorship is taken for granted (Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers, A Clockwork Orange, Boy Eats Girl etc. etc.) and confidentiality agreements in the media are common. President Ahmedinejad of Iran recently sparked a furore over the reality of the Nazi Holocaust and British historian, David Irving, is currently in jail in Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech made seventeen years ago. Journalist Judith Miller, was sentenced to 18 months in jail last summer by a US Federal Grand Jury for contempt of court. The case revolved around the unmasking of covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Miller never actually published anything. Her crime was to gather material for a story and protect her sources.
Adel Smith, President of the Italian Muslims Union, was sentenced to eight months in prison in January, 2006 for contempt of the Catholic religion. His crime was to object to the presence of a crucifix in his mother’s hospital room in L’Aquila, Italy. When medical authorities refused permission to remove it he threw it out of a nearby window and was soon arrested. The question is not whether to set a limit on freedom of speech in Europe but on where exactly to set the limit. French schoolgirls wearing hijaab (a covering over the hair and bosom) will also testify that limit often excludes Muslims and Muslim women have already been banned from wearing the hijab, jilbab (a bulky, draping overgarment) and the niqab (a face veil) in public in the Belgian cities and towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truiden, Lebbeke and Maaseik. So can free speech be used to defend the (re-)publication of the caricatures? The answer must surely be no especially since Section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b of the same code criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. The cartoons are therefore potentially unlawful under the Danish Criminal Code but nothing was done. The existence of these two examples alone on the statute book highlights the fact that the Danish Government made a choice not to limit freedom of speech in this instance despite Rasmussen’s consistent claims that his Administration could not interfere with the media. War on Terror We must examine the thinking behind the reprinting. Was it really about freedom of speech? Muslims rightly ask why little sensitivity is offered where they are concerned. The cartoons echo Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Ayaan Hersi Ali’s Submission in directly targeting the Prophet. One caricatures depicts him as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban. Others are worse. These cartoons reinforce the spurious and deceitful link between Islam and terror and are widely regarded as yet another provocation in the brutal War on Terror (known in the Muslim world as the ‘War on Islam’). Outrage at the Muslim response appears to centre on the question of violence however, context is always necessary to gauge any issue. So while such protests are always unfortunate it should not be a complete surprise they reached such intensity especially since the War on Terror has had an obvious impact on relations between Islam and the West. It would also be unwise to imagine such a broad outpouring of anger and emotion could be bought about purely by this one incident. It is clear the sensitivities of Muslims are not held in the highest regard and it is widely argued that the free expression card is a diversionary tactic from the real issue. One aspect of this argument is that the banner of ‘freedom of speech’ is raised vigorously when it comes to insulting Islam and Muslims but not with all others. Grossly offensive caricatures should be viewed from this context. Cartoons have always represented a very effective and powerful device on disseminating ideas and it should be no surprise that thy have been an integral part of racist representation from Goebbels to the KKK. A shocking over-reaction? While it is a core aspect of Islamic belief to love the Prophet more than anything else the Muslim world is increasingly frustrated at what is generally regarded as over two centuries of colonial interference in its affairs. With repeated calls for regime change and the democratisation of the Middle East, the Muslim world is fully aware of attempts to install and cement a new way of life upon it. Islamic rules and customs from hijaab to the hudood (penal code) have been under consistent fire in the liberal media since 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan labour under unruly occupation, bloodshed continues in Dagestan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine and threats to Syria and Iran are commonplace. Riots followed news the Qur’an had been desecrated in Guantanamo Bay only a few months ago and the scandals are still fresh. Military bases and aircraft carriers litter the region. Rendition and torture-lite continues. Now video footage of British troops ferociously beating unarmed Iraqi youths is on heavy rotation on Arab T.V. So could it really have been such a surprise to witness such a reaction to an attack based on a defence of ‘Western’ secular freedom upon the personality of the man held most dear by well over a billion Muslims all over the world? An ‘uncomfortable’ society Even if Muslims did accept the argument that the reprinted was truly motivated by freedom of expression it leads us to a disturbing vision. Western society, supposedly built upon the four freedoms (of speech, of religion, from want and from fear) appears to contradict itself since nothing is sacred and respect for others is at an absolute premium. Why else would Prime Minister Blair have to hold press conferences unveiling a new ‘Respect Agenda’? Societal decay in the West is an alarming fact of life for any with the inclination to venture out late at night. Violent crime and sexually transmitted diseases compete to be the most endemic. Delinquents defy the ASBOs placed on them by overworked courts, drug abusers steal to feed their habits, countless partners indulge in infidelity and families abandon their elderly, all citing their liberty to do so. Pick up a tabloid newspaper at random and read of another person’s private life splashed out in full colour for the rest of the world to mull over. Gossip magazines routinely herald exposés where suspicion and intrigue mean no one is safe from lies and character assassination and only the very rich can afford to take their cases through the courts to bitter end and avoid bankruptcy.
So is freedom of speech really such an important aspect of western society if only libel lawyers really benefit? If this principle means the freedom to insult and offend, if it means the right to distress and dishonour others then aren’t we right to say no? No one is advocating dictatorship or the closing of debate. There is no doubt we must welcome the right to openly inquire and criticise but one must ask if people can live happily and productively together without dignity and respect.
A healthy debate
For a start infantile insults can play no role in serious dialogue. This is especially true in the necessary engagement between Muslim and non-Muslim society since it is obvious a fair interchange of ideas can never begin with an insult. The western obsession with facets of Islam such as the pure companions in paradise, the veiling of women and the segregation of the sexes in public life is evident and must be addressed and Muslims have no issue discussing them at length and in detail. There is, however, no reason for the most emotive symbols (which every culture, religion, society and civilisation hold dear) to be molested since it will not advance any understanding of anything let alone Islam. The use of caricature for naïve sensationalism will only increase a divide that a minority are keen to exploit. The straw-man argument that the right to offend must be protected makes no sense when the only product is offence itself and Robert Fisk was correct to call such a path the ‘childishness of civilisations’. History is testament to the track record of the Islamic civilisation in building a society where productive debate (without insults) was encouraged and respect was the norm, not the exception. Muslims cleave to a vision where such a society will one day emerge where they can display a working model of this holistic way of living to humanity.
It can only be through dialogue that Muslim and non-Muslim society can begin to understand each other well enough to proceed to answer the real questions of the day. Muslims stand ready to discuss how Islam provides a genuine political, economic and social alternative to the secular, liberal model but often wonder if a discussion on the subject will ever have the opportunity to emerge in such an emotional environment. There is little doubt the time for this is now. If we fail to engage soon we may find ourselves facing a bleak future with two very different worlds on a single planet and even more trouble to come.
1 year ago
Uppity Muslims? The truth about the debate on shari’a in the UK
Did Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, really commit treason[i] or has reaction to his speech[ii], at the Royal Courts of Justice, got just a little out-of-hand?
Some have defended[iii] Williams while most others have vilified[iv] him but the fact remains that he has opened a hornet’s nest. It’s not just his speech that we must examine but also his interview with BBC’s ‘World at One’ programme ahead of his speech where he stated: “We have got a fragmented society at the moment, internally fragmented, socially fragmented in our cities and fragmented between communities of different allegiance”[v].
In what was a wide-ranging and political speech later that night, juxtaposing Tariq Ramadan and Mona Siddiqui with Sayyid Qutb, he spoke of terms such as “conflict”, “multiple affiliation”, “overlapping identities” and “supplementary jurisdiction”. He then referenced Professor Ayelet Shachar[vi] and her celebrated work ‘Multicultural Jurisdictions’[vii] when he stated that individuals should be able to choose which system they wanted, in “…a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’…It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a ‘market’ element, a competition for loyalty as Shachar admits. But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable”. The point here is that the Muslim community (or ‘communities’ as Williams and Government Ministers are prone to say) while law-abiding, is far from loyal.
Williams was later forced to comment further to defend himself[viii] as the media frenzy grew but he didn’t convince many[ix]. Staunch defenders of a unitary secular law for Britain rushed to defend their way of life with 17,000 emails in a day to the BBC alone[x] - although one wonders how many of them realised the irony that Muslims are accused of hysteria when responding similarly when Islam is attacked.
This is by no means the first political speech, or speech about Islam, by the Archbishop. He made a case against super-casinos in April 2007[xi]. He attacked the US as the only “global hegemonic power” and its foreign policy as “violent”[xii] in November 2007 and in January 2008 spoke out against 24-hour drinking in the UK[xiii]. Karima Hamdan also correctly recalls “During an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme in January, Dr Williams warned Muslims against “acknowledging only the bare word of the sacred text, divorced from learning and interpretation”. He felt that this was “Islamic primitivism”[xiv].
Williams’ latest speech follows hot on the heels of another inflammatory article by a senior church figure in the UK, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph in January he contended: “…there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability”[xv]. It’s not as if the Anglican Church didn’t have enough problems with internal dissent growing over homosexuality ahead of its forthcoming Lambeth Conference[xvi] although the Bishop of Liverpool, Rt. Rev James Jones did finally apologise for objecting to the appointment of the gay cleric Dr. Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading[xvii]. This is in addition to a row in Oxford over Muslims seeking to broadcast the adhaan (the call to prayer) but facing opposition amid emotive calls it would produce a Muslim ghetto[xviii].
The discussion on the shari’a has hardly been reasonable since the Archbishop’s speech. It has been demonised, characterised with terms such as ‘irrational’, ‘barbaric’, ‘repressive’, an ‘abomination’[xix], ‘medieval’ and even ‘disgusting’[xx]. There has also been a focus on the oppression of women[xxi], repression of minorities and savage punishments with a fear that Williams’ speech was heralding opposition to the rule of law and social division in the UK itself.
All of this highlights how the shari’a is not well-understood at all. It is, in fact, the sacred Islamic law that every Muslim is obliged to follow both as individuals and as the basis of the rule of law under the caliphate. Its sources are the Qur’an (not Koran!) and the Sunnah which is the trodden path of the Messenger of Islam, Muhammed (May the Blessings and Peace of Allah be upon him).
Misunderstandings abound. The current debate has suggested that it is possible to compartmentalise shari’a to place it piecemeal into a secular system but Muslims believe the shari’a is a complete legal code providing comprehensive solutions to all problems (see Qur’an 5:3) and it is therefore an integral part of the Islamic civilisation.
Another facet of the current discourse is that there is not a single shari’a since it is subject to interpretation although this is meaningless since the shari’a is composed of all the laws of Islam. While there can be many legitimate differences and schools of thought within Islamic jurisprudence there is only ever going to be one shari’a.
Self-proclaimed moderate Muslims and reformers disingenuously speak of the objectives (maqasid) of the shari’a[xxii], namely the protection of faith, life, lineage, intellect and property. They suggest that as long as these are being fulfilled there’s no need for shari’a to be applied[xxiii] but they miss the essential point that Islamic scholars argue that the application of the shari’ law is itself obligatory upon every legally responsible Muslim (cf. Qur’an 45:18).
Another argument repeated often of late is that Muslims left the shari’a behind when they came to the UK and if they still want it then they should leave but where to? Saudi? Iran? The Islamic Courts of Somalia? There is nowhere on Earth that implements the shari’a and there hasn’t been ever since the Muslim lands were invaded, conquered and colonised by developed Western nations.
It is this incontestable fact that leads us to ask what exactly are Muslims calling for? The truth is that there is no call for shari’a in the UK and to suggest that there is such a call is bogus.
There is no doubt that the call for shari’a is growing in strength and momentum but that is in the Muslim world, not for application in the West. This is at a time when the trend is to export secularism worldwide. Just one day before Williams’ unfortunate speech Reuters reported U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made an announced (aren’t they always?) visit to Afghanistan[xxiv] urging more troops to join the battle but what are British and American troops doing in majority-Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan anyway?
Comments by prominent politicians have confirmed that this is part of a move to prevent the rise of Islam, the re-establishment of a Caliphate and the application of shari’a in the Muslim world as demonstrated by the then-Home Secretary Charles Clarke speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2005 when he boldly stated:
“However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law; there can be no negotiation about the suppression of equality between the sexes; there can be no negotiation about the ending of free speech. These values are fundamental to our civilization and are simply not up for negotiation”[xxv].
Tony Blair followed this up after the London bombings of July 2005 stating: “They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations”George W. Bush also waded in 2006 stating: “…we learned more about their dark and distorted vision of Islam. We learned about their plan to build a radical Islamic empire stretching from Spain to Indonesia”[xxvi].
Although there are no qualms for western nations in accepting shari’a when there’s a financial benefit such as in Islamic mortgages or bonds (sukuk[xxvii]) to gain access to Arab oil money it appears that Muslims will be thwarted at every turn if they seek to return to ruling by what Islam mandates in their own countries.
There is definitely opinion for the return of shari’a in the Muslim world. The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland reported in April 2007 that large majorities in the Muslim world want the strict application of shari’a in their countries (Egypt 74%, Morocco 76% and Pakistan 79%). Majorities also agreed with the goal to unify all Muslim countries into a single Islamic state or caliphate (Egypt 67%, Morocco 71% and Pakistan 74%)[xxviii].
This only confirmed other similar polls such as the 2005 report by the ‘Centre for Strategic Studies’ in Jordan which found some startling results: “Asked whether Shari’a should be the only source of legislation, one of the sources of legislation, or not be a source of legislation, most Muslims believed it should at least be a source oflegislation. Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, whereapproximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari’a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be “one of the sources of legislation”. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favored the view that Shari’a must be one of the sources of legislation”[xxix].It is therefore necessary to ask if the shari’a is so backwards and repressive why are Muslims calling for it in such numbers? This is even matched in the UK where the Sunday Telegraph commissioned an ICM poll[xxx] only to discover 40% of Muslims in Britain would support shari’a in pre-dominantly Muslim areas in Britain[xxxi].
Such polls have provoked questions over the loyalty and affiliation of Muslims in Britain and the quest to solve this perceived threat is already on the minds of government ministers. Citizenship, cohesion and integration have become buzzwords across Western Europe where immigrants are expected to embrace values whether they like them or not – which sounds suspiciously just as coercive as the forced conversions Muslims have historically been accused of.
This is a trend that Gordon Brown is keen to continue as highlighted by his first address to the House of Commons as Prime Minister[xxxii]. There is no doubt that he is just as much an academic thinker as Williams as his speech at the University of Westminster in October 2007 illustrated. He announced: “Today, Jack Straw is signalling the start of a national consultation on the case for a new British Bill of Rights and Duties - or, as I said in July, for moving towards a written constitution”[xxxiii].
Despite the rows over party political funding and MP’s expenses[xxxiv], Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice still found time for a speech on the 21 January 2008 on a codified Bill of Rights[xxxv].In fact a ‘Statement of Britishness’ is also expected. It was originally rumoured to be a motto like the French ‘Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité’ but that was so widely ridiculed the entire plan was delayed, as the IHT reports: “The Times of London cynically sponsored a British motto-writing contest for its readers. The readers’ suggestions included “Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Asbo, Tesco” (Asbo stands for “anti-social behavior order,” a law-enforcement tool, while Tesco is a ubiquitous supermarket chain); “One Mighty Empire, Slightly Used”; “We Apologize for the Inconvenience”; and - the choice favored by 20.9 percent of the readers - “No Motto, Please, We’re British.[xxxvi]”
It is this context and timing of these comments by Rowan Williams that provide us with the opportunity to perceive the reality of the debate about shari’a in the UK and about questions over the loyalty of Muslims. The claim that the influence of a single, national law of Parliament and of judges will be increasingly circumscribed in some parts of the country is practically an invite for the Government to press on with its agenda to ‘deal’ with the troublesome and disloyal minority in its midst through legislation.
The reality is that there is no hint of disloyalty since the discussion centres on minute issues rather than a parallel system and a humble request for arbitration much like the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din[xxxvii]. It is also true that this right already exists for Muslims in the UK. David Frei, Registrar of the London Beth Din, recently stated “I do believe that under the present legal system so far as arbitration is concerned there is nothing preventing Muslims today resolving their civil disputes by consent under Sharia law. The arbitration acts provide that people can resolve their disputes in this country under arbitration and they can choose which system to use as well”[xxxviii]. So there seems little point in raising it artificially as the Archbishop has done.
It is not as if there is a single system for every citizen anyway. The UK has both Criminal and Civil court systems and after the failure of the Criminal Justice System when private prosecution collapsed the parents of Stephen Lawrence began civil action[xxxix]. Nicholas van Hoogstraten was declared a murderer by a High Court judge in a civil action despite being cleared of the manslaughter of Mohammed Raja in the criminal courts[xl].The prohibitive cost of libel laws considering the lack of legal aid means it is really only a law for the haves rather than the have-nots. There’s also the European Court of Justice and that’s before we include conscientious objectors that include Sikhs riding motorcycles without helmets, or doctors who refuse to carry out abortions.
What is incredible however is that we are discussing a community that wishes more law when the real question should be who obeys the law in this country anyway? We’re surrounded by a surveillance culture of CCTV and speed cameras precisely because no one obeys the law. ASBOs and electronic tagging represent new and more innovative ways to deal with the exponentially-rising crime rate which is now so high they’re even considering prison ships.
It is in this context that we should examine the shari’a courts already in the UK such as the Islamic Sharia Council based in Leyton, East London[xli], the subject of a recent Channel 4 documentary entitled ‘Divorce Sharia Style’[xlii].
A recent case in South London has attracted attention where a young Somali man was released on bail for stabbing another Somali youth and community elders arbitrated. The fathers and uncles got involved, agreed compensation and guaranteed to reign in the excesses of the youngsters[xliii]. While this has provoked burning anger in some quarters or acting in an arena outside of ‘normal’ British practice there is no doubt that British society is demonstrably failing to provide solutions for the growing epidemic of gang, gun and knife crime. When 47 year old father of three, Garry Newlove, was beaten to death in Warrington, Cheshire by drunken youths who had vandalised his car, his head was kicked like a football and he died with the imprint of a trainer on his forehead. His widow condemned irresponsible parents and the Government for failing to get to grips with youth disorder while the judge blamed under-age drinking. The tragedy is that the Somali community in South London have the benefit of recourse to methods that can aid them in solving youth disorder through community. The people of Warrington do not and instead can only rely on the Government’s Respect Agenda[xliv].
While Muslims are certainly not an angelic community the request for more law should be welcomed rather than dismissed as disloyal ingratitude by enraged liberal secularists who proclaim their way is best. There is an explicit assumption that secularism is the pinnacle of human civilisation and that its long history of struggle to remove religion from life’s affairs is worth celebrating while Islam should be consigned to history. The shari’a is labelled as backwards since it was revealed in the 7th century but who is concerned over the date of birth of Aristotle or that the Magna Carta was drafted while Europeans were still convinced the Sun orbited the Earth which was flat?
The age of the worldview or system is irrelevant. What is important is whether the principles stand the test of time. Muslims must now engage, confidently, in what has never been anything less than an intellectual battle if they are to defend their way of life from the secular onslaught. Nothing less will do although some of the attacks are more sordid than others for instance, Phil Woolas, Environment Minister and MP for Oldham made this outrageous claim about Pakistanis (read Muslims) in Britain: “If you talk to any primary care worker they will tell you that levels of disability among the … Pakistani population are higher than the general population. And everybody knows it’s caused by first cousin marriage”[xlv].
These attacks are not the only obstacle to Muslim engagement. The ‘War on Terror’ is still often labelled a ‘War on (Political) Islam’ and a climate of fear is still very much in evidence. This fear distances Muslims from responding. Islam has become the dominant topical discussion in a way that could not have been envisaged prior to 9/11. Recent news stories included Parviz Khan being sentenced for plotting to kidnap a Muslim British soldier and ‘behead him like a pig’[xlvi]. This was closely followed by the refusal to issue a visa to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi for medical treatment after sustained campaigning by Labour Friends of Israel and the Conservatives[xlvii]. Abu Hamza al-Masri’s extradition was approved. Ministers in the UK agreed to provide state benefits for those in polygamous marriages[xlviii] and Turkish lawmakers prepared to vote on the hijab ban at universities[xlix]. Labour MP and Government whip Sadiq Khan was bugged while on a welfare visit to a constituent in prison[l]. This constituent happened to be Babar Ahmad[li], a Muslim man facing extradition to the US under Terrorism charges. All of this meant Islam and Muslims were consistently on the front-pages of newspapers and top of the news agendas with little or nothing positive whatsoever. Instead there is a climate that Muslims are under siege which inevitably generates fear and inhibits debate.
This fear has been ratcheted up by a sense that there is already a parallel system of justice in the UK. Take the example of the Samina Malik, the ‘lyrical terrorist’ who was convicted for possessing documents likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism[lii] under the Terrorism Act 2000 after earlier being cleared by a jury of a separate count of possessing an article for terrorism although the journalists sitting in the gallery at the Central Criminal Court reporting on the case also downloaded and possessed the same material. The prosecution found no evidence of intent prompting commentators to proclaim it as a thought-crime[liii] just as they did in the cases of Abdul Muneem Patel[liv] and Rizwan Mahmood Ditta[lv].
These three Muslims had no evidence of intent but were prosecuted under the terror legislation. On the other hand, Robert Cottage and David Jackson, two former members of the BNP, were found to possess the largest cache of firearms and chemical explosives ever found in the West Midlands region. The two men also possessed a rocket-launcher, air pistols, crossbows, nuclear protection suits, documents outlining plans to blow up mosques and Islamic centres all over Britain, a copy of the Anarchy Cookbook, plans of a potential plot to assassinate Tony Blair and Lord Greaves as well as notes about an impending civil war against immigrants in Britain. He received a two-and-a-half-year sentence for his crimes not under Terror provision but under the Explosive Substances Act while his co-defendant, Jackson, walked free[lvi].Another telling case is that of Miles Cooper, the Cambridge letter bomber who terrorised Britain with seven letter bombs that injured eight people in a two-week campaign. He was prosecuted under the 1883 Explosives and Substances Act leading to a lenient sentence with the possibility parole in five years. his book collection included titles such as “The Shooter’s Handbook,” “Homemade Guns” and “Homemade Ammo.” Cooper also used blogging sites to exchange bomb-making information but was not charged under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2006 of possessing articles likely to be useful for terrorists![lvii]
So while dangerous men like Cottage, Jackson and Cooper avoid terror charges Malik, Patel and Ditta pay the price for Muslims being perceived as an enemy within. This sad state of affairs can only sideline the necessary discussion of the role of Muslims as do Government initiatives in the name of community cohesion which again push a common set of values such as Pathfinder[lviii] which is engaged in a grassroots battle for hearts and minds in local communities.
This battle for hearts and minds is really about the best way of life but has secularism really delivered? The idea that people are given license to decide what is right and wrong, freedom to pursue their own sensual gratification and benefit and the liberty to police themselves is nothing less than a recipe for social and communal disaster. Inevitably people become individualistic and test the limits. The problem is no longer about breaking the law but about getting caught. From this perspective the sheer collapse and breakdown of Western society is a result of secular thought. Also where does secularism stand on women, minorities and war?
Women are still regarded as sexual objects, still unable to gain equal pay for equal work. Minorities, not just Muslims, have long been expected to conform not in obeying the law but in values, identity and loyalty or else. This is since secularism is wholly unable to accept debate about whether it is suitable. The level of hysteria rises whenever secularism is challenged and the reaction to Williams’ speech is testimony to that. The export of secularism was not based on rational discourse. Far from it. It was and still is based on a violent expansionism based on the threat (or application) of force or as a condition for aid.
There are many comparisons to be made about the application of secularism versus the application of shari’a. While commentators often focus upon the Hadd punishments of shari’a we should not shy away from comparing it to the discussion of torture we’ve seen of late in secular society. This includes waterboarding[lix], stress positions, sleep deprivation and the rest of the provisions of ‘torture-lite’[lx].
The most gracious we can be about the suitability of secularism is that the jury is still out. We could even ask what else is there to replace it with but there is no reason why we should not be allowed to discuss it coolly and rationally.
I contend that the entire debate is currently on the wrong track.
It is not about an Archbishop who reads out a speech without thinking. It is not about uppity Muslims who should just go home. It is not even about whether Britain should accept a parallel jurisdiction but what is the best system for a productive society today and for all time – secular liberalism or the shari’a.
Furthermore we should actively debate whether developed western nations should be sending its young men and women to die overseas in the mountains of Afghanistan and the dusty streets of Basra to prevent shari’a returning while responding with hysteria when the topic is broached at home.
Hassan Choudhury
February 11th, 2008
[i] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece
[ii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575[iii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0„2255088,00.html
[iv] http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34231/-Muslim-laws-must-come-to-Britain-
[v] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573 also available to listen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/religions/williamsr4sharia.ram
[vi] http://www.law.utoronto.ca/faculty_content.asp?itemPath=1/3/4/0/0&profile=50&cType=facMembers
[vii] http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521776740[viii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581
[ix] http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/business/495671/dhimmi-or-just-dim.thtml
[x] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7234426.stm
[xi] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594245.stm
[xii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7111686.stm
[xiii] http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1565
[xiv] http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=71
[xv] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nislam206.xml
[xvi] http://www.lambethconference.org/
[xvii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0„2252616,00.html
[xviii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=504373&in_page_id=1770
[xix] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
[xx] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/rowwanwilliamssharia.htm
[xxi] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joan-smith/joan-smith-british-women-are-already-suffering-from-islamic-law-780407.html
[xxii] http://www.aml.org.uk/journal/3.1/Kamali%20-%20Maqasid.pdf
[xxiii] http://www.thecitycircle.com/blog2.php?cann_id=492
[xxiv] http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0763749320080207?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
[xxv] http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/hl902.cfm[xxvi] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060907-2.html
[xxvii] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3edc17c2-687f-11db-90ac-0000779e2340.html
[xxviii] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
[xxix] http://www.css-jordan.org/new/REVISITINGTTHEARABSTREETReport.pdf
[xxx] http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_february_sunday_telegraph_muslims_poll.pdf
[xxxi] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
[xxxii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6258794.stm
[xxxiii] http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page13630.asp
[xxxiv] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/29/uk.conservatives[xxxv] http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/sp210108a.htm
[xxxvi] http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/25/europe/motto.php
[xxxvii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0„2255016,00.html[xxxviii] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234422.stm
[xxxix] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/325314.stm
[xl] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0„2-1943947,00.html
[xli] http://www.islamic-sharia.org
[xlii] http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/divorce.html
[xliii] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23436339-details/Sharia+court+frees+London+knife+youths/article.do
[xliv] http://www.respect.gov.uk/
[xlv] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
[xlvi] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012901774.html
[xlvii] http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=200464&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56
[xlviii] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
[xlix] http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/09/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Head-Scarf.php
[l] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512028&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
[li] http://www.freebabarahmad.com/thestory.php
[lii] http://cms.met.police.uk/met/news/convictions/lyrical_terrorist_convicted
[liii] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/suspended-sentence-for-the-lyrical-terrorist-763574.html
[liv] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7063727.stm
[lv] http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/4-years-for-Taliban-fanatic.3599109.jp
[lvi] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6357261.stm [lvii] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/28/nletter128.xml[lviii] http://www.gos.gov.uk/497745/docs/202912/Community_Cohesion_Final.pdf
[lix] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701542.html
[lx] http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0„1066041,00.html
1 year agoHamas: Out of Control in Gaza?
I wrote an article on Hamas (Out of Control in Gaza?) ages ago that gives background to what is going on now:
Hamas: Out of Control in Gaza? The Palestinians have witnessed more than the usual turmoil ever since January 2006 when Hamas won a landslide election victory over its secular adversary, Fatah, in the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections.
A brief outline of events since then include Israel’s catastrophic invasion of Lebanon in July 2006. February 2007 saw the Makkah accords and the emergence of a Unity Government between Hamas and Fatah. Then in five chaotic days in mid-June 2007 a battled raged between Hamas and Fatah, over control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas came out on top having vanquished its rival but as the dust settles we find questions raised over whether the picture is so promising for Hamas or the Palestinian cause.
The current crisis has its roots in the PA election win for Hamas. Pre-election, Hamas had said it would be content as a junior partner in the next government[1] and further reports suggested Hamas were unprepared for victory and for the immediate responsibility[2] but the result was an astonishing victory of 76 parliamentary seats out of 132. Suspicions were aroused when the outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmed Qureia, of Fatah publicly stated “This is the choice of the people. It should be respected,” before the official results were even announced.
When Hamas won their immediate reaction was to ask Fatah for partnership in a Unity Government. The response from key members of Fatah, like Jibril Rajoub and Mahmoud Dahlan, was telling. As The New York Times reported they: “…asserted that Fatah should not take any part in a government dominated by Hamas and help provide cover for the party as it deals with the real problems of governance. Fatah, they suggested, should go into opposition and let Hamas make its own mistakes and deal as best it could with the facts of Palestinian life and the Israeli occupation.”[3] Fatah’s own armed wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, even threatened to ‘liquidate’ the faction’s leaders if they joined a Hamas-led PA administration[4]. In fact, Simon Jeffery reported in The Guardian that “Fatah’s response appears to be to get out of government as fast as they can and let Hamas make mistakes” and also that “Ziyad Abu Ein, a party official, told Reuters that Hamas should “alone bear its responsibilities, if it can””[5].
With Hamas now left to deal with the administration of the Occupied Territories alone more pressure was bought to bear. As the International Crisis Group predicted[6] before the elections a Hamas victory would set the stage for ‘conditioning’ it recommending that the Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia) “encourage the Islamists to focus on day-to-day matters and facilitate a process of potential political integration and gradual military decommissioning”. To some extent Hamas’ decision to contest the elections was proof that ‘conditioning’ had already begun since Hamas had boycotted previous elections in opposition to the Oslo Accords that produced the PA. This is unlike Islamic Jihad, which continued its boycott on the same principle Hamas had used which was that the Occupied Territories are not a recognised state so controlling the PA was tantamount to administering the occupation on behalf of the occupiers.
This attempt at ‘conditioning’ and pressuring Hamas is exactly what occurred. An example was when US President Bush stated: ”The United States does not support a political party that wants to destroy our ally Israel…people must renounce that part of their platform. A political party that articulates the destruction of Israel as part of its platform is a party with which we will not deal. If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you’re not a partner in peace. We’re interested in peace”[7] Hamas was pressured at every turn by members of the International Community, minus Iran, to acknowledge three points: to accept the existence of the State of Israel as legitimate, to accept previous agreements made by Fatah and to renounce violence as pre-conditions of being acknowledged themselves. When Hamas did not agree to these points the aid that Palestinians desperately needed to survive was cut-off. This was in addition to the suspension of tax revenues that Israel collected on behalf of the Palestinians. The amount totalled more than $1bn. Hamas needed $116 miilion a month to pay salaries for its estimated 137,000 workers including 34,000 teachers and 9,000 medical workers.
The pressure continued to build. It was soon facing a cash crisis and a public worker strike that lasted from September 2006 till the New Year. The humanitarian situation was at its worst since before 2000. An example is the collapse of a huge cesspool in the village of Um Nasser in Beit Lahiya that overwhelmed 250 homes, killing four with 1,500 people evacuated. Paramilitary conflict with Fatah intensified with hundreds dying in interfactional conflict till a ceasefire in February 2007. Soon after Fatah agreed to a Unity Government deal with Hamas just as Israeli bulldozers appeared outside the Holy Mosque of al-Aqsa. While Hamas and its supporters rejoiced at this news US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice arrived in the region urging a revival of a peace plan known as the Arab Peace Initiative (API)[8]. The plan, formulated by the then Crown-Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, offered across-the-board Arab recognition of Israel but was rejected out-of-hand by the Israelis in 2002.
With secular Fatah and the more Islamic Hamas now joined in a unity Government the US and Israel were giving heavy signs that they would be willing to listen if the plan was resurrected at the summit of the Arab League a month later. The API was unanimously approved by the 22 Arab member states including the Palestinians. Despite Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas abstaining from the vote the impression given was that both the secular and the Islamic sides of Palestine were now on board for a lasting peace with Israel. However, the Arab Summit was soon forgotten as Israel’s first air-strike on Gaza in 4 months took place on April 7th. Days later US Congress approves almost $60 million to upgrade President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah-affiliated Presidential Guard including a new 16-acre base in Jericho[9].
The sudden shift by the US and Israel was evidence that they now considered Hamas expendable. In response Hamas then broke its ceasefire with Israel on April 24th because of the continual targeted assassinations, incursions and aerial bombardment. By mid-May Fatah and Hamas were fighting again in earnest. Mohammed Dahlan, the head of Abbas’ Security Forces appears to deliberately clash with Hamas over security control unilaterally sending his own troops out across Gaza where they clash with the existing Hamas Executive Force security forces. 45 more Palestinians are killed by factional fighting by May 13th and the Palestinian Interior Minister resigns in protest the next day. Israeli airstrikes continue before a fifth ceasefire is brokered between Fatah and Hamas on May 19th. On May 24th Israel kidnaps 33 senior Hamas figures and more fighting takes place in the streets in June just as the 40th anniversary of the 6 Day War of 1967 looms.
With the picture looking bleak for a beleaguered Hamas worse was to come. The FT reported: ”Hamas smelled a plot when Rashid Abu Shbak, Fatah head of internal security and a Dahlan ally, deployed his forces as part of a security crackdown without agreement from the coalition government in which Hamas is senior partner. Its paranoia intensified when it discovered that Abu Shbak and other Fatah commanders had sent their families abroad. Mr Dahlan himself was out of the country, undergoing a knee operation”[10].
It is this that brings us up-to-date with the battle for Gaza. Sensing a coup attempt by Fatah, Hamas launched a pre-emptive strike. This was later confirmed by Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniya, writing in the New York Times that: “…the civil unrest in Gaza and the West Bank has been precipitated by the American and Israeli policy of arming elements of the
Fatah opposition who want to attack Hamas and force us from
office”[11].
Between June 10th and June 15th Hamas fought till it gained complete control of Gaza. This included horrific stories of atrocities on both sides including throwing people from tower blocks and executing people in hospitals, even on the operating table[12]. It must be noted, however, that Fatah did not fight as they could have. The BBC’s Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, explained “Many of the forces that Fatah might have expected to have on its side did not take part in the fight, some melted away. Other local Fatah leaders worked out non-aggression pacts with Hamas”[13]. This certainly surprised Hamas whose representatives explained they never planned to win Gaza at all[14].
Hamas now finds itself trapped, in charge of Gaza, which is a prison in everything but name. Its population of over 1.4 million lives in an area no more than 141 square miles. 33% of the population live in UN administered refugee camps. 80% of the population rely on food aid and 350 trucks need to enter Gaza a day to maintain the situation but the borders are controlled by Israel and the airport was destroyed long ago. Soon after Hamas found itself accidentally in sole charge of Gaza the International Community again placed pressure on Hamas. In the wake of the battle only the Kerem Shalom crossing was open, albeit partially with only 18 trucks entering a day.
This continues while the West bank is enjoying more attention from the EU, US and Israel than is usual. Israel and the US confirmed they would be resuming aid, returning tax and customs revenues and lifting the economic embargo on the Palestinians that would be worth millions of US dollars but insisted steadfastly that this money should not reach Hamas and Gaza but instead be focused on the West Bank and on supporting Abbas[15].
Details of prisoner releases are announced that also bolster Abbas’ position. While people in Gaza remain hungry and afraid the picture looks rosier for Abbas and the West Bank where the secular Fatah hold more sway. This does not bode well for Hamas since the secularists have always maintained that they would be willing to compromise with Israel if the conditions were right even on the key issues such as the recognition of Israel, the right of return for refugees and on the 1967 borders. Reinforcing Abbas and the West Bank at the expense of Gaza will only breed lingering resentment that could be exploited to get the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table in a far weaker position with more leverage for Israel and the US.
As a result the Palestinian cause is now in grievous danger particularly with the appointment of the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as an envoy of the Quartet. Hamas look to have gained nothing as a result of the ‘victory’ in Gaza and now have become even more isolated as the International Community works to help Abbas and Fatah. Although Hamas were able to gain political mileage through the release of the BBC journalist Alan Johnston they are now in a position with less support than ever before. The furore has overshadowed other news in the region and even ensured the Israeli President, Moshe Katsav, could resign after pleading guilty to several sex offences and not hit the headlines[16].
Only time will tell if the division in Palestine between Gaza and the West Bank can be healed before Israel is able to take advantage to produce a solution to its liking.
[1] Israel, Abbas May Bypass Hamas Victory to Pursue Talks Friday, January 27, 2006 Fox Newshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182842,00.html [2] Hamas sweeps to election victory BBC news Online 26 January 2006http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4650788.stm [3] Hamas victory in Palestinian vote stuns Mideast Steven Erlanger The New York Times Jan 27, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/26/news/vote.php [4] Fatah lashes out over shock result Jan 28, 2006 Television New Zealand http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/654591 [5] Hamas: what happens next? Simon Jeffery January 26 2006 http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/01/26/hamas_what_happens_next.html [6] ‘Enter Hamas: The Challenges of Political Integration’ Middle East Report N°49 International Crisis Group
18 January 2006 http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=3886 [7] Bush: Hamas should recognise Israel JANUARY 27, 2006 Al-jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=21228 [8] Rice urges Arab peace initiative MARCH 24, 2007 al-Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/772CDCDF-0FFB-4E6F-9A57-65E78EFB5D1C.htm [9] Forces loyal to Abbas get newer bases, training Apr 12, 2007 Reuters http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-12T082919Z_01_L09235104_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-PALESTINIANS-FORCES-COL.XML&archived=False [10] Jihadistan? Harvey Morris May 27 2007 Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/621fc9e6-0c7a-11dc-a4dc-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=f98b03ba-4d11-11da-ba44-0000779e2340.html [11] What Hamas Wants By AHMED YOUSEF The New York Times
20 June 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/opinion/20yousef.html[12] How Hamas turned on Palestine’s ‘traitors’ Peter Beaumont and Mitchell Prothero in Jerusalem, Azmi Al-Keshawi in Gaza and Sandra Jordan June 17, 2007 The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0„2104858,00.html[13] Breaking point in the Middle East? Jeremy Bowen bbc news online 15 June 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6755579.stm [14] Hamas: We didn’t plan to win Gaza
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH Jun. 24, 2007 Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409621475&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull [15] Israel to free Palestinian funds 24 June 2007 BBC News Online http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6234556.stm [16] Israeli president Katsav resigns 29 June 2007 BBC News Online
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6252340.stm
1 year ago
I'm back!
I haven’t blogged for a long while. I took a break but feel the need to express what I’m thinking so here I am again.
For those unfamiliar with my thoughts, this blog is my commentary on life’s events from my own perspective, which is Islam.
You may not agree with my reading of reality or even my worldview but I hope you’ll find something in my thoughts to provoke thought and dialogue.
Best
H
1 year ago