"An Arab is no better than a non-Arab. Likewise, a non-Arab is no better than an Arab. A red raced man is no better than a black one except in piety. Mankind are all Adam's children and Adam was created out of clay."^[9]

Moreover, recent anti-terror legislation such as Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows for the targeting of Muslims by giving police unrestricted power to stop, question, detain and search persons without ‘any grounds for suspicion’ at ports. At the same time it vaguely advises that selection should be based on ‘the threat posed by the various terrorist groups active in and around the United Kingdom.’ The official position that ‘in no way should a person’s perceived ethnic background or religion be used alone or in combination with each other as the sole reason for selecting the person for examination ^[10] However the practical and unspoken truth for many of us who travel through Heathrow Airport or Kings Cross St Pancreas has been precisely the opposite.

We may deduce from the above that the law is anti-Muslim and that other religions are better protected. For instance, the Jews have their own divine law and courts (Beth Din)^[11] recognised under the UK system. In contrast, Muslims need to have a separate civil marriage and our Islamic Shari’ah Councils have no official status. The law may seem to disadvantage Muslims at its creation, in its interpretation and implementation, however, on further scrutiny we find that it is not the law itself that is prejudicial towards Muslims, but in fact those responsible for creating, shaping and interpreting it have argued for understandings which favour certain religious groups or are anti-Muslim.

This is illustrated by the fact that the recognition of Jews as a racial group has inadvertently worked against them. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a Jewish faith school was in violation of the Race Relations Act 1976 by its refusal to admit a student on the basis that he was not born of a Jewish mother.^[12] The school, in line with the Office of the Chief Rabbi, did not recognise the conversion of the mother to Judaism as it took place in a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue. Therefore it did not consider the child a Jew for the purposes of gaining entry into the school, despite the fact that the family claimed to profess the Jewish faith.

The case raised a fundamental issue that concerns all religious minorities in the UK: who has the authority to define or limit whether someone is part of a religious minority? Is it the secular courts or the religious institutions that represent that minority? The position of the Office of the Chief Rabbi remains that no-one can be a Jew if they are not born of a Jewish mother and that it is not for the non-Jewish to define who is Jewish. This implies that if a person born of a Jewish mother grew up denouncing his faith and all that it stood for and acting in ways most deplorable to it, he remains a Jew and should be treated as such. If, on the other hand, he does the reverse and adheres to the faith in every belief and ritual without question, but is not born of a Jewish mother, then he is not of the Jewish people. In fact the school allows the children of atheists and practising Christians to be admitted as long as their mothers are considered Jewish.^[13]

We as Muslims can derive two important lessons from the above:

Firstly, the legal proactivity and creativity of the Jewish and Sikh communities not only shows how the law is not fixed but that powers of persuasion and intellect can be used to argue for its change into something it was originally never meant for. The Race Relations Act 1976 was clearly intended for the benefit of "racial groups" and not religious minorities. Nonetheless, through legal activism they managed to redefine the law so as to advantage their own faith communities. These two communities have paved the way for what is possible so there is nothing preventing us from having a similar or greater impact on the law.

Secondly, the Jewish faith school case alerted us to the shortcomings of their approach in pushing for the law to consider its religion as a race. The judgement, to put it bluntly, held Orthodox Judaism to be racist when it was merely deciding who could and could not be Jewish - a right reserved by all religions. Unknowingly, the Jewish minority gave away its right to define who is a Jew by gaining greater protection against discrimination and as a result, when the Supreme Court determined the child to be Jewish according to self-profession and Progressive Judaism, the school and Chief Rabbi had no say in the matter.

Consequently, a more fruitful avenue for Muslim activists and groups to pursue is to argue that religious minorities should be afforded the same protection from discrimination and harassment as ethnic minorities. Such a slight advancement in the law could alter the current anti-Muslim climate drastically. Fringe parties/groups like the EDL, UK Independence Party (UKIP) and British National Party (BNP) thrive on peddling hate towards Muslims and Islam with a similar tilt being quite apparent in the media as well as the mainstream political parties. All would be stopped in their tracks and unable to operate fuelled by populist opinion if the law was changed. Its current state makes it impossible to have political parties or organisations based on racial hatred – we should strive for a similar goal in relation to religious hatred. A distinction should be made, nonetheless, that we are not agitating for the law to sanction any speech critical of religious belief. We, like the liberals, value freedom of speech when used constructively and critically to challenge belief systems. It is only through an open and honest dialogue between world views that the truth is bound to become manifest, and thus, it is hatred and prejudicial treatment of Muslims that we seek to stamp out.

The blueprint for a systematic and multi-faceted solution already exists. In this respect, the starting point should be the very system of law from where the injustice emanates, in this case UK law which itself states that its underlying policy is to promote equality and integration and to create cohesive communities. It is for us to show the incompatibility of this general policy with specific laws that protect religious minorities less than racial groups. Integration cannot be achieved when the door to racial discrimination is slammed shut while the door to religious discrimination towards those same minorities is left wide open. The incoherence of such a misguided policy of integration is evident in the criminalising of any racist speech, while only criminalising expressions of religious hatred if they incite violence.

Additionally we should be more aware of international laws in relation to both discrimination and minority rights that apply to the UK. These laws make no distinction between racial and religious discrimination, in fact, the protection of religious minorities has advanced precisely due to this external pressure. European Union Race^[14] and Employment Directives^[15] have compelled the UK, in recent years, to strengthen its legislative framework against religious discrimination. The subsequent Equality Act 2006 prohibited religious discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and public functions adding to previously existing protections in the areas of employment and vocational training.

More importantly, the Framework Convention on National Minorities (FCNM) which applies to a select number of countries in Europe, including the UK, also treats both types of minorities equally in relation to discrimination as well as going further by ascribing specific rights like religious freedom, practice and establishment of places of worship and schools. However, the UK interprets the FCNM so as to only recognise racial and not religious minorities attempting to escape accountability for the shortcomings in its laws. According to the Committee that oversees the implementation of the treaty, the laws for the protection of religious minorities remain inadequate in that none of them “create positive duties on public institutions to promote religious equality.” ^[16] 

Within UK law there are principles, which are universally recognised and applied, of these is the principle of equality. As general as it may be, it is for us to define its precise content. Such is the process which we witness other groups, like the Jews and Sikhs, participating in so as to optimise and leverage their position in the system. We find that we suffer either because of our passivity in the face of others’ proactivity, or worse, we find ourselves at the receiving end of legal and political movements aimed at attacking our community and religion.

Similarly, the Terrorism Act 2000 has repeatedly come under fire by Lord Carlisle, the government’s own Independent Reviewer. In fact, his annual reports were pivotal in the European Court of Human Rights when it ruled that police powers to ‘stop and search’ without any suspicion were illegal as they were arbitrary and disproportionately affected Muslims.^[17] This same essential wording exists in Schedule 7 mentioned above yet the former has been abandoned by the government whilst the latter persists. What is stopping us from challenging its legality on the same basis?

The answer is scarily simple. We are content and comfortable with our situation whilst simultaneously lacking the drive to strive for betterment. Additionally, we lack the collective skills and knowledge needed to bring about this change. How many lawyers, politicians, sociologists and academics can we boast who are genuinely committed to working in the interest of our community. Instead, those who do become lawyers are usually preoccupied in hoarding worldly wealth and the handful who have become politicians owe their primary allegiance to their party.

With other minorities, it may be true that they too have members who are as indifferent and passive to the social fabric around them.  Certainly there are Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Christians and atheists who are as ambivalent as many Muslims are about the system in which they exist. The key difference though is that they have certain individuals and groups within their community who are intellectually, politically and socially pro-active in pursuing the agenda and the interest of their wider community. Hence it is incumbent on more of us, especially those who have the education and resources, to fulfil this fard al kafiya (collective obligation discharged by a few).

It may be that the law in its present form is anti-Muslim, but we allow it to remain as such when the processes for transforming it are more than accessible to all. Instead when it comes to struggling for justice and fairness, it is non-Muslim activists who are at the forefront of challenging our mistreatment. This is a shame as it highlights our self-imposed paralysis. Worse still, as Muslims, we allow adherents of other religions and atheists to lay claim to the higher moral ground. It goes without saying that to begin with, we need to be active in having the self-respect and sense of community to do all that we can to change laws that directly affect us negatively. After all, what excuse do we have when we claim the Creator and Sustainer of all that exists is on our side. Still we should set our sights much higher to show that we as Muslims are prepared to fight injustice and oppression^[18] even when it does not specifically concern us. This is ultimately a form of propagation (da’wah) and an actualisation of faith (imaan), what will please God the Most High and make us successful in this world and the hereafter.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (18)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Ghazi, January 19, 2011

@Gaz,
I replied to your reply but the webmaster has deemed my points critical of your position uncomfortably true - and therefore haram - and so it has not been shown. That's the Islamic way after all. This is another short reply as I think this post will probably suffer the same fate!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

To just another bro,
written by Ken, January 18, 2011

just another bro,
Thanks for pointing out that I spelt coercion wrong - by the way in that comment to me you told me that you were laughing 'to much' to take my comments seriously - that should be spelt "too much" my friend.
And he who laughs last laughs longest

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Assalaamu Aleykum
written by Aziz, January 17, 2011

Ken, people are free to live as they please. If you don't want supermarkets to provide halal meat, we can easily purchase it in Muslim owned shops and keep the flow of our money among the Muslims.

UK has gone thru a lot of change e.g. women didn't even have the vote over a century ago. Would you advocate that this should still be the case. The lawscustome in the world will change naturally as Islam grows. You cannot force people to do what you want, we will live as Allaah has instructed us to the best of our ability. I pray that the whole of the west enter into ISLAM.

Look at your laws.
1 - You can get a licence to provide alcohol and gamble which destroys the body and mind. ISLAM would do away with that insha-allaah. I have a dream that 1 day ...
2 - The law allows your women to dress indecently. You people have no shame.
3 - etc.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

RE: Ghazi
written by Gaz, January 17, 2011

I love how Ghazi obviously focuses on the so-called perceived 'negative' Islamic elements like the composition of jury in terms of gender and then uses this as a basis to make blanket assumptions on what the article is talking about?

Is this a topic on the implementation of Islamic law or a the treatment of Muslims?

"Muslims in their droves have abandoned Islmalically-burdened jurisdictions to come to the west" -

Way to generalise there. Even if this were the case, which is it isn't, you assume that this is because of the nature in which Islamic Law applies in the aforementioned jurisdictions. Am I correct in assuming you are Iranian?

"There are many other such instances where Quranic precedent would be immoral to use as a basis to act laws which purport to be fair."

Again, more (wrongful)generalisations from yourself and completely digressing from the title of the article. And who exactly determines the question of morality? What standard are you judging this by?

"how pleasant is Allah to non-Muslims in the Quran? Not at all"

And this statement shows how little you know about the Qur'an and how little you understand any of the Qur'anic teachings. Firstly, what has "how pleasant" Allah (swt) have to do with the manner in which non-muslims are to be treated? The Qur'an itself clearly prescribes the treatment of non-Muslims- their rights and the fact that there shall be no compulsion in religion. You either purposely disregarded this or were unaware of it.

Unlike the law in this country, under Islamic law, Muslims are under a POSITIVE duty to enforce protect those rights. If you see a child drowning in a river, you have no positive duty to help him/her in the UK. So much for the superior moral standard.

Clearly you struggle to be objectively critical and try desperately (on repeated attempts) to push forward your agenda on here. You are, of course, entitled to do so but be prepared to be criticised by those who can make an appreciable attempt to make more productive and informative posts.

To Richard:

"Remember also that the Arab world was Christian before 600AD and you have been treating Christians shabily ever since in your own muslim countries. Muslims are hypocrites like everyone else. You are not that special."

Lol you are clearly in need of some education there. Christians being treated "shabily"?? Clearly you have never heard about the Crusades or the Spanish Enquisition and are most likely not even aware of the rights and respect afforded to Christians not only by Muslims historically but also Islamically.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

COuldn't understand the message of this article
written by Tazeen, January 17, 2011

What the writer wanted to say??? Article should be written in clear language. The title was apealing but what writer want to convey...I atleast couldnot understand.
UK law is good against racism but not religous discrimination.
Practically Muslims are being targeted for being terrorist at airports but they can't help themselves and get support from Law.
Jews are themselves racist but they seek support of antiracist laws.
Hidus and sikh too get support from Antiracist laws as they declared them self a racial minority instead of a religous minority.
But in any case Muslims can't declare themself a race and cannot get support.

But still if Muslims recognize this they can try to have legislations. Unity of Muslims and their awareness is very important for this.
The term Islamophobia should be introduced as Anti semitism and Muslims should try to get legislations for it.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Western Muslims
written by Iftikhar Ahmad, January 16, 2011

SAlaam

A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. The whole world belongs to Muslims. Muslims are in western countries because their skills are needed for the economic, social, emotional and spiritual prosperity of the western society. They are not just economic slaves for the economic prosperity of the western society. They come here with their own cultures, languages and faith. They have every right to follow and transmit their cultures, languages and faith. They have the right to educate their children in state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods.

Islam is the fastest growing faith in Britain. Hundreds and thousands of Brits are reverting to Islam. By the middle of this century, over half of Brits would be Muslims.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Agressive Religion
written by Munir, January 16, 2011

I think Islam is the most moderate religion and not the aggressive but people who took it in their hands act so un-lawfully that non-muslims consider that may be teachings of this religion are like this. So if some one want to know this religion, must read basic books and from the current muslims, then he will come to know that how polite this religion is and moreover this is not the ownership of any Arab or Non-Arab, but it is for the global humanity and for the benefit of this world as well as afterwards. A true muslim must not be cruel and liar or insulting ladies or else but all such acts are forbidden in Islam.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ghazi, January 15, 2011

Is UK law anti-Muslim?

First of all the term Muslim is associated with a person, while Islam is associated with a set of assertions. This is what makes discussing and criticising Islam and Muslims such a pain. Islam is not an inherent part of a person, it is a set of ideas wilfully adopted (apart from children who are inculcated without choice). So it is moronic to consider the criticism of Islam as a personal attack - like criticising someone because of who their parents were, or in what country they were born, or the colour of their skin. No one is born with a religion to which they have freely subscribed. But, hey ho, hope you can understand the distinction.

Let's therefore address UK laws as being anti-Islam, or anti-Quranic if you will.

The next item we must address is whether anti-Islam is bad, or good? Saying that a law is anti-Islamic may indeed be an extremely good thing. Take for example a law that states that the integrity of a witness is in no way to be compromised by the happenstance of their gender. This of course is very good - and it is UnIslamic, for we know that the Quran states that the weight of a woman's testimony is half that of a man.

There are many other such instances where Quranic precedent would be immoral to use as a basis to act laws which purport to be fair.

Is UK law UnIslamic? Since it strives to be gender neutral and deliver fair and equal treatment regardless of race or creed (how pleasant is Allah to non-Muslims in the Quran? Not at all), then too right it is - or at least should be!

Muslims in their droves have abandoned Islmalically-burdened jurisdictions to come to the west. It is bizarre that such people, or the progeny of such people, would misguidedly harken for the laws which created societies that, by and large, their parents were so eager to escape.

Cheers.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

ken you really are very shallow and ill informed
written by just another bro, January 14, 2011

its spelt coercion NOT coersion. If you cant speak the lingo then get out of the country.
i'm laughing to much to respond to your points with any seriousness

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Anonymous, January 14, 2011

I would like to say to Ken (Jan 12th) that it seems as though from reading your 'comment', that you have not researched islam at all or not thoroughly. If 'Islam is so aggressive even against its own people', then
we will find that many people will not
be embracing it.But we find it quite the opposite-it is the fastest
growing religion. Now why would people be attracted to a religion that is aggressive against its own people?
It is in our nature that we are attracted to things that are beautiful, things which fulfil our inner needs of peace and tranquility, things
which give us real happiness.
If Islam was truly aggressive as you suggest, then why is it that
people are attracted to it? Those people
who research the religion hence, choose to become Muslim?
By looking at the masses of people who are increasingly
becoming muslims tells us that there must be something about
this religion that attracts people of other or perhaps
even no faith. For example, why do you think Napolean (who used
to work with Tupac in music industry and member of the Outlaw)
became muslim? How about the late Michael Jackson's brother,
Jermaine Jackson?
This religion has something which wins the hearts of people which
other religions may not have.
what is it? I leave it to you to research and find out.
But when researching, do go on to reliable
and authentic sources.

I hope you are not offended by what has been expressed
but i also hope that it shed some light in to
your understanding of Islam and has opened your heart
and mind in reconsidering whether Islam is actually aggressive.

Thank you

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Islam, an aggressive religion????
written by Anonymous, January 14, 2011

I would like to say to Ken (Jan 12th) that it seems as though from reading your 'comment', that you have not researched islam at all or not thoroughly. If 'Islam is so aggressive even against its own people', then
we will find that many people will not
be embracing it.But we find it quite the opposite-it is the fastest
growing religion. Now why would people be attracted to a religion that is aggressive against its own people?
It is in our nature that we are attracted to things that are beautiful, things which fulfil our inner needs of peace and tranquility, things
which give us real happiness.
If Islam was truly aggressive as you suggest, then why is it that
people are attracted to it? Those people
who research the religion hence, choose to become Muslim?
By looking at the masses of people who are increasingly
becoming muslims tells us that there must be something about
this religion that attracts people of other or perhaps
even no faith. For example, why do you think Napolean (who used
to work with Tupac in music industry and member of the Outlaw)
became muslim? How about the late Michael Jackson's brother,
Jermaine Jackson?
This religion has something which wins the hearts of people which
other religions may not have.
what is it? I leave it to you to research and find out.
But when researching, do go on to reliable
and authentic sources.

I hope you are not offended by what has been expressed
but i also hope that it shed some light in to
your understanding of Islam and has opened your heart
and mind in reconsidering whether Islam is actually aggressive.

Thank you for your time.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

If you don't like it ...
written by Ken, January 12, 2011

Why should the UK change to suit Islam?
Why should we have Halal meat in our supermarkets etc?
If you move to another nation you adopt their ways.
You shouldn't expect them to change to do as you say.
If you want the people of any nation to accept you then you adjust, as far as you can, to their way of life.
The UK has allowed many from Muslim countries shelter but the old Arabian nights story shows that the camel which is allowed to stick its nose in the tent to keep warm, will not be satisfied until it has the whole tent to itself.
And now we have people living among us whose desire is to murder as many of our children as possible.
Whilst I love and respect many Muslims, Islam is the bully in the playground with its threats that stifle free speech - it is in many respects a religion of fear and co-ersion.
Across the world it thrives on terror, killing Christians at least 3 countries over Christmas, the Janjaweed burning whole villages and raping Christian women and girls in Sudan, and to add insult to injury you guys ae continually blaming everyone else for your plight.
Anyone born a Muslim or who converts to Islam is under a threat if they choose to convert to another religion.
Sadly fellas just as the totalitarionism of Communist Russia collapsed in a day, so any religion or ism that rules by force will eventually crumble.
If I were a Muslim I would be seriously questioning just why Islam is so aggressive even against its own people.

• 
• -3
• 
• 

...
written by ..., January 09, 2011

I can certainly assure my viewing audience its not just the UK laws that are Anti Muslim most of Europe eyes are focusing toward that goal for implementing withing their system of run government some laws that undermine Islam or Muslims

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Muslim whingers
written by Richard Thomas, January 09, 2011

One has to ask muslim migrants why they moved to the evil west in the first place?
From what I can gather, muslim migrants and their families moved to western countries for the betterment of their children, to escape corruption, for more freedoms, escape dysfunctional politics and in many cases repressive and booring family/tribal ties.
Why then start whinging and bemoaning their lot when paradise may well have been found in the Emirates. Give thanks daily to being in a humane society where cream can always rise to the top.I never see the muslim community at Albert Hall or Covent Garden enjoying the best culture that the west can offer. Remember also that the Arab world was Christian before 600AD and you have been treating Christians shabily ever since in your own muslim countries. Muslims are hypocrites like everyone else. You are not that special.

• 
• -2
• 
• 

...
written by habib, January 08, 2011

I think that Muslims do have much more good conditions than Christians in Muslim countries. Everybody have the same rights but also duties. Why did Muslims also not moves to rich Islamic countries instead of moving in non Muslims countries. Sadly all Muslims or a lot have to pay the price for the terrorists within our community. Muslims like to complain all the time.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

100%
written by muhammad, January 08, 2011

Salaam akhi,

jzk for your thoughts on this detailed advice, but Islaam requires those who can derive from the divine texts, we need these scholars to extract from within the texts to our realities.
Also akhi, the Aayah Mcmood mentions, is one of real importance in this discussion. I suggest we all ask Allah to guide us to the truth, so we can be of benefit our Ummah.

akhuk

• 
• +0
• 
• 

fair point
written by Murtaza, January 08, 2011

Thanks for your comment:

1/ It is true that there are Muslims who are engaged in campaigns and movements like the ones you describe, but there needs to be more. The vast majority of Muslims remain detached from these issues. We have the potential to have a far greater impact. Furthermore many Muslims become part of campaigns and demonstrations - but such activities only last for short periods of time and are reactive and not pro-active. We need more expertise and power which can only come through elevating individuals amongst us to such positions of influence.

2/ Who said the engagement with the process leads to compromising our way of life? My point is precisely that not engaging with the system leads to a compromising of our faith. I am not talking about pleasing them. Quite the opposite, I am saying, that we should familiarise ourselves with the system we live in, so that we know how to have an effect on it to benefit us as individuals and to promote our way of life.

3/ I have tried to specify not only the specifics and strategy of engagement under the "the blueprint for systematic and multi-faceted solution" from a legal perspective.

4/ I apologise if the piece came across as negative and self-defeatist, my intention was the opposite - it was aimed at the Muslim community as a whole and not those who are actively striving for justice for fellow Muslims in every way possible.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Interesting article
written by McMood, January 08, 2011

as-salamu'alaykum Br. Murtaza,

Jazakallah Khayr for putting this article together. I believe many brothers and sisters who follow justice/freedom campaigns like that of Cage Prisoners, Justice for Aafia, Gareth Pierce and so forth, will have come across at some point most of the points you mention above, with regards to the inadequacies and seemingly disparate nature of UK law within itself and with European law. It is nice to see that all in one piece but I would like to expand on the pacifistic element you claim against Muslims.

I believe it would be fairer to discuss briefly the reasons, 'Why Muslims are more guarded than other faiths like Sikhism and Judaism with regards to addressing UK law?' There is, to a major extent, within those faiths the provision to compromise certain principles especially when dealing with non-members of its faith. Jewish law and their relationship/engagement with Gentiles are quite clear. Muslim's on the other hand do face major issues with regards to engaging in this process without compromising its faith. We are also very much aware of the ayaat that clearly indicate that they will not be pleased with us until we follow in their way. When it comes to matters of governance, we are in general talking about them and not individuals from amongst them who do truly fight against tyranny and injustice.

Perhaps an article discussing the specifics of engagement to affect change in our favour would be more motivational and productive than just highlighting the already known current situation and wallowing about how we are the cause of our own misfortune.

Allahu Alam.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment