A report on Islam in Britain has emerged: advising Muslims how to conduct themselves inline with living in a free, democratic and secular society

CONTEXTUALISING ISLAM IN BRITAIN: EXPLORATORY PERSPECTIVES pdf.

Director, HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies, Cambridge

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
in Association with the UNIVERSITIES OF EXEtER AND WESTMINSTER
Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 9


Oddly it tries to lay out a path for UK Muslims to embrace life in a secular democracy. What is worrying is the amount of explanation needed - which means that with each generation of Muslims who are continuously being imported into the country [if this continues] this will have to be explained again and again. Never mind getting through the to those already living in the UK.

The report tells Muslims that they don't need to live under an Islamic State - and rather the secular pluralist democracy has benefited them by allowing them to practise their religion freely. And that there should be a healthy distance between religion and state.

What seems logical to us - it seems needs to be explained to many Muslims. To the critics of Islam - Muslims are free to practise their religion in Western society - as minorities. Yet in the Islamic societies - where there is Sharia law - religious freedoms are not readily extended to minorities - under this legal framework Muslims have more rights - than non-Muslims. But within a free society - instead of embracing this freedom - Muslims are using these freedom to try and overturn it - so that it becomes more like those Sharia systems within the Islamic world where Muslims have more rights than all others. It appears it has been their duty to set out to destroy what has been so generously extended to them.

I think the most important part - is the telling Muslims that they can live in a European/western country without trying to overthrow it. [If you are 3% of society and you want to put in Islamic law that's an overthrow]. There are other important parts of the report that tell Muslims - that although Muslim beliefs are strongly held - Muslims should respect that other people also have beliefs which are deeply held. And tells them that in the public arena everyone is equal. They are further told / encourages not to disrespect homosexuals and to treat them fairly.

The report also tries to correct - views of of the Sharia and Jihad - telling non-Muslims that Sharia is not all about beheadings and floggings. And that Jihad most means peaceful struggle for rights within a society... in fact only 3% of Koran and other Islamic holy books list Jihad as a peaceful struggle all other references relate to Holy War.

Many non-Muslims, and Muslims, tend to have a skewed understanding of the term Shari'ah, which conjures up images of floggings and beheadings.

It goes on to try to clear up the differences between the religious requirements/obligations of Sharia law versus the rights and norms laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but when most westerners think of Sharia law we naturally think of the medieval penalties like the chopping off of hands and feet. Though we also think of the deficit in human rights.

The report tries to say that under Sharia everyone is equal. But clearly in the Koran it says non-Muslims must be made to pay the jizya tax with willing submission, or else convert to Islam or be fought against. Non-Muslims are automatically relegated to second class citizenship under Sharia law. A Muslim and a non-Muslim are not the same in an Islamic court of law - neither are Muslim women and Muslim men - the woman's word is worth half.

The report goes on to talk about the concept of apostasy from Islam - and as with most Muslim explanation puts it in the framework - of some event that took place 1000 years ago - when apostasy was seem as being treasonous. But tells them that in the context of todays world that is no longer relevant - at least not in the Western world and those who wish to leave Islam should be freely allowed to do so. It uses the no compulsion but in truth that only pertains to people who were already non-Muslim and not to apostates.

It talks about Muslims getting involved in politics and in the community -

The invocation of notions of divine sovereignty by politicians is problematic in practice since it can be used by individuals or groups ‘to play God’.

one of the problems though of creating a Shari political party - is that it would want to enjoy the same protection as a religion does. To question it is to question God. Then you move in to the whole realm of - this or that articular question offends me - and under those restrictions - particularly with what we are seeing in England and other parts of Europe - people being arrested for a run of the mill religious argument with a Muslim lady. Artist arrested - politicians put on trial for so-called offending Islamic sensibility - all this would mean that a Sharia party would have undue advantage over all other parties. For Muslims it has a whole 'nother context - as who would want to challenge God - therefore may be obliged to follow it.

Whatever it takes to get the Muslims in line - though critics of Islam in the West are going to continue - to see that freedom and democracy are not compromised - and that Sharia makes no significant headway in the West - and in addition that immigration is reformed. On the whole one can conclude that having to explain citizenship to people who are reluctant to embrace it - is worrying. And what the Muslims [segments] are doing is in effect treasonous.