In response to the many contributions, and valid questions and arguments posed in response to my earlier article, let me attempt the following answers. In doing so, however, let me emphasise two things. First, I am still very much a beginner on this complex issue of Islamism, and there is much that I have to learn. I am very very far from being an expert, and do not at all pretend to be one. I simply know what I have seen and read of the rise of Islamism in this country, and what I have learned from people first-hand who are far more authoritative than me. I also know what I have seen, as a human rights activist, of the effects of Islamism in Pakistan, one of the countries I specialise in, and from colleagues who focus on Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia and elsewhere.
Second, I thought very long and very hard before engaging with this issue. My article is not the first I have written on this subject, but I only began to speak out last year. I was not exactly looking for another challenge to take on, as my international human rights work is more than full-time, and there is plenty to do on Burma, one of my major specialisms, alone. I could, like so many others, have opted for what seems the easier, more comfortable option in the short-term - to keep my head down, be politically correct, avoid controversy, and leave it to others to sort this one out. But the more I read and learnt, and the more I see first-hand in Pakistan, the more concerned I am. It was reading Ed Husain's book The Islamist, with his own first-hand accounts of Islamism, that made me realise finally that I had to engage.
I do so with, I hope, humility, recognising the complexities of the subject (Islam is absolutely not monolithic, and there are decent Muslim democrats to whom we should stretch out a hand of friendship - and ordinary Muslims, especially women, who suffer the extremities of radical Islamism). I also recognise the need to tread carefully, and to be sensitive in how we handle this issue. As I stressed repeatedly in my article, I distinguish between the religion of Islam - which has several possible interpretations - and the political agenda of Islamism. I also emphasise the need to prevent Islamophobia. But we do no-one any service at all by burying our heads in the sand and pretending the issue will go away, or walk by blindly and without even realising it accepting dhimmi status by stealth.
So let me now turn to some of the questions raised, in the spirit I have described above. Firstly, Shari'ah law. One contributor asked what is wrong with allowing Muslims to have Shari'ah law among themselves. The implication of the question was: "as long as it doesn't impact us". But the fact is, by its nature it is bound to impact us. The biggest problem is in having a parallel legal system. When I visit other countries, I don't seek to impose British law upon them, and generally I obey their laws (with the exception of crossing the border into Burma illegally, but that is because Burma is ruled by an illegal regime and the only way of reaching those most oppressed, most cut-off, most-forgotten and most in need is to go in through the jungle into the conflict areas - such areas can't be reached by going in with a visa). There is nothing wrong with communities practicing their own culture and traditions within Britain - such as having Halal butchers, or China-Town - and indeed, I value such diversity which makes Britain a far more interesting place. I would despair if Britain was simply dull, grey, Anglo-Saxon. I value all people regardless of race or religion, and believe in diversity. But a central Christian value is "unity in diversity" - meaning respecting one another's differences, but agreeing on some basic common values.
Having their own legal system, separate from our own, will further cement ghetto-isation and further weaken the chances of positive integration. Even if Shari'ah law does not include the very worst excesses, such as chopping off parts of the anatomy, making women's evidence in court worth half that of a man's, or punishments for apostasy, it is still a slippery slope. If we concede to even parts of Sharia'h having a legal basis in Britain, we are on a downward spiral. Unfortunately, however, I am told it has already happened in some areas, without us knowing.
On Shari'ah finance - read http://shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com or http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105101 or http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/islamic%20finance%20or%20financing%20islamism.pdf or http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Home.aspx?Search=Shariah%20Risk
I understand the questions about Shari'ah finance, and on the face of it, what is wrong with, for example, types of finance that prohibit investment in banned sectors, such as pork, alcohol, entertainment and gambling? Nothing - and there are already non-Islamic "ethical" funds which avoid investments in, say, the arms or oil sectors. If that was all there was to it, no problem. But, from what I read (and I immediately admit I know even less about finance than I do about theology), Shari'ah finance includes the following measures:
- Obligatory donations - if an investment or a financial transaction is "tainted" by having been invested in a prohibited sector (as listed above), or been tainted by interest, illicit speculation such as trading in commodity figures, it must be "purified" by a donation to an Islamic charity. Not bad so far. But the recipients are not disclosed, and the process is non-transparent. Forms of Shari'ah apparently oblige donations to jihadis (i.e. terrorists) and their families. In other words, Shari'ah finance can be used to channel funds to terrorists.
- According to experts, Islamists are using our own financial strengths against us by introducing Shari'ah finance. The gravest threat is that through Shari'ah finance, Shari'ah law is itself legitimised in the international system. The Center for Security Policy in the US says:
"By integrating themselves into the Western financial structure, proponents of this doctrine can essentially shield from regulatory mechanisms the transfer of millions of dollars in zakat, or charity payments, from wealthy Middle Eastern radicals to violent and/or subversive organizations in Europe and the United States. Advocates of Shari’s financing believe that they may have found an indirect way to begin imposing their obscurantist code upon the free peoples of the world."
On mega mosques - I completely agree that we should allow mosques for the Muslim community in Britain. There is absolutely no question that we should restrict their basic rights to religious freedom. How can I, as a human rights activist and campaigner for religious freedom, say otherwise? I campaign for the Rohingya Muslims of Burma to have their basic rights, and of course - no hesitation, no qualification at all - we in this country should give other religious communities their basic human rights to freedom of religion, including freedom of worship. No problem at all. BUT BUT BUT - there is a difference between saying Muslims can have mosques, and saying we agree to a 40,000 seater mosque beside the Olympic stadium. Firstly, there is no need for such a mega-mosque in that part of London - there are plenty of mosques already. Secondly, what about reciprocity? When the day comes when a cathedral or mega-church can be built in Riyadh, Jeddah or even Mecca and Medina, then we can think about a mega-mosque, but as long as Christians are not only denied places of worship in much of the Islamic world, but brutally tortured and even martyred, why - when we have already given so much - should we give even more. Yes, I know there's a Christian teaching about turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile - but we only have two cheeks each, and we've already given them away, and more. Thirdly, a mega-mosque is a blatant act of domination - towering over all other buildings, visible on the sky-line, the centre of attention. It is an unmistakable message of aggression from the Islamists.
And lastly, on Saudi-funding for universities. One contributor says universities should have the freedom to take funds from whoever they wish. But would that blogger say the same is a university wished to take funds from the BNP, or the North Korean regime, and then endorse, or at least stay silent, in the face of far-right racism and gulags? If Hitler and the Nazis funded a university in Britain, and that university stayed silent in the face of the Holocaust, would there not be outcry? It is not the funding per se that is a problem - it is the strings attached. I have experienced this first-hand, in the US. An American university was approached to host an event at which I would speak on Pakistan's blasphemy laws and my colleague, author of a new report on apostasy, would speak on apostasy. We were told they could not do it - and we found out that the institution we were approaching - and the specific department we were talking to - was Saudi-funded. There are countless examples in this country of universities staying silent, or even condoning, Islamist actions - because they are Saudi-funded. The Saudis have bought up much of our academic elite, not just to stay silent but to promote Islam. I understand the Centre for Social Cohesion is publishing a report on this soon. At the very least read their report. Also read their new report Virtual Caliphate, and the report on honour crimes.
There is much more I have to learn on these issues, but I hope that these initial answers will at the very least give those who asked the questions pause for thought.
