Every now and then, you read something which strikes you as incredibly important. The Centre for Islamic Pluralism's publication, A Guide to Shariah Law and Islamist Ideology in Western Europe 2007-2009, is one such example, and is essential reading for anyone concerned about our freedoms, values and community relations.
Written primarily by Muslim scholars Stephen Suleyman Schwartz and Irfan al-Alawi, the publication provides clear definitions of Shariah Law - and an irrefutable case against radical Shariah. It draws a distinction between traditional Islam's Shariah provisions for personal conduct in the areas of prayer, diet, fasting and charity, and the development of a parallel legal structure which is at odds with our own. As the authors argue:
"Shariah encompasses strictly personal religious-ritual aspects, such as rules for prayer, ablutions, diet, fasting, charity, male circumcision and burial, which we exempt from the analysis in that they almost never involve contradiction with or other intrusion into relations between Muslims and non-Muslims ... [However] radical Shariah advocates teach that Muslims can disregard Western law ... Extremist Islamist ideology is neither traditional nor conservative, but radical and even revolutionary ... The new conception of 'parallel Shariah' in even its apparently least intrusive elements may become disruptive of Western society."
The publication begins with a history and analysis of Shariah, and then examines its implementation - and the growth of radical Islamist ideology - in Europe through five case studies: Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, France and Spain. It concludes with an invaluable assessment of Islamic finance and banking, and some conclusions. It also touches on issues such as 'honour killings', female genital mutilation, forced marriages and divorce. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the paper, written by Muslim scholars, is its critique of Western non-Muslim acquiescence with radical Shariah:
"The real problem facing both Muslims and non-Muslims is not that of Shariah established against the will of non-Muslims, but of a separate and discriminatory system to which Muslims in the West would be submitted regardless of their needs and desires, either because of misguided attempts to accommodate perceived (but often inaccurate) Muslim sentiments, or because of agitation by radicals."
In other words, a large proportion of the Muslim population does not want radical Shariah imposed in Britain or other parts of Europe, and the authors remind us that many Muslims fled their original homelands to western Europe in order to escape "the excesses of Islamic ideology" in those societies. Western non-Muslim leaders should wake up to that fact. Calls by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice for the acceptance of some aspects of codified Shariah in British law - leading to a parallel legal system - are, the authors say, "patronising" to Muslims and indicate that they are not listening "to the many British Muslims who reject Shariah and other Islamist penetration into their community". In the authors' words:
"In the name of sensitivity, non-Muslim advocates for Shariah are making things worse for both Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain .... Archbishop Williams and the Lord Chief Justice ... failed to see that demands for Shariah in the West have very little to do with increased respect for Islam and everything to do with the continuing radicalisation of Muslims. Their lightminded remarks could aggravate, rather than diminish, the growing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain."
The report explores in great depth the concepts of "radical Shariah", "parallel Shariah" and informal "Shadow Shariah". They describe, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain's campaign in 2007 to introduce these concepts into education, calling for Muslim students not to be exposed to education about other religions; releasing radical Shariah guidelines on dress code for students; and demanding a bar on participation in music and dancing, and segregation in or exclusion from swimming classes.
It also describes the growing presence of radicalised Muslims in the medical profession who refuse to attend classes on alcoholism or sexually-transmitted diseases, in the belief that the practises that lead to such illnesses are prohibited, and refuse to wash their hands in alcohol-based disinfectant before conducting examinations or operations - even though Saudi Arabian hospitals use such disinfectants!
While it is important to recognise that Shariah is more than simply stoning and amputations, it is also important to realise that the destination in mind for some proponents of radical Shariah in Britain is extreme. The senior judge and Secretary of the Shariah Council at Regents Park Mosque is quoted on Channel 4, and in this report, as saying:
"We know that if Shariah laws are implemented then you can change this country into a haven of peace. Because once a thief's hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. If only once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. There would be no rapist[s] at all. This is why we say that, yes, we want to offer it to the British society ... And if they don't accept it, they would need more and more prisons."
I would hope that not even the most hard-line hanger-and-flogger Tory would go along with that.
It is striking that the authors themselves are taking such a strong line, as Muslims, against parallel and radical Shariah - and we need to listen to their voices more often. "Parallel Shariah implies separation of Muslims living in the West from their non-Muslim neighbours," they note.
The authors are not, however, lone voices. British Muslim lawyers are also largely opposed to the development of a separate legal system - yet their voices are seldom heard. Some interviewed for the report believe that parallel Shariah would be "a disaster for the Muslim community ... [and would] produce legal chaos."
In discussing France, the authors highlight the positive influence of the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, Dr. Dalil Boubakeur, who has said clearly: "The way of Islam states that the believer must submit to the general laws [in a country of residence] ... French Muslims must take account of their presence in a non-Muslim context". He has gone on to say: "The most urgent problem in the question of religious instruction is to develop love for others."
Yet voices like his are seldom given the platforms they deserve. The authors note that he is rarely invited to international academic or religious events focused on the future of Islam, and instead those with radical sympathies - such as Tariq Ramadan, whom the authors dismiss as a "European pop star" and "the ally of [Yousuf] al-Qaradawi" - are given prominence. "It remains to be seen which will, finally, enjoy greater influence in European Islam". It is worth remembering that Tariq Ramadan's brother Hani authored an essay in Le Monde in 2002 justifying stoning as a penalty for adultery.
Islamic banking, the authors suggest, is a key element of Islamist ideology and we should not be duped by it. Muslims can decide not to invest their money in enterprises involved in 'haram' (forbidden) products such as pork or alcohol, the authors argue, "without recourse to Islamic banking". The danger with Islamic banking is that it increases the influence of radicals, and "it would support a greater sense of segregation".
There is much more to say, but I would simply recommend you read this publication. The authors offer some important recommendations. There is, they argue, "considerable European Muslim opposition to radicalism, including to the introduction of some form of Shariah as a special, separate legal standard". Western governments, therefore, should support such voices - but instead, they have:
"taken measures leading in exactly the opposite direction, legitimising radicals as partners in public affairs and excluding anti-radical tendencies".
We should do more to strengthen Muslims within the legal profession, who oppose a parallel Shariah system, tackle financial sources of support for Islamist groups, resist further implementation of Shariah, and recognise that protection of Muslim women from abuse "is better secured through Western marriage and family law than through Shariah schemes".
Most importantly, the authors highlight the fact that opponents of radical, parallel Shariah among the Muslim community are not limited to those we regard as "progressive", "liberal" or "secular" Muslims, or even to "reformers". Radical Shariah is not traditional or conservative, according to some interpretations - and therefore, the authors conclude,
"the majority of moderate, traditional, conservative Muslims, loyal to Western law, ... may be mobilised to defeat the fundamentalists and other radicals".
This is a paper every policy-maker, journalist, political activist and ordinary person concerned about the rise of radicalism should read. If we are to combat both radical Islamism and the rise of the far-right, racist BNP, we need to listen to and support those in the Muslim community who oppose radical, parallel Shariah.
