Arches Issue 3

C U L T U R E S I ND I A L O U G E

VOLUME 2EDITION 3WINTER 2008ISSN 1756-7335

Religion andSecularismReligion andSecularism

INTHISISSUE04 Islam and Secularism PROFESSOR JOHN ESPOSITO

11 If Religion Matters, Dialogue Matters OLIVER McTERNAN

16 Equality Before The Law LORD PHILLIPS, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES

24 Commentary on Lord Chief Justice’s Lecture ROBIN KNOWLES, CBE, QC

27 Thank God for Justice PROFESSOR ROBERT D. CRANE

31 A Growing Faith PASTOR BOB ROBERTS

36 Turkish Experimentation with Laiklik DR MERVE KAVAKCI

41 Into a World of Hate NICK RYAN

46 AbdullahQuilliam:TheQuintessentialBritishMuslim PROF. KHIZAR HUMAYUN ANSARI

Arches Quarterly is published by

Westgate House, Level 7, Westgate Road, Ealing, London W5 1YY

Tel 020 8991 3372 Fax 020 8991 [email protected]

Submissions of articles and reports for Arches Quarterlyshould be made by e-mail, in Word format, to the editors:

[email protected]

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in Arches Quarterly are those of the individual authors and should not be taken to represent a corporate view of The Cordoba Foundation. © The Cordoba Foundation UK 2008

Anas Altikriti Chief ExecutiveAbdullah FaliqManaging Editor

S. Alam Associate EditorDr Wanda Krause Sub Editor

Syed Nuh Art Editor

THIS ISSUEVolume 2 • Edition 3

Winter 2008ISSN 1756-7335

Available online: thecordobafoundation.com

3volume 2 • edition 3 • Winter 2008 A r c h e s Q u A r t e r l y

she was famously prevented from serving herterm for practicing wearing the Hijab.

Religiosity and faith-based activism – whether inthe realm of politics, social or spiritual renewal –is clearly on the rise and this is set to continuefor the foreseeable future. Whilst theexplanations for this rising trend can beattributed to multiple factors, the questionbefore us is to examine how this shapes society.Samuel Huntington, for instance, would espousea clash of civilisations, especially that pertainingto the Islamic faith, whilst others would contendthat it is through religion that issues of injusticeand the promotion of social cohesion anddevelopment can be addressed.

We are delighted to be able to present to youan exceptional line of articles that address someof the issues aforementioned. The Americanscholar of Religion and International Affairs,Professor John Esposito, opens the scene bydefining secularism and how it is viewed, namelythe diverse Muslim scholarly opinions. Thistheme is further developed by a conflictresolution expert on interfaith relations, OliverMcTernan, who stresses on the need fordialogue and understanding.

This is followed by a landmark lecture deliveredby Lord Phillips, on “Equality before the Law”,which is accompanied by a commentary byRobin Knowles QC, while Professor RobertCrane, former advisor to US President Nixon,offers a complementary view on renewing thespirit of justice.

The latter part features case-studies of which thefirst is by Pastor Bob Roberts, an American whooffers a Christian view on the ascendancy ofreligiosity and the failure of secularism. Dr MerveKavakci (George Town University, USA), adds tothis issue but using the Turkish experiment Laiklikand its impact on the Turkish psyche; while NickRyan, an award-winning writer and journalist,unravels visions of “Homeland” in the Far Rightin Britain. Our final contribution is an importantinsight by the historian and professor of ethnicminority studies, Humayun Ansari, on the life ofthe quintessential British Muslim, William HenryQuilliam.

We hope you will enjoy reading the range ofperspectives offered in this issue of Arches, and asalways, we welcome your valuable contributions,feedback and suggestions.

Abdullah FaliqMANAGING EDITOR

In this issue of Arches Quarterly, we examine theplace of religion and the ascendancy ofreligiosity in today’s secular societies. Whilstdebating the collision between religious activismand secularism, we also explore the possibility toaccommodate disparate ideas and to foster anappreciation of each others way of thinking, in amilieu of inter-connected world against which,we discuss the boundaries and parameters setby religion and secularism to find convergenceand common space.

Venturing beyond the traditional debate on thecompatibility of religion and secularism, Archespays attention to the definition andmanifestations of secularism today as it differsfrom country to country in its treatment ofreligion. A self-professed secular Muslimphilosopher of Islamic Studies whom I once metfrom North Africa, said “it is absurd to separatereligion from society, but we should separatereligion from the state.” Another scholarexplained that “secularism” is a neutral groundfor diversity, whereas “secularist” is anideological-shaped mind-set that excludes God.

Clearly there is a blurring in the definition ofsecularism. Whilst the Muslim philosopher maybe well-intentioned, his premise prevents religionfrom entering the political arena – thus goingagainst the grains of democracy and freedom.

Lord Phillips in a recent lecture echoed article 10of the European Human Rights Conventionstating “any person is free to preach the meritsof his own religion”. Whilst this is largely reflectedaccurately in Britain, it is in stark contrast to otherparts of European and Western democracieswhere secularism is state practice, including someMuslim countries. Despite being elected as aMember of Parliament in Turkey, Dr MerveKavakci’s experience is testament to this when

FROM THEEditor

EDITORIAL

Islam and Secularism:Exploring the place of religion in secular society

While A populAr definition hAs been

that secularism is the political separa-tion of church/religion and state, the imple-mentation of secularism in state formationin the West as well as the muslim world andelsewhere has been far more complex. inmodern states such as france and turkey,for example, secularism (or laï cisme) hasoften represented a distinctly anti-religiousor anti-clerical doctrine that seeks to controlall religious expression and symbols, andabolish them from the public sphere. undera regime of ‘ secular fundamentalism’ , “themixing of religion and politics is regarded asnecessarily abnormal (departing from thenorm), irrational, dangerous and extremist.” 1

in the middle east, secularism, a political-doctrine that grew out of christian europe,is inextricably linked with european colo-nialism. for many muslims, the efforts ofcolonial regimes to impose secular politicaldoctrines from above was the first stage in afar more insidious trend in which secular-ism, as a comprehensive worldview domi-nates all areas of life:

“secularism is no longer a mere set ofideas that one can accept or reject at will, it isa world-outlook that is embedded in the sim-plest and most innocuous cultural com-modities, and that forms the unconsciousbasis and implicit frame of reference for ourconduct in public and in private. the state,far from operating exclusively in a fewaspects of public life, has actually dominatedmost, and at times all of them, and has evenpenetrated to the farthest and deepest con-cerns of our private lives.” 2

proponents of secularism have often seenit as the best means to promote tolerance,pluralism and fairness in a society in whichgovernment is not dominated by any onereligious ideology. however, as talal Asad

has warned, secularism does not necessarilyguarantee peace and tolerance:

“the difficulty with secularism as a doc-trine of war and peace in the world is notthat it is european (and therefore alien to thenon-West) but that it is closely connectedwith the rise of a system of capitalist nation-states – mutually suspicious and grosslyunequal in power and prosperity, each pos-sessing a collective personality that is differ-ently mediated and therefore differentlyguaranteed and threatened.” 3

northern ireland, india, and sri lanka forexample, are liberal democratic states with asecular constitution that nevertheless havesuffered from communal riots.

CONTINUITY & CHANGEA critical problem faced by religious

reformers is the relationship betweenchange and the authority of tradition. theimportance of some kind of thread or conti-nuity between tradition and change is criti-cal to the success and effectiveness of socialmovements. for the majority of muslims,the classical tradition, legitimated by theconsensus (ijma) of the community (in factby its religious scholars), has been norma-tive. While historically the sunna[traditions] of the prophet has controlled theunderstanding of the Qur’ an, the consensusof religious scholars has ruled over thesunna, representing the source of religiousauthority in islam. in other words, histori-cally in sunni islam, the consensus of thepast is authoritative and overrules every-thing. thus, for example, even if theQur’ an doesn’ t advocate hijab or prohibitwomen from leading mixed gender prayer,the interpretations and practices sanctionedby the past consensus, the classical islamictradition, prevail. this outlook is epitomisedby the saying: “consensus is the stable pillar

Professor John Esposito

volume 2 • edition 3 • Winter 2008A r c h e s Q u A r t e r l y4

on which the religion rests.” the conserva-tive or neo-traditionalist bent of many religious scholars, madrasas and muslimpopulations make this requirement of linking tradition to proposed changes evenmore necessary.

SHARI’A, SECULARISM AND THE STATE

how one projects the future role of islamin the modern state depends largely onone’ s interpretation of the authority of thepast. not surprisingly, the question of theplace of shari’ a and its relationship to polit-ical authority has produced sharp disagree-ments and contentious debate betweenmuslim scholars of the last century. twoprominent scholars, Abdullahi Ahmed An-na‘ im and Abdulaziz sachedina, provide diverse alternative post-modernistperspectives.

An-naim’ s, a prominent sudanese-American muslim scholar and human rightsactivist, has been a major voice on issues ofislamic reform, human rights and the secu-lar state. intellectually, An-na‘ im advocatesa secular state built on constitutionalism,human rights and citizenship – resourcesthat “were totally lacking in all societieseverywhere until the modern era.”4

in contrast to many muslims, he arguesthat a secular state, one that is neutralregarding religious doctrine, is “more con-sistent with islamic history than is the so-called islamic state model proposed by somemuslims since the second quarter of thetwentieth century.” 5 ironically, he ignoresthe extent to which the notion that secular-ism is “neutral” regarding religion is itself acontested issue today,

An-na‘ im asserts that religious and polit-ical authority stem from different sourcesand require different skills and, therefore, toconflate the two leads to dangerous confu-sion. this conflation was only possible,according to An-na‘ im, during the time ofthe prophet, “because no other humanbeing can enjoy the prophet’ s combinationof religious and political authority.”6 sincesuch harmony is no longer possible, reli-gious and political leaders should insteadpursue their autonomy roles so that eachside will be strengthened and not subject to

subordination or coercion by the other. An-na‘ im believes that the shari’ a must

be marginalised in order to save it. no statehas the right to enforce religious law, even ifit is the religion of a majority of its citizens:“by its nature and purpose, shari’ a can onlybe freely observed by believers; its principleslose their religious authority and value whenenforced by the state.” 7 contrary to much ofcontemporary scholarship on the origins ofislamic law, An-na‘ im denies that islamiclaw included both a divine, unchanging ele-ment (shari’ a, principles and values rootedin sacred sources) and its human interpreta-tion and application which resulted inislamic law (fiqh). he writes: “both shari’ aand fiqh are the products of human interpre-tation of the Qur’ an and sunna of theprophet in a particular historical context.Whether a given proposition is said to bebased on shari’ a or fiqh, it is subject to thesame risks of human error, ideological orpolitical bias, or influence by its propo-nents’ economic interests and social con-cerns.”8

While the human dimension in both can-not be denied, there are significant differ-ences between sacred texts and human inter-pretations. An- na‘ im’ s failure to acknowl-edge and to formulate his reformist agendawithin the context of the significant differ-ence between shari’ a and fiqh, betweendivine law and the human construction/interpretation is a major flaw.

Although welcomed and celebrated by asmall elite muslim and non-muslim audi-ence, An- na‘ im’ s “interpretative frame-work” for broad-based reform, which over-looks or rejects the historical development ofislamic law and thus bypasses islamic tradi-tion, faces a significant obstacle to its accept-ance as a basis for reform.

in contrast to An-na’ im, Abdulazizsachedina’ s the islamic roots ofdemocratic pluralism builds a case for dem-ocratic pluralism from within an islamicframework in light of islamic sources(Qur’ an, hadith, tafsir).

sachedina’ s argument is predicated onthe belief that Qura’ nic interpretation wasalways to discover the meaning of the text asa relevant and “living source of prescriptiveguidance for the community.” 9 his pursuit

ISLAM AND SECULARISM

A r c h e s Q u A r t e r l yvolume 2 • edition 3 • Winter 2008 5

6 A r c h e s Q u A r t e r l y volume 2 • edition 3 • Winter 2008


of Qur’ anic and traditional guidance in theareas of democracy, pluralism and humanrights is placed within the context of broaderdebates amongst muslim scholars, bothmodern and pre-modern. that said, his con-sideration of the interpretations of the tradi-tional exegetes does not prevent him fromsuggesting that many of their conclusionsare outdated and have done more harm thangood in promoting “exclusivist” readings ofscripture. he also criticizes those contempo-rary scholars who, rather than taking a freshapproach to the sacred text, continue touphold dogmatically the irrelevant interpre-tations of their medieval predecessors.

sachedina’ s basic argument is that theQur’ an provides a solid basis for the shap-ing of a pluralist, just, and inclusive society.his position is based on three core Qur’ anicconcepts: that humanity is one community;people of different religious backgroundsshould compete among themselves to dogood; and the necessity for compassion andforgiveness. these three principles concernsnot only personal convictions or morality,but also the need to establish an ethical pub-lic order consistent with islam’ s role as a“faith in the public realm.”10

sachedina takes on some of the most con-troversial contemporary issues: the legalrights of non-muslims (dhimmi) in a major-ity muslim state, the rules regarding aposta-sy and retribution, and the practice of jihadand its relation to rebellion and martyrdom.

despite the fact that numerous examplesof tolerance and legal flexibility exist inislamic community, nevertheless, he main-tains, muslim jurists formulated legal codesrelating to the status of non-muslims thatallow for discriminatory practices. theselaws are not in accordance with modern con-ceptions of pluralism and inclusiveness andtherefore must be rejected: “most of the pastjuridical decisions treating non-muslimminorities have become irrelevant in thecontext of contemporary religious pluralism,

a cornerstone of interhuman relations.” 11

sachedina relates apostasy and jihad tofreedom of religion and forgiveness in islamrespectively. both rest on the key concept offitra, a human being’ s natural predisposi-tion towards justice and knowledge of goodand evil. this inherent morality reinforces abelief “basic to muslim identity” that “thedivinely mandated vocation to realise God’ swill in history was communal as well as indi-vidual.” 12 fitra not only forms the basis of a“God-centered public order,” it also providesthe key to interreligious dialogue because itspeaks to the nature of all humans regard-less of creed. An islamic theology of religionsfor the twenty-first century is one in whichlaw, based on God’ s revelation, acts as aninstrument of justice and peace in society.13

unlike An-na‘ im and others, sachedinadoes not believe that, in order to be trulyjust, the state must implement a full separa-tion of religious and political authority. nordoes he accept the type of religious state pro-posed by the “fundamentalists” in whichislam has an exclusive claim over authorityin the community. rather, sachedina arguesthat the prophet laid the groundwork for a“universal community” that was subse-quently corrupted by the political imperativeto subdue people of other faiths and by areading of traditional sources that lost sightof their original pluralistic intent.14 byreclaiming the belief that all human beingsare “equals in creation,” the muslim com-munity can serve as a model of a religiousfaith that also calls for justness in societythrough the creation of pluralistic, demo-cratic institutions.15

THE HOLD OF TRADITION:SACRALIZATION AND DE-SACRALIZATION

As previously discussed the critical issuefor all reformers is the hold of tradition.those who, like An- na‘ im bypass or ignorethe classical tradition fail to come to gripswith the reality on the ground and riskreducing the influence and impact of theirefforts to the bookshelf rather than becom-ing a catalyst for change in muslim societies.in sunni islam, the classical tradition, legit-imated by the consensus (ijma) of the pasthas been normative. While historically the

The Qur'an provides asolid basis for the shaping

of a pluralist, just, andinclusive society



sunna of the prophet has controlled theunderstanding of the Qur’ an, the consensusof religious scholars has ruled over thesunna. in other words, for neo-traditional-ists in sunni islam, the consensus of thepast is authoritative and overrules every-thing. thus, for example, even if the Qur’ andoes not advocate hijab or prohibit womenfrom leading mixed gender prayer and someor many hadiths are false, the interpreta-tions and practices sanctioned by past con-sensus, the classical islamic tradition, pre-vail. not to do so is to depart from tradition,to fail to establish a necessary link or conti-nuity between the authority of the past andmodern change. this outlook is epitomisedin an Azhar saying: “consensus is the stablepillar on which the religion rests.”

An-na‘ im is not alone in re-examiningthe relationship of religion to the state andarguing that a muslim country can also besecular and rejecting the blind following oftradition. however, some like nurcholishmadjid (as well as mustafa ceric, and tariqramadan) recognise and more clearly theneed to acknowledge the force of traditioneven as they proceed to engage in wide rang-ing reformist thinking.16 Although empha-sising the value/merit of classical islam andits legacy, they do not regard it as an absolutereference point or religious authority butonly a tool for solving modern problems.17

BUT WHAT DO MUSLIMS REALLYTHINK AND WANT?

in what ways are the issues and diverseviews in the current debate among muslimintellectuals and religious leaders represen-tative of the world’ s muslims as a whole?the politicisation of political leaders, schol-ars, experts and media commentators post9/11 has created a minefield for policymak-ers, scholars and the general public, facedwith contending and contradictory opinionsto key questions about muslim attitudestowards the West, democracy, shari’ a, andhuman rights. the data from recent (2001-2007) Gallup polls, in particular the GallupWorld poll of 2007, of residents from morethan thirty-five muslim majority countriesenables us to more definitively access globalrepresentative responses. Altogether, thesurvey sample includes “more than 90% of

the world’ s 1.3 billion muslims, making thisthe largest, most comprehensive study ofcontemporary muslims ever done.” 18

the Gallup World poll brings to light howmajorities of contemporary muslims viewdemocracy and its relationship to secularismand religion. Asked about their attitudestowards democracy, many respondents saidthat political freedoms and liberties are qual-ities that they admire most about the West.19

similarly, democracy is among the most fre-quent responses given as a key to a more justsociety and to progress.20 cutting acrossdiverse muslim countries, social classes andgender differences, overwhelming majori-ties in all nations surveyed (94% in egypt,93% in iran, 90% in indonesia) said that ifdrafting a constitution for a new country,they would guarantee freedom of speech,defined as “allowing all citizens to expresstheir opinion on the political, social and eco-nomic issues of the day”.

however, when asked whether theybelieve that the u.s. will allow people in theregion to fashion their own political futureas they see fit without direct us influence,the majority in most muslim countries dis-agreed. A majority in Jordan (65.8%), iran(65.6%), pakistan (54.5%), morocco (67.7%)and lebanon (67.7%) believes that the u.s.will not allow people in the region to shapetheir own political future without u.s. inter-ference.

similarly, the vast majority of muslimsbelieve the u.s. lacks credibility in its cam-paign to promote democracy in the middleeast. A majority in Jordan, egypt, iran,pakistan, turkey, indonesia, morocco, andlebanon said they do not believe the u.s. isserious about spreading democracy in theirregion of the world.

yet, although muslims do not believe theu.s. is serious about self-determination anddemocracy in their region, many say politicalfreedom/liberty and freedom of speech iswhat they admire most about the West.large percentages also associate a “fair judi-cial system” and “citizens enjoying manyliberties” with Western societies. At thesame time, muslims critique their own soci-eties, indicating that the political freedom iswhat they least admire about theislamic/Arab world.

MUSLIM DEMOCRATS OR ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY

however, despite the importance thatmost muslims hold for political and civil lib-erties and freedom of speech, those surveyeddo not favor wholesale adoption of Westernmodels of democracy and secularism.21

so what, then, is the alternative? poll dataindicate that a majority of the world’ smuslims would like to see a religious form ofdemocracy in their countries, at least in thesense that they want shari’ a to be “a” sourceof legislation though not the only the source.22

like those who believe America is achristian nation and want the bible as asource of law, muslims who want to seeshari’ a as a source of law in constitutionscan have very different understandings.some, a minority, expect full implementa-tion of classical or medieval islamic law; themajority want a more restricted approach,like requiring the head of state to be amuslim, or creating shari’ a courts to hearcases involving muslim family law (mar-riage, divorce and inheritance), or prohibit-ing alcohol. still others simply want toensure that no law is against the principlesand values of islam, as found in the Qur’ an.

surprisingly, with the exception ofpakistan, there is little difference betweenmales and females in their support forshari’ a as the only source of legislation. forexample, in Jordan 54% of men and 55% ofwomen want shari’ a as the only source oflegislation. in egypt it’ s 70% of men and62% of women; in iran 19% of men and14% of women; and in indonesia 19% ofmen and 21% of women. in iraq, 81% ofmen and women said religious leadersshould have a role in drafting iraqi familylaw. in pakistan, 60% of men and 65% ofwomen favor giving religious leaders a directrole in drafting family law, despite the factthat the introduction and especially theapplication of so-called shari’ a laws inpakistan have often eroded women’ s rightsin family law, adultery and rape cases.

the considerable amount of supportamongst muslims for shari’ a does nottranslate into a demand for theocratic gov-ernment. on the contrary, significantmajorities in many countries say religiousleaders should play no direct role in drafting

a country’ s constitution, writing nationallegislation, drafting new laws, determiningforeign policy and international relations, ordeciding how women dress in public or whatis televised or published in newspapers.23

RETHINKING ISLAMIC LAW Any mention of shari’ a usually sets off

alarm bells. A common misconception overwhat shari’ a is and means accounts for boththe fears of many non-muslims as well asthe intransigence of many conservatives andreligious militants’. At the heart of the prob-lem is the tendency of many muslims andnon-muslims alike to confuse and thus usethe terms “shari’ a” and “islamic law” inter-changeably.

the Qur’ an is not a law book. thus, earlyjurists created islamic law, based on sacredtexts and human reasoning. however, overtime, these man-made laws came to beviewed as sacred and unchangeable. the dis-tinction between shari’ a, divine law, andislamic law, a human construction, can beclarified by thinking of the shari’ a as acompass (God’ s revelation, timeless princi-ples and values that cannot change) andislamic law (fiqh) as a map. this map mustconform to the compass but it reflects differ-ent times, places, and geography. the com-pass is fixed; the maps are subject to change.

Global muslim opinion also reflectschanging opinions and attitudes, requiringthe continuation of a process of evaluationand reinterpretation within the islamic tra-dition that began at the time of the prophetand that still thrives today. muslim reform-ers, neo-traditionalist and post modern alike,though often differing in specifics, agreethat for islamic law to remain relevant itmust contain an element that changes andadapts to current needs and circumstances.therefore, the challenge facing reformers isto “differentiate the time-specific and thetimeless” in the tradition, to preserve theintegrity of the revealed sources but, at thesame time, allowing them to speak to theconcerns of people’ s daily lives.24

CONCLUSIONboth muslim opinion globally and there

thinking of islam among many islamicintellectual-activists reflect the current



rethinking of the relationship of islam tosecularism.

influential islamic intellectual-activistsand religious leaders, neo-traditionalists andpost modernist, across the muslim worldengage in a process of rethinking islam’ srelationship to secularism and modernmuslim states as well as issues of muslimcitizenship in the non-muslim secular coun-tries of europe and America.

citizens in countries in which muslimsare a majority report that, if they had theirway, they would opt for greater political par-ticipation, freedoms, rule of law but not for atotally secular state. Although muslim per-ceptions of what the shari’ a represents andthe degree to which it is possible to imple-ment its rulings in society vary enormously,most believers desire a system of govern-ment in which religious principles and dem-ocratic values coexist. in other words, mostmuslims do not view religious authority andpolitical authority as mutually exclusive andsee a role for religious principles in the for-mulation of state legislation.

muslim reformers in the 21st century,whether secular or islamically oriented, con-tend with two realities or hurdles for reform:(1) broad-based muslim public opinion thatfavors both greater democratisation andshari’ a as “a” source of law and (2) the needto address the continued centrality and author-ity of the classical tradition of islamic law.

While secular reformers ignore or wish todismiss the relationship of religion to thestate in arguing that today a muslim countrycan also be secular, many others whileadmiring and desiring many of the princi-ples and institutions associated withWestern secular democracies do not want aWestern secular nor an islamic/theocraticstate. instead they opt for a state that reflectsthe importance and force of islamic princi-ples and values as they proceed to engage inwide ranging reformist thinking.25 in effect,they affirm the importance of the framingnarrative and its repertoire that will engagethe context of its intended audience is criti-cal to the success and effectiveness ofreformers and social movements whoengage in the process of rethinking islam.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asad, Talal. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam,Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.

Al-Bishri, Tariq. Al-Hiwar al-islami al-‘ilmani. Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1996.

Donahue, John J. and John L. Esposito (eds.). Islam inTransition: Muslim Perspectives. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1982.

Elmessiri, Abdelwahab. “Secularism, Immanence andDeconstruction.” Islam and Secularism in the Middle East.Azzam Tamimi and John L. Esposito (eds.) New York: NewYork University Press, 2000. pp. 52-81.

Esposito, John L. “Introduction: Islam and Secularism inthe Twenty-First Century.” Islam and Secularism in theMiddle East. Azzam Tamimi and John L. Esposito (eds.)New York: New York University Press, 2000. pp. 1-13.

Esposito, John L. and Dalia Mogahed. Who Speaks forIslam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think. New York:Gallup Press, 2007.

Al-Ghannouchi, Rachid. “Secularism in the ArabMaghreb.” Islam and Secularism in the Middle East.Azzam Tamimi and John L. Esposito (eds.) New York: NewYork University Press, 2000. pp. 97-124.

Hallaq, Wael B. The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Hashemi, Nader A. “Inching Towards Democracy: Religionand Politics in the Muslim World.” Third World Quarterly.Vol. 24, No. 3 (2003). pp. 563-578.

An-Na‘im, Abdullahi Ahmed. Islam and the Secular State:Negotiating the Future of Shari’a. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Al-Qaradawi, Yusuf. Al-Islam wa-al-‘almaniya wajhan li-wajh. Cairo: Dar al-Sahwa li-l-Nashr, 1987.

Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of DemocraticPluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

John L. Esposito is Professor of Religion and InternationalAffairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University. Heis the Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-ChristianUnderstanding: History and International Affairs in theWalsh School of Foreign Service. Professor Espositospecializes in Islam, political Islam, and the impact ofIslamic movements from North Africa to Southeast Asia.He has served as President of the Middle East StudiesAssociation of North America and the American Councilfor the Study of Islamic Societies, Vice Chair of the Centerfor the Study of Islam and Democracy.

Prof. Esposito is Editor-in-Chief of the 4-volume OxfordEncyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The OxfordHistory of Islam, a Book-of-the-Month Club and HistoryBook Club selection, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam andThe Islamic World: Past and Present. His more than 30books include: Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (aWashington Post and Boston Globe best seller), The IslamicThreat: Myth or Reality?; Islam and Politics; Islam andDemocracy and Makers of Contemporary Islam (with JohnVoll); Modernizing Islam (with Francois Burgat) PoliticalIslam: Revolution, Radicalism or Reform?, Religion andGlobal Order (with M. Watson), Islam and Secularism in theMiddle East (with Azzam Tamimi); Iran at the Crossroads(with R.K. Ramazani); and Voices of Resurgent Islam.



ENDNOTES

1. John L. Esposito. “Islam and Secularism in the Twenty-First Century” in Islam and Secularism in the Middle East,eds. Azzam Tamimi and John L. Esposito (New York: NewYork University Press, 2000), p. 9.

2. “Secularism, Immanence and Deconstruction” in Islamand Secularism in the Middle East, p. 52.

3. Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam,Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), p. 6-7.

4. Ibid., p. 53.

5. Islam and the Secular State, p. 45.

6. Ibid., p. 53.

7. Ibid., p. 4.

8. An-Na‘im, p. 35.

9. Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of DemocraticPluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 17.

10. Ibid., p. 24.

11. Sachedina, p. 68.

12. John J. Donahue and John L. Esposito, Islam inTransition, p. 4.

13. Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, p. 43-44.

14. Ibid., p. 135.

15. Ibid., p. 139.

16. Barton, Greg, 1995.

17. Kull, p. 2.

18. John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (New York:Gallup Press, 2007), p. xi.

19. Ibid., p. 34.

20. Ibid., p. 47.

21. Ibid., p. 47-8.

22. Ibid., p. 48.

23. Esposito and Mogahed, p. 50.

24. Ibid., p. 53.

25. Barton, Greg, 1995.



THE CORDOBA FOUNDATION Cultures in Dialogue

FOUNDED IN 2005, The Cordoba Foundation (TCF) isan independent Public Relations, Research andTraining unit, which promotes dialogue and the cul-

ture of peaceful and positive coexistence among civilisa-tions, ideas and people. We do this by working with deci-sion-making circles, researchers, religious leaders, themedia, and a host of other stakeholders of society for bet-ter understanding and clearer comprehension of inter-com-munal and inter-religious issues in Britain and beyond.

Our activities include:

• Structured consultation and advisory services

• Face-to-face interaction with decision-makers and

figures of authority

• In-house research

• Workshops, seminars and debates on pertinent issues

• Training and capacity-building

• Periodicals and journals

• Resourceful website

www.thecordobafoundation.com

the election of the first AfricAn

American, barack hussein obama, tothe presidency of the united states hasbrought a renewed sense of hope to all whoseek to live in a world where the rights of allare equally respected. how much of thathope will be realised in the next four yearsremains an open question. it is reasonablethough to think that someone who lived as achild in a muslim society will be capable ofintroducing a more nuanced understandingand approach to the muslim world than wehave witnessed in recent years.

the urgent need for the West to rethink itsrelationship with the muslim world wasunderlined for me when i met recently witha group of senior American military officers,all of whom had been on several tours ofduty in iraq. i was asked to help them toreflect on some of the current issues that weare facing today on the global level. itshocked me to discover the extent to whichall of them subscribed to the clash of civiliza-tions theory. they really did believe thatthere was an irreconcilable gap betweenislam and the West. in the course of our dis-cussion it became clear to me their attitudeswere deeply entrenched. their belief allmuslim women are oppressed had beenshaped more by the impressions they got oflife as they drove around the villages andtowns in iraq than by any level of direct andmeaningful engagement with the people.

the sad reality is that these American offi-cers are not alone in what i would describeas a drive by analysis of islam. it is a phe-nomenon that i have frequently encounteredin my work as director of forward thinkingat every level of political, social and medialife both in britain and elsewhere in europe.people’ s perception of islam in the West isshaped more by distant impressions andignorance than by an informed understand-

ing that comes from dialogue and reading.there is far too little direct engagement onthe human and the intellectual level. in suchcircumstances there is a risk that samualhuntington’ s seriously flawed theory of theclash of civilizations becomes a reality.huntington provides those who lack theintellectual curiosity to inform themselves aconvenient paradigm on which to hangimpressions that soon become unshakablefacts in their own minds.

it was in the summer of 1993 huntingtonpublished an article in foreign Affairs claim-ing that in the post cold War era, culturaland religious differences would replace ide-ology as the more probable cause of conflict.When others were celebrating the demise ofcommunism and what they believed to bethe inevitable emergence of liberal democra-cy as the universal political system of thefuture, huntington was predicting that theold divisions of the first, second and thirdWorlds that had been drawn up along ideo-logical lines were giving way to new civilisa-tion differences. he warned these couldprove to be even more menacing. he identi-fied these new differences as chinese[sinic], Japanese, indian, islamic, Western,orthodox, latin American and, possiblyAfrican. he later developed this theory in hisbook, the clash of civilizations and

If Religion Matters,Dialogue Matters

Oliver McTernan


The fact that globalisationcreated greater opportunityfor interaction among thesediverse civilisations meansthat people have becomemore conscious of theirdifferences…


IF RELIGION MATTERS, DIALOGUE MATTERS

remaking of World order in which heargued the need for a new paradigm orframework to understand the shifting focusin international relationships.

the fact that globalisation created greateropportunity for interaction among thesediverse civilisations means that people havebecome more conscious of their differences,and as a consequence, huntington argues,they are more anxious about where they fitinto this new global design. his conclusionis that the possibility for conflict, and espe-cially along what he describes as the “faultlines” where different civilisations meet andhave to compete for resources and influence,is greatly enhanced. he sees religion as“possibly the most profound difference thatcan exist between people”. conflict betweenstates of different civilisations is “greatlyenhanced”, he claims, “by beliefs in differ-ent gods”.1

the most controversial part of thehuntington analysis is his focus on islam asthe historic enemy of the West. he refutesthe argument that the West does not have aproblem with islam itself but only with vio-lent islamist extremists. islam is the onlycivilisation, huntington claims, that hastwice put the survival of the West at risk. thecauses of this “ongoing pattern of conflict”go deeper than any transitory phenomenaand are rooted in the nature of the two reli-gions and the civilisations based on them. itis a product of the difference and the similar-ities between these two world faiths, heargues. on the one hand christianity sepa-rates the realms of God and caesar, whereas

islam recognises no separation between reli-gion and politics. both religions however aremonotheistic, see the world in dualistic, “us-and-them” terms, and are missionary intheir efforts to convert nonbelievers to theirversion of “the one true faith”. “from its ori-gins islam expanded by conquest and whenthe opportunity existed, christianity didalso” huntington argues.2

A widely shared criticism ofhuntington’ s paradigm is that he portraysthe different civilisations and in particularchristianity and islam as being morehomogenised and integrated than they are inreality. huntington is right in claiming thatglobalisation has created more opportunityfor interaction and as a result people may bemore conscious of their differences. Whathe fails to grasp is not only the dissonanceand diversity that exists within the differentreligious traditions but also the fact that reli-gion is more dynamic than the political andacademic worlds have hitherto acknowl-edged. it is that dynamic feature of religionthat gives it the potential to embrace thechallenges of the present era and to becomea healing rather than a divisive force in aglobalised world.

Whatever the shortcomings of his analysisit should be recognised that in claiming thatreligion is a salient factor that can increasethe risk of conflict samual huntington waschallenging the Western secularist-reduc-tionist mindset that dominated the socialand political sciences for the best part of thetwentieth century and that dismissed reli-gion as serious player in the internationalarena.

the ‘ secularisation thesis’ that domi-nates contemporary Western political think-ing is based on the premises that the declinein religion is an irreversible process. theenlightenment, the secularists argue, chal-lenged the old religious certainties, makingscience the new paradigm of understandingthe world. religion lingers on as a comfort-ing myth for those who need support intimes of personal crisis but having been rel-egated from the mainstream to the backwa-ters it has ceased to have any impact on thesocial or political life in modern society.religion therefore is seen as an ‘ epiphe-nomenon’ - it represents something other

The ‘secularisation thesis’ …is based on the premises that the decline in religion is an irreversible process. The Enlightenment, the

secularists argue, challengedthe old religious certainties,

making science the newparadigm of under-standing the world.



than what it appears to be – and as such,they maintain, it has no real role in shapinga new international order.

it is a combination of this lingering beliefthat secularisation is the inevitable conse-quence of modernisation despite growingevidence that it may be in retreat3 and the‘ reductionist’ approach to problem solvingthat seeks to reduce what appears complex tosomething simpler that continues to excludereligion from having a real voice in the worldarena. political leaders and policy makersoften pay lip service to the role of religionbut in reality there is little evidence that reli-gious concerns or insights are taken serious-ly. When the combined secularist-reduction-ist theory is used to analyse conflicts in par-ticular, religion is measured to be nothingmore than a surrogate for political powerand ambition, an effective mobilising forcethat can help to gain the advantage overrevivals in the competition for land or lootbut not in itself a cause of conflict.

Whatever the psychological, social andpolitical factors that trigger violence infringe or mainstream religious bodies, thereligious mindset is itself an important fac-tor that needs to be acknowledged andunderstood if durable solutions are to befound for many current conflicts. religion ismore than just ‘ a tool for protest’ or ‘ a use-ful marketing ploy’ to mobilise recruits for amore worldly cause. in recent times we havewitnessed that from belfast to belgrade,Jerusalem to Jakarta, Kashmir to Khartoumreligion is an active and potent factor in con-flicts that have cost thousands of lives. thebattles over dogmas that marred relation-ships between states in europe for the wholecentury prior to the seventeen-century treatyof Westphalia have modern day resem-blances. people still feel sufficiently passion-ate about their beliefs to die and to kill forthem. religion is rarely the sole cause but itis central to the meaning of too many con-flicts to be ignored or to be regarded as irrel-evant in the analysis and search for solu-tions.

those who have grown to accept uncriti-cally the ‘ secularisation thesis’ that hasdominated political thinking for the bestpart of the past century may find it extreme-ly difficult to understand that theology and

belief can, and indeed do, shape people’ spolitical judgements. religion is not a pas-sive agent waiting to be ignited into a politi-cal flame by some unscrupulous political ortribal chauvinist, as peter berger would haveus believe when he writes, ‘ …upsurges ofreligion in the modern era, are in most casespolitical movements that use religion as aconvenient legitimation for political agendasbased on non-religious interests, as opposedto movements genuinely inspired by reli-gion’ .4

religious activists are also capable ofbeing opportunist and of using the politicalambitions of nationalist or tribal leaders togain advantage and privilege for their partic-ular beliefs and traditions.

the simple message we need to get acrosstoday is that religion matters and needs to berecognised as a genuine factor in the equa-tion if the analysis of any situation is toreflect reality. this can only be achieved ifthere is a major paradigm shift in the way inwhich the secular and religious worlds relateto one another. religious leaders need tochallenge the fears and prejudices that havedriven relationships between the diverse tra-ditions as well as the wider society, and tofocus within their respective faith communi-ties on those teachings within their owndiverse traditions that at least implicitlyacknowledge the right of others to believeand to act differently. to uphold and todefend the right of others to make truthclaims, different from their own, and to actupon them, provided that these are not detri-mental to the rights and well being of others,would be a significant step in addressing therisk of allowing the clash of civilisations the-ory becoming a reality through default.

the realisation that no single tradition iscapable of comprehending the truth alone -in all its fullness - can be both painful to anadherent and threatening, especially if he orshe has to communicate that awareness toothers. And yet this is precisely the nature ofthe challenge that religion is facing today.the ‘ exclusivists’ within each tradition whoinsist that ‘ there is only one way of under-

Religion is more thanjust ‘a tool for protest’


standing reality and interpreting the sacred’need to be enlightened, encouraged and sup-ported along the path to becoming ‘ plural-ists’ , those who are totally committed totheir tradition but who recognise that ‘ adiversity of communities and traditions isnot an obstacle to be overcome but an oppor-tunity for energetic engagement and dia-logue.’ 5 Accusations of the relativism orindifferentism should not be allowed todeter religious leaders at whatever level theyoperate at within their traditions to respondto a crisis that could threaten the very sur-vival of humanity.

pluralism is a threat to those whose faithhas never matured beyond the cultural orcultic levels. cultural religion thrives behindhigh fences as it depends on the words of thecreed, the actions of the cult, the letter of thecode, and the sense of belonging to commu-nity to shape the identity of its adherents.none of these aspects of religion should beseen as an end in themselves. the primepurpose of religious dogmas, worship, lawsand community is to enable people to dis-cover the transcendent nearness – thedivine presence – in the midst of thehuman experience. they are props, as itwere, that are meant to point the way orsharpen our awareness of God’ s presence inour lives. only when people reach the mysti-cal level of belief are they able to deal withthe plurality of life without feeling threat-ened.

in every age, and within each religious tra-dition, thankfully, there are outstandingexamples of individual believers who havemanaged by thought and example to crossthe cultural and religious boundaries, and byso doing have given witness to the essentialtranscendent nature of religion. to para-phrase the words of a nineteenth-centuryrussian orthodox hierarch, the differences

between faiths do not reach up to heaven.the example of the thirteenth-centurysultan of egypt, al-Kamil, is a good illustra-tion. his reputation as ‘ a just, civilised, manof peace’ was confirmed clearly when hechose to enter into a dialogue on faith mat-ters with francis of Assisi at a time whencrusading christians were besieging his ter-ritories. the sultan’ s religious advisors sawfrancis as a threat to their beliefs that shouldbe eliminated, al-Kamil recognised in thehumble unpretentious man who stood infront of him an essential goodness thatshould be engaged and protected. neitherman succeeded in converting the otherthrough their dialogue but they did developa profound lifelong respect for each otherand their respective beliefs. francis wasallowed to travel freely in the muslim world.such examples should provide the challengeand inspiration for believers today.

the political decision makers also need toreassess the marginalised role relegated toreligion in the past. there is a real andurgent need to pay genuine attention to thereligious values and concerns that shapepeople’ s political thinking and actions. Asecular society has a right to expect adher-ents of the diverse religious traditions touphold it norms and laws as well as to con-tribute to the overall common good of thatsociety. secular society provides the best pro-tection for the rights of religious believerswhatever their faith tradition in the sensethat each faith group should enjoy equalrights before the law. that said, it is equallyimportant that the political decision makersrespect the boundaries between secular andreligious life. no government should pre-sume the right to interfere in matters ofbelief or to promote one theological interpre-tation to the detriment of others. these areinternal matters of faith and should berespected as such. in britain recently wehave witnessed a deeply worrying trend withgovernment ministers openly promotingwhat they judge to be a ‘ moderate’ , andtherefore presumably a more politicallyacceptable, brand of islam. it is almost as ifwe are slipping back into a Westphalia modeof thinking that gives the ruler that right todetermine the faith and practices of his sub-jects. this lack of understanding and respect


Whether we regard our-selves as secular or religious,Muslim or Christian, we share

a common responsibility for the security and

well being of humanity.


for the need for boundaries on both sidescan only cause greater suspicion and tensionwithin a society. there is a clear need to pro-mote at every level of political decision mak-ing a dialogue aimed at promoting aware-ness and understanding that can help toreshape the secular mindset that tends todismiss religion as a backward and repres-sive phenomenon.

Whether we regard ourselves as secular orreligious, muslim or christian, we share acommon responsibility for the security andwell being of humanity. none of us canafford to ignore the challenge of allowingevents on the ground to create the level ofpolarisation that could so easily allow theflawed theory of a clash of civilisationsbecoming a reality. At the global and nation-al level we need to create space for a real andgenuine dialogue. the West in particularneeds to learn to listen again to the muslimworld.

A few months after ‘ nine eleven’ i wasinvited to a meeting in new york aimed atpromoting greater dialogue and under-standing between the muslim and non-muslim worlds.

the first session was supposed to allowthe muslim scholars and activists to sharetheir insights to what was happening withintheir own faith community. it was not longhowever before the Western participantsbegan to intervene and so i soon foundmyself listening to Western interpretationsof what was happening in the muslim world.it struck me at the time that what was hap-pening within that conference room was asymptom of what was happening at thenational and global level. the Western ten-dency to interpret rather than to hear whatmuslims have to say still prevails. there maybe many reasons for this but i suspect it ispartly driven by an unconscious prejudicethat islam has little or nothing to offer theWest.

We seem to have forgotten how muchislam has contributed over the centuries tothe development of Western thought andculture.

i began this article by describing the lackof nuance understanding of islam that i dis-covered among a group of senior Americanmilitary. let me conclude with a story that

exposes my own ignorance with regard to afellow christian group. recently i took partin a meeting in lisbon that brought togetherunder the umbrella of the Alliance ofcivilisations a group of muslim activists,european secularists and American south-ern evangelicals. the aim was to share oneanother’ s different perspectives and toexamine ways in which we could worktogether to make the world a safer place forpeople of all beliefs and none. in the courseof the discussion i soon began to realise myown blindness to nuance with regard toAmerican evangelicals. hitherto i had tend-ed to group them all together as zealousproselytisers who had a very limited worldview. i was challenged as i listened to aprominent texan pastor explain how heguides his followers to understand why theyare building hospitals and schools in someof the poorest parts of the world. their aimhe said is not to evangelise or proselytise butto practice the compassion the Gospel teach-es. i was moved even further when i heardhow his own entrenched attitudes towardsmuslims had changed as he moved throughthe simple process of getting involved withthem on the practical level, coming to knowthem as individuals and lastly coming tounderstand their beliefs. it struck me thathis from hand, to heart to mind formula, ashe described it, is an excellent model foraddressing and overcoming divides that canthreaten our human security at any level.

ENDNOTES

1. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of WorldOrder, Samuel P.Huntington, Simon & SchusterTouchtone 1997 edition Page 254

2. Cf. Page 211

3. Alan Aldridge, Religion in the Contemporary World,A Sociological Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge,2000, pages 89-122.

4. Peter L. Berger, Secularism in Retreat, NationalInterest, Winter 1996-7 pages 3-12.

5. Diana Eck, Encountering God: A Spiritual Journeyfrom Bozeman to Banaras, Boston, Beacon Press 1993,page 13.

Oliver McTernan, co-founder and director of ForwardThinking, has an established background in conflictresolution and interfaith relationships. He is a VisitingFellow of the Weatherhead Center for InternationalAffairs at Harvard University. His book Violence in God’sName explores the role of religion in an age of conflict.



Equality before the Law

in 1903 tWo younG immiGrAnts Arrived

in england. they were sephardic Jewsand had eloped to this country fromAlexandria because they understood thatengland was a country in which they wouldenjoy freedom. not merely freedom fromtheir families, who did not approve of theirmarriage, but freedom under the law fromall forms of discrimination. they believedthat england was a country where all weretreated equally, regardless of their colour,race, religion or gender. they were mymaternal grandparents, and to a large extentthey were correct. england was a countrythat prided itself on the freedom accorded tothose who lived here.

but, as we shall see, this very freedompermitted some who lived here to discrimi-nate in the way that they treated others. it isonly in my own lifetime that the law hasmoved to outlaw almost every form of dis-crimination, so that those who live in thiscountry really are entitled to be treated asequals.

i propose to explain to you the ways inwhich the law has changed, with the resultthat muslim men and muslim women areentitled to be treated in exactly the same wayas all other men and women in this country.And there is, of course, another side to thiscoin. rights carry with them obligations,and those who come to live in this countryand to benefit from the rights enjoyed by allwho live here, also necessarily come underthe same obligations that the law imposeson all who live here. the title of my talk is‘ equality before the law’ , and it may behelpful to consider at the outset what ‘ thelaw’ is. the law that i am to talk about is theset of rules that govern how we live in socie-ty. they are rules made by those with author-ity to make them and rules that are enforcedby those with authority to enforce them.

in some countries those who make thelaw are the same as those who enforce it. inthis country that is not the case. We havewhat is known as the separation of powers.parliament makes our laws. the govern-ment administers the country in accordancewith those laws and, if anyone alleges thatan individual or a government authority hasbroken the law, it is the judges who have todetermine whether the law has been brokenor not and, if it has, to rule on what sanctionor remedy is to be imposed.

the judges of this country are independ-ently appointed. We are fiercely proud ofour independence. When we are appointedwe take an oath or affirmation that we willadminister justice ‘ to do right to all mannerof people after the laws and usages of thisrealm’ . We act in accordance with that oath.We treat equally all who come before us,regardless of whether they are men orwomen, regardless of their race or religionand whether they are rich or poor.

We are not influenced by the wishes of thegovernment, and no Government ministerwould dare to attempt to influence a judge todecide a case in a particular way. each indi-vidual judge is independent, which meansthat i as lord chief Justice would not thinkof directing another judge how to decide acase. so i can give you this assurance. Anyman or woman who appears before a judgein this country will receive equal treatmentin the administration of the law. the judgewill treat each litigant in the same way. butthe judge’ s duty is to apply the law, whetherhe agrees with the law or not. so the impor-tant question is not ‘ does the judge treateveryone equally?’ but ‘ does the law treateveryone equally?’ in any society the answerto that question depends upon the motives,the beliefs, the attitudes, the prejudices orlack of prejudices of those who make the law.

Lecture by Lord Phillips, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales


EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW

At this point, you will forgive me i hope,as i must say a little about history, for ourlaw today is, to some extent, a product ofthis country’ s history. before this countrybecame a democracy, those responsible forthe laws were not very enthusiastic aboutequality. there is a popular perception thatthe freedoms that we all enjoy had their rootin the magna carta. that is a misconcep-tion. before the magna carta england had afeudal system, in which the King wassupreme. below the King came the noble-men and below the noblemen the serfs. thelaw imposed by the King was imposed forhis own benefit and made very substantialdemands on his noblemen, who themselvesmade exacting demands on their serfs. theKing’ s rights included, by way of example,the right to dictate to whom the widow of anobleman should be re-married. ultimatelythe nobles revolted against the demandsmade on them and the magna carta set outan agreement made by King John in 1215that he would moderate those demands.thus chapter 8 of the charter provided ‘ nowidow shall be forced to marry so long asshe wishes to live without a husband’ . it isnot for provisions such as these that themagna carta is remembered, but for the fol-lowing pledges:

“no freeman shall be arrested or impris-oned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or inany way victimised, neither will we attackhim or send anyone to attack him, except bythe lawful judgment of his peers or by thelaw of the land. to no-one will we refuse ordelay right or justice”.

this came to be regarded as setting outthe fundamental rights of british citizens.King John subsequently renounced theagreement that he had made in magnacarta, but later Kings agreed to abide by anamended version and so this became animportant part of the law. magna carta dealtwith relations between the subject and thestate, in the form of the monarch. otherlaws dealt with disputes between the King’ ssubjects. how were these laws created?initially they were created by judges,appointed by the King to act on his behalf inresolving those disputes. the law created bythe judges came to be called the ‘ commonlaw’ . the common law covered aspects of

life common to most societies – the rightto own property, rules in relation to inheri-tance, the right to compensation if one per-son injured another and so on. these areaspects of what we call civil law; the law gov-erning the reciprocal rights and duties ofcitizens towards each other. but the judgescreated another kind of common law – thelaw that we call criminal law. this law existsnot for the benefit of the individual citizen,but for the benefit of society as a whole, andit lays down acts that are prohibited becausethey are antisocial.

those who break those laws commitcrimes against the state and are liable to bepunished by the state. in the old days weused to talk about crimes as being a ‘ breachof the king’ s peace’ . examples of acts thathave always been recognised as crimes aremurder, rape, assault and theft.

the common law still exists and, indeed,it is the foundation of the law that is appliedtoday. but it has been largely replaced bystatute law, that is law enacted byparliament, and that is the usual way thatlaws are made in a democracy. thesupremacy of parliament dates back to 1689when King William iii signed the bill ofrights this provided for free elections andfreedom of speech in parliament andremoved the power of the King to suspendthe laws which parliament had passed.under the parliamentary system the peopleelect representatives who then make thelaws that govern the people.

i said earlier that laws tend to reflect themotives, beliefs, attitudes and prejudices ofthose who make the law. parliament tendsto enact legislation that reflects the attitudesand wishes of the majority of the electorate.if everyone has the right to vote that is a factthat tends towards laws which apply equallyto everyone. but for a very long time notevery citizen of this country had the right tovote. men tended to dominate society and toconsider that they were more important andsuperior to women. When parliamentarydemocracy was introduced to this country, itwas a very biased democracy, because onlymen were allowed to vote and only menwere allowed to become members ofparliament. so it is perhaps not surprisingthat the laws passed by parliament tended



to discriminate in favour of men. slowly there was a change in attitude, a

change that was partly brought about byprotests of the women themselves. in 1918parliament voted for a limited right to votefor women and permitted those eligible tovote to become members of parliament. in1928 women gained the right to vote to thesame extent as men. thereafter, so far asrelations between the citizen and the statewere concerned, women came to be treatedequally with men.

there were other respects in which prej-udices on the part of those who made thelaws resulted in inequality of treatment ofcitizens of this country. this was certainlytrue of religion. historically christianity hasbeen the religion of the majority of thebritish people, but the united Kingdom hasa long tradition of accommodating otherreligions. this has not always been the casehowever. Jews came to this country withWilliam the conqueror in 1066. but in1290 all Jews were expelled from britain bythe edict of expulsion proclaimed by Kingedward i. they were allowed back in 1656by oliver cromwell and have since thenbeen a valued element of our society.paradoxically at that time we had a muchless charitable attitude to some members ofthe christian faith. the history of thechristian religion has been marred byschism and, in particular by strife betweenthe protestant and the roman catholicbranches of the faith.

King henry viii broke with the catholicchurch in 1534 and after that, with one ortwo very short exceptions, protestantchristianity has been the official religion ofthis country. in 1700 an Act of parliamentprovided that the sovereign had to be amember of the church of england and thatremains the position to this day.

laws were passed that discriminatedseverely against catholics, so that they wereprevented from owning property, inheritingland, joining the army, holding public officeor voting. it was only at the end of the 18thcentury and the beginning of the 19thcentury that a series of Acts of parliamentere passed removing all these disqualifica-tions.

i have so far been concentrating on the

negative side of our history; areas where ourlaws have positively discriminated ongrounds of race, religion or gender. in gen-eral, however, the approach of our law hasbeen that of liberty. As sir John donaldson,one of my distinguished judicial predeces-sors, put it in this way:

“the starting point of our domestic law isthat every citizen has a right to do whathe/she likes, unless restrained by the com-mon law or by statute”.1

that statement today is true not merely ofbritish citizens but of anyone who is lawful-ly within this country. personal liberty is aright to which the courts of this countryhave long attached the highest importance.Anyone who is deprived of his liberty,whether by the state or by anybody else, canbring proceedings in the courts to challengethe legality of his detention. one way thathe can do so is by the writ of habeas corpus,a remedy that has existed since the 17thcentury. A famous example of this remedywas somerset’ s case in 1772. A mr stewarthad purchased an African slave calledsomerset in Jamaica and had brought himon a visit to england, not bringing himashore but keeping him detained in the shipwhich was to take them both back toJamaica. A gentleman called Granvillesharpe, who was vehemently opposed toslavery brought habeas corpus proceedingsbefore the english court claiming thatsomerset was being unlawfully detained.his claim succeeded and lord mansfieldordered that somerset should be released.this set a precedent and led the lordchancellor to say in a subsequent similarcase “As soon as a man sets foot on englishground he is free”.2

but freedom of individuals from stateinterference can itself lead to unequal treat-ment in the way that those individualsbehave towards each other. life in a modernsociety involves the interdependence ofthose who live and work together. there isscope for discrimination in many areas ifthe law does not place restraints on the waypeople may behave. i have already describedhow women were not given the vote until1918. but this was not the only way that amale dominated society tended to discrimi-nate against them. the first university col-



lege for women was not opened until 1869.by 1910 there were over a thousand womenstudents at oxford and cambridge, but theystill had to obtain permission to attend lec-tures and were not allowed to take a degree.it was not until 1918 that the first womanbecame entitled to qualify as a barrister, andthe first woman solicitor was not admitteduntil 1922. until more recently employerswere permitted to refuse to employ women,or to offer women employment on less gen-erous terms than male employees.

it is only in my lifetime that parliamenthas legislated to stamp out discriminationin all areas and aspects of society. the cata-lyst for change was perhaps the horrifyingracism of the nazi regime in Germanybefore and during the second World War.this led in 1948 to the universaldeclaration of human rights, whichincluded the following statement:

“recognition of the inherent dignity andthe equal and inalienable rights of all mem-bers of the human family is the foundationof freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

more significantly, the united Kingdomhelped to draft and, in 1951, signed theeuropean convention on human rights.this required all the signatories to ensurethat there was no unlawful interferencewith the fundamental human rights set outin the treaty. furthermore Article 14 of theconvention provided:

“the enjoyment of the rights and free-doms set forth in the convention shall besecured without discrimination on anyground such as sex, race, colour, language,religion, political or other opinion, nationalor social origin, association with a nationalminority, property, birth or other status”.

the requirement to ensure equal treat-ment applies in respect of the fundamentalhuman rights protected by the convention.in 1998 the human rights Act was passedwhich requires all public authorities to com-ply with the convention, so that individualsnow have a legal right to compensation ifthey are subject to discrimination by agentsof the government in relation to their funda-mental human rights.

in 1976 the united Kingdom ratified aconvention that imposes a general obliga-tion to prohibit civil and political discrimi-

nation. Article 26 of the internationalcovenant rights provides:

“All persons are equal before the law andare entitled without any discrimination tothe equal protection of the law. in thisrespect, the law shall prohibit any discrimi-nation and guarantee to all persons equaland effective protection against discrimina-tion on any ground such as race, colour, sex,language, religion, political or other opin-ion, national or social origin, property, birthor other status”.

i propose to outline some of the laws thatparliament has passed to ensure that peoplein this country receive equality of treatment.i say some of them, because in 2000 it wascalculated that there were no less than 30Acts of parliament, not to mention statutoryregulations and codes of practice, dealingwith discrimination.

the prohibition against racial discrimi-nation is a good place to start. there hasbeen legislation prohibiting discriminationon the grounds of race for over 40 years, butthe most important statute is the racerelations Act 1976. this prohibits anyonefrom treating a person less favourably onthe grounds of race; that means on thegrounds of ‘ colour, race, nationality or eth-nic or national origins’ . no longer could alandlady hang a sign in her window saying‘ bed and breakfast. no blacks or irish’ .

perhaps the most significant area wherethe prohibition against discrimination mat-ters is in relation to employment. peoplecannot be refused employment on theground of their race. there has been quite alot of litigation, however, as to what consti-tutes a racial group for the purposes of theAct. Jews, sikhs and gipsies have all beenheld to be protected by the legislation. in1976 the house of lords ruled that it hadbeen unlawful for a school to exclude a sikhboy on the ground that he refused to cut hishair.[] the house of lords held that sikhswere historically descended from a recog-nised group and thus qualified as a racialgroup.

that case can be contrasted with a deci-sion of the court of Appeal ten years later.A rastafarian had been refused a job as avan driver because he refused to cut hishair.3 the court held that rastafarians did

not constitute a racial group.4 muslimshave been held not to fall within the defini-tion of a racial group. in a decision in 1998the employment Appeal tribunal observedthat “muslims include people of manynations and colours who speak many lan-guages and whose common denominator isreligion and religious culture” .5 thus theyform a group defined by religion ratherthan race. i shall refer to legislation thatprohibits discrimination on the ground ofreligion in a moment. first, however, iwould like to deal with discrimination onthe ground of gender.

the sex discrimination Act 1975 forbidsdiscrimination against women and providesthat a person discriminates against awoman if he treats her less favourably thanhe treats or would treat a man. once againthe most important area where this appliesis probably the field of employment, but theprohibition is of general application. iremember a famous case when i was prac-tising at the bar where a woman broughtproceedings against a well known wine barfrequented by barristers and journalists infleet street called el vino. they had a strictrule that only men were allowed to drinkstanding at the bar – women would only beserved if they were sitting at a table. thisrule was supposed to be out of considera-tion for women, but the court held that itconstituted wrongful discrimination. thismay not seem to be a case where the rightinvolved was of great importance, and it is afact that many of the cases brought to courthave not involved the most serious forms ofdiscrimination, being concerned with dress,or length of hair. i now want to consider theprotection that the law provides against dis-crimination that can be of great signifi-cance; discrimination on the ground of aperson’ s religion.

ARTICLE 9 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTSCONVENTION PROVIDES:

“everyone has the right to freedom ofthought, conscience and religion; this rightincludes freedom to change his religion orbelief and freedom, either alone or in com-munity with others and in public or privatelife, to manifest his religion or belief, inworship, teaching, practice or observation.”

this human right is one that, as i havealready said, this country has long recog-nised. in this country everyone is free to fol-low their own religion. the differentchristian denominations can build theirown churches, Jews can build synagogues,hindus can build temples and muslims canbuild mosques, of which the mosque here isa magnificent example, and each of these isfree to practise his own faith in his own way.

there is another fundamental humanright that is relevant in this context, and thatis freedom of speech. Article 10 of thehuman rights convention provides:

‘ everyone has the right to freedom ofexpression. this right shall include freedomto hold opinions and to receive and impartinformation and ideas without interference.

freedom of speech has long been prizedand protected in this country. Any person isfree to preach the merits of his own reli-gion, and freedom of religion includes theright to change one’ s faith, or apostasy.

these religious freedoms of which i havebeen speaking relate to the relationsbetween those practising a religion and thestate. many states are less ready than theunited Kingdom to permit the practice andpreaching of religions other than that offi-cially recognised by the state. but, just as inother fields, it is possible for one citizen todiscriminate against another on thegrounds of a person’ s religion or belief.until recently there was no law in this coun-try that prohibited such discrimination.european law was ahead of english law,and it was in order to give effect to aeuropean directive that, in 2003,regulations were introduced that prohibit-ed discrimination in the field of employ-ment on the ground of a person’ s religionor belief.6 in 2006 the equality Act extend-ed the prohibition against discriminationon the ground of religion or belief to coverother areas such as the provision of goods,facilities and services, the letting of premis-es and the provision of education.

let me try to summarise the position.british law has, comparatively recently,reached a stage of development in which ahigh premium is placed not merely on liber-ty, but on equality of all who live in thiscountry. that law is secular. it does not



attempt to enforce the standards of behav-iour that the christian religion or any otherreligion expects. it is perhaps founded onone ethical principle that the christian reli-gion shares with most, if not all, other reli-gions and that is that one should love one’ sneighbour. And so the law sets out to pre-vent behaviour that harms others. behaviourthat is contrary to religious principles, butwhich is detrimental only to those who com-mit it, is not, in general, contrary to our law.A sin is not necessarily a crime.

those who come to live in this countrymust take its laws as they find them. britishdiversity is valued and the principles of free-dom and equality that the law protectsshould be welcomed by all. laws in thiscountry are based on the common values oftolerance, openness, equality and respectfor the rule of law. Whilst breaches of therequirements of any religion in the u.K.may not be punished by the law, people arefree to practise their religion. that is some-thing to be valued.

i said that the law sets out to preventbehaviour that harms others. in a modernsociety there are many ways in which thebehaviour of some can harm others, andthere have been passed thousands of lawsand regulations that are designed to try toprevent such behaviour. these laws and reg-ulations can run into conflict with the free-doms that i have been discussing. the lawcan sometimes, quite unintentionally, havean adverse impact on a particular minority.Where this happens we will sometimes beable to make exceptions in order to preventthis. let me give you two examples.regulations require special headgear to beworn in a number of different situations.Advocates are expected to wear wigs, police-men to wear helmets, servicemen to wearcaps, construction workers to wear safetyhelmets. these regulations would have a dis-criminatory effect on sikhs, who could notcomply with them because they do not cuttheir hair but encase it in the turban, and sosikhs have been given an exemption fromcomplying with these requirements.

principles of shari’ a prohibit the earningor paying of interest. this means that a con-ventional mortgage offends the principles ofislam. the banks managed to devise an

alternative system of financing house pur-chases that did not offend shari’ a princi-ples. this involved the bank itself buying thehouse and then reselling it to the muslimpurchaser. there was one problem with this.english taxation law charges stamp duty ona house purchase and under this system ofmortgage stamp duty had to be paid twice,once on the sale to the bank and again on theresale to the purchaser. this was not fair andso the law was changed in April 2003 so thatstamp duty only had to be paid once on anislamic mortgage. this example brings meonto the topic of shari’ a law. it is not a topicon which i can claim any special expertise,but i have been reading quite a lot about it inpreparation for this talk. i have also recentlybeen on a visit to oman and discussed withlawyers there the manner of the applicationof shari’ a law in that country.

it has become clear to me that there iswidespread misunderstanding in this coun-try as to the nature of shari’ a law. shari’ aconsists of a set of principles governing theway that one should live one’ s life in accor-dance with the will of God. these principlesare based on the Qu’ ran, as revealed to theprophet muhammad and interpreted byislamic scholars. the principles have muchin common with those of other religions.they do not include forced marriage or therepression of women. compliance withthem requires a high level of personal con-duct, including abstinence from alcohol. iunderstand that it is not the case that for amuslim to lead his or her life in accordancewith these principles will be in conflict withthe requirements of the law in this country.

What would be in conflict with the lawwould be to impose certain sanctions for fail-ure to comply with shari’ a principles. partof the misconception about shari’ a law isthe belief that shari’ a is only about mandat-ing sanctions such as flogging, stoning, thecutting off of hands, or death for those whofail to comply with the law. And the view ofmany of shari’ a law is coloured by violentextremists who invoke it, perversely, to justi-fy terrorist atrocities such as suicide bomb-ing, which i understand to be in conflictwith islamic principles. there can be noquestion of such sanctions being applied toor by any muslim who lives within this juris-



diction. nor, when i was in oman, did i findthat such penalties formed any part of thelaw applied there. it is true that they have thedeath penalty for that intentional murder,but they do not apply any of the other formsof corporal punishment i have just listed.

it remains the fact that in muslim coun-tries where the law is founded on shari’ aprinciples, the law includes sanctions for fail-ure to observe those principles and there arecourts to try those who are alleged to havebreached those laws. the definition of thelaw and the sanctions to be applied for breachof it differ from one muslim country toanother. in some countries the courts inter-pret shari’ a law as calling for severe physi-cal punishment. there can be no question ofsuch courts sitting in this country, or suchsanctions being applied here. so far as thelaw is concerned, those who live in this coun-try are governed by english law and subjectto the jurisdiction of the english courts.

in february this year i chaired a lecturegiven by the Archbishop of canterbury inthe royal courts of Justice on the topic ofcivil and religious law in england. it was aprofound lecture and one not readily under-stood on a single listening. it was, i believe,not clearly understood by all, and certainlynot by sections of the media which repre-sented the Archbishop as suggesting thepossibility that muslims in this countrymight be governed by their own system ofshari’ a law. that is certainly not what hewas suggesting. on the contrary he made itplain that there could not be some sub-sidiary shari’ a jurisdiction which, i quote,“could have the power to deny access torights granted to other citizens or to punishits members for claiming those rights”.speaking more specifically of apostasy hesaid “in a society where freedom of religionis secured by law, it is obviously impossiblefor any group to claim that conversion toanother faith is simply disallowed or to claimthe right to inflict punishment on a convert”.

A point that the Archbishop was making

was that it was possible for individuals volun-tarily to conduct their lives in accordancewith shari’ a principles without this being inconflict with the rights guaranteed by ourlaw. to quote him again “the refusal of a reli-gious believer to act upon the legal recogni-tion of a right is not, given the plural charac-ter of society, a denial to anyone inside or out-side the community of access to that right”.

the Archbishop went on to suggest that itmight be possible to contemplate, and againi quote, “a scheme in which individualsretain the liberty to choose the jurisdictionunder which they will seek to resolve certaincarefully specified matters”. he suggestedby way of example “aspects of marital law,the regulation of financial transactions andauthorised structures of mediation and con-flict resolution”.

it was not very radical to advocateembracing shari’ a law in the context offamily disputes, for example, and our sys-tem already goes a long way towards accom-modating the Archbishop’ s suggestion. itis possible in this country for those who areentering into a contractual agreement toagree that the agreement shall be governedby a law other than english law. those who,in this country, are in dispute as to theirrespective rights are free to subject that dis-pute to the mediation of a chosen person, orto agree that the dispute shall be resolved bya chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. there isno reason why principles of shari’ a law, orany other religious code should not be thebasis for mediation or other forms of alter-native dispute resolution. it must be recog-nised, however, that any sanctions for a fail-ure to comply with the agreed terms of themediation would be drawn from the laws ofengland and Wales. so far as aspects of mat-rimonial law are concerned, there is a limit-ed precedent for english law to recogniseaspects of religious laws, although when itcomes to divorce this can only be effected inaccordance with the civil law of this country.

those who provide financial services inthis country are subject to regulation inorder to protect their customers and thatregulation accommodates financial institu-tions or products that comply with shari’ aprinciples. there are three islamic banksauthorised by the financial services



It was not very radicalto advocate embracingShari’a Law…



Authority to carry on business in the unitedKingdom. A number of sukuk issues havebeen listed on the london stock exchange.in may this year europe’ s first islamicinsurance company or “takaful” providerwas authorised by the financial servicesAuthority. speaking earlier this year, Kittyussher, the economics secretary said

“We want to make sure that no-one hastheir choice of financial services limited bytheir religion, and to help ensure thatmuslims have the same access to financialservices as anyone else in britain.”

having heard what i have had to say thisevening, some of you may be thinking ‘ thisequality in law is all very well, but some ofthose in authority with whom we come intocontact do not treat us as equals and, anyway,how can we be expected to know our legalrights when we are not lawyers?’ As to thefirst point i am well aware that muslimssometimes feel that they are being unfairlysingled out simply because a small minority,who purport to share their religion, haveignored its teachings by turning to a violentextremism that is a threat to society. thereare i know here this evening some whose jobit is to enforce the law and to them i wouldsay this. it is not enough that all in this coun-try are entitled by law to equal treatment. it isup to you to make sure that you, and thosefor whom you are responsible, treat everyman and woman on equal footing, entitled tothe same personal dignity and respect.

As to the problem of knowing what yourrights are, that is a problem shared by mostcitizens who are not in a position to pay forlegal advice. happily here the londonmuslim centre has supported the provisionof a ‘ pro bono’ legal advice service, that is,the provision without charge by volunteersof legal advice and representation tomuslim and non-muslim alike. i stronglycommend that service and those who gener-ously provide it. there are now about 1.6million muslims living in this country. theyform a vital and valued element of britishsociety. they are well represented by a vari-ety of groups and individuals, including themuslim council of britain, whose aimsinclude the fostering of better communityrelations and working for the good of societyas a whole. that aim is undoubtedly pro-

moted by this impressive centre, whosebuildings appropriately embrace one of theeast end’ s oldest synagogues, fosteringJewish-muslim relations which have beendescribed as the best in the country. i knowthat this centre does much to encourageinter-faith relations and community cohe-sion – one of its stated aims. it has – as isaid at the beginning - been a privilege tohave been invited to talk to you here today.

if i may summarise the message that ihave sought to give, the courts of this coun-try offer the same justice to all who comebefore them, regardless of gender, race orcreed. the point is sometimes made thatthis is not easy to accept when the judiciaryis not representative of those whom they arejudging. Judges are now appointed by anindependent appointment commission andthey are appointed on merit. the equaltreatment Advisory committee, whosemembers represent all parts of the legal pro-fession, is working hard to assist judges inrecognising the role of social and culturaldifferences in the determination of casesbefore them. there has, however, been adearth of applicants from the ethnic minori-ties for appointment to the bench. both theAppointments commission and the judici-ary are concerned about this. i have nodoubt that there are, in the muslim commu-nity, many men and women alike whowould make outstanding lawyers and out-standing judges. it is important that theyshould recognise that they have a valuablepotential role to play as judges, administer-ing the law of this country to all who comebefore them, without fear or favour affec-tion or ill-will.

ENDNOTES

1. A-G v Observer td [1960] 1 AC 109.2. Shanley v Harvey 2 Eden 126 (1762)3. Mandla v Dowell [1983] AC 5484. Crown Suppliers v Dawkins [1993] ICR 5175. Nyazi v Rymans (10 May 1998 – unreported)6. The Employment and Equality (Religion or Belief)Regulations 2003

Keynote speech by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers asLord Chief Justice of England and Wales, delivered atthe London Muslim Centre – 3 July 2008.

if ever there WAs An importAnt speech,it was the one delivered by lord phillips of

Worth matravers as lord chief Justice ofengland & Wales at the london muslimcentre, on 3 July 2008. As head of theJudiciary across england and Wales, lordphillips’ visit could not have been more wel-come, timely or important. this was anevening and a speech that, i hope, will have apositive legacy.

there are five points of significance aboutthe speech and the evening as a whole.First, the venue. in the heart of the large

muslim population in the east end oflondon, it is estimated that over 10,000people visit the london muslim centre (andthe mosque within) each week. A numberof the leading, well respected, muslimorganisations have links or a presence at thecentre, including the muslim council ofbritain, the muslim safety forum andislamic forum of europe.

the second point of significance was theaudience. the london muslim centre wel-comed an immediate audience comprisingmuslims and non-muslims; members of thegeneral public; leaders from politics, educa-tion, religion and journalism; judges, lawyersand students; ambassadors, doctors, academ-ics, police officers and charity workers.

the wider audience was equally diverse, withcoverage through the bbc, sky, and a numberof other television channels, as well as throughthe national, regional and local press.

the identity of the speaker was the thirdpoint of significance, and obviously so. themessage given by the fact that the lecturewas being delivered by the lord chiefJustice of england & Wales was in someways just as important as the content. thefact of the lecture was, rightly, regarded asof national significance. never before had a

lord chief Justice of england & Wales visit-ed the london muslim centre, home to somany of the muslim faith.

the fourth point of significance was thetheme addressed by lord phillips. lordphillips’ message of “equality before thelaw” was one with resonance and currencyfor muslim and non-muslim alike. it wasdivided into two key components: equalityand understanding. the theme was support-ed by the valuable opening remarks made bydr muhammad Abdul bari, Generalsecretary of the muslim council of britain.

As to equality, across the country, at thisparticular time, one of the key issues forordinary members of the muslim communi-ty, and of the wider community as a whole, isto know that the law is there for them asequally as it is for everyone else. the lecturewas arranged in order to take the opportuni-ty to deal publicly with that issue. lordphillips drew on many resources to showthat the law is indeed there for everyone,equally, and that the judiciary, with thestrength derived from its independence, isdetermined to uphold that law.

lord phillips was categorical about the appr-oach of the judiciary in administering the law:

“… muslim men and muslim women areentitled to be treated in exactly the same wayas all other men and women in this country.And there is, of course, another side to thiscoin. rights carry with them obligations,and those who … benefit from the rightsenjoyed by all who live here, also necessari-ly come under the same obligations that thelaw imposes on all who live here.

the judges of this country are independ-ently appointed. We are fiercely proud of ourindependence. We treat equally all whocome before us, regardless of whether theyare men or women, regardless of their race

Commentary on Lord ChiefJustice’s Lecture on EqualityBefore the Law

Robin Knowles CBE, QC


or religion and whether they are rich or poor. turning to the law itself, lord phillips

pointed out that “… the judge’ s duty is toapply the law, whether he agrees with the lawor not.” so the important question is not‘ does the judge treat everyone equally?’ but‘ does the law treat everyone equally?’ As tothis, after a historical review, he summarisedthe position in these terms:

“british law has, comparatively recently,reached a stage of development in which a highpremium is placed not merely on liberty, but onequality of all who live in this country. that law issecular. it does not attempt to enforce the stan-dards of behaviour that the christian religion orany other religion expects.

finally, dealing with those whose task it isto enforce the law, lord phillips said:

“having heard what i have had to say thisevening, some of you may be thinking ‘ thisequality in law is all very well, but some ofthose in authority with whom we come intocontact do not treat us as equals and, anyway,how can we be expected to know our legalrights when we are not lawyers?’ As to thefirst point i am well aware that muslimssometimes feel that they are being unfairlysingled out simply because a small minority,who purport to share their religion, haveignored its teachings by turning to a violentextremism that is a threat to society. thereare i know here this evening some whose jobit is to enforce the law and to them i wouldsay this. it is not enough that all in this coun-try are entitled by law to equal treatment. itis up to you to make sure that you, and thosefor whom you are responsible, treat everyman and woman on equal footing, entitled tothe same personal dignity and respect.”

As to understanding, the importance ofunderstanding – of muslim culture, heritageand faith by non-muslims, and of non-muslimculture, heritage and faith by muslims – wasbrought out clearly by the lord chief Justice.he made it clear that understanding is one ofthe keys to equality.

lord phillips emphasised the important roleplayed by the muslim council of britain and thelondon muslim centre in this regard.

Among the areas where understanding isimportant is that of understanding what the lawis in england and Wales and what it is not.similarly with shari’ a law, the lord chief

Justice also took care in the course of his speechto bring out what the Archbishop of canterburyhad recently said about this and what he hadnot said. the combined contribution of theirspeeches in this respect is considerable.

of course the extensive national press andtelevision that followed focussed on what wassaid (or not said) by the lord chief Justiceabout shari’ a law. that part of lord phillips’speech was obviously important but thosewho were there, or who can take the time toread this copy of the speech, will see that itwas also about much, much more.

the fifth and final point of significanceabout the evening was its organisation. Withthe support of the london muslim centre,the lecture was arranged by “pro bono in thelmc”, a pro bono project that, in a small buttangible way, has already helped bringmuslim and non-muslim members of thecommunity into more frequent contact.

As the lord chief Justice said:“As to the problem of knowing what your

rights are, that is a problem shared by mostcitizens who are not in a position to pay forlegal advice. happily here the londonmuslim centre has supported the provisionof a ‘ pro bono’ legal advice service, that is,the provision without charge by volunteersof legal advice and representation to muslimand non-muslim alike. i strongly commendthat service and those who generously pro-vide it. (See pictures overleaf)

Robin Knowles CBE, QC practises at the CommercialBar as well as appearing in the Commercial Court, theChancery Division and the appellate courts. From 2005to 2007 Robin was Chairman of the Commercial BarAssociation (COMBAR), the professional association ofthe Commercial Bar of England & Wales. He sits part-time as a Deputy High Court Judge, and as a Recorderin the Crown Court.

Robin has a long-standing commitment to legal probono work. He is the Chairman of the Bar Pro BonoUnit, Chairman of Pro Bono in the LMC, a trustee ofLawWorks (the Solicitors Pro Bono Group), a trustee ofthe Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau and amember of the Attorney General's National Pro BonoCoordinating Committee (and of its InternationalCommittee). He is involved in a wide range ofinitiatives, aimed at the encouragement andcoordination of pro bono work across the legalprofession, improving access to that work, andbuilding relationships between the legal professionand other sectors including the voluntary sector. Hewas awarded the CBE for services to pro bono legalservices in the 2006 New Years Honours List. Knowlesis a member of the Bar Council's GeneralManagement Committee. He is a Bencher of MiddleTemple, and also a member of Gray's Inn.

COMMENTARY ON LORD CHIEF JUSTICE’S LECTURE


Initiated by Mizan Hussain and supported by Khadija Ali, the Pro Bono in the LMC (London Muslim Centre), started in2007. It provides a trusted "signposting" service to those felt inhibited, for cultural or other reasons, in approaching alaw firm or advice agency directly for legal help.


COMMENTARY ON LORD CHIEF JUSTICE’S LECTURE


in t h e n A m e o f G o d, W h o i s b o t h

t h e essence of mercy and the most mercifulevery muslim, at the beginning of whatever

one does or intends to do, asks for the blessingof God by invoking his name in this way.

one might call this the islamic invocation ofthe trinity. God, the father is the essence of power,God the son is the essence of mercy, and God theholy spirit is the essence of wisdom. like meistereckhart, who succeeded st. thomas Aquinas inthe chair of theology at the university of paris, weunderstand this as honouring the attributes ofGod Who is beyond number, beyond existence,and even beyond being.

my thanksgiving day talk today is entitled“thank God for Justice” because justice is thecombination of power, compassion, and wis-dom, the Abrahamic trinity.

on the back of my card for the Abrahamfederation are three quotes. the first is fromdeuteronomy 16:20, "Justice, Justice, thoushalt pursue." the second is from pope paulvi, si vic pacem, laborate justitiam, "if you wantpeace, work for justice." And the third is fromthe Qur'an, surah al An'am 6:115, Wa tama'atkalimatu rabika sidqan wa 'adlan, "And theWord of your lord is fulfilled and perfected intruth and in justice."

the central task of the great scholars in allthree of the Abraham religions has been todevelop holistic methodologies to explore whattranscendent justice may mean in the design ofGod for the universe and how we creatures maybest pursue it.

Justice may be defined as right order in acoherent universe. transcendent justiceassumes that the universe has purpose beyondits mere existence. Justice assumes that sentienthuman beings are part of this order and there-fore that every human being by nature seeksjustice as a higher purpose than mere life andliberty, because life and liberty are primarily prod-ucts of justice. We should be thankful that we as

sentient beings have both the capacity and theinstinctual inclination to understand the con-cept of justice and that we have our life and thefreedom to pursue it.

now down to the practice of justice and thenwe will go back again to the theory. i almostalways avoid discussion of justice in the holyland, because emotions can distract from ahigher understanding that we must shift frompolicies of power to a new paradigm of justice inall domestic and foreign policies. on the otherhand, the holy land is a good case study,because the dilemmas in the holy land todayare a microcosm of the world. if the Jews are notfree to fulfil their divine destiny there, as thetwentieth century's greatest spiritual leader,rebbe* Abraham izaac Kook, prophetically saidthat they can, must, and will do, then there is nofuture for human civilisation.

Almost twenty-five years ago, a close col-league of mine in congressional lobbying, rabbiherzl Kranz, discussed his concern for the secu-rity of Jews in israel. i said, "What we need isjustice!" his eyes lit up and he exclaimed, "yes,justice! the Arabs must go!" And then he gaveme rabbi meir Kahane's book, they must Go:how long can israel survive its malignant andGrowing Arab population? (1981)

here we get to the issue of premises. As thephilosopher cicero said two thousand yearsago, "before you discuss anything whatsoeveryou should first agree on premises and termi-nology." rabbi Kahane's basic premise was hisgoal of an exclusivist religious state, at least forJews, though i doubt that he would have recog-nised the justice of a christian state and certain-ly not a so-called islamic one.

in fact, we are dealing here with a paradigmthat comprises a spectrum of three premises. inhis recent book, religious pluralism inAmerica: the contentious history of afounding ideal, the dean of historians of reli-gion in America, William r. hutchison, propos-

Professor Robert Dickson Crane

Thank God for Justice:Renewing the Spirit inUncertain Times


THANK GOD FOR JUSTICE

es a framework of three premises for interfaithrelations. the first one is "tolerance." thismeans, quite simply, "i won't kill you yet." thesecond is diversity, which is somewhat moreexpansive and means, "you're here damn it,and i can't do much about it." the third andhighest premise is "pluralism," which means"We welcome you because we each have somuch to offer and learn from each other."

hutchison's thesis is that in the history ofAmerica we consistently think we are onelevel higher than we actually are, while mostof us seem insistently to act as if we were onelevel lower.

if we want to aspire to, much less live in, aworld of pluralism, we must find common pur-pose. "pluralism by participation," hutchisonwrites, "implies a mandate for individuals andgroups … to share responsibility for the formingand implementation of the society's agenda."this is the difference between suicide by assim-ilation and both survival and prosperity by inte-gration so that everyone can share the best ofthe other. perhaps the highest wisdom of inter-faith understanding and cooperation calls us torecognise the truth and wisdom of the prophets,each of whom left the same message expressedin the words of Jesus, "i am the way, the truth,and the life." (John 14:16)

last summer at the international institute ofislamic thought (iiit) in herndon, virginia,twenty scholars from around the world spent amonth discussing what this means as a frame-work for faith-based justice and faith-based rec-onciliation, which now is the framework for allof the iiit's work.

Aside for a couple of Wahhabis who wereinvited to provide a wide spectrum of thought,we reached consensus on two things. first, weagreed that we should further develop method-ologies and even lead the way to derive truth andjustice heuristically from three sources. theseare, first, haqq al-yaqin, which is divine revela-tion, second, 'Ayn al-yaqin, which is natural lawor the sunnat-Allah observable in the physicaluniverse, including our own human nature,and, finally, 'ilm al-yaqin, which is the intellec-tual processing of the first two.

second, we reached agreement on the pur-poses of what we might call transcendent justiceor even metalaw but what muslim scholarsrefer to by the traditional term maqasid al-shari'a. this is the classical islamic normative

law known variously as the maqasid or purpos-es, the Kulliyat or universal principles, and thedharuriyat or essentials of universal jurispru-dence. this whole subject is clarified in my arti-cle in the current issue of the American Journalof islamic social sciences, entitled "humanrights in traditionalist islam: legal, political,economic, and spiritual perspectives." thestate of the art in the development of holisticmethodologies for the study of justice is bestshown by dr Jasser Auda's tome, maqasid al-shari'ah as philosophy of islamic law: Asystems Approach, which was published thisyear by iiit as part of a whole library of booksnow appearing on the subject.

Among the seven irreducibly highest princi-ples developed more than half a millennium agoby Al-shatibi, who was the greatest of the classicalislamic scholars on the subject, the first maqsudis haqq al-din. during the past six hundredyears, this has been ossified to mean "protectionof true belief," meaning protection of islam as anorganised and politically approved religion.beginning in 1946 with the publication of thebook entitled, treatise on maqasid al shari'ah bythe Grand mufti of tunisia, ibn ‘ Ashur, andreaching broad acceptability today half a centurylater, this first principle of classical islamicthought about justice is understood to mean"freedom of religion" in the true sense of plural-ism. this is blindingly clear throughout theQur'an but much less so in the hadith, many ormost of which are either spurious or related bywitnesses who had their own biases in under-standing what they had heard.

next come three sets of pairs. the first pairconsists of haqq al-haya and haqq al-nasl,which mean the duties, respectively, to respectthe human person and life itself and to respectthe nuclear family and communities at everylevel that derive from the sacredness of thehuman person. the first one includes the elab-orate set of principles that define the limitationsof "just war" theory. the second one includesthe principle of subsidiarity, which recognisesthat legitimacy expands upward from the com-munity or nation to the state.

the second set consists of two responsibili-ties related to institutionalising economic andpolitical justice: haqq al-mal and haqq al-hurriyah. throughout much of islamdom, thissecond pair of responsibilities has beenobserved, more often than not, in the breach.



even when the principles have been acknowl-edged, the derivative lower level, known ashajjiyat, of institutionalised implementationhas been ignored.

the third pair of maqasid consists of haqqal-Karamah, the duty to respect human dignityespecially in regard to gender equity, and haqqal-'ilm, the duty to respect knowledge, includingthe secondary level of implementation knownas freedom of thought, publication and assem-bly. the historical trend of these last twomaqasid is now strongly upward because edu-cated muslim women are gaining recognitionas equal to men in the ijtihad of scriptural analy-sis known as the intellectual or "third" jihad: Wajihidhum bihi jihadan kabiran, "And struggle tounderstand it [divine revelation] in a great jihad"(Qur’ an, surah al-furqan 25:52).

beyond the intellectual development ofthese universal principles, which increasinglyin the West are now known expansively asnatural law, and beyond the philosophicaldebate over whether positivist or man-madelaw is the only kind of law accessible tohuman knowledge, is what yves r. simon’ sthe tradition of natural law: A philosopher'sperspective (on page xxi) calls "a connaturalgrasp of the idea via inclination."

here we come to the essence of my talk andthe real reason why we should be thankful forour awareness of a transcendent justice and ofthe responsibilities that this enjoins upon us.the grand master in this aspect of justice is therebbe Abraham izaac Kook, whose wisdom hasso grievously been distorted and perverted byhis self-styled followers, the Gush emunim inthe modern settlers' movement. he was chiefrabbi of palestine from 1919 until the begin-ning of the first great palestinian national-liber-ation movement in 1935. he taught that everyreligion contains the seed of its own perversion,because humans are free to divert their worshipfrom God to themselves. the greatest evil isalways the perversion of the good, and thesurest salvation from evil is always the return toprophetic origins. rebbe Kook's wisdom hasbeen collected in Abraham isaac Kook, thelights of penitence, the moral principles,lights of holiness, essays, letters, and poems,translation and introduction by ben Zionbokser (paulist press: n.y., ramsey, toronto,1978), published in the classics of Westernspirituality: A library of the Great spiritual

masters under the supervision of seyyedhossein nasr, fazlur rahman, huston smith,and others.

the fundamentalist Gush emunim makesthe sacrilegious error of turning his spiritualteaching into a call for secular nationalism ofthe most extreme kind. Abraham isaac Kook'sentire life spoke his message that only in theholy land of israel can the genius of hebraicprophecy be revived and the Jewish peoplebring the creative power of God's love in theform of justice and unity to every person and toall mankind. "for the disposition of the israelitenation," he asserted, "is the aspiration that thehighest measure of justice, the justice of God,shall prevail in the world." universally recog-nised as the leading spokesman of spiritualZionism, rebbe Kook went to Jaffa from polandin 1904 to perfect the people and land of israelby bringing out the "holy sparks" in every per-son, group, and ideology in order to make wayfor the advent of the messiah.

this was the exact opposite of "secularZionism," which resulted from the assimila-tionist movement of 19th century europe, com-pounded by the devastating blow of the holo-caust to traditionalist Jewish faith. thus alienat-ed from their own culture, and vulnerable tomodern nationalist demagoguery, a growingportion of the Jewish nation came to elevate con-trol over physical land to an ultimate value andgoal, and therefore to transform the land ofisrael into a golden calf.

As a lurianic cabbalist, committed to thesocial renewal that both confirms and tran-scends halakha, rebbe Kook emphasised, firstof all, that religious experience is certain knowl-edge of God, from which all other knowledgecan be at best merely a reflection, and that thiscommon experience of "total being" or "unity"of all religious people is the only adequate medi-um for God's message through the Jewish peo-ple, who are the "microcosm of humanity."

"if individuals cannot summon the world to

The greatest evil is alwaysthe perversion of the good,and the surest salvation fromevil is always the return toprophetic origins.

God," proclaimed rebbe Kook, then a peoplemust issue the call. the people must call out ofits inner being, as an individual of great spiritu-al stature issues the call from his inner being.this is found only among the Jewish people,whose commitment to the oneness of God is acommitment to the vision of universality in allits far-reaching implications and whose voca-tion is to help make the world more receptive tothe divine light by bearing witness to the torahin the world.

this, he taught, is the whole purpose ofisrael, which stands for shir el, the "song ofGod." it is schlomo, which means peace orwholeness, solomon's song of songs.

but he warned, again "prophetically," that,when an idea needs to acquire a physical base, ittends to descend from its height. in such aninstance it is thrust toward the earthly, andbrazen ones come and desecrate its holiness.together with this, however, its followersincrease, and the physical vitality becomes strik-ingly visible. each person then suffers: the stub-bornness of seeking spiritual satisfaction in theouter aspect of things enfeebles one's powers,fragments the human spirit, and leads thestormy quest in a direction where it will findemptiness and disappointment. in disillusion-ment, the quest will continue in another direc-tion. When degeneration leads one to embracean outlook on life that negates one's highervision, then one becomes prey to the dark sidewithin. the spiritual dimension becomesenslaved and darkened in the darkness of life.

rebbe Kook warned that "the irruption ofspiritual light from its divine source on unculti-vated ground yields the perverse aspect of idola-try. it is for this reason that we note to our aston-ishment the decline of religious Judaism in aperiod of national renaissance." "love of thenation," he taught, "or more broadly, forhumanity, is adorned at its source with thepurest ideals, which reflect humanity andnationhood in their noblest light, but if a personshould wish to embrace the nation in its deca-dent condition, its coarser aspects, withoutinner illumination from its ancient, higherlight, he will soon take into himself filth andlowliness and elements of evil that will turn tobitterness in a short span of history of but a fewgenerations. this is the narrow state to whichthe community of israel will descend prior to anawakening to the true revival."

"by transgressing the limits," rebbe Kookprophesied, the leaders of israel may bring on aholocaust. but this will merely precede a revival."As smoke fades away, so will fade away all thedestructive winds that have filled the land, thelanguage, the history, and the literature." Alwaysfollowing his warning was the reminder ofGod's covenant:

in all of this is hiding the presence of the livingGod. it is a fundamental error for us to retreatfrom our distinctive excellence, to cease recogniz-ing ourselves as chosen for a divine vocation. Weare a great people and we have blundered greatly,and, therefore, we suffered great tribulation; butgreat also is our consolation. our people will berebuilt and established through the divine dimen-sion of its life. then they will call out with a mightyvoice to themselves and to their people: “let us goand return to the lord!” And this return will be atrue return.

We cannot know whether the catastrophethat rebbe Kook foresaw was merely a warning,or whether the true return is already takingplace, but he was confident of the end result.the rebbe always sharply defended the validityof both christianity and islam as religions in theplan of God, and proclaimed that, "the brother-ly love of esau and Jacob [christians and Jews],and isaac and ishmael [Jews and muslims], willassert itself above all the confusion [and turn]the darkness to light."

for this we should be thankful.

A Thanksgiving Day talk at Temple Solel, sponsored by The Bowie Clergy Association's Annual Interfaith WorshipThanksgiving Service 2008 Bowie, Maryland USA –November 26, 2008

* “Rebbe” refers to a leader/mentor of a Hasidic Movement.



Professor Robert Dickson Crane is a Resident Scholar atthe International Institute of Islamic Thought, a co-founding board member and former Chairman of theCenter for Understanding Islam, and Director for GlobalStrategy at The Abraham Federation: A Global Center forPeace through Compassionate Justice. In 1962 he co-founded the Center for Strategic and InternationalStudies. From 1963 to 1968, he served as Foreign PolicyAdvisor to Richard Nixon who appointed him as DeputyDirector of the National Security Council in 1969.

Since 1982 Prof. Crane has been a full-time Islamic scholarand activist. He was Principal Da'ii (religious instructor) atthe Islamic Center, Washington, D.C (1983 -1986). He wasDirector of Publications at the International Institute ofIslamic Thought from 1986 to 1988. He was a FoundingMember of The American Muslim Council, and in 1993,he was elected president of the Muslim American BarAssociation.

WHY SECULARISM FAILED the prophets of secularism are what the old

testament would call false prophets becausetheir prophecy did not come true. if anything,the opposite of what they said would happenactually occurred! secularists are not good atprophecy. the idea that the more men are edu-cated, enlightened and understand science andreason, the less they will need God, and themore society will advance, has proven to befalse. God is viewed by secularists as ancientsuperstition and an obstacle to further develop-ment. in his book honest to God, John A.t.robinson writes, “…when we have refined awaywhat we should regard as the crudities and lit-eralism of this construction, we are still leftwith what is essentially a mythological pictureof God and his relation to theworld.”(robinson, 1963). history and philoso-phy as well as science have proven themwrong. it is odd that many scientists are mov-ing closer towards the idea of God. contra tothe declarations of dawkins1 and harris2 standsfrancis collins3 who believes in the monotheis-tic God along with others in the scientificworld, who speculate about something‘ supreme’ beyond the reaches of science as weknow it.4

WHY IS SECULARISM IN DECLINE AND FAILING PEOPLE?

secularism has brought us a greater under-standing of the importance of empirical discov-ery and reason. however, to look at physicallaws apart from the realities of philosophy,emotion and relationships is to cut us off fromthe deepest sources of fulfillment and mean-ing. humans are far more than robotic tissuesand firing synapses coming off the darwinianassembly line placed in biologically predeter-mined functions like ants on a hill. in the end,we are people, human beings, each unique andvaluable in our own way. to ignore science and

reason is to jettison a great source of develop-ment and opportunity for every human beingon the planet.

on the other hand, to ignore faith and Godis to deny humanity’ s greatest moral compassfor determining right and wrong. if we aremerely the products of natural materialism,can we have any sense of morality or even dis-cuss it? ignoring faith also denies man hisgreatest source of inspiration, longing, desire,and the transcendence of present realities thatcompels us to re-creation of a better future.vishal mangalwadi5 and others have convinc-ingly argued it was only out of the context ofeurope’ s historic christian faith that the scien-tific revolution could have taken place. themore we know about God, the more we want tolearn and discover about him and his creation.this is God’ s world with the forces and pat-terns he created governing it.6

WHY RELIGION IS ON THE RISEreligion is on the increase. in a recent meet-

ing of vietnamese diplomats and state depart-ment officials which i attended, thevietnamese officials were discussing religionand rule of law discerning how a historicallycommunist government would position itself

Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr

A GROWING FAITHA Christian Perspective on the Ascendancy of Religiosity and the Failure of Secularism


To ignore faith and God isto deny humanity’s greatestmoral compass fordetermining right andwrong. If we are merely theproducts of naturalmaterialism, can we haveany sense of morality oreven discuss it?

and respond to religion in vietnam. religion invietnam is growing and the government mustdetermine how they will respond to thisgrowth. i advised them, “you will not stop it. itwill only continue to grow.” And it does contin-ue in every form: buddhism, Animism,christianity, etc. it is common knowledge thatchristianity is exploding in china. places

where christianity and other religions havebeen banned and outlawed are the very placeswhere it is now flourishing.

religion is on the rise because people arestill creatures looking for the ultimate truth andsearching for meaning and purpose in theirpersonal lives. it is on the rise because we allneed a compass to give us direction, and we allneed a source of hope and inspiration in lifeduring those times when we want to give up.religion is on the rise because the world ismoving so fast people are looking for roots tostabilise themselves to be able to stand in themidst of a spinning gravity that is leading towho knows where.

the past one hundred years has proven thiscase. people are looking for truth and meaninganywhere, even outside their own cultural reli-gious heritage. i don’ t view this as negative.truth embodied has to be explored or it willnever be truth embraced. to say you are achristian, muslim or buddhist purely becausethat is what your family has practiced for cen-turies cannot ensure an enduring faith that willsustain that particular religion into the future.Any religion will crumble on the ash heaps ofhistory if its truths are merely historical trans-missions and not personally embraced truths.

however, there is a problem that emerges inthe name of faith and religion when we speakin the name of God. As i attended a meeting ofislamic leaders from around the world thisbecame evident. i watched them debate the roleof islam in light of other world religions andchallenge one another of the danger of speak-ing ‘ for Allah’ or ‘ in the name of Allah’ . i seethe same problem in christianity. Whether iagree or disagree with the politics of iran, wheni hear well known evangelical pastors callingfor a missile strike on iran in the name of God,as an evangelical, it scares me. is it not a move

to a new attitude of crusading? i am appalledand dumbfounded that christian leaderswould dare speak for God in such a situation.either they have an unusual direct line to God,in which case their life should be near perfect,or they are the epitome of narcissism, usingGod, and will stand in a position of unusualjudgment before him one day.

for some muslims, separating religion andrule of law is seen as impossible. someAmerican christians would prefer to combinethe two. there is a better way. We must beaware that, as people of faith, we do not sepa-rate our positions, thoughts, and views fromour belief in God. A person makes decisions,laws, and relationships based on their wholebeing which includes their understanding ofGod. he will be present in all we do, think, orsay if we are followers of God. one of myheroes is Gandhi. Gandhi was a hindu, yetmeditated on the Gospels (injil) and in particu-lar the sermon on the mount.7 Gandhi wasknown as a deeply holy and religious man filledwith wisdom and insight. he changed hisnation. yet, he didn’ t plant a flag forchristianity or hinduism. instead, his faithwas present in his life and actions. it permeat-ed all he said and thought, inseparable fromthat which he was. yet, he did not speak in thename of God or inject a particular faith that allmust follow. As a result, he has been of massivevalue to all of us, not just hindus. Gandhiteaches us to let the actions of our lives be ablessing to humanity to cause others to inspectthe basis of our faith, beliefs and convictions.this type of living goes beyond the mereproclamation of who i understand God to be.

in other words, Gandhi lived hinduism bypractice, without having to make his good con-duct seen as necessarily hindu. the same canbe attributed to prophet muhammad, who hiswife ‘ Aisha describes as “living the Qur’ an”,i.e. he embodied the Qur’ an in practice.

When we can live out our faith in action, itchanges our perspective. in terms of my viewof society and politics, i have been quoted assaying, “i separate my christianity fromAmericanism”. As a young person, i wouldobserve American policy in light of the bibletrying to bridge the two. ultimately, i came tothe conclusion that if i bridged my life, ratherthan policy, to the teaching of Jesus (isa) in thebible, i would be a better servant to all of

I separate my Christianityfrom Americanism

A GROWING FAITH


humanity. When i began to do this and thentraveled to other cultures and discovered theworld was far bigger and different than my ownsmall paradigm, i came to realise that much ofwhat i believed really was not from the teach-ings of the bible, but had emerged merely frommy own culture. i saw i had ‘ christianised’my political positions based on my cultural par-adigms. i have come to see that i have to sepa-rate my faith from my culture at times becausei can unwittingly use my faith to endorse myculture and politics. if i don’ t, there is no roomfor dialogue with you. if you don’ t, there is noroom to engage me.

HOW DO WE EMBRACE OTHER FAITHSthis leads us to a very critical discussion that

makes everyone nervous, yet neverthelessmust be addressed - how are we to embracefaiths that are different and even counter to ourown?

first, we should respect every faith. We areall on a journey of discovering ultimate truthand who God is. if we belittle another’ s faith orpatronise them we set up an ‘ us against them’mentality. i feared islam and viewed it as a‘ competitor’ in the religious market. i had an‘ us against them’ mentality. then i got toknow some imams that needed help in centralAsia. in partnership, we became good friends.they went out of their way to be hospitabletowards me and treat me with respect. theseimams are my friends to this day. if i disagreewith the belief system of a religion, it is not nec-essary for me to vilify the followers of that reli-gion. the only false prophets Jesus ever spokeabout were his own that had become hungryfor money or power.

second, as Gandhi said, we should nevercompromise our faith for the sake of appease-ment. to deny what we believe about truth orrecalibrate truth to fit with our preferences andsituations is to put ourselves in the role of God.i want to dialogue with muslims who reallybelieve the Qur’ an and will give me honestanswers to my questions. We do not change thelaws of electricity and tell someone it is ok tostick their finger in a live open socket becausewe do not want to offend them. We tell themthe truth! the same must be so about faith. thereal conversation must take place between‘ evangelical’ christians and muslims, not lib-eral christians and liberal muslims. the for-

mer dialogue at the core of their faith and arethe ones who must work to resolve the tension.i am an evangelical; i want to know and befriends with and have conversations withmuslims who hold to the fundamental beliefand tenets of their faith.

i like what Gandhi told a group of christianmissionaries in india who asked for advice,“first, i would suggest that all of youchristians, missionaries and all, must begin tolive more like Jesus. second, practice your reli-gion without adulterating it or toning it down.third, emphasise love and make it your work-ing force, for love is central in christianity.fourth, study the non-christian religions moresympathetically to find the good that is withinthem, in order to have a more sympatheticapproach to the people.” (Jones, 1948).

third, we should make room for every reli-gion and never force our religion or politicsupon anyone else. christianity learned the hardway that when religion has to rule by the sword,compulsion, or decree, it is no religion at all.Any religion, christian or islam, that fears theinteraction of its believers with believers ofother religions must be very shallow or weakand ultimately it will not stand on its ownmerit. there are places in the world where dif-fering religions co-exist. this does not meanthere are no problems. it does mean everyonegets to express their faith. freedom of religionat its very core is freedom of thought whichdetermines the framework and authority ofone’ s life. to deny a man the right to his ownmind is slavery in its worst form. America willnot be able to control the growth of islam inAmerica, nor should it. the middle-east willnot be able to control the growth of christianity,nor should it either. Advances in technologyand air travel have connected the world asnever before. it is time for faiths to stand inde-pendently, not piggyback on race, government,

A GROWING FAITH


There are places in the worldwhere differing religions co-exist… Freedom ofreligion at its very core isfreedom of thought whichdetermines the frameworkand authority of one’s life.

tribe, etc. if there is any lesson to be learnedfrom communism regarding the spread ofreligion, it is to leave it alone! the morecommunism tried to imprison, kill or perse-cute religious followers, the more those reli-gions grew!

there are two things that, if done, wouldchange the conversation dramatically and imme-diately open a new era of cooperation. one:from America, we should value the palestiniansas much as we do the israelis. What does thishave to do with religion? the evangelical churchhas allowed speculative theology to determinewho the church should and should not supportin the West bank and Gaza. All the bible teach-es for certain, that we know of, is that Jesus isgoing to return one day. how and when hereturns is sheer speculation. in the meantime, achristian’ s mandate is to show God’ s love toevery creature including palestinians. i have per-sonally become very committed to this; especial-ly given the fact most of us in America are immi-grants. every nation in the world has people ofother tribes living within it. We must share ourimmigrant experiences, both successes and fail-ures, with israel to partner in learning the les-sons of the coexistence of differing people’ swithin a country.

two: if the middle-east would allowchristians to worship openly it would have aprofoundly positive impact on how the Westviews, not just the middle-east, but islam.muslims can and do build mosques inAmerica and the West. there are some middle-eastern nations where churches are permitted,but it is far from everywhere and these church-es come nowhere near enjoying the samerights as islamic houses of worship. Just as thepalestinian issue is significant for the middle-east, and sadly not understood in the West, sois the freedom of religion significant for the

West, though not completely understood inmuch of the middle-east.

fourth, we should emulate the best of ourfaith. many passages in the bible and theQur’ an are similar. there are passages in thebible and in the Qur’ an that say we should dogood works so men will see God. faith shouldnot be associated with frowns, scowls, or harshlooks, but warm, loving, and embracing smilesinviting us all to hope. instead of focusing onspeculative theology, we should focus and livethe passages that deal with how we treat others.

fifth, love should be the driving principle forall we do. i have yet to meet a man of any reli-gion that does not love his family and people. ihave never experienced a single culture inwhich people do not want to marry, have chil-dren, and live in harmony with others. even theharshest of people long for love and intimacy.it’ s time for muslims and christians to join toproclaim God is the answer!

sixth, we should have friends of differingfaiths. it may actually help us be better follow-ers in our own faith. our church has a strongrelationship with the vietnamese governmenthaving worked there for many years in develop-ment projects. Working within a different cul-ture and with different people with differentviews of God has led me to examine my ownview of God, even my motives for doing goodworks. i was forced to ask myself a fundamen-tal question, “Am i serving people to convertthem, or because i am converted?” We shouldnot be kind and help others merely to promoteour religion; we should be kind and help othersbecause our religion has transformed us andwe love people.

seventh, talk is cheap and of little value if notfirst demonstrated. We should come togetherand serve humanity as christian, muslim,hindu, buddhist, Animist, secularist, and yes,even Atheist. i had the privilege of meeting theGrand mufti of bosnia, dr mustafa ceric, and ihave great admiration for him. We discussedthe need for less rhetoric and for more oppor-tunities to work together. Jonathan sacks’books, the dignity of difference (sacks,dignity of difference, 2003) and the homeWe build together (sacks, the home We buildtogether, 2008) have influenced me greatly. inthe home We build together, sacks’ primarymessage is that we should all build societytogether. he proposes the way we will do that is


A GROWING FAITH

We should not be kind and help others merely topromote our religion; weshould be kind and helpothers because our religionhas transformed us and welove people.


A GROWING FAITH

to meet and serve together. When we dig ditch-es together, when we sweat together, and whenwe live life together, we begin respecting oneanother. this, hopefully, will move us towardsliking and eventually loving one another. thiswill not mean we agree on everything. thisdoes mean we will value one another. not toolong ago i was in a country that was goingthrough a war. i’ m good friends with a key trib-al leader there. i did not tell him i was comingbecause i knew he would feel obliged to meetme at the airport. i also knew he might lose hislife if he were seen with me. his father hadbeen murdered a few months earlier. i disem-barked from the plane, and was surprised tosee my friend there to meet me. i told him heshouldn’ t be there that i didn’ t expect it. hetold me that i was his friend and he would diefor me. here was a muslim, who doesn’ t agreewith my religion, willing to die for me a pastorof another faith.

eighth, there should be ‘ political’ separationof church and state. i know this is a Westernconcept/ideal. i’ m aware of the shari’ a law tra-dition to some degree. i still believe this separa-tion is critical for the whole world which is nowever so connected with people migrating acrossthe face of the globe. i have read the Qur’ anonce, and am trying to read it again to under-stand it. there are passages in the Qur’ an thattalk about non-muslims participating in society.perhaps we don’ t need to use Western termi-nology. the idea is of a pluralistic world, how dowe make sure everyone participates andrespects varying views? Growing up in my con-servative christian culture, i strongly desired tosee religion and government come together. Asi read the names of nations such as the islamicnation of pakistan i would think, “Americansare primarily christians so we should be nameda christian nation.” if my cultural wishes hadcome true, it would not be good for the muslimsthat live in the united states today. if faith ispresent in the lives of its adherents, then it ispresent wherever its adherents are, even if it isunspoken. in the old testament, the book ofthe Jews and christians, a prophet namedJeremiah talks of how God will write his lawsnot on stone tablets but on the hearts of people.in the new testament, the injil, Jesus tells peterto put his sword away when officials came toarrest him to be crucified. Jesus tells peter hiskingdom is not one that will be maintained by

the sword. Anytime christianity has picked upa sword in the name of God, it has lived toregret it. let nations fight if they must, but notin the name of God.

to deny that there is a current clash of civili-sations is to be the emperor with no clothes oran ostrich with his head in the sand. We mustnot deny that there is hope in civilisations coex-isting peacefully. We must avoid a winner takesit all scenario with each party believing the win-ner will be the one with the most guns. toadopt such an attitude denies the sovereignty ofGod. We must make a better way.

ENDNOTES

1. Richard Dawkins: British ethologist, evolutionary biologist,and author of many books, most recent being “The GodDelusion” (2006).

2. Sam Harris: Author “The End of Faith” (2004) and “Letterto a Christian Nation” (2006)

3. Francis Collins: American physician-geneticist who was aleader in the Human Genome Project (HGP) and author of“The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence forBelief” (2006)

4. Such as Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski among others

5. Vishal Mangalwadi: International lecturer, social reformer,political columnist, and author of thirteen books.

6. Genesis 1:1,2

7. Matthew 5 - 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jones, E. S. (1948). Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation .London: Hodder & Stroughton.

Robinson, J. A. (1963). Honest to God. London: SCM Press.

Sacks, J. (2003). Dignity of Difference. New York: ContinuumInternational Publishing Group.

Sacks, J. (2008). The Home We Build Together. New York:Continuum International Publishing Group.

Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr. studied and received degrees atBaylor University, Southwestern Seminary, and FullerSeminary. He has authored several books, includingGlocalization. Pastor Roberts is an international speakerboth to religious and non-religious groups. His emphasisis on societal engagement and development. As aChristian, he has worked with Muslims, Buddhist,Secularist, and everything in between. He founded theNorthWood Church of Keller, Texas where he is the seniorpastor and it has started over 120 congregations in theU.S. Further details available: glocal.net.

To deny that there is acurrent clash of civilisationsis to be the emperor withno clothes or an ostrichwith his head in the sand.

turKey holds siGnificAnce As A country

with a large muslim population, yet witha secular state tradition. this paper exam-ines the underlying reason behind theespousal of secularism in the turkishrepublic, its unusual characteristics thatrender it amenable for questioning, some ofthe reverberations of turkish secularism inthe society both in public and privatespheres, and how the republic succeeded toproduce and reproduce secular discursivediscourse to maintain hegemony about reli-gio-pertinent matters moving away from agenerally accepted form of conciliatory sec-ularism, to extreme form thereof.

THE ORIGINS OF TURKISH SECULARISM

turkish republic stands with distinctionamong the countries of its region. it is on,what is called, Anatolia where the eastmeets the West and through which the pas-sage between the two continents, europeand Asia becomes possible. it is comprisedof some seventy five million, almost allmuslim population. in addition to its geo-graphic distinction and demographic traits,the republic carries a wealth of historicalbaggage as the successor of once upon atime, an invincible ottoman empire.ottomans, in addition to the land ofAnatolia, ruled a large part of the middleeast, northern Africa, and central easterneurope for around six hundred years as themajor power in the world. their unity waspredicated upon the concept of “ummah”i.e. the global muslim community with asingle goal of “disseminating the messageof islam.”

the founding fathers of the turkishrepublic, comprised of the then ottomanand now turkish intelligentsia, made aninformed decision to construct the new

turkish identity not around the concept ofummah but the nationalist “turkish-ness.”the change came at the end of a two hun-dred year old intellectual discourse pertain-ing to the empire’ s lagging behind as aresult of lack of ability to reform itself polit-ically, militarily and socially. the diagnosis,mostly concurred by the intelligentsia, wasthat religion was the underlying reasongoading the fall behind. hence the“panacea” they argued, was to marginaliseislam in order to alleviate its clout in publicsphere so that turks could close the chasmbetween the developed Western societiesand themselves. they dubbed the processthe westernisation project.

Within this context and sense of urgency,the founder of modern turkey, mustafaKemal Ataturk introduced sundry reforms1

that would transform turks into a europeannation among which were the adoption ofthe latin alphabet, unification of education,introduction of swiss civil code in lieu ofislamic law, after the dismantlement of sul-tanate and the caliphate consecutively. theparamount of all, nevertheless that resonat-ed with the real essence of “change” turksembarked themselves in, was the espousalof secularism, i.e. the separation of stateaffairs from religion – and not vice versa asthe paper will affirm – namely laiklik.

the concept was first introduced to theturkish elite via their french cohorts duringthe education of the former in the latter’ sland when the former was exposed to theideals such as revolution, emancipation, lib-eration and rights. the official inclusion oflaiklik among the republican values, camethough relatively late in 1937, fourteen yearsafter the republic was established. despitethis relatively late arrival, laiklik would riseup, in the years to come, to be the funda-mental sine qua non of the turkish state’ s

Turkish Experimentationwith Laiklik as a Form ofSecular Fundamentalism

Dr. Merve Kavakci


regime, transforming the context of secular-ism from separation between the state andreligion to the containment, deconstructionand reconstruction of the latter in the handsof the former.

As a result, this, somewhat not so ubiqui-tous take on the relationship between thetwo, namely, laiklik would become the trade-mark of the turkish westernisation project,rendering turkey worthy of high praise bythe Western world as a unique muslimcountry that coalesced its religious past withits secular present and future. As laiklikgave the state more control over how islamshould/should not (or must/must not) belived, it became more restrictive and stiflingon the “rights and liberties” of turkish citi-zens. this would grant laiklik its fundamen-talist characteristic with zero tolerance ren-dering it, in analogy with religious funda-mentalism, what i would coin “secular fun-damentalism.”

EXAMPLES OF LAIKLIK EXERCISESLaiklik plays itself out in a wide spectrum

within the public life from intervening withthe way one chooses to dress, to the schoolsone chooses to send their children or thepeople whom one befriends. one of the wellrecognised forms of laiklik exercises,indeed, constitutes itself in the infamousban on wearing the headscarf in turkey. theban was first implemented in 1981 after thecoup de’ tat that brought a military govern-ment to power, and since then the headscarfban has been part of the dress code of feder-al employees and the students at the highereducation institutions. Albeit originallyintended to regulate only the attire of thesetwo groups, the headscarf ban disseminatedto other facets of public life including theparliament, the courtroom, the hospitals,the military grounds and the like, in time.

the author of this paper was not permit-ted to take her oath of office as an electedmp in the turkish parliament because shechose to wear an islamic headscarf, despitethe lack of a regulation mandating her touncover her head. hatice sahin was deniedfrom providing her testimony as a defen-dant before a civilian court in Ankara whenthe judge decreed that a public space likethat of the courtroom would not tolerate the

headscarf.2 Among ample similar examplesthat take place outside of the realm of feder-al offices and university grounds includesthe revealing cases of bircan3 and Kilinc.4

the former was an elderly female patientwho sought emergency care at a state hospi-tal in istanbul but was denied service due toher “covered” photograph on her id card.she passed away before her son was able torenew her id picture in which she would bebare headed. bircan, in the eyes of the state,was not in compliance with the laiklik prin-ciple of the republic to deserve immediateattention. the latter is a public school prin-ciple with a headscarf who takes her head-scarf off on school premise and puts it backon as she leaves to be compliant with theprinciple of laiklik. At a case she broughtagainst her school which denied her fromserving as the principle based on her head-scarf, the council of state also decreedagainst her arguing that she would consti-tute a “bad example” to students who mightrun into her while wearing a headscarf enroute between the school and her residence.

the first example refers to the intrusivenature of laiklik that violate basic humanright to healthcare access. on the otherhand, the second example, portends to theexpansive nature of laiklik that regulates notonly the school grounds as the public realmbut the “streets” as well. Along these lines,recently a group of women with headscarveswere denied, as visitors, from attendingtheir sons’ inauguration ceremony to starttheir military service at an open militaryground.5 Women were taken out and left towatch the ceremony from behind the metalfences. this example refers to the exploitivenature of laiklik that undermines women’ sroles as viable taxpayers responsible for rearingtheir sons as soldiers to protect the country.

TURKISH EXPERIMENTATION WITH LAIKLIK


As laiklik gave the statemore control over how Islam should/should not (ormust/must not) be lived, itbecame more restrictive andstifling on the "rights andliberties" of Turkish citizens



by preventing them from watching theceremony, the state was sending the womenthe message: you must raise your childrenready to sacrifice their lives for the sake ofthis country but this will not grant you theright, as their mothers, to see them takeoath of active duty. this also signifies thatthe ban does not make a distinctionbetween the women who provide andreceive service but treat both groups inequally discriminatory manner. While theoriginal “ intent” of laiklik was deemed to bea separation between state and religiousaffairs, which falls upon the realm of “pro-viding service”, the fact that women likebircan or the mothers of military service-men were denied from “receiving service”refers to a blatant denial of citizens’ rightsraising the question of what constitutes thecontext of citizenry and its implications.

finally, in this category, the case ofAbdullah yilmaz sheds lights to the selec-tive nature of laiklik.6 yilmaz is a publicschool teacher who ranked second on anational examination conducted by theministry of national education, grantinghim the right to serve in a foreign country.his appointment however did not gothrough due to a national intelligence reportwhich stated that his wife was a womanwith a headscarf. his case is currently pend-ing at the european court of human rightsin strasbourg. the aforementioned exam-ples depict that laiklik exercises authorityover the private realm of one’ s life as muchas the public realm which renders it med-dlesome with a series of taboo-like qualities.

Another aspect of laiklik exercise mani-fests itself in the treatment of the graduatesof imam hatip schools (ihs). foremost,the existence of these schools simply atteststo the unique nature of turkish secularismi.e. laiklik. ihs are state schools which pro-vide extensive religious education that wereoriginally intended to bring up the religiousleaders and preachers of modern turkey.however, over the decades ihs becameappealing institutions for parents whowanted their children to acquire religiousknowledge along with positive sciences,aggregating students from different social,economic and political background to servein numerous fields later in public life. At a

theoretical level, ihs stands as examples ofhow laiklik operates, while separating reli-gion and state affairs from one another,brings state into religious affairs withoutany reservation. in other words, the stateassumes authority over religious affairswith the intent of containing the latter sothat religion will not be monopolised by cer-tain groups who might work against the for-mer. by doing so the former however, estab-lishes a monopoly of its own over religionrendering itself the only source of religiousknowledge hence performing antithetical tothe core principle of secularism.

nonetheless, the case of ihs becamemore incredible after the state introduced anew measure to lessen the appeal of theseschools, amongst what makes a large part ofthe turkish society. A new provision wasintroduced after a noticeable period of apolitical turmoil which was marked by the1997 election victory of islamist Welfareparty (Wp), and the ensuing post moderncoup de’ tat of 1998 that led to the party’ sclosure by the constitutional court due toits “threat to laiklik”.

the opposition, while promoting the mil-itary coup and Wp’ s closure argued that theparty had its basis in the youth of ihs readyto be recruited by the islamist politicians.the fact that most of the leading figures inthe party including the then the mayor ofistanbul, tayyip erdogan, who is the currentpm were graduates of ihs helped the oppo-sition to garner support for their argument.ironically, the turkish state, having createdihs itself out of the apparent “need” tomeet the needs of its preponderantlymuslim population was now altering its per-ception and looking for ways to ward offpeople’ s interest in ihs.

many in academia or in the military whohad relatives attending ihs would invari-ably be victims of espionage, where theirnames would find their way into the blacklists of the state merely to serve as the causeof their demotion, loss of current positionor their jobs.7 similar method of espionagewould often be resorted to inform “authori-ties” – whoever and wherever they mightbe – who visited and conversed withwhom, for instance, on holidays.

furthermore, in order to deter people



from sending their children to ihs, theparliament enacted new laws, such as,increasing the mandatory education fromfive to eight years and closing down the jun-ior high section of the ihs, with the intentthat this would be a stumbling block for theyoungsters who would want to take a coupleof years off after completion of five yearmandatory elementary education to pursuethe study of hifz education.8

moreover, the parliament decreed that thegraduates of ihs would not be treated onequal basis with the graduates of any otherschool in oss (central universityexamination).9 the exam scores of the for-mer would be multiplied by 0.3, thus creat-ing a 20-25 point gap that deliberatelydown-graded their qualifications. the cur-rent Justice and development party (AKp)government, albeit religiously oriented atthe outset, failed to eliminate this discrimi-natory clause which came to be known asthe “coefficient problem.”

finally laiklik reverberated itself in anoth-er enactment in 1998, when the parliamentcoveted religious education in privaterealm, namely the household and privatelyowned institutions. this new decreebrought a ban on to reading and teaching ofQur’ an to children under the age of twelve.the ban is effective both on the confines ofthe home environment and outside exceptat specific state institutions which offer“limited” courses for these children duringthe summer recess.

this meant parents had to wait until theirchild was at least 12 years old in order tolearn to read the Qur’ an, unless theychoose to send the child to state regulatedcourses in the summer break. At these stateorganised courses, the state supervises andcontrols what kind of islamic education isgiven to the children and to what extent.the state strives to produce its muslim sub-jects equipped with the knowledge of islamto the extent that it finds it fit. this ban onthe teaching of Qur’ an is currently in effectoften entailing investigations and prosecu-tions for people and children who defy it.however the ban does not extend to theteachings of the old or the new testamentto christian or Jewish children, that is tosay, the exercise of laiklik, the turkish state

does not extend the coverage of this law tothe less than one percent non-muslimminority of turkey. the basic assumptionunderlying this discrepancy, one mightthink, is that the state might not yet feel“threatened” by the minority population ofthe republic.

DECIPHERING THE CODE OF LAIKLIKthe aforementioned examples of the

implementation of the “one of a kind”turkish secularism, share one commonali-ty: the oxymoronic representation of state’ sencroachment over matters of religion, inother words, separation on one hand whilerejection of that separation on the other.While an ultimate secularism where stateand religious affairs would follow separatetrajectories without having to interfere withone another remains as a utopia whichstates can only strive towards, to not dowhat might make one’ s experience come asclose to this utopia as possible reverberateswith the reality of turkish laiklik. moreover,the turkish experiment with secularism inthe form of laiklik proves that to deviatefrom the norm of utopian secularismthrough manipulations of code, encroach-ments of different sorts as depicted in vari-ous examples is a product of informed deci-sions that are carried out advertently.

on that note, the state finds pride in itsespousal of a “different” kind of secularismi.e. laiklik which would, according to it, bethe only viable tool to deal with, what thesecular fundamentalist refer to as, “the spe-cial circumstances of the turkish nation”.that is to insinuate that the state wants topresent itself with the message as follows: itis not that the state does not want to contex-tualise secularism in the way that most ofthe Western democracies do where therewould be space for religious freedom andexpression, as much as there would bespace for state affairs independent of reli-

New [laiklik] decreebrought a ban on…reading and teaching ofQur'an to children underthe age of twelve.

gious clout, it just cannot afford to do so. the reason why it “ just cannot” is due to,

they argue, the special nature of turkishpolitics, vulnerabilities of the turks and theability of the islamist discourse to entice thegullible nation by exploiting these vulnera-bilities. With that, the state justifies itsencroachment over matters of religion timeafter time, asserting itself as the major stakeholder hence the main legitimised source ofpower on matters of religion and continueto produce and reproduce its hegemonyover religion time and again.

ENDNOTES

1. See History of Modern Turkey by Bernard Lewis for adetailed discussion of Ataturk’s reforms.

2. Ayse Kadioglu, “Muslim Feminist Debates on theQuestion of Headscarf in Contemporary Turkey,” inContemporary Islamic Thought, Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi ed.(Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006), 609-623

3. TBMM tutanaklari (the compiled records of thehearings of Grand National Assembly of Turkey) "www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanak/donem21/yil2/bas/b097m.htm

4. Nazli Ilicak, “Sokaktaki Tehlike: Basortusu,” Bugun,2/11/ 2006

5. http://www.timeturk.com/Basortulu-anneler-yemin-torenine-alinmadi-33949-haberi.html

6. Yenisafak, 2/24/2006

7. Yenisafak, 1/19/2006

8. Hifz refers to the memorisation of the Qur’an by heart.

9. OSS is an examination similar to SAT or ACT in theAmerican education system. It is taken only annually.

Dr. Merve Kavakci is a Lecturer of International Affairsat George Washington University’s Elliott School ofInternational Affairs. She is a consultant for USCongress Commission on Security and Cooperation inEurope, a columnist for Turkish daily Vakit newspaper.Prior to her academic career she served as the head offoreign affairs of Welfare-Virtue Party’s Women’sCommission. Dr Kavakci was elected to the TurkishParliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey in1999. However she was prevented from serving herterm by the secular fundamentalists due to herheadscarf. Dr Kavakci’s political party was closeddown, her Turkish citizenship was revoked, banning herfrom politics for a period of five years. She took hercase to European Court of Human Rights and won in2007.

Dr Kavakci has received several national andinternational awards, including “Women ofExcellence” by NAACP (2004); Public Service Award inTribute and in Recognition of Efforts for theAdvancement of Human Rights; Muslim Women’sEmpowerment by International Association for Womenand Children (2000); Service to Humanity Award inVienna (1999); and Mother of the Year Award in Ankara(1999).

Dr Kavakci holds a doctorate in Political Science fromHoward University; she awarded the Edward MasonFellow and a Bachelor of Science in ComputerEngineering from University of Texas at Dallas. Prior tothat Kavakci attended the Medical School of AnkaraUniversity, however she was prevented fromcompleting this due to the headscarf ban. Dr Kavakciis the author of several books, including Scarf-lessDemocracy-Basortusuz Demokrasi and has committedthe entire Holy Qur’an to memory.



PERIODICALMONOGRAPH

SERIES OF ISLAMICFORUM OF EUROPE

ISSUE 1OUT NOW

Download from www.islamicforumeurope.com

it WAs A cold, Wet, Autumn dAy When i first

met him. the rain slid over the train win-dows, blanketing the hills which rise so suddenly as you cross the english borderinto Wales.

‘ All right, mate!’ he called out affably, if a lit-tle self-conscious. the wind whipped his wordsquickly away. he stood part-way down the nar-row platform, his left arm resting casuallyagainst a railing. A crumpled blazer waswrapped about his body – once slim, now witha touch of soft around the midriff – and a tiewas teased into the air by the squall. he gazedat me with an odd, almost fixed stare. ireturned the look, noting his boyish haircut,the kind you had when you were 10 years old.despite his nervousness – eagerness? – atmeeting a member of the 'liberal' media, heseemed keen to talk.

my encounters with nick Griffin, then sim-ply a rising star within the far-right britishnational party (bnp), and now its leader, wouldsee me introduced to a network of whitesupremacists spanning the globe. the chainran right the way from british soccer hooli-gans, through to loyalist paramilitaries, uspresidential candidates, middle easternholocaust deniers, former members of thebaader-meinhof gang and the ultranationalistpoliticians surging within the heart of europe.Against a backdrop of rising racial violence andtensions over asylum seekers, i travelledthrough this world, in some cases even livingwith the extremists. As someone who had cov-ered refugee stories and human rights issuesfor many years, it was a difficult, intense experience.

i wanted to write something as a warning tothe mainstream, for those who so casually dis-missed the far right and other extremists assimply "nutters". for the same people whowould so often parrot the phrase, "i'm notracist but..." when they complained to me

about immigrants. the story of my six-yearjourney is told in my book, homeland: into aWorld of hate (mainstream publishing).

At that time of our first meeting, back in1998, many pundits had already written off thebnp. nick Griffin was an unknown face, exceptto long-time anti-fascists. A cambridge gradu-ate from a middle-class, tory background, hewould seem to have little in common with thethuggish cohorts of the neo-nazi fringe(despite such a 'moderate' image, i discoveredhe'd actually been involved with the far rightsince the tender age of fifteen). the bnp wasviewed as a squalid, disorganised bunch ofrabid racists, with little chance of electoral suc-cess. its leader John tyndall, who'd once head-ed the national front (nf), believed in forciblerepatriation for all immigrants, and the partyfound it hard to distance itself from an associa-tion with sieg-heiling skinheads. even Griffinhimself told me many supporters were simply"beer patriots". it had lost its single councilseat, in the isle of dogs (docklands in eastlondon), shortly after derek beackon was elect-ed to the position in 1993.

the irony was that as we sat and talked in athai restaurant near his home town, Griffinexplained his vision for the "electoral roadopening up". even then this involved jumpingonto single-issue bandwagons – creating"influence circles" for war veterans or disaffect-ed farmers, for example, or campaigning overhousing and pedophiles in the local communi-ty – often in areas suffering from poor integra-tion and failing local government. he talked ofdivided communities in northern england,amidst his somewhat unconvincing denials ofanti-semitism (this was the man who'd writtenabout Jewish power in the media, boasted ofupdating a book called 'did six million reallydie?' and who'd received a suspended prisonsentence for inciting racial hatred in 1997).

in order to win his trust, i had to sit back and

Nick Ryan

Into a World of Hate:Unraveling Visions of ‘Homeland’, the Far Right in Britain


listen. during our meetings, Griffin would talkof "violent islam" and Asians in the samebreath, how the far right would begin to risewithin a couple of years, in an area dominatedby Asians, "where there is a problem withAsian gang violence against white people". Atumble of vitriol presaged further attacks onislam, hinting that most muslims were reli-gious fanatics. i did not realise then what anominous ring these words had to them.

of course, it wasn't language designed toappeal to me, nor other liberal-minded folk.the message was intended for those in divided,dislocated areas of the country, disaffected bymainstream politics and likely to turn to aprotest vote. the bnp strategy was simple:focus on local politics, local issues and localpeople, and you might have a chance of gainingpower. like many of his european far-rightcontemporaries, Griffin was following a modelset in place by Jean-marie le pen and the frontnational (fn) in france. the hostile media,myself included, was simply another way topass on the message, through 'scare' stories.most of us naively obliged.

by the time of our second encounter, and hisascension to party leader, Griffin had droppedthe forcible repatriation policies, and begunrevamping the party's website, imitating thatcreated by le pen's former deputy, brunomegret. megret, a suit-and-tie far-right orator,had split from his old boss to create a groupcalled the mouvement national republicain(mnr), with whom bnp members remain incontact to this day.

slowly, i won Griffin's trust. over the courseof the next four years, our meetings – invari-ably in the small towns dotted around hisWelsh smallholding, occasionally over the bor-der in shrewsbury too – would see me intro-duced into his network.

but as Griffin's bnp produced its leafletsabout Asians and islam, i tried to work outwhat was driving the man. if he was the 'mod-erate', the suit-and-tie haider [the highly-suc-cessful far right leader elected in Austria,recently killed in a car crash] figure, where wasthe evidence he'd ever done anything else withhis life? then aged in his 40s (now nearly 50),i could find little suggestion of any other career,despite the expensive private education andcambridge degree. i kept wondering about hisupbringing, and how his old undergraduate

friends would see him now. he'd even marrieda lady from the movement, a nurse, whom ilater met when introduced to his family. i alsohad to endure various bizarre situations (or sothey seemed to me), such as helping the bnpleader carry a slaughtered pig from his car intothe local butcher shop. Was this some crudetest for Jewishness? if so, it failed.

further ironies followed. As the race hatecampaigns built in the northern communities,i learned how Griffin had travelled out to libya,seeking support from Gaddafi's minions backin 1988, when Griffin was a leader of the nfand Gaddafi was considered beyond the pale bythe West. furthermore, he and his buddies hadcontacted louis farrakhan's militant nation ofislam about forging a possible alliance.somewhat ironic, given his penchant for lump-ing together 'Asians', 'muslims', 'asylum seek-ers' and 'terrorists' all in the same sentence. infact, you could trace this trend to many othersin the extreme right: from the Ku Klux Klanmembers i witnessed, seeking alliances withpalestinian groups; to German neo-nazis join-ing marches against "Zionism" with perhapsotherwise naive young muslims. i met a for-mer ideologue behind the neo-nazi gangcombat 18 (c18), an ex-benedictine monk whohad flirted with a satanic organisation calledthe order of nine Angles, before reverting toislam and now worshipping at thebirmingham central mosque. time and again,i bore witness to erstwhile enemies on thefringe uniting against some perceived threat. itwas a worrying and disturbing trend.

in between our encounters, i also met mem-bers of the international third position (itp), ashadowy catholic organisation with links toitalian fascists groups, which Griffin hadhelped form after the national front's collapse.he wrote off the experience, in typical smugfashion, as "allowing my youthful enthusiasmfor perfect ideas to run far beyond what’ s polit-ically possible".

yet the bnp had also created the neo-nazihooligan gang, combat 18, which i'd investi-gated back in 1996-7. that gang had been cre-ated as a "stewarding force" inside the bnpduring the early 1990s, to protect its meetingsand marches from left-wing and anti-fascistattacks. Although membership of c18 wassoon proscribed by the bnp, as it busied itselfthreatening other right-wingers, in reality the

INTO A WORD OF HATE


borders between the two was blurred. c18members had links to loyalist paramilitaries innorthern ireland and the violent white powermusic scene, blood and honour. in the midstof my investigations, the gang descended intocivil war and murder. Griffin denied any con-nections with c18 and claimed that he was onits leader's "stab list".

in 2001 i joined bnp members on the cam-paign trail during the General elections. it wasa strange time. on the borders of london andKent, the party's (then) publicity director was ashy, fervid young man, with ramrod intensity,and a clear hero-worship of his leader. he alsolived in a veritable pigsty, together with theparty's local parliamentary candidate, a manwith a dozen previous convictions and a sisteronce heavily involved in the upper echelons ofthe Green party.

As we walked the quiet, suburban streets,another supporter began opening up about hisalienation from his family in manchester,lamenting that his father was a 'c***' who did'f*** all for me'. he later went on to enternational news, when he sued his trade unionfor banning him from membership. As for me,i soon realised that, despite the frequent para-noia about outsiders and the media, these men– and my book was nothing if not about maleidentity – were desperate for belonging, broth-erhood; to have their stories heard. once theystarted talking, it was hard to get them to stop.

my 'friendship' with nick Griffin laterallowed me access into the international worldof white supremacy. Just as the party was surg-ing to a 16 percent showing in oldham (northof england), i was at the Washington dc homeof its American fundraiser, mark cotterill. Anenigmatic and highly intelligent figure, sport-ing a military-style moustache, cotterill was astrong loyalist supporter and former memberof the national front. he'd tried to infiltrate alocal conservative party campaign and hadrecently been booted out of pat buchanan'sreform party presidential campaign. howironic that Griffin's father turned out to be partof iain duncan smith's conservative partyleadership campaign, too.

cotterill escorted me to a business confer-ence of 'white nationalists', down in a hotel innorth carolina. the council of conservativecitizens (c of cc) was an umbrella group ofwhite racists, born out of the White citizens

councils of the 1950s. there, i encounteredmany buchanan fans, and would go on to meetthe man himself not long after. my journeys inAmerica saw me introduced to the neo-nazinational Alliance, which owned white powermusic businesses in europe, and whose leader,William pierce, had written books found in thepossession of people such as timothy mcveighand the london nail-bomber, david copeland(himself an ex-bnp member).

back in dc i attended a holocaust 'revision-ist' conference, sporting many internationalfigures. one was buchanan's campaign man-ager, a friend of the notorious historian, davidirving. from there i headed south to virginia,

staying with david duke's (ex-KKK leader,turned politician, a close friend of Griffin) localrepresentative, before heading deep intoArkansas and the racist, anti-semitic ministriesof christian identity. All these meetings werearranged by Griffin's network in the states, andmark cotterill.

only a couple of years ago, Griffin was trav-elling out to Germany for a conference withdavid duke and the neo-nazi national npd(nationaldemokratische partei deutschlands)political party, which the German governmenthas tried to ban, as well as italian and otherpolitical extremists. Another of the figures heencountered there was horst mahler, the for-mer baader-meinhof gang member and now alawyer for the npd, who'd served time forarmed robbery. like me, mahler had been invit-ed to an international conference of holocaustdeniers in beirut, a unique gathering of theextreme right movement and assorted‘ islamic’ scholars from the middle east.

in the former east Germany, i witnessedwhere the dislocation and disaffection broughtabout by mass change – in this case, reunifi-cation – could bring us. large-scale right-wingnetworks called the Kameradschaften ('com-radeships', a nazi-era term) were calling for a

INTO A WORD OF HATE


Large-scale right-wingnetworks called theKameradschaften('comradeships', a Nazi-era term) were callingfor a Fourth Reich.

fourth reich. many local skinhead gangs haddeclared 'liberated zones' in rural towns andvillages – liberated of foreigners and left-wingopposition, that is – and there was a tremen-dous level of violence and racial intimidationin these areas.

i often wondered about these strange scenesas i walked the streets of east london. Whatcould the worlds of holocaust denial, rabidfringe groups and conspiracy theories have todo with everyday life, and politics, on thestreets of britain? We had our problems, sure.but why would we trust crackpots and author-itarians with our bin collections, council taxand possibly even law-making in future?

HOW LITTLE I REALLY UNDERSTOODi began observing the rise of the bnp on the

outer fringes of east london, in barking anddagenham, unthinkable only a few years ago.the bangladeshis of the east end had helped tosee off the far right back in the 1990s, yet hereit was, raising its ugly head again as it secured adozen seats on the local council and firmlyplanted its flag on the soil of the most powerfulcity in europe. richard barnbrook, its barkingleader, got elected onto the Greater londonAssembly earlier this year: a man who’ d oncemade a homoerotic movie as an arts student,whom i regularly witnessed with a beer can inhis hand, was now collecting a £52,000 salaryfunded by the taxpayer, for a party which favoredpre-industrial revolution economics and areturn of ‘ immigrants’ from these shores.

Watching these men (and they were, and are,still mostly men) canvass for votes, i was struckby how lacking in charisma many seemed tobe. in the working men’ s clubs and pubs ofdagenham, older white voters spoke openly oftheir concerns about housing, about immigra-tion and their children’ s future. labour had‘ betrayed’ them they argued; they would trustpoliticians no more. yet at the first sign of a car-

pet-bagger and populist coming from theextreme right, it seemed they would jump intohis arms and welcome him as a saviour. i, andmany others, could never see ‘ how’ the bnpwould actually ‘ save’ anyone: its politics wasthe message of the victim, always about lookingback to a mythical past.

As my meetings continued, i wonderedhow anyone could be swayed by such obvious-ly opportunistic words? Griffin's tight, highvoice and somewhat lacklustre demeanor, forexample, did not indicate he was the powerfulorator he might believe himself to be. yet thedisaffection breeding within traditionallabour strongholds would lead the bnp toclaiming nearly 60 council seats, a Greaterlondon Assembly (GlA) position and beginaiming its sights on a electing an mep.labour’ s voters are most likely to swing to thebnp but it has began taking votes in tradition-al tory areas, too. perhaps not simply a resultof bnp 'modernisation', rather wider socialdisaffection and a protest against the politicalsystem. not only that, but there have beensecret talks between the bnp and the uKindependence party (uKip) – its one majorelectoral threat – taking part in the wings. Weare living in a time of single-issue politics andthe bnp will now have its eyes on the protestvote, and european elections, next summer.

there are wider issues at work propelling therise of extremism, of course. fears about joblosses, housing, the breakdown of traditionalcommunities, the pace of change and lack ofcertainty. there is almost an industry thesedays in rose-tinted glasses: i’ d be a rich man ifsomeone gave me a penny for every time i wastold how great it used to be...

my industry, the media, has its part to playtoo. As Griffin himself said: "one could todaybe forgiven for thinking that the editors of fiveof britain’ s national daily papers – the dailystar, the times, daily mail, daily express anddaily telegraph – had suddenly become bnpconverts." As david blunkett, and then succes-sive home secretaries after him unleashedever-more populist measures to clear up theasylum seeker 'problem', i read messagesfrom neo-nazis as far away as Australia andGermany, parading words from the dailymail and the spectator on their email lists,claiming the mainstream now agreed withtheir views on immigrants.

INTO A WORD OF HATE


Governments across theWestern world areseeking to head off thethreat from the far right:often by co-opting theirmost populist elements.

Whether we will ever face a far-right partygoverning more than a council remains to beseen. Governments across the Western worldare seeking to head off the threat from the farright: often by co-opting their most populist ele-ments, critics argue. With the spread of fear– over asylum seekers, islam, the War onterror (and more importantly the impendingrecession) – the signs are not encouraging.

in 1928 hitler had only 2.6% of the vote;by 1933 he was in power. is the far rightsuch a threat as the nazi party was back inthe thirties? not yet. but it is a warning. Arise in support for extremist and single-issuegroups is a sign of pressure building beneathus all. We all must guard against anyone– anyone – promising simplistic solutions,black and white answers, to a world which isshaded in many colours.

INTO A WORD OF HATE


Nick Ryan is a writer and consultant producer. He spentsix years amongst an international network of far-rightextremists for his acclaimed book, Homeland. He hastravelled far and wide, from the refugee camps of theformer Yugoslavia, to civil war in Kurdistan, the kung fumasters of south-eastern China to the neo-Nazi gangs ofthe UK.

As a freelance journalist, Ryan has been a consultant forvarious non-profit groups, and acted as a consultantproducer on a variety of TV projects, including Sky Oneseries "Ross Kemp on Gangs". He was awarded a SpecialCommendation from the International Federation ofJournalists (1999) and longlisted in 2005 for the Paul FootAward for Campaigning Journalism, sponsored by PrivateEye magazine and The Guardian.

Analysis of issues and developments in the arena of dialogue and civilizations

thecordobafoundation.com


The Quintessential British Muslim: AbdullahWilliam Henry Quilliam (1856-1932)

Professor Khizar Humayun Ansari

november 2 0 0 8 , sAW bArAcK hussein

obama elected as the 44th president ofthe united states of America – arguably themost extensively practising christian nationof the West – despite being falsely accusedof being a ‘ radical’ , madrasa-trained, closetmuslim, who, in sarah palin’ s words, hadbeen ‘ pallying around with terrorists’ .

obama had to emphasise again and againhis faith in christianity and his rejec-tion – somewhat disingenuousbut politically understandable –of any element of islam in hisearly upbringing to nullify theimpact of the islamic ‘ folkdevil’ . in the past twodecades, islam and muslimsin britain too have been thesubject of widespread suspi-cion, fear and threat. terroristatrocities and political discon-tent are more often than notattributed to “ fanaticalmuslims” , hell-bent upon the“destruction” of Western civilisation.islam has been conjured up as a dangerous,powerful force, irrational, intolerant, violent,and primitively patriarchal – an alien pres-ence incompatible with the values, institu-tions and temper of british people. it hasbecome the archetype ‘ other’ . the imageryof the iranian revolution in 1979, the publicburning of salman rushdie’ s the satanicverses in January 1989, the attacks of 9/11and 7/7 have all combined to confirm adegree of antipathy towards islam andmuslims in the Western popular mind thathas few precedents in the past.

the perception that islam lacks roots inthe british soil has been deployed to setboundaries that categorise, alienate andexclude muslims, by calling into questiontheir emotional ties, loyalties and claims of

belonging to this their homeland (a versionof ‘ this is our country and by implication notyours’ , the claims to greater entitlement arefrequently, if not always explicitly, asserted).british muslims are viewed as a huge prob-lem in need of a solution and much media,political, and academic attention and energyis focused upon an attempt to understandthem. the difficulty in achieving this under-

standing is that the ‘ radical’ minorityof muslims has come to be seen as

broadly representing the whole ofthe british muslim community– a community inaccuratelyportrayed as undifferentiated,isolationist and immune toprocesses of change. ignoringthe reality of muslim life, itsdiversity has been cast aside,creating a homogeneous and

monolithic image that hasthrown up a series of negative

stereotypes which militateagainst constructive and harmo-

nious interaction. instead of mutualgoodwill, division, distrust and islamophobiahas resulted.

radical islam has become, in many ways,a highly visible vehicle for “protest politics”,but it could be argued that it is so for only avery small minority of disenfranchisedmuslims. moreover, its specific methods ofarticulating such grievances are a whollyrecent phenomenon. in the past, muslim dis-contentment was articulated in other ways.by looking at the life and times, and ideasand activities, of William henry Quilliam –leading british muslim of the late nineteenthand early twentieth centuries – this paperseeks to demonstrate the historical hetero-geneity of muslims in their political attitudesand to show that, more often than not, strate-gies adopted by different strands of muslims

THE QUINTESSENTIAL BRISTISH MUSLIM


in britain have been inescapably shaped bytheir context – by factors such as time andplace – and must not be attributed to ageneric perception of a supposed “muslimpsyche” . Quilliam’ s story is proof thatbritain has its own islamic heritage. butwhile a whole spectrum of british muslimsare seeking to invoke Quilliam to validatetheir own brands of islam, even a cursoryglance at his life immediately reveals a morecomplicated personality. After all, who wasQuilliam? Why did Quilliam convert to islamand begin propagating his new faith in latevictorian britain? how did Quilliam’ s“british identity” shape and affect his reli-gious practice and the way that he propagat-ed islam? What were the tensions betweenQuilliam’ s british and muslim identitiesand how did he negotiate them in the age ofhigh imperialism? finally what is Quilliam’ srelevance for today?

QUILLIAM’S BACKGROUNDQuilliam was born into a solid middle-class

family in liverpool in 1856. his family’ sinvolvement with methodism and the tem-perance movement drew him to both at ayoung age. he qualified as a solicitor andquickly became extremely successful. his pri-vate life was not straightforward though. Amarried man, he had a lengthy affair that sug-gested a relative disregard for the christiansexual morality and its ideal of monogamy.turning first to unitarianism and deism, itthen proved a short step to islam, which, doc-trinal similarities with christianity notwith-standing, appeared to him to be a morerational faith. in 1887, after a trip to morocco,Quilliam made his conversion to islam pub-lic, setting out his religious views in a pam-phlet entitled the faith of islam.

slowly, a congregation began to emerge athis house in liverpool. his propagation soonencountered intense hostility. Quilliamfound himself insulted, ridiculed and stigma-tised “as a species of monomaniac”, andregarded by some as a lunatic and a fit casefor a straitjacket. his cultivation of an eccen-tric and colourful image – confidently don-ning flamboyant ‘ eastern’ robes, ridingthrough the streets of liverpool on a whiteArab stallion wearing a brightly-coloured fez,with his pet monkey invariably sitting on his

shoulder – only served by adding exoticismto his new faith and its adherents.

in the context of rising hostility towardsthe ottoman empire in late victorian britain,Quilliam's system of religious belief was pro-nounced as absurd and ridiculous. “Withsome good points”, it was deemed to be“blended with so much unmitigated non-sense and it is a belief so foreign to Westernminds, that its chances of success here areevanescent”: “it is an exotic … un-englishreligion”.1 he was evicted from the house inmount vernon street which, at the time, hewas using as a mosque because the landlord“would not have any person occupying hispremises who did not believe and preach thesaving efficacy of christ Jesus’ blood”.2

consequently, Quilliam moved to 8brougham terrace in 1889, where he estab-lished the liverpool mosque and institute(lmi) in 1891. however there was no let upin the opposition that Quilliam and his con-gregation faced. mohammed's islamic creed,was pronounced by critics in the local pressas “eastern humbug”, which as history hadproved, had been “hand in glove with cruelty,murder, moral and imperial decay, and bar-barous ferocity”.3 on one occasion, a mob,numbering several hundred, assembled infront of the mosque and greeted the muazz-in’ s4 call to prayer with “discordant yells andloud execrations”, and pelted him with mud,stones and filth. likewise, as worshipperswere leaving the mosque, they were peltedwith missiles. eventually the police appearedat the scene and the mob dispersed. in justi-fying this violent reaction – lobbing bucket-fuls of missiles and fireworks into the build-ing – a local newspaper commented that:

“to hear the muezzin here it is most incon-gruous, unusual, silly and unwelcome, andthe man who stands howling on the firstfloor of a balcony in such a fashion is certainto collect a ribald crowd.”5

in these comments of the liverpoolreview of 1891, there are arguably echoes ofthe bishop of rochester’ s recent complaintregarding the calling of the Adhan (call to

Quilliam’s story is proofthat Britain has its ownIslamic heritage



prayer) out aloud in some mosques today. What was it that generated the extreme vit-

riol in this period against islam andQuilliam? such reactions, often laced with alarge portion of bigotry and intolerance, andcombined with inaccurate and misleadinghistory, drew upon the memory of thecrusades and the charge of muhammad'simposture to give them the moral rectitudewhich made lawlessness and disorder,deemed reprehensible under other circum-stances, necessary and defensible.

by the end of the nineteenth century, thedemise of the ottoman empire had come toseem inevitable, certainly as far as europeanpowers were concerned. its likely collapseopened up tantalising prospects for britishimperial ambitions, particularly in terms ofterritorial expansion. thus, a revived “moralcrusade” was enacted against the ottomanstate, in order to uproot “ the turkishtyrant”.6

medieval anxieties between the realm ofchristendom and islam were deliberately re-ignited. british politicians and the press alikeembarked upon a systematic campaign ofcriticising the ottoman empire in order torally popular support. even some quarters ofthe british clergy contributed to the debatedenouncing islam as a “nauseous abomina-tion”.7 this was further reinforced by previ-ous victorian depictions of islam in art andliterature. critical images were reproduced inpopular forms such as newspaper cartoons,music-hall songs, novels and religious jour-nals, and from the beginning of the twentiethcentury in photographs and cinema.respectable newspapers and journals such asthe times, the contemporary review, andthe nineteenth century published diatribescondemning the ottoman empire. Almostsymbiotically, anti-muslim sentiment wasfuelled by british foreign policy decisions,and the stands taken by british governmentsencouraged anti-muslim sentiments.

under these circumstances, it was perhapssurprising that Quilliam was able to gain asmany converts as he did. between 1888 and1908, some 600 in all, and mainly from theprofessional middle-classes converted toislam. the premises in West derby roadwere enlarged: by the mid-1890s, the lmicomprised a mosque, a madrasa, a library

and reading room, a museum, a boy’ s board-ing and day school, a day school for girls, ahostel for muslims and an office for a literarysociety. the complex also contained a print-ing press. the lmi conducted friday congre-gational prayers and celebrated the manyannual muslim festivals.

the first funeral prayer according tomuslim custom was held in the institute in1891, and many weddings thereafter weresolemnised according to islamic traditions.the institute also brought out a weekly andmonthly publications8 dealing with a wholehost of national and international issues con-cerning muslims. these were circulatedinternationally. Quilliam – a staunch believ-er in the solidarity of the muslim umma –travelled widely and built up important con-tacts in the muslim world. the importance ofthe liverpool community was recognised inthe conferment on Quilliam in 1894 by thetitle of shaykh al-islam of the british isles bythe ottoman ruler and the Amir ofAfghanistan. it was further underlined by hisnomination as persian consul for liverpoolby the shah of persia.

how then was this success achieved?Quilliam adopted a variety of innovativeapproaches to achieve conversion. he quick-ly realised that if he were to counteract anti-muslim antagonism and if he were toencourage favourable opinion, he would haveto communicate his ideas in an idiom thathis audience could readily understand.bearing in mind the social and intellectualenvironment in which the lmi was carryingout its missionary work, Quilliam directedhis attention mainly to the people with whomhe already was familiar with and whose con-cerns he had shared and championed foryears, such as his “old temperance friends”.9

by drawing parallels between muhammadand english heroic figures such as Granvillesharp, thomas clarkson and WilliamWilberforce, he sought to have the formerrecognised as one of the “noble band ofemancipators” 10 and “benefactors ofmankind”11 – to whom “the very nation whotraduced them has since raised statues ofhonour”.12 he was english and therefore, peo-ple from the majority population could not aseasily dismiss his views as ‘ alien’ as mighthave been the case if they had come from a



person with a different ethnic origin or cul-ture. to demystify islam and encourage con-verts, Quilliam highlighted the similarities ofthe three great Abrahamic faiths and theirshared origins. turning towards his largelyprotestant audiences, he emphasised the con-tinuity between christianity and islam. heattempted to make connections with the reli-gious practises of potential converts and socreate a sense of receptive familiarity.

this approach was reflected in many of thelmi’ s activities which were similar to the“good works” being carried out vigorously bynon-conformist christians, especially theunitarians. for example, Quilliam’ s medinahome for children was founded as a refugefor unwanted children who were cared forand brought up as muslims. Another exam-ple of the institute’ s concern with the peoplein the locality was its annual celebration ofchristmas day from 1888 by providing mealsfor and entertaining hundreds of the poor.

regarding christmas, the liverpoolmuslims’ view was that although they reject-ed the divinity of Jesus, they honoured andrespected his memory as a prophet. theysought to show also “in a most practicablemanner that the religion of islam inculcatesalmsgiving to the deserving poor and theneedy as one of the pillars of the faith”.13

thus, it was their duty they declared, to feedthe “poor ill-clad christians in a christiancity neglected by the followers of their owncreed”.14 the lmi also built bridges withinterested christians by adopting a form ofritual to which people were accustomed andwith which they felt at home: morning andevening services were organised on sundayswhere hymns, many taken from christianevangelists but adapted by Quilliam to be“suitable for english-speaking muslim con-gregations”,15 were sung. in these ways,Quilliam was clearly trying to construct anindigenous, british, islamic tradition.

however, despite his best efforts harmo-nious co-existence proved to be a near impos-sibility in the aggressive milieu in which hiscommunity was located. Quilliam found ithard to stomach what he perceived weregrave distortions of his religion and themuslim umma in britain. in his edicts (orfatwas), he questioned the virtue of muslimimperial subjects fighting on behalf of the

empire against their fellow brethren in thesudan – in so doing he indirectly called intoquestion the ability of muslims to be loyal toboth britain and their religion.

on the Armenian Question, he defendedthe ottomans in 1895 from criticism that heregarded as unbalanced and unfair; whenGladstone tried to mobilise mass support forhis demand that the government should takepunitive measures against turkey, Quilliampre-empted Gladstone's16 speech in liverpoolby calling a meeting of his congregation toredress the balance. he talked of england,virtually preaching a new crusade againstislam,17 but hypocritically ignoring“christian atrocities” elsewhere. in 1897, heaccused “the british christian logic” of dou-ble standards for extolling an American as ahero for killing innocent women and chil-dren in the crowded streets of istanbul whiledenouncing an Afghan fighting for hishomeland “as a traitor and a rebel” as hisland is “raided and his wives and childrenslain”. his warning that such a crusademight be answered with a jihad was dis-missed by the press as a hollow threat, andhis criticisms were rejected as “un-british”,or even treasonous.

Allegations that his muslim faith tookprecedence over his loyalty to the crown,however, were unfair because Quilliamrevered the monarchy and by extension(though with some reservations), the existingbritish empire. there is considerable evi-dence for this. he offered special prayers onthe occasion of Queen victoria’ s birthdayand celebrated her diamond Jubilee at thelmi in 1897. in 1899, Quilliam sent victoriaa ‘ celebratory telegram’ which conveyed

The importance of theLiverpool community wasrecognised in theconferment on Quilliam in1894 by the title of Shaykhal-Islam of the British Islesby the Ottomon ruler andthe Amir of Afghanistan.



‘ the loyal felicitations of the britishmuslims.’ When she died in 1901, hepromptly sent a telegram ‘ conveying theheartfelt condolences of the britishmuslims’ to edward vii, whose portraitappeared on the cover of the next edition ofthe islamic World. despite such actions, thefact that Quilliam’ s loyalties were neverthe-less still questioned was due to his unprece-dented boldness as a british muslim leaderand his confidence that his british andmuslim identities were reconcilable.Quilliam remained unabashed and unapolo-getic about his twin loyalties:

“if it be a crime to place duties of religionbefore those patriotism, then i am verilyguilty…the muslim’ s first and paramountduty and allegiance is to God, the prophetand islam, all other claims are of secondaryand minor importance.”18

this ‘ political’ phase in Quilliam’ s reli-gious career came to an abrupt end in 1908with his sudden, and mysterious departurefrom britain, probably for istanbul.following sultan hamid’ s deposition,Quilliam (using the french name leon)19

returned to england in late 1909, drawnback by family ties. he occasionally attendedmeetings of groups sympathetic to islam aswell as those held by the growing muslimcommunity in london, but did not pursuehis defence of islam or muslim leaders aspassionately as he had done prior to 1908.With britain pitted against turkey by the endof 1914, he was more anxious than he hadever been in liverpool to demonstrate hisloyalty to crown and country and, in fact,repudiated his earlier rhetoric about religiontaking precedence over patriotism: “ourholy faith enjoins upon us to be loyal towhatever country under whose protectionwe reside.”20 he wrote to Grey, the foreignsecretary, pledging his absolute loyalty to thebritish crown and, moreover, offering hisservices to the government in promoting“loyalty amongst the muslims throughoutthe empire.”21

Quilliam kept a low profile for the durationof the Great War, though one of manyrumours that surfaced after his death sug-gested that he may have carried out “valuablesecret service work for england”22 during theconflict. yet, at the end of the war his efforts

to ensure that a defeated and humiliatedturkey received a fair hearing occasionallythreatened to undermine his attempts toappear loyal to britain.

so, how do we evaluate Quilliam? on theone hand, his feelings regarding ‘ conflict-ing’ loyalties reflected the predicament ofmany of britain’ s muslim subjects duringthe first World War, something that resur-faced again more recently during the twoGulf wars and remains with us inAfghanistan. on the other hand, while ‘ radi-cal’ islamists today distance themselvesfrom Western liberal democracy and itsprocesses, Quilliam chose to remain engagedwith existing social and political structures.At no point did Quilliam or his congregationcall for the creation of a distinct “islamicstate” for the muslims of the empire; nor didhe or his followers advocate violent acts inpursuit of their aims.

but is he relevant today? As yahya birt, akeen and perceptive observer of islam inbritain has succinctly put it, “in a way,[Quilliam’ s] mixture of local public serviceand global political concern makes [him] anoddly resonant figure for young britishmuslims today – a marionette for ouranachronistic fears and hopes”.23

ENDNOTES

1. ‘Moslemism in Liverpool’, Liverpool Review, 28November 1891.The Crescent, Liverpool, 1 July, 1896

2. The Crescent, Liverpool, 1 July, 1896

3. Ibid.

4. The person who calls fellow Muslims to prayer, at theprescribed times.

5. ‘Moslemism in Liverpool’, Liverpool Review, 28 Nov 1891.

6. Norman Daniel, Islam, Europe and Empire, ManchesterUniversity Press, 1966, p.37.

Professor Khizar Humayun Ansari is Professor of Islamand Cultural Diversity and Director of the Centre forMinority Studies, Department of History, at RoyalHolloway, University of London. He has conductedresearch on ethnicity, identity, migration, multiculturalismand Islamophobia. He has advised and addressed a widespectrum of organisations and provided consultancy andtraining in the field of ethnicity and equal opportunitiesfor organisations in the public, private and voluntarysectors, including government departments andagencies, further and higher education, and withinindustry and commerce. He has written extensively onthe subject of Muslims in Western society, culturaldiversity and cross-cultural issues. He is author of 'TheInfidel Within', Muslims in Britain Since 1800. ProfessorAnsari was awarded an OBE in 2002 for his services tohigher education and race relations in the community.

7. Muslim Outlook, 20 November 1919.

8. The Crescent was an eight page weekly and The IslamicWorld a thirty-two page monthly.

9. See ‘Preface to the Second Edition’ of his lecture,‘Fanatics and Fanaticism’, delivered at VernonTemperance Hall, Liverpool in 1890.

10. Ibid., p.10.

11. Ibid., p.21.

12. Ibid., p.10.

13. The Crescent, 1 January, 1896.

14. Ibid.

15. M.M. Ally, ‘History of Muslims in Britain, 1850-1980’,Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Birmingham,1981, p.58.

16. Gladstone had concluded that Islam was ‘radicallyincapable of establishing a good and tolerable

government over civilised and Christian races’. NormanDaniel, Islam, Europe and Empire, p.398.

17. “The Christian Powers are preparing a new crusade inorder to shatter the Muslim powers, under the pretextthat they desire to civilize the world”. See, The Crescent,22 April 1896, pp.681-682.

18. The Crescent, 10 June 1896, p.793.

19. In April 1915, The Islamic Review, introduced Quilliamas “brother Professor Haroun Mustapha Leon…a truebeliever for 33 years”. He is described as “a philologist”,“a geologist” and an “Honorary member of many learnedsocieties in Europe and America”. See, p.182.

20. ‘Mussulmans and the War’, 1914, NA, FO 371/12/2173.

21. ‘Moslems and Turkey’, 1914, NA, FO 371/12/2146.

22. Daily Herald, 23 September, 1933, p.1.

23. ‘Abdullah Quilliam: Britain’s First Islamist?’,http://www.yahyabirt.com/?p=136/

Th

is p

ubl

icat

ion

is p

rin

ted

on 1

00

% r

ecyc

led

pape

r.

Working with the Media is designedto help individuals and localgroups better meet their mediaand communications needs. It introduces the media, outlines how journalists operate and offers practicaladvice for spearheading aproactive public relations(PR) strategy. The Guide iswritten for local Muslimgroups and Mosques who are unfamiliar with working and dealing with the media.

MEDIA GUIDEOUT NOW

Westgate House, Level 7, Westgate Road, Ealing, London W5 1YYTel 020 8991 3372 • Fax 020 8991 3373

[email protected] • www.thecordobafoundation.com

FOUNDED IN 2005, The Cordoba Foundation(TCF) is an independent Public Relations,Research and Training unit, which promotes

dialogue and the culture of peaceful and positivecoexistence among civilisations, ideas and people.We do this by working with decision-making circles, researchers, religious leaders, the media,and a host of other stakeholders of society forbetter understanding and clearer comprehensionof inter-communal and inter-religious issues inBritain and beyond.

Our activities include:

• Structured consultation and advisory services

• Face-to-face interaction with decision-makers andfigures of authority

• In-house research

• Workshops, seminars and debates on pertinent issues

• Training and capacity-building

• Periodicals and journals

• Resourceful website

www.thecordobafoundation.com

THE CORDOBAFOUNDATIONCultures in Dialogue

Arches Issue 3

Documents

Transcript of Arches Issue 3