“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm.”
This comment came from the Home Office to defend the Home Secretary’s announcement to propose an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill. Clause 9 gives the UK Government the right to withdraw citizenship from any UK National. The proposed change to this clause, is to allow citizenship to be revoked without having to give notice when it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so.
This is no surprise, as without exception, every Home Secretary since David Blunkett (twenty years now) has negatively fuelled the hysteria around this country needing to take control of its borders. The Home Office continuously empathises urgency of the protection of British citizens by constantly pointing out the imminent threat of Muslim terrorists. Islam, BLM, Windrush, BREXIT, racism in cricket and a whole host of other headline issues, means that for many UK citizens living in Britain frequently feels insecure enough, without the threat that the UK Government plans to extend their power to strip away the legal rights of citizens.
Setting aside all the obvious details of hypocrisy, it is the fact the Home Office defended its policy on the declaration that British citizenship is a ‘privilege’ that I find so condescendingly outrageous!
I am aware of three ways to gain UK citizenship and none of them are granted as a ‘privilege’.
The first way is to be born here. At the point when parents register the birth of a child, the child becomes a citizen. There is no exclusion, and only alternative nationalities are available in rare circumstances. Basically, every person born in the UK automatically gains citizenship. This is outside of their control and consent. Therefore, effectively, citizenship by this method has been imposed by the State. And from that point onwards, every aspect of your life is now dependent on the fact that citizenship has formally been registered. This becomes apparent should you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to prove your UK citizenship.
The conservative party in their 2010 manifesto, pledged to bring UK annual net migration down to the tens of thousands. Prime Minister David Cameron introduced new measures to control immigration. Rigorous procedures were introduced in 2012, which affected several Government departments and included detailed instructions being distributed to employers across the UK. Although the Government denied it was aware of the repercussions (outlined by Amber Rudd 2018), within several months of Cameron’s policies being implemented, it became apparent that a significant number of British citizens were having their lives destroyed. Jobs were lost; homes were lost; access to benefits were denied; free NHS care was no longer available; and within a few years the new policy saw at least 83 people being illegally deported! Although this became known as the Windrush Scandal, it affected legal migrants from across the Commonwealth and not just the Caribbean. These rules and regulation are still enforced, so if you were not already aware, take heed, and keep your UK birth certificate and your British passport safe, as without it your life is impossible to live.
Being a UK citizen is based on the relatively new concept of Nation State.
The definition of Nation State is a community of citizens that identify themselves as a nation and they deem the proximity of the territory they occupy, as their homeland. Prior to this 16th Century ideal, people simply associated themselves to certain tribes or specific places or their region of origin. For example, Sandeep may have said he was from a certain place, or from the Punjab, but he would not have considered himself as an Indian. Those that chose to travel or migrate could do so relatively freely. Without getting too complicated, the concept of Nation State gained recognition in the 17th Century after the signing of the treaty of Westphalia. Even so, it is only during the 19th and 20th centuries that it manifested into a form that we would recognise today. The propagation and implementation of the Nation State model was driven by the great European powers, and the global chieftain that imposed the necessity to uphold this principle was of course, the British. Interesting therefore, that Britain is proposing a U-turn on an international political system that they prominently established. Nation State is how the Europeans chose to organise global populations and resources, and so citizenship resulted as the imposition of identity and was not provided as a privilege.
The second means of eventually gaining citizenship is by requesting asylum. Asylum has been in existence since ancient times. During the Greek and Roman eras, an asylum referred to a place where people facing persecution sought refuge. These were usually religious institutions, such as temples and sacred sites. In Europe, from the medieval period, churches became the places that provided sanctuary. A familiar term for those aware of Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It is well known that when Jews fled the tribulations of the Spanish inquisition and Russian pogroms, they were granted asylum by the Muslims.
After the Second World War, millions of people were displaced across the globe. A massive problem well beyond the kindness of religious establishments. Hence, it became apparent that an extensive solution was required, and one that would conform to the established Nation State protocols. Therefore, the treatment of refugees was agreed by 147 countries that signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and following on from this, by the Protocol of 1967.
As Britain agreed to this UN Convention, the UK Government is obliged to protect those people fleeing oppression. Those seeking asylum must prove that they are escaping their homeland because of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or because of their political views. Decades ago, Britain decreed itself to be humane to seekers of asylum. Decades ago, Britain decreed it was a right for anybody that was being persecuted. So, being granted asylum is a legal right and not a privilege. The struggle of escaping a regime that endangers your life is hard enough, without the obstacles currently enforced by the UK Government. Since the Second World War, the difficulty of obtaining citizenship by these means has become increasingly burdensome year on year. Those that gain full UK citizenship after initially arriving as asylum seekers have paid a price beyond imagination.
Purchasing is the final way of gaining citizenship. There are always other specific rules and conditions before naturalisation in the UK is granted. Proving you have lived in the UK for a continuous period of 5 years, for example. After the administrative thresholds have been met, depending on your circumstances, fees of between £1,300 to £3,250 must be paid. This money is unlikely to be reimbursed, so whenever applications are rejected or examinations failed, the fees must be paid again for any subsequent reapplications. In a capitalist world money determines superiority, so by that measure, immigrants have earned more right to this country than the indigenous population!
So, it is clear, that no British citizen has been granted that status by means of privilege. The only people that have privilege in this country are those sitting in the cabinet approving policies and laws of oppression.
Shariah Councils are not Shariah Courts! This is the first of several misrepresentations of the nature and function of Shariah Councils in Britain.
A court is of course the judicial apparatus of the ruling State. The appointments of personnel are organised by the state and thereafter the judgements of the court are then enforced by the state. History shows that whenever former rulers dispute the legitimacy of the court holding them on trial, for example King Charles I of England or Saddam Hussein of Iraq, their objections were all ignored. This was because their former leaderships’ consent was not required to legitimise the courts they subsequently saw themselves facing, rather a different Government was going to enforce the court’s decision (King Charles and Saddam Hussein were both executed), whether they liked it or not.
Within the Muslim community, if a Shariah Council rules in favour of a woman and then the man concerned chooses to ignore the ruling, the Shariah Council cannot take any action to enforce their decision. This is because Shariah Council are dealing with what are known as civil matters rather than dealing with legal matters. Committing a crime that is a legal matter would either be dealt with by the Magistrate or Crown Court. Shariah Councils are primarily only dealing with Muslim divorces. Therefore, participation with every aspect of the Shariah Council can only be completely consensual.
Parallel Legal System
But you cannot have two legal systems running alongside each other! This is another point of criticism that has been made.
The Football Association is a governing body that passes all sorts of rules and regulations. It even enforces them with players being banned and Football Clubs being fined. However, nobody accuses the Football Association of running a legal system in parallel with the British legal system.
There are numerous councils and associations that operate in the UK, on examination they all work because the participants are in affect consenting to how the council or associations operates, even if they end up disagreeing with a member’s viewpoint. In fact, nobody would dare to suggest that any of these associations run any sort of parallel legal system, because the idea is so ridicules.
Safeguarding
A further point of concern that is mentioned when discussing Shariah Councils is whether or not they are safeguarding women. For example, it is propagated that there is a danger that vulnerable women which are being abused or are at risk of abuse by their husbands, are ‘forced’ to remain in their marriage.
Certainly, safeguarding is something we should not become complacent about. However realistic concerns around the Shariah Councils having enough measures (and/or enough competence), does not necessitate the hysterical accusations that Shariah Councils are an immediate threat to women’s safety or undermining women’s empowerment. In fact, it is patronising that those involved with a service aimed at women wanting an Islamic divorce are so dispassionate. The scrutiny of adequate measures to ensure women are safeguarded and protected from imminent danger are very distinct from the conjecture that there is a current total failure. It should also be noted that at any time a woman is free to contact the Police or Social Services.
It is because of safeguarding women that these Shariah Council came into existence in the first place.
A Muslim devotes their life to God’s cause, this is well known. A Muslim is careful about what they eat, how they dress, even how they speak to another person. Therefore, nobody would be surprised that a Muslim has to get their sexual relationship sanctioned by God, otherwise the act would constitute as a sin. So, if a Muslim marriage must take place (separate from a British Legal marriage) in accordance to Islamic traditions, then a Muslim divorce would also be required to be in line with Islam. If a separation between a couple has NOT been sanctioned by God, then as far as the Muslims are concerned it is not a divorce. If one member of the couple then began another sexual relationship with a third party this second relationship could potentially be sinful.
Under Islam, a man can exercise his own authority to divorce his wife. A wife can ask her husband for a divorce and if he agrees, again under his authority, he can grant her the divorce she wishes for. However, what does a Muslim woman do if the husband refuses the divorce? The Shariah gives plenty of grounds for a woman to have her request sanctioned, thereby over-riding the husband’s objections. Under Islam, this over-riding of the husband’s authority is done by the Judge using Shariah Law. Across Britain, it is the Muslim Community that sanctions the authority of these Shariah Councils to determine divorce. This is where there is similarity to what happens in the Jewish Community with Beth Dins.
So in effect, what has happened in this Country is that men have given consent for other men to overrule their own authority. In other words, it is men that are safeguarding women and women’s rights.
The Shariah Council allow women to continue with their lives free of any burden that they felt obliged that they were still living under. In other words a British Court may grant a couple a divorce (which would still be required if the Muslim couple had registered their marriage under British Law), however without the sanction from the God that the women chose to believe in, they would under practical purposes still in effect be married. Again, Shariah Councils came into existence to solve this problem.
Parliamentary Committee
The following points were submitted to the Home Affairs Committee by Amin Al-Astewani, Lecturer in Law, Lancaster University:
Religious tribunals have existed in Britain for hundreds of years. These tribunals function on a non-statutory basis and are not considered part of the civil court system
This includes Roman Catholic Church tribunals, whose decisions are not recognized at civil law. The only exception to this rule is the ecclesiastical courts belonging to the Church of England, which function on a statutory basis and are considered a formal part of the English judicial system.
The default legal position is that the decisions of Shariah councils have no legal force or jurisdiction. Members of the community who approach them for a religious divorce do so completely voluntarily and cannot be summoned to do so.
And Dr Ghena Krayem, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney also submitted
The research indicates that the Muslim community in Australia does not seek to set up a parallel legal system but rather that it is seeking out ways in which the informal community processes can fit within the existing family law structure. This ensures that all legal obligations are complied with and Australian Muslims are adhering to what they perceive to be important aspects of their faith.
The ultimate testimony about the fairness of the Shariah Councils are from those Muslim women that are defending their existence against the two disturbing enquiries that were ordered by Prime Minster Theresa May. For example, the Muslim Women’s Network UK said the inquiries risked treating women like “political footballs”. Yes, these Muslim women are asking for improvements and have expressed some areas of concern, but clearly they are not sanctioning any proposals to replace or abolish them. In fact, they are determined that they stay.
One Land One Law
Labour MP Naz Shah speaking on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme, who sits on the Home Affairs Committee, expressed some support for these Shariah Councils but also said “You cannot enforce and have a second paralegal system in this country.
“As a British law-maker, I am very clear we have one law, and that law is that of the British court”.
From where in the Muslim Community has this request for Shariah Councils to be formerly recognised under UK law been made? Again, another problem highlighted that simply does not exist. However, the principle of one legal system existing in one land is an important point to bring up.
Under an Islamic State only the Shariah Law would be used. Any call to have a parallel legal system to run alongside the State’s implementation of the Islamic Shariah would also be rejected. However, Islam allows the Jews and the Christian to take care of their internal civil matters using their respected religious practices, this includes marriage and divorce. So a Christian marrying or divorcing a Christian would not have to get permission from any Islamic authority. Whereas, if a Muslim stole from a Jew, then the matter would be heard under the Shariah Legal System. And if a Christian Woman were to be abused and required protection, then the State would again intervene. It is Islam that enshrines that such rights can be practised by other religious communities living under Islamic jurisdiction. In fact, as Muslims, it is one of the principles we are proud about.
Faux Pas
None of the difficulties that have been raised about this subject have any credibility. In summary
The calling of two legal systems does not exist
Nothing stops women going to the UK Government for protection
If women are being grossly unfairly treated, then why are women (clearly well-educated and informed) calling for the Councils to remain?
There is no hypocrisy on the part of Islam allowing a different community to deal with internal civil matters based on their separate religious rules.
It is worth mentioning at this point that no Muslims seeks to justify women being abused by men. Nor is this a denial that such abuses take place within the Muslim Community. Such abusive treatment contradicts Shariah and thereby Muslims who seek to live by Allah’s decree will always hate the violations of Islam, no matter what form or by what reason those violations take place.
So, allow me to repeat my earlier assertion, that none of the difficulties that have been raised about this subject have any credibility even upon casual scrutiny. So why has the status and existence of the Shariah Councils become so abruptly challenged?
Final Say
Well there is one area that I have so far not covered. It is the fact the word Shariah is being used. If these councils were named ‘The Asian Association to Protect Women from Abusing Men’ would people be so intimidated by them? I suspect not. However, I do not want the Shariah Councils to change their names as some token of appeasement. Why should they? Rather the point is that the prejudice and hatred being vented towards Islam and Shariah is what has been exposed here.
In fact, it is so blatantly clear I do not need to elaborate. Plus, I am also male, so it is only right that a woman has the final say about that!
“Everyone wants to listen to Muslim women when highlighting their terrible experiences. However, when it comes to the solutions, everyone thinks they know what is best for them,”
“I do feel that there are people who are anti-faith, particularly anti-Islam, who are using women’s rights as a guise, wanting to abolish Sharia councils”.
Gohir Chair of Muslim Women’s Network UK
November 2016
O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom. Al Imran 3:118
“The land was stolen from native people, genocide was committed against the native people, and ancestors were stolen from Africa and brought here to work. So the foundation of the United States of America is genocide, stealing land and slavery.
“Any architect will tell you that if you don’t have a strong foundation, the building’s going to be shaky, and shaky from day one. This sin has not been dealt with since the birth of this country.”
During a recent BBC News interview the film director Spike Lee was illustrating how deep the problem of systemic racism is in modern society. Lee concluded that it followed that America needed to “start all over”
The public rage following the death of George Floyd has become an unprecedented global phenomenon, which has naturally drawn the attention of mass media. Whenever Lee is asked how real change can come about he is extremely optimistic and after enthusiastically calling people to “fight the good fight” he usually goes on to suggest supporting the public demonstrations, getting more politically active and in another interview said “We have to be in the positions where important decisions are made.”
The painful long struggle for racial equality since emancipation was expected to have led to substantial progression, certainly by the 21st Century. Instead, what has become apparent is being of a skin colour other than white will consistently and frequently subject you to becoming the recipient of less favourable treatment. At witnessing a 21st Century fatality, black people have had enough. Besieged, battered and simply exhausted black people are understandably angry at the system that has failed them. The same system that is responsible for diminishing the legacy of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The same system that is responsible for Black Lives Matter (BLM) coming into existence back in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the shooting to death of Trayvon Marti.
In many respects the human race has united over the BLM campaign. From the slums of the favelas in Brazil to middle class suburbia in the United Kingdom people irrespective of colour and creed are expressing their disgust and distain that racism is still endemic in the towns where they are living.
Lots of questions are being asked. How could this still be happening? Why is there still denial that a problem still exists? How is it that institutions that are supposed to protect people can actually harm people? Is education the key to eradicate this ignorance? What can I do?
The most profound thing to do at this time is to reflect. These are extremely important questions. And although I plan to elaborate on this later, I have to tell you now; I predict that these extremely important questions will inevitably be largely left unanswered.
History
Historically, enormous effort has been exerted to address the problem of racism and thereby answer those questions. Not only was it an intellectual discourse, it involved political actions too. The biggest barrier to change was economics. Pain and suffering, sacrifice and bloodshed were surrendered for this cause on an immeasurable scale. Which for so long was ineffective simply because those in power prioritised money above Christianity and human decency. This was why this historical journey at solving the problem even led to war.
The Abolitionists
The abolitionist movement in the United States was founded by Christians in the 1830s in the northern part of the United States. They opposed slavery based on the view that everyone is equal before God. The Quakers were the most vocal and consistent in this cause with significant support from the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Amish. The abolitionists advocated for the total emancipation of slaves and the end of all forms of racial discrimination (although most Abolitionists supported the idea that free slaves should leave America).
Their campaigning included leaflets, church sermons, public meetings and lobbying members of the US Congress. From 1831 William Lloyd Garrison published the Liberator Newspaper. In 1845 the autobiography “Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” was printed. Uncle Tom’s Cabin a novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe was released in 1852 and had a profound effect on changing the attitudes towards slavery in the USA.
Abolitionist founded the Oberlin College which was the first higher education institution that was racially integrated. The Baptists also founded the College Oneida Institute from which many African-American leaders graduated from.
The Liberty Party was launched with James G. Birney as the Presidential candidate in the 1840 and 1844 elections.
President Abraham Lincoln
The Republican Party won the US election in 1860 (the Liberty Party never won a Presidential election) and so Abraham Lincoln became President in March 1861.
However the opposition against the Abolitionists had been intense and severe. Lincoln had become President of country that was deeply divided between those that supported slavery and those that opposed it. On 12 April 1861 the American Civil War began.
July 1863 saw the most significant battle of the war at a place called Gettysburg. The Union Army (anti-slavery and the army of Abraham Lincoln) was victorious and in effect determined the outcome of the War.
Four months after the Battle, President Lincoln gave a speech at Gettysburg to formally open the cemetery for those soldiers that had died in the battle there. This speech was known as the ‘Gettysburg address” and included the following famous words:
“Four score and seven years ago (meaning 87 years ago) our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”
“…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of Freedom – and that the Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”
At the beginning of that same year, on 1st January, Lincoln had issued a Presidential Proclamation and Executive Order. This Emancipation Proclamation declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious States (The Confederates) “are, and henceforward shall be free”
President Lincoln was a slave owner, like most of the prominent politicians at that time.
Reconstruction
Following the end of the war in 1865, 4 million black slaves were immediately granted their freedom. However the Union Government in Washington was faced with the logistical problem of not only facilitating the amalgamation of the former slaves in to the Union but also its former enemy the Confederate States. Crippled by the war the Confederate States were in dire need of financial support. The former Confederate plantation and slave owners were bankrupt so self financing was not an option either. So President Andrew Johnson ordered that the farms and plantations should be returned to these former owners. Thereafter to qualify for financial support the policy of Crop Sharing was made a condition. In exchange for providing a wage and accommodation for farm workers, land owners would be entitled to take a majority share of profit made on the crops that were sold. Meanwhile no financial assistant from the Government was offered to the freed slaves. Faced with salvation, many former slaves “choose” to return to work for their former masters.
Separate but Equal
From 1876 each separate State had the autonomy to determine their own conditions for the implementation on the newly war won Civil Rights introduced by the Federal Government in Washington. States such as Mississippi, Missouri and Alabama would apply the accepted principle of ‘Separate but Equal”. In effect, this was the beginning of racial segregation. Restaurants, public toilets, transport, schools and even water fountains would be divided into facilities that were either legally for whites only or blacks only. Employers were also granted the autonomy and discretion over how they could punish impertinent workers. These were known as the Jim Crow Laws.
Using the wrong facility would be punished harshly. Fortunate offenders would be processed through the American legal system. This however was extremely rare and it was more likely that the Whites would simply dispense with troubling the authorities and proceed to humiliate, beat or even execute the disobedient and insolent. Whites punishing Blacks in any of these manners would be overlooked by law enforcement officials.
Under the same laws the State could introduce whatever conditions were deemed necessary to formally allow people to register to vote. Examples included being able to pass a literacy test or explain the meaning of a document full of legal jargon. After the Civil War everybody had the right to vote, but practically if you were black it was likely you could never qualify to be able to register to vote.
Demonstrations
The civil rights movement 1954 to 1968 in the United States arguably pioneered anti-racism campaigning, for example the techniques that were used to raise awareness and effectively utilize the media to influence the ‘National Dialogue’. Birmingham & Montgomery in Alabama and Atlanta Georgia remain famous for being key historical locations associated with the movement to end racial segregation and guarantee the right to vote.
This was the era of civil disobedience and the names of Dorothy Height, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X rose to prominence.
Legal battles
I pointed out earlier that it was more favourable to have a ‘crime’ heard in court rather than face a lynching mob. Not because there was an expectation of facing a fair trial rather that you chances of coming out of the situation alive was more probable.
In an inherently racist legal system however survival was not guaranteed. The 1944 trail of George Stinney Junior in South Carolina is a brutal example of just that. After just a two-hour trial and the jury taking only ten minutes to deliberate, they found the 14 year old African American guilty of murdering two white girls (aged 7 and 11). Two months later he was executed in the electric chair. 70 long years later Stinney Junior would be completely exonerated of the crime.
In 1955 Rosa Parks was found guilty for refusing to give up her bus seat for a white man. She was fined $10 and ordered to pay an addition $4 for court costs. Her trial lasted less than thirty minutes.
Prominent illustrations of the oppression and inequality black people have faced on countless occasions by US justice system since the middle of the 19th century. And that reputation is still a prevailing expectation within the ethnic communities of America today.
After Lyndon B Johnson
President Lyndon B Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act 1965. It was specifically aimed at securing the right to vote for all ethnic minorities throughout the United States and particularly designed to end discriminatory registration practises prevalent throughout the Southern States.
What then followed was fifty five years which in fact became the life experience of everybody alive today. And although our levels of fear on a day to day basis have diminished and many seized the opportunities that society did offer, there remains a sense that progress across the decades has been disappointingly insufficient.
In Britain today 9% of black people are unemployed, compared with 4% across all ethnic groups. There is still a 13% attainment gap between black and white students at university. You are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white. It is still the case that 51% of children locked up in prison are from ethnic minorities, even though Black, Asian and minority-ethnic people make up 14% of the UK’s total population.
For every Lionel Richie & Michael Jackson; Denzel Washington and Will Smith; Mike Tyson and Michael Jordan the statistics above merely confirm what is witnessed on a widespread basis. That a disproportionate greater number are held back, oppressed and abused by the same system that continuously propagates championship of fairness and equality.
How is it after a massive movement of human endeavour for two centuries, after a victorious war that terminated slavery 150 years ago and numerous pages of humanitarian legislation that it is possible a death sentence can be delivered on a person just on the basis of having black skin? And why do these same long pages of history show the white perpetrators have consistently been spared from severe consequences? Surely after a WAR the momentum should have been such that by the beginning of the Twentieth Century the systemic racism we witness today should have only been visible in books of history?
There is a reason why this long chronicle simply just keeps repeating itself and that racism has not vanished. In fact, Spike Lee illustrated the answer: “Any architect will tell you that if you don’t have a strong foundation, the building’s going to be shaky”
Shaky Foundation
Every solution has been tried. The establishment of innovative educational institutions, the setting up of sound curricular, demonstrations, civil disobedience, political participation and the undertaking of careers within the Political Parties themselves. 2008 saw the pinnacle reached. A black man appointed to the most senior position on the world stage. He even had an African name; Obama elected President of the United States of America.
All these solutions have one thing in common. They all originated from the same shaky foundation that caused the problem in the first place. That is why all these same approaches have always left a substantial part of problem remaining in society. So it begs the questions, if after the death of George Floyd the problem of racism is approached no differently can we expect a significantly different change and outcome in our lifetime?
Now I am not suggesting that on a day to day basis we live a life of hopelessness and fatalism. That parents should not send their children to the best educational institutions available to them or that you stop raising cases through Industrial Tribunals when subjected to work place discrimination. Absolutely securing the best outcomes in life is the intelligent thing to do. Rather that those determined to do the best for humanity should seriously reflect on the succinct observation that Spike Lee and so many others have made about the liberal industrial capitalist system of life created by White Europeans.
There is a decision to be made here, either to continue to live within it or seek an alternative. Fully comprehending the nature of the system of life dominating human affairs and accepting to live with it is also accepting that if you are not white, you will never fully attain equality or parity.
The cause of the Abolitionist was realised when emancipation was declared. However this was never going to be enough, what was neglected was any sort of planning for exactly how the former slaves would transition to free citizenship and societal recognition. After the American Civil War the abolitionist melted away. The huge social, economic and political problems left in the wake of the War would eventually have to be solved. With no plan or any other alternative answers what then naturally arose were resolutions that were from the same foundation that caused the problem in the first place. This is how a new system of human inequality replaced slavery.
On 26 June 2020 BBC Radio 4 interviewed Mina Smallman the first female black archdeacon in the Church of England. She was the mother of the two sisters found dead at the Fryent Country Park earlier in the same month. Two Police Officers had shared on social media inappropriate photographs of themselves at the murder scene of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman.
Smallman was asked “It is nearly thirty years since Stephen Lawrence was murdered; since [then] there was a public inquiry; since [then] there was a disclosure that there was institutional racism within the Metropolitan Police. What has changed in almost thirty years?”
She replied “Nothing” and then added:
“They have just got better at covering up. It is so entrenched in the whole ethos that they have normalised it”
She went on to describe that the balance of power within the Metropolitan Police has not realistically changed despite years of reassurance that it had.
You clearly cannot choose to live with it. So is there an alternative?
The Challenge for Muslims
The first obvious challenge is to prove to the sceptical that Islam does indeed solve the problem of racism as well as the other overwhelming problems confronting humanity. Certainly dialogue is an essential element to address this, but what better way to prove Islam resolves discrimination with an alternative approach than by actually demonstrating it? Show the world that Islam can “stand on its own two feet”. In other words, as Muslims, we should not be imitating the methods and approaches undertaken by the society that surrounds us in order to secure fairness and justice.
Unfortunately that is precisely what Muslims have been doing and what many still propose we should continue to do.
From September 2020 Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) lesson in all schools across the UK will be compulsory for all children to attend. Parents will not have the right to exclude their children from the lessons set by the school. Despite the Government’s efforts to show otherwise, there is a clearly an overwhelming majority of people in the UK that oppose this provision, especially on grounds of age appropriateness. Muslims may have attracted the popular media to a point that often excluded the voices from the Jewish, Christian and non-religious campaigners, but it should be acknowledged that rarely does the angst of Muslim parents see widespread support from all denominations of non-Muslims.
I will point out, although I am sure it is obvious, Muslims are concerned with RSE because of the potential and realistic risk that children will be indoctrinated with issues that conflict with the teachings of Islam.
The most prominent demonstrations were those that were held for weeks outside the Parkfield Community School in Birmingham from March 2019. The local Birmingham Council quickly supported the Parkfield Community School and condemned the protesting parents.
What followed in the summer of 2019 were councils all across the UK presenting resolutions of solidarity with Birmingham Council to oppose the Muslim Parents and the manner in which they were demonstrating outside of the school. And included in the resolution was full support of the Government’s proposal of the RSE agenda. These statements of support were to be debated and voted on in the Councillors Chambers in each of the local authorities across the country.
Many Muslims have always maintained that to secure the preservation of Islam in the Muslim Community we have to occupy positions of influence. In the last forty years enormous effort has been made to gain such influence in the arena of politics, no more so than in local council elections. There are more Muslims councillors in Britain now than there has ever been.
So the summer of 2019 finally presented these Councillors with the opportunity to demonstrate precisely what they have promised to do over the decades; action to protect Islam and the interests of the Muslim community and arguable at the moment of the greatest concern for Muslims in the UK. All Councils endorsed the Government’s position and I am not aware of a single Muslims Councillor that opposed the RSE resolutions. Those parents in Birmingham, as a result, were left defenceless against the judicial system that was about to be unleashed against them.
In those same decades Muslims have worked hard to establish excellent Islamic educational institutions. Setting up schools is not easy and indeed many have failed for various reasons including incompetence at the hands of Muslims themselves.
The Park View Education Trust in Birmingham however succeeded possibly by far greater margins than the efforts of everybody else. In 2001 Tahir Alam with Lindsey Clark (not a Muslim) developed a strategy to improve the ethos of the school based upon the ethnic background of the local community, which was 80% Muslim. In their first year developing this Islamic cultural framework the A-C grade pass rate rose to 11%. Year on year it continued to rise and by 2011 the pass rate was 73%. The following year Park View became the first school in the UK to be ranked as “outstanding” by Ofsted inspectors using the tough new guidelines introduced by the new chief inspector Michael Wilshaw. In recognition of Tahir Alam’s work on diversity he was invited to Downing Street to meet with Tony Blair.
In 2014 this impressive example of success would take a dramatic u-turn as this Birmingham Educational Trust was alleged in a letter sent to the Local City Council to be orchestrating an elaborate plan to radicalise its Muslims pupils. The plot was said to be named ‘Operation Trojan Horse’. It is accepted that the letter was indeed a fake and that all subsequent official investigations into the scandal have found no evidence that students were ever being radicalised.
Nonetheless, Ofsted went ahead and placed the five schools the Trust ran all under special measures (the lowest possible rating), gave the schools curriculums a complete overhaul and dismissed the Trusts management, including Tahir Alam.
The scandal has left little doubt that should an ethos in a school in the UK be perceived as too Islamic, even if it conforms with governing rules and regulations it faces every prospect of being excessively scrutinized, viciously slandered and closed down completely.
And for those Muslims schools that are currently surviving the increased levels of inspections, they will now have to implement a RSE policy that in their heart of hearts would otherwise be reluctant to do so. Is it fair to ask which way of life is really being preserved here? I am all for Islamic education and Muslims schools and support the effort of many that struggle to give a wholesome education for the next generation. I am merely pointing out that over reliance on facilities offered by the secular system was never going to be full proof.
Democracy has a habit of showing us that the hard work and struggle of decades can be easily cast aside by the mere implementation of a policy, the passing of new legislation or even a speech by an elected leader. The contemptuous comments made by both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump don’t need any elaboration. The system is always ready to protect itself.
Ammunition to Discredit
There are Muslims that discriminate and there are racists in every other ethnic group that exists. There are two explanations for this. First that I am wrong; Islam is flawed and is indeed inherently racist. Or that the racist Muslims amongst us have been influenced by the society that dominates and surrounds them instead. It does not take too much inquiry to work out which it is.
The Islamic rules regarding slavery and the historical role undertaken by Muslims trading with slaves are also presented as examples of the double standards that Muslims are guilty of. Firstly, I do not deny the existence of either of these issues. Secondly, there are many points that I could present on this matter however they are all well documented and without biased a researcher would conclude that there is no basis for negative accusations whatsoever. But I will say this; any historical examples of actions undertaken by Muslim slave owners that contradicted Islam are completely unjustifiable. In fact you can witness that Muslims are always consistent on this point – if it contradicts Islam, Muslims will never condone it. In contrast the inhuman treatment of black slaves throughout the course of being captured, transported, auctioned and placed in to harden labour never contradicted Capitalism.
What has received far less media coverage are those Muslims in media interviews that have defended Islam from the scrutiny of secular liberals. Specifically, I am taking about the interviews I have heard that have opposed RSE. The Muslims took a stance of not apologising for the rulings Allah (SWT) has made about sexual activity outside of Sharia’h compliant marriages (they are all prohibited), neither did they gloss over these rulings as being irrelevant or that they can be interrupted in a manner that could accommodate the RSE agenda. By illustrating that Islam has merits of its own, that the Muslims understand and can articulate them effectively not only demonstrated the strength and ability that Islamic principles present an alternative to the current western model of liberal capitalism, but also how intolerant liberalism really is.
Distraction and Discrediting
Even without the examples I have just outlined, the efforts to slander and discredit Muslims and Islam especially since 9/11 cannot possibly have been unnoticed. In particular tactics such as slander, propaganda, sabotage and distraction are constantly used against Muslims. I cannot help but noticed that these same tactics are being applied to the BLM campaign.
Slander
The use of George Floyd as a role model is seriously flawed. His criminal record and alleged drug misuse are being used to slander the BLM campaign. Immoral and criminal behaviour is indefensible on the subject of ethics. The following two points can be observed:
The death of George Floyd as a result of the actions of a Police Officer is not justifiable by any alleged criminality or wrong doing. Therefore any alleged wrong doing is irrelevant.
The BLM campaign has not promoted George Floyd as a role model. Rather it was Floyd’s family that were mourning his death which spoke about his positive contribution to family members, friends and neighbours. At funerals people do not speak ill of the dead. This is customary behaviour in every culture I know and therefore perfectly acceptable. Rather it has been the slanderers themselves that presented the idea that BLM are using Floyd as a role model. If the role model point is accepted as fact, that then gives the slanderers the opportunity to smear the campaign accordingly.
The use of trying to defend Floyd would also play into the hands of the slanderers, so should not be commented on. For those that care about Floyd’s reputation, recognise the family has access to excellent lawyers. The family is more than capable and in the best position to deal with any false accusations against George Floyd.
Propaganda
The likes of Douglas Murray and Candace Owens will acknowledge that there are a “few bad apples”and then go on to elaborate the absolute benefits and improvements that exist today for people of every ethnic origin. This in effect denies that there is a serious problem that needs addressing. It is an attempt to justify the current status quo in society and that nothing really needs to change.
Sabotage
It is widely accepted that there has been many instances of suspicious individuals participating in street demonstrations trying to initiate and provoke acts of vandalism and violence. There are numerous reports of protesters turning against such provocateurs and forcing them to stop. Governments are the only ones with a motive to sabotage public demonstrations that are aimed at criticising officials.
Distraction
I had no idea that systemic racism in society was all down to the presence of statues of former slave masters and protagonists. The amount of energy and effort that will be taken up debating the merits of what to do with the status of the likes of Edward Colston, Cecil Rhodes or General Robert Lee will simply just exhaust people. The media attention on focusing on this issue only serves the Government agenda of keeping the system free from serious scrutiny. And the simple truth is this, with the removal of every offensive statue in the world (which will never happen) it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the real problem. My advice, stay clear of these distractions
Watching the News I saw an exposure about a significant number of journalist covering the demonstrations of black lives matter being attacked by Police all across the United States. Despite clearly identifying themselves as media representatives they are filmed being fired upon with pepper spray, tear gas and rubber bullets. A CNN reporter was arrested in the middle of his live broadcast! When those that are responsible for defending a ruling ideology are unable to rationally respond to intellectual arguments and critical accountability they will resort to intimidation, brutality and violence. Especially when the tactics of slander, propaganda, sabotage and distraction are proving to be ineffective.
What we can witness today are all examples of history repeating itself: the corrective actions of the masters upon the slaves; the law enforcement violence against the Civil Rights movement; now the Police intimidation against journalist willing to challenge the Trump narrative. For those that either support the status quo or chose to live as best they can within its parameters, beware as I anticipate the institutional backlash will intensify.
Solution
Uniquely Islam does not have a problem of racism to solve, because a system based on Islam does not manifest this problem in the first place. All are equal under the servitude of God therefore there is no rotten foundation to begin with. Distinct from Christianity, Islam is a non-secular creed. The concept of obeying God is manifested in all affairs of life. Allah is obeyed in both religious and temporal matters, without any exceptions.
The painful struggle for racial equality since emancipation was thought could lead to progress. The example of George Floyd and the reaction to his death demonstrates that there is a systemic failure within society and that there is no credibility in the promises of change. There is no evidence that lessons have been learnt. The BLM campaign and civil rights movements are all products of the same failed system and so too will be subject to long-term systemic failure.
Without reflection, Muslims will inevitably fall for the same approach, repeat history, and contribute no differently. They will achieve nothing for anyone in either the pursuance of racial equality or even Muslim interests, such as the reduction of Islamophobia and fair treatment.
Islam, however, does not drive Muslims to mimic other movements. It is a radically different way of life that activists should instead resort to and thereby achieve security, human decency and prosperity. Non-radical movements may well make enormous noise, however over time they are absorbed into the system and so in effect lead to either conventional changes or no real changes at all.
We cannot expect that the black community across the United States and Europe after recognising the origins of the ideological problem that they would then be able to present something that could completely tear down a system that is inherently unequal and unjust then replace it with something superior. That opportunity can only be fulfilled by the Muslims advocating Islam. If Muslims neglect that responsibility and rather focus purely on supporting the BLM campaign or following the protocols set by the ruling liberals then realistically we are allowing the white elite to maintain the capitalist unethical status quo. Irrespective of whether you are a Muslim or not and irrespective of whether you believe that the origins of Islam are from a divine source, one thing is clear, only Islam will save Mankind from itself – and history proves it. Let us not let down Mankind.
Abdul’s World 