Full text: joint statement from Muslim groups

Tuesday August 16, 2005

 As members of the Muslim community the undersigned individuals and organisations feel the need to communicate our view regarding some of the recently proposed antiterrorism measures in the aftermath of the London bombings, and address statements made by the prime minister in the past few weeks.

The British Muslim community has always been a law-abiding community and all its endeavours to create a more just society have been entirely peaceful. We fear that recent events are being exploited by some sections in society to demonise legitimate Islamic values and beliefs and hence consider it appropriate to make the following observations:

 1. The term "extremism", frequently used in the public discourse about religion and terrorism, has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is thus unhelpful and emotive. To equate "extremism" with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimise the Muslim community unnecessarily.

2. The Muslim community in Britain has unequivocally denounced acts of terrorism. However, the right of people anywhere in the world to resist invasion and occupation is legitimate. Therefore the proposal to criminalise "justification" or "validation" of such self defence appears to be intended to stifle discussion about, and support for, such resistance. Thus anyone even verbally opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq, for example, could in future be made out to be justifying and supporting "acts of terrorism" and prosecuted. We are concerned that these proposed measures are intended to prevent the popular opposition witnessed in the run-up to the Iraq war should the United States wish to attack Iran, Syria or any other sovereign nation in the near future.

3. It is natural for Muslims to feel sympathy with fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world and to desire justice for those of them living under oppression. Many people compare the Israeli reality with South African apartheid and demand a similar solution. To denounce anybody who questions the legitimacy of Israel will be seen as an attempt to silence academic thought and legitimate political expression. If the government hopes to pander to Zionist pressure by condemning and excluding from this country people who are critical of Israeli apartheid, it is in fact supporting apartheid.

4. The proposal to ban the non-violent organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir is, in our view, unwarranted, unjust and unwise, and runs counter to all the principles which Western democracies are currently trying to promote abroad. Any disagreement with a political organisation must be expressed through debate not censorship. Whatever objections one may have to someone else's point of view, we must uphold their right to hold and articulate those views. If it is suggested that any laws have been broken by any individuals or groups then this must be proven by due legal process. Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.

5. The same reasoning applies to the proposal to close mosques if they are arbitrarily defined as being "extremist" or to try and politically influence what may or may not be said during a religious talk. This would amount to a collective punishment of the community and will be likely to create fear and prevent legitimate political discussion within mosques. This repression could lead to the very radical subculture which we all seek to prevent.

6. The proposal to deport and/or extradite foreign nationals to countries known for gross human rights abuses is abhorrent to a civilised nation, irrelevant of whether or not a diplomatic assurance that deportees will not be mistreated is obtained.

This recent move comes across as a cynical attempt to resolve the problem of dealing with those currently under "control orders" after the judiciary found their continued detention without trial to be unlawful. Given that the alleged bombers on July 7 in London were British nationals, such an exploitation of the events to move against foreign nationals as well as unwanted asylum seekers is indeed shameful.

This list of concerns is not conclusive, but we are putting these issues forward to help prevent a knee-jerk reaction to recent events which would drive a rift between communities in the UK and set the course of British politics onto the slippery slope of intellectual censorship and totalitarianism.

Signed:

1. 1990 Trust

2. Al-Ikhlas Foundation

3. An-Nisa Society

4. Algerian Community in Britain - Supporters of FIS

5. Association of Muslim Lawyers

6. Bangla 2000

7. Cageprisoners

8. Centre of Muslim Affairs

9. Comparative Religious Centre Ltd

10. Crescent International

11. Dr Usama Hasan

12. Forum Against Islamophobia & Racism (FAIR)

13. Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS)

14. Friends of al-Aqsa

15. Hasan al-Thaqafi - Islam Channel

16. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

17. Imam Shakeel Begg - Kent & Lewisham Islamic Centre

18. Innovative Minds

19. International Muslims Organisation

20. Islam Channel

21. Islamic Forum Europe

22. Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)

23. Islamic Observatory Centre

24. Islamic Party of Britain

25. Mindsprings

26. Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)

27. Muslim Directory

28. New Civilization Foundation

29. Party for Islamic Renewal

30. Prisoners of the West

31. Q-News

32. Racial Attacks & Harassment Monitoring Association (RAHMA)

33. Salam Magazine

34. Sheykh Haitham al-Haddad - Shariah Council UK

35. Sheykh Suliman Gani

36. Stop Political Terror

37. World Islamic Propagation Establishment UK

38. Yvonne Ridley - Political Editor,

Islam Channel

15 August 2005

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1550073,00.html