If there was any doubt remaining that the current British strategy to tackle “extremism” is a thinly veiled policy to discriminate against the followers of Islam, then the following should remove any remnants of uncertainty.
As reported by 5PillarsUK, Shakeel Suleman has been prevented by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from adopting a child due to being flagged by the Derbyshire Constabulary as “holding radical and extreme views”.
The far-right/neocon-style reasoning provided by the police force is frankly shocking. The following has been categorised as “extreme views”:
- Sharing a link from the Hizb-ut-Tahrir website including the news of the release of Moazzam Begg,
- Supporting the creation of the Caliphate,
- Adherence to the Shari’ah
- Anti-western rhetoric
- Anti-establishment views
Fundamentally, personally held views are being used arbitrarily by authorities to determine the citizen’s conformity to a government standard of “valid views”, rather like the totalitarian regimes the West so hypocritically chides. Presumably, thinkers like Noam Chomsky or activists such as Russell Brand and Frankie Boyle would have a problem adopting a child, given their “anti-Western” and/or “anti-establishment” views.
Perhaps of greatest importance for Muslims is the insanity in highlighting the adherence to the noble Shari’ah as a marker for “extremism”. The description of Shari’ah sounds like something Caroline Cox, Theresa May, Douglas Murray and Tommy Robinson conjured up after reassuring each that their hate of Islam was in fact hate of “Islamism” and therefore not Islam. The description of Shari’ah provided by the police force is manifestly offensive, purely because of the misleading, misrepresentative and discriminatory nature of the statements.
Islam consists of belief and Shari’ah (way), with Shari’ah being the application of the former. It refers to the laws found in the corpus of primary Islamic texts – the Qur’an and Sunnah established in the statements and actions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. The Shari’ah, provides guidance for daily interactions, stipulates laws governing inter alia finance, purification (internal and external), worship, and prescribes punishments for serious criminal acts. Thus an attack on “Shari’ah law” is an attack on the belief in the very foundations of the Islamic faith – the Qur’an and Sunnah.
The DBS profile notes that,
Shari’ah law is a violent law that enforces capital punishment for apparent minor indiscretions and discriminates against women. Shari’ah does not recognise any other religion and does not accept anyone who is not Muslim.
Given the mainstream understanding of Shari’ah, the above description is a gross caricaturisation, highly subjective, and not to mention vague. In all cases, capital punishments are prescribed in the most extreme of cases for a particular type of crime and even then, the ruling is shackled with conditions which makes it extremely difficult to apply. Given a number of States in the US have “violent” capital punishments too, would this mean that the Americans in those states are “extremists” for believing in “violent US law”?
The Shari’ah does in fact “recognise other religions” – there is an entire branch of regulation around the topic of other religions in and of itself! As for the Shar’iah not accepting “anyone who is not Muslim”, I am to be honest not entirely sure what this means. The Shari’ah clearly “accepts” people who are not Muslim, as it stipulates guidance around Muslim/non-Muslim interaction, however if an “omnist” or perrenialist understanding is meant by this, then well, Derbyshire Constabulary will have a problem with a lot of faiths: Christians believe Muslims cannot be saved until they believe in Jesus as the saviour and Son of God. Jews differentiate between themselves and “gentiles”. The question is, why is “Shari’ah law” being singled out?
As for the “discrimination” charge, perhaps Derbyshire constabulary needs to clarify whether practicing “discriminatory” Halacha law in Jewish homes would constitute “radicalism”. Indeed, would support for Zionist aims including purging Palestinians from their homeland against International law for the fulfilment of Biblical beliefs be regarded as “extremism” too? Can the police force clarify this?
Using Hizb-ut Tahrir (HT) as a punching bag, the subject of attack is firmly the Shari’ah. Regardless of HT’s rendering of the Caliphate, the establishment of the Caliphate is the preference of Muslims and a historic reality for the most part of Islamic history. The British were more than happy to engage and support the Ottoman Caliphate against their Russian nemesis before the greed of Middle Eastern resources and the ideological hate of Islam bedded into the British statesmen psyche. HT is being used as a proxy for an attack on a widely held Islamic belief through the “extremism” discourse.
Utilising Islamic beliefs as a means of disadvantaging a citizen of the state, when members of other faiths are not subjected to such vile treatment, is minority discrimination. The description outlined in the profile fits the PREVENT Strategy implementation of “extremism” – where foreign policy opposition, holding the government to account and orthodox Islamic beliefs have become indicators of “radicalisation” and eventual terrorism. Lawful ideas are being criminalised. The result of this government interference with religion and shaping of it through coercion is the continual push towards an authoritarian Stasi state.
Sadly, this maybe one of many incidents to come. Muslims are being treated as criminals without having committed a crime. Today a Muslim has been barred from adoption due to his personally held, legal beliefs; tomorrow, children may be removed from the Muslim household. The PREVENT policy and its manifestation as exemplified here is an assault on the very kernel of Islam, and the reference point for every believer.
Legal channels should be engaged to challenge this absurdity. Indeed, where social services tried to take a child from a white, non-Muslim man due to his associations with the blatantly racist EDL and for receiving a “sex caution”, the senior judge accused the social workers of “social engineering” and blocked the adoption.
The police must also realise that drawing on “government departments” thoroughly compromised by ideologically driven neocons (see here, here, here and here), to establish what constitutes “radical beliefs” is a non-starter – it turns the police into a pawn fulfilling the objectives of twisted neocons. The Derbyshire Constabulary have turned into Orwellian thought-police.
The Shari’ah is central for every believer – a state-level attack on this is an attack on the faith of over a billion people.
“Then We placed you on an ordained way (shari’ah) concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” [Quran 45:18]
“When Allah and His Messenger have decided something it is not for any believing man or woman to have a choice about it.” [Qur’an 33:36]
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “None of you believe until his desire follows that which I have brought.” (Al-Baghawi)
Al-Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “By Allah! The Mesenger of Allah did not die until he had left the way as a clear open road, and he permitted what is permitted and forbade what is forbidden.” (Ibn Sa’d)
Imam Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 243 AH) said, “The Shari’ah is greatest guide in the darkness of animalistic doubts.”
Imam Sayyid al-Junayd (d. 298 AH) said, “A thought comes to my heart but I do not accept it unless I obtain testimony of two just witnesses: the Qur’an and the Sunnah.”
Imam Ahmad Ibn Raslan al-Shafi’i (d. 844) said, “You should weigh every thought in the scale of the Shari’ah, If it is commanded by the Shari’iah then hasten in fulfilling it.”