British Female Muslim Director of BMSD Explains the Need for Secular Democracy
Question to Tehmina Kazi: What are the reasons behind the title ‘British Muslims for Secular Democracy’ (BMSD)?
Response: We distinguish between procedural secularism and ideological secularism. Ideological secularism is the type of model that is practiced in France and Turkey, where we see for example headscarf bans in university and we want to distance ourselves from that kind of secularism. We support instead, procedural secularism where the state remains neutral but different faith groups and of no faith have the chance to express their voices in the public sphere and everyone gets an equal share of the public sphere. We also want to highlight the benefits of living in a democracy and how British Muslims can become more successful democratic actors.
Question: What is BMSD doing to engage with British Muslims on a grass-roots level?
Response: On a grass roots level, I am the facilitator for the Young Muslim Leadership Network which is being run by the Citizenship Foundation, so I facilitate monthly workshops for young people, mainly women actually and they talk about issues that are important to them and find individual ways to present these to policy makers. My group for example is filming a myth-busting documentary about Muslim women, busting myths about the hijab, talking about their career choices and educational aspirations. Also we do democracy workshops for refugees in East London and we talk to them about their civil rights.
Question: What does being a British Muslim mean to you?
Response: It means that you don’t see the two terms as mutually exclusive. You can be just as comfortable with your British identity and totally integrated at the same time by totally Muslim.
Question: Eight Muslim MPs were elected this year, three of them women. How will they affect change for Britain?
Response: They set a very important change as role models, especially for Muslim women because now Muslim women can look at MPs such as Rushanara Ali and Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, who is the first female Muslim in the cabinet and say that if they can do it, I can do it too.
The government’s Prevent agenda has isolated young Muslim males. What are the possible platforms on which they can counter these stereotypes?
There was a very good platform just this Sunday. There was a big public meeting in Birmingham, attended by Salma Yaqoob, Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty and Gareth Pierce, the human rights lawyer and there were a lot of Muslims present there and they aired their concerns. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the increased surveillance in residential areas in Birmingham and I’m a civil libertarian and me personally, I was very affected by this. The more we voice these issues by signing petitions, attending public meetings, going on TV programmes, radio programmes to explain why this is wrong and why this is wrong approach is important. We need to do more of these things.
Question: Why is it important that Muslim youth vote?
Response: Because if you don’t vote then you shouldn’t complain when you see MPs ignoring your interest and hot shod of your wishes and implementing things such as the surveillance in Birmingham and the 42-day detention period. It is the individual that can make these changes within themselves, such as writing a letter to an MP. It’s the apathy that is the biggest enemy to both Muslims and non-Muslims.
Question: There have been news reports of Muslim parents removing their children from music lessons in a south London school. Many Muslim parents want to instil specific Islamic principles in their child’s education. Do you think it is possible to negotiate this in a school setting?
Response: I don’t think they should have the right to withdraw their child from music lessons. Children benefit most from a well-rounded education. What we need to do is to educate the parents because there’s a big difference from Mozart and a rap song. There are already comprises being made for other lessons such as swimming, where you have girls only lessons and that’s fine. But with something as universal as music, I mean why would you want to withdraw your child from that? Next you’ll have children being withdrawn for all arbitrary reasons. This has been going on for a long time, and is worse in areas such as Bradford and Ealing.
Tehmina Kazi took up the position of Director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy in May 2009. Prior to joining BMSD, she was a Project Officer at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, where she worked on a ground-breaking inquiry into the Human Rights Act and its impact on public service delivery, undertaking research, writing policy briefings, facilitating focus groups and interviewing victims of human rights violations.
The British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD) has issued a press release on its views supporting the barring of Imam Zakir Naik from the United Kingdom. BMSD stated that “British Muslims for Secular Democracy (bmsd) approves of the decision to exclude Zakir Naik from the UK, based on thorough research conducted by the Home Office,” stating that many of Zakir Naik’s “statements are not conducive to the public good. For example, he made this remark on Osama bin Laden in 2006: ‘If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.’ bmsd supports rigorous application of the exclusion policy to any international speaker who incites hatred and violence. However, it is also vital that the Home Office are consistent in their application of a tool as powerful – and potentially controversial – as exclusion. ”
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) reported on May 31, 2010 on the plans of Zakir Naik to visit the United Kingdom and his history of promoting views that seek to encourage others to deny religious freedom.
In October 2009, BMSD challenged the anti-democracy organization Islam4UK and its planned “Sharia law” march in London. BMSD stated that “Our protest against Islam4UK is based on our belief in, and commitment to, those liberal values that define the British state. This includes legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and religious freedom, including the right to be free of faith.” In December 2009, BMSD led a counterprotest against the further efforts of the anti-democracy organization Islam4UK.
In November 2009 and December 2009, BMSD was critical of the efforts of the Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) organization goals to have protests outside the Harrow Central Mosque, stating that “fear-mongering and misinformation whipped up by these demonstrations poses a threat to all British citizens who wants to live in a harmonious society.” In BMSD’s letter to SIOE, it stated that “By demonstrating outside a mosque under the banner, ‘Stop the Islamisation of Europe,’ ordinary peace-loving British Muslims end up feeling threatened and have begun to believe that their fundamental right to practice their religion is being curtailed. In any case, Harrow is an exemplar of good community relations, facilitated by strong communication and co-operation between different faith communities and various agencies such as the police and the local council. Our Director Tehmina Kazi can testify to this, as she has lived in Harrow for over 20 years. Individuals affiliated with Harrow Central Mosque joined our counter-protest against Al Muhajiroun and their leading members wholeheartedly support the merits of secular democracy alongside bmsd. Your campaign is also fuelling the notion that somehow organisations such as SIOE are against all Muslims and the religion Islam in itself. This is being used by the extremist elements within Muslim communities to enhance their recruitment.”
— “Raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public, of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space).”
— “Encourage religious understanding and harmony, respect for different systems of beliefs, and encourage an understanding and celebration of the variety of Muslim cultures, values and traditions which are present in British society.”
BMSD states that it seeks to achieve these aims by:
— “Facilitating discourse and raising awareness of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ and its benefits.”
— “Facilitating broad and enlightened theological discourses, to enable British Muslims and the wider public to be better informed about the Islamic faith.”
— “Raising awareness of religious influence on UK domestic and foreign policies, particularly those which may lead to undue effect on civil liberties.”
— “Addressing Islamophobia and prejudice against Muslims and Muslim communities.”
— “Working with UK and global Muslim and other organisations, opposing radicalism and intolerant beliefs.”
— “Ensuring that politicians and community leaders encourage and practise transparency and ensure legitimate voting practices are followed.”
— “Engaging with marginalised Muslim communities, helping to identify root causes of deprivation and social exclusion, and help work towards a solution.”
— “Providing a lively and interesting social/educational programme which showcases the variety of Muslim histories, cultures, values and traditions in the UK today.”
— “Be responsive to the changing needs and pressures on succeeding generations of British Muslims and adjust and add to its programmes and projects accordingly.”
“British Muslims for Secular Democracy (bmsd) approves of the decision to exclude Zakir Naik from the UK, based on thorough research conducted by the Home Office. Dr Naik is a high-profile figure who has been elevated to a position of power and influence, and many of his statements are not conducive to the public good. For example, he made this remark on Osama bin Laden in 2006: ‘If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist.'”
“bmsd supports rigorous application of the exclusion policy to any international speaker who incites hatred and violence. However, it is also vital that the Home Office are consistent in their application of a tool as powerful – and potentially controversial – as exclusion. ”
“Dr Shaaz Mahboob, Vice-Chair of bmsd, said: ‘This is an encouraging decision from the new Government. We would now like to see them take a similarly firm approach to far-right organisations that stir up racial hatred, and domestic extremists such as the newly-formed ‘Muslims Against Crusades,’ who hurled abuse at the Royal Anglian Regiment homecoming parade in Barking on 15th June 2010.’ ”
Notes to the editors:
“1. bmsd is made up of a group of Muslim democrats of diverse ethnic and social backgrounds, who support a clear separation between religion and the State.”
“2. bmsd’s mission statement: ‘To promote civic engagement, social inclusion, responsible citizenship and good governance particularly within constituent Muslim communities of Britain; in order to build an understanding of the shared values between all citizens to enable them to live in an inclusive, pluralist, secular and confident Britain.'”
“3. bmsd claims no mandate or false representative status. Our primary concern is democratic engagement not detailed theological analysis or debate. The level and depth of commitment to the doctrinal core and orthodoxy of the faith varies among Muslims as much as it does in members of other faith groups. bmsd founders wish to create a platform for alternative, diverse Muslim views, essential for a progressive, multi-layered, democratic identity that is not in conflict with itself or fellow citizens.”
“4. For details please visit http://www.bmsd.org.uk ”
Freedom of speech includes freedom to offend – but when a preacher’s words incite violence, there has to be some sanction
British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD)'s Tehmina Kazi
“What do Dr Zakir Naik, Russian skinhead Pavel Skachevsky, far-right US talk show host Michael Savage, former Kahane Chai leader Mike Guzovsky and Kansas Baptist pastor Fred Phelps have in common? They are all on the list of people who have been banned from entering the UK.”
“Several commentators, like Inayat Bunglawala last week, have asked exactly what Naik has done to deserve such company. A quick internet search of his public statements throws up the following: ‘You heard the Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … We don’t know. But if you ask my view, if this is the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him … The thing is, if he’s terrorising a terrorist, he’s following Islam.’ Other incendiary remarks include: ‘Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic criminal law to be implemented on all Indians since it is the most practical’, ‘The Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims’, (Western Mail, 16 August 2006) plus an assertion that western women make themselves more susceptible to sexual assault by wearing revealing clothing.”
“While it is evident that most of Naik’s views are out of step with the values of any 21st-century liberal democracy, this in itself does not provide sufficient justification to exclude him from the UK. As Lord Justice Sedley stated in the notable high court judgment Redmond-Bate vs Director of Public Prosecutions [1999]: ‘Free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, providing it does not intend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.’ Incitement to violence is a crucial caveat of this fundamental principle, and forms the basis of the Home Office’s ‘unacceptable behaviour’ policy. Proscribed actions on the list include the glorification of terrorism, provoking others to commit terrorist or criminal acts, and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence within the UK. Therefore, the most problematic of Naik’s statements are the ones that appear to condone violence: ‘If a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his/her new religion then, it is as good as treason. There is a ‘death penalty’ in Islam for such a person.’ Naik’s supporters have cited his freedom of speech as a reason for overturning this exclusion order, but would he take a similar stance if a famous ex-Muslim chose to convene a speaking tour in Pakistan, for example? Further, Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested in September 2009 for planning suicide attacks on the New York subway, is said to have become ‘enchanted’ with Zakir Naik before planning his attack.”
“My organisation, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, supports rigorous application of the exclusion policy to any international speaker who incites hatred or violence. However, it is also vital that the Home Office is consistent in its application of a tool as powerful — and potentially controversial — as exclusion. To its credit, the Home Office made a statement on Geert Wilders clarifying its position, after the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal overturned the ban on his entry to the UK in October 2009. Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn’t the Home Office but the tribunal that allowed Wilders into the country.”
“Supporters of Naik have jumped to his defence by claiming that his more controversial statements, like ‘Every Muslim should be a terrorist’, should be viewed in their proper context: ‘Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an antisocial element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people ie antisocial elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact, a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.'”
“This semi-clarification of ‘antisocial elements’ is all well and good, but what Naik fails to elucidate is exactly who the ‘common innocent people’ are. One would imagine that based on his other pronouncements, they don’t include apostates or gay people. In any case, such defences of Naik entirely miss the point. As a medical doctor and speaker whose lectures on Peace TV are broadcast to millions of Muslims across the world, he is in an incredibly powerful position. Therefore, he must bear total responsibility for every single word that leaves his lips (or his keyboard). Not only should Naik and other religious leaders be extremely careful with the terminology they use (as per the Qur’anic injunction, ‘Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious’), they should be prepared for any criticism that comes their way if certain individuals cite them as ‘inspirations’ and take their more controversial statements too literally. Many of Naik’s supporters point to his remarks condemning 9/11 and 7/7, but nothing less than a clear and consistent repudiation of the quotes mentioned in this article will do.”
