Hi Henry,

Over the last few days, I have been looking more carefully at the sections of the English Democrats manifesto dealing with Islam, Sharia, integration and radicalisation.

Before raising any of this with Bridget or anyone else within the Party, I wanted to get your view first. My intention is not to criticise the Party or weaken its position on Islamist extremism. On the contrary, I think the message the manifesto is trying to convey could be expressed more accurately and more clearly.

My main concern is that the manifesto does not sufficiently explain what it means by the word “Sharia.”

At present, the manifesto appears to treat Sharia primarily as a “legal code” and states that there is no place within it for democracy, equality or human rights. However, for Muslims, the meaning of Sharia is much broader than that.

The independent review of Sharia commissioned by the Home Office also makes clear that Sharia is not simply “law” in the Western sense. It can also cover matters such as fasting, prayer, halal practices and worship in general.

So when a political party makes a broad statement such as:

“We are against Sharia”

without clearly defining what it means, an ordinary, law-abiding Muslim may understand that very differently from what the Party actually intends.

For example, I try to be a good Muslim. Praying, fasting, trying to live halal, giving charity, avoiding certain behaviour because of my faith and generally trying to live according to Islamic moral principles are all part of my religion.

As long as I am not violating anyone else’s rights and I am not breaking the laws of this country, I do not believe anyone should interfere with the way I practise my religion.

So a Muslim who understands Sharia in its broader Islamic sense may read the manifesto and conclude:

“English Democrats are against Sharia. Sharia is also the religious framework through which I pray, fast and organise my moral life. Therefore perhaps they are also against the way I practise my religion.”

If that is not what the Party means, I think the manifesto should make this absolutely clear.

The distinction I see is quite simple:

Personal Islamic belief and religious observance are one thing.

A coercive political or legal system claiming authority above English law is something completely different.

If what the Party opposes is Islamist extremism, terrorism, violence, coercion, or an attempt to create a separate compulsory legal system above or in place of English law, then I think the manifesto should say exactly that.

For example:

“We do not oppose personal Islamic religious observance. We oppose extremism, terrorism, coercion and any attempt by any religious or political ideology to establish legal authority above or in place of English law.”

I do not think this weakens the supremacy of English law in any way.

In fact, I think it makes the Party’s position much clearer.

There is also a strong principle within Islam itself about respecting agreements and commitments made with others.

The Qur’an says in Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:1:

“O you who believe, fulfil your obligations.”

I think this is also relevant to British citizenship.

When someone voluntarily becomes a British citizen, they are not simply receiving a passport. At the citizenship ceremony, they make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the King and also make a pledge to the United Kingdom.

That pledge expressly includes the words:

“I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully…”

In my understanding of Islam, if a Muslim voluntarily makes such a commitment, they are religiously obliged to take it seriously.

A person cannot simply say:

“I believe in Sharia, therefore English law does not apply to me.”

But equally, I think the reverse should also be true:

“You believe in Sharia, therefore you cannot practise your religion.”

should not be the position either.

There are also interesting examples from early Islamic history.

During the time of Prophet Muhammad, some Muslims fled persecution and sought refuge in Abyssinia, which was ruled by a Christian king. Among them was Uthman ibn Affan, who would later become the third Rightly Guided Caliph.

Those Muslims did not abandon their faith. But neither did they see an automatic contradiction between practising Islam and living under the protection and political authority of a non-Muslim ruler.

Similarly, there is the well-known account in Sahih Muslim involving Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman and his father. They had given Quraysh their word that they would not fight against them and were then allowed to leave. When they later joined Prophet Muhammad before the Battle of Badr, he did not allow them to break that promise, even though the Muslims needed every available fighter.

In other words, religious belief does not give someone permission simply to disregard an agreement they have voluntarily made.

So in my view, a Muslim can do both of the following at the same time:

live according to the personal and religious principles of Sharia,

and

accept English law as the binding public legal system of the country in which they live.

These are not necessarily contradictory.

Nikah is a good everyday example of this distinction.

Islam has religious marriage, or nikah.

A Muslim couple may have a nikah. If they also want their marriage to be legally recognised in England and Wales, they must comply with the formal requirements of English law.

So religious status and civil legal status can be separate matters.

The same applies to divorce.

A couple may be legally divorced through the English courts but may still wish, according to their faith, to bring their religious marriage to an end as well.

They may therefore approach an imam or religious council for a religious divorce or dissolution.

The existence of such a religious process does not in itself mean that an alternative state court has been created.

A religious council may offer an opinion on a person’s religious status or provide voluntary religious mediation.

But the boundary must be absolutely clear:

A religious council is not an English court.

It cannot overturn an English divorce.

It cannot remove rights granted by English law.

It cannot exercise authority over criminal law.

It cannot force anyone to comply with its decision.

And it cannot claim legal authority above English law.

The current position of the UK Government is broadly consistent with this distinction: Sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales, Sharia councils are not part of the court system and their decisions are not legally binding. At the same time, individuals may organise their personal lives according to their religious beliefs provided that those practices do not conflict with the law.

To me, this is an important balance:

Freedom of religion within one common legal system.

The same distinction also applies to Islamic criminal law.

For example, adultery is regarded as a sin in Islam, and classical Islamic jurisprudence contains criminal punishments in relation to it.

A Muslim may believe that such behaviour is religiously wrong and may organise their own personal life accordingly.

But the existence of such a religious rule does not give any Muslim, imam or religious group the right to impose an Islamic punishment on another person in England.

In England, criminal law is English law.

Therefore:

Believing in a religious rule is not the same thing as claiming legal authority to enforce that rule on other people.

I think this is one of the most important distinctions that is often lost in discussions about Sharia.

Equally, in a democratic country, a Muslim or any other citizen may criticise a law, campaign to change it through Parliament, take part in peaceful protest or challenge something through the courts.

That is not a rejection of English law. Those are rights provided by the democratic and legal system itself.

The problem begins when someone says:

“Your law does not apply to me because my religion has a different law.”

I think that is where the Party’s line should be drawn.

For that reason, instead of simply saying:

“We oppose Sharia”

the manifesto should, in my view, define exactly what it opposes.

For example:

We oppose Islamist extremism.

We oppose terrorism and political violence.

We oppose coercion in the name of religion.

We oppose any attempt to establish a compulsory parallel legal system.

We oppose any religious or political organisation claiming coercive legal authority above English law.

But at the same time, it should also be possible to say:

We respect the right of every individual to practise his or her religion peacefully within English law.

I do not see this as making a special concession to Islam.

The same principle should apply equally to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or people of any other belief or ideology.

One law for everybody.

Equal citizenship for everybody.

Freedom of religion for everybody.

No coercive authority above English law.

That is the main reason I am concerned about the current wording of the manifesto.

If what the Party truly opposes is extremists, terrorists, coercion, or those who want to replace English law with their own compulsory legal system, then I think it would be more accurate to say that directly.

Because if Sharia is rejected as a whole without any definition, a law-abiding Muslim who understands Sharia in its religious and moral sense may reasonably read that as:

“They are not only against extremism; they are against my religion.”

If that is not the Party’s intention, then I think the manifesto should clearly distinguish between the two.

I am not suggesting that Section 3.15.12.3 should simply be removed, nor am I suggesting that the Party should take a weaker position on extremism.

I am simply suggesting that Islam should be clearly distinguished from Islamist extremism; personal observance of Sharia from a coercive Sharia government; and voluntary religious guidance from a parallel state authority.

Before I send anything to Bridget, I genuinely wanted to hear your view first.

I may be misunderstanding the intention behind the current wording.

But if the real objective is to defend the supremacy of English law, oppose terrorism and extremism, and maintain one legal system for everybody, then I think the current wording around “Sharia” may be broader than necessary and could easily be misunderstood by peaceful, law-abiding Muslims.

I would be very interested to hear how you see it.

Best regards,

Erhan