Charter of Muslim Understanding: the pledge of uneasiness
The question of loyalty among Muslims is an important one. I mean loyalty to the state instead of loyalty to other Muslims. Loyalty to the constitution instead of loyalty to the Quran. Somehow this issue comes up in many of the debates about Muslims and between non-Muslims and Muslims.
Several politicians have plans that take this into account. Remember for example the plans of the German state of Baden-Würtemberg where the plan was that Muslims who wanted to become German citizens had to undergo a rigorous cultural test to gauge their views on subjects ranging from bigamy to homosexuality on on top of the standard test for foreigners wishing to become German citizens, which includes language proficiency skills and general knowledge.
Now there is the “Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding“, being presented to the European Parliament. According to Gerard Batten, a member of the European Parliament from London, who contributed the foreword, and charter author Sam Solomon, a Shariah law expert, the charter will “enable Muslims from all strands of belief to make it plain that they reject those extremist interpretations of their religious texts that promote or excuse violence and bring Islam into conflict with the modern world.”
The Charter calls upon Muslims to:
- Respect non-Muslim religions and issue a fatwa (an Islamic religious decree) prohibiting the use of force, violence or threats to their followers.
- Respect all civilizations, cultures and traditions and promote understanding of the precedence of national laws over Shariah law.
- Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.
- Prohibit issuance of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat against individuals or institutions.
- Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of Koranic verses calling for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims.
Nothing new actually and loyalty oaths are very old. Also very old is plans to use loyalty oaths targeting a specific group in times of moral panic in which that specific group plays an important role.
About the five points mentioned above the following. Note 1 and 4: those fatwas are already there. Do you really think that people follow fatwas blindly? Fatwas are announced everyday, some of them very contradictory? How do you think Muslims decide what fatwa to follow and what not? And are they forcing a religious group to spread a certain kind of messge? Do you really think that Muslims who want to live peacefully with others, need a fatwa for that? What does this say about the way you view Muslims? And consider this, if people (not only Muslims) really believe in an almighty, omnipresent, infinite and eternal God, God is for them always above the law. This is not only true for some Muslims but also for other groups. So why not target all religious groups?
Mr. Batten and Mr. Solomon see this as a “no lose” proposition. If the bill passes with an enforcement mechanism, Muslim leaders who sign would be held accountable under the law for any violation. If they don’t sign, the law and public opinion may have something to say about their refusal. Of course and if they sign others will accuse them of taqiyya; a shiite concept that is used to denounce Muslims as liars and hypocrits.
And why is it a problem that some Muslims might oppose certain European freedoms? In the Netherlands the freedom of religion is under attack by some Muslims but also by some mainstream politicians who for example want to abolish the constitutional freedom of education that is dedicated to the equality of public and religious schools. Are we questioning their loyalty? Is there a charter for them?
Using this will create a selffulfiling prophecy: being a Muslim and believing in an almighty God is incompatible with being loyal the nation-state. In targeting every Muslim and every Muslim organization it assumes that every Muslim basically rejects Western freedoms. Which is wrong since most protests are not aimed against those freedoms but against the way governments use or abuse (in their view) these freedoms. It assumes that every Muslims is in essence anti-western. This charter is therefore not a case of tough anti-dhimmitude but an irresponsible, discriminatory, superficial way of dealing with the real issues at stake. How and why to pledge allegiance to a society that thinks you are not trustworthy anyway?
