The Islamic Society for the Promotion of Religious Tolerance

I am greatly honoured to be standing here before you. An honour that, undoubtedly, I would never have had, had today’s date been 1828 instead of 1992.

For until then, it would have been impossible for a non-Christian, or rather, non-Anglican, and worse still, non-Caucasian person like me to stand here before you.

The difference between now and then is that 1828 was a year in which the Anglican church was firmly in control of all aspects of life in Britain to the extent that no person
could hold public office unless he assented to the doctrines of the Church of England.

Until 1836 no couple could marry except by an Anglican parson, no matter what religion or other Christian denomination he professed. Until 1871 all teaching posts at Oxford
and Cambridge were reserved for Anglicans.

What a difference a hundred odd years have made to the history of the world, or more precisely, to the history of Europe. For unlike Europe, non-Muslims, non-Arabs suffered
none of these intolerant restrictions when it came to living and working in Muslim countries. Non-Muslims were, in the main, actively tolerated in the Muslim world. There were
many non-Muslims in places of authority and there were many non-Muslim members of many professions. There were very little in the way of obstacles against a non-Muslim
enjoying the sort of life that I am enjoying in Britain today.

What was achieved in Europe through struggle, revolution and constant upheaval was a matter of course in Muslim countries for 1200 years or so. There is no doubt that I would
not have been here, speaking to you, if Britain was not the secular society that it is today.

After a brief visit to Europe in the early part of this century, one Egyptian Islamic scholar came back to Egypt and proclaimed: I saw Islam in practice, even though I did not see
any Muslims.

There are many gains that Europe has made through secularization, through the shedding of the crippling shackles of the church, and, it seems to me, you are here today to see,
among other things, if religious revivalism in many parts of the world would mean a return to the old oppressive ways.

Despite what we some times see on TV in the way of highly elaborate audiovisual Evangelism especially in America, and the closeness of that movement to the instruments of power
at one time or another, such as during the Reagan presidency, I would not entertain the thought that European secularism is on the retreat. The reason for that is that much of what
we call secular principles and ethics today are but a rediscovery of what is essentially religious principles and religious ethics and morality. Religion has simply been disentangled and
extirpated from the church. The church, on the other hand, is in no position, in the world of today, to reclaim its position of yesteryear.

I would put this before you: We must distinguish between the legitimate religionists and the illegitimate ones. A religionist can only be legitimate if what he is proclaiming is deeply
rooted in the religion itself. I put to you that the church that enslaved Europe for many centuries, was not legitimate in the sense that it positively did not adhere to basic Christian
teachings. The practices of the church were far removed from Christianity. I make the distinction between Christianity and "Churchianity". The total control of society was far removed
from "give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s."

Instead of "sell your possessions and give to the poor", the church amassed enormous wealth whilst the poor could not afford a loaf of bread. Instead of feeding the poor, the Church
actually taxed them.

It was that, in my opinion, more than any intellectual argument of any sort, that ultimately brought down the Church and subjugated it to the authority of the State. Intellectually, I do not
see much separation of the Church and the State in the secular West, only the subjugation of the one to the other.

The French revolution might not have happened if the French mob were not moved into the street by the high price of bread. The revolution was as much against the state as it was
against the church, and it was the bankruptcy of France at the time that made the emerging state confiscate the possessions of the church to save France from bankruptcy.

The sort of European society that was dominated by the church has indeed failed what I call the ‘bread test.’ Failing the bread test has also recently brought down another empire; the
communist empire. It too failed the bread test, and it was that more than any other factor in my opinion that gave rise to the amazing changes that took place recently in Eastern Europe.

Can such society actually be duplicated in the Muslim world? Well, let us see. For a start, main stream Islam has no church. It has no powerful hierarchy that can amass comparable wealth
and deny it the poor. Main stream Islam has no official interpreters who have a monopoly over its scriptures. I am a dentist and a Muslim scholar. Most of the renowned scholars of Islam
were men of science and men of commerce not professional men of God as you might have expected. The Muslim scripture is open and available to anyone. Any one can read it, and if he
cannot, he can hear it. The law can be used by the lowest against the highest in the society as well as the other way round. When one reflects on the first Khalifa Abu Bakr’s speech when
he accepted Bay’a; the equivalent of democratic elections, when he said, "The strongest among you is weak until I extract justice for him. Obey me if I judge you and rule over you justly
and if I obey God concerning you, but if I do not, then I have no right of obedience over you." That which Abu Bakr, the first Khalifa said in the early part of the seventh century, is indeed
far removed from the predominant political theory that ruled Europe for the next 11 centuries.

One can take the example of Ali, the fourth Khalifa, who had a dispute with a Jew, and went to the judge to sort it out. When the judge saw Ali, he asked him to come and sit beside him.
That made Ali angry. He said to the judge "This is a bad start. You ask me to sit beside you and you do not ask this man to do the same. I promise that the first thing I will do is sack you."
You might extrapolate from this some idea of how justice or the rule of law should operate in the Muslim State, and also the way that minorities should be treated. Believe it or not, all
through history, no system ever treated minorities as Islam did.

One of the many aspects of Muslim societies that is not appreciated in the West is the existence of an almost secretive infrastructure of family and community care that keeps starvation out.

If one looks at the economic structure of a country such as Egypt, it would be impossible to work out how an impoverished economy like that can survive to date. It does, because of that basic
Islamic belief that ‘no person should sleep with his stomach full while his neighbour is hungry.’

One can often see and admire how in a society like that, a family that has no income can still go shopping.

When I say that there is no church in Islam I am of course talking about 90% of the Muslim world. Things are a little different in Iran, where there is a powerful clergy that managed to topple the
oppressive rule of the Shah and establish a theocracy Shia style. I must explain that for the Shia sect, which is a minority in Islam, the Imam, say Khomeini, is the Pope. Please believe me,
Khomeini or any other minor or major Imam, is not the grand leader of Islam worldwide, and never could be, considering that Shia Muslims are no more than 10% of the world Muslim population.
Would the Iranian revolution been possible if the West did not help the Shah oppress his own people? I personally doubt it. It was the excesses of the Shah’s torture machine Savak, his secret
service, backed by western powers, that brought about the Iranian revolution.

One should not be surprised at hearing Khomeini label the Americans as ‘the great Satan’, for it reflected the experience of the Iranians at the time of the Shah. Let me say, I have never met a
bad Iranian. Iran is an ancient civilization and the current enterprises of the revolutionary guards are congruent with the mechanisms of revolution as revolutions go, not Islam.

When one looks at the Shias of southern Lebanon, one can see some of the most peaceful people on earth turned monsters by the Israeli occupation and the conflict in Lebanon. The Palestinian’s
Intifada is not designed to topple any secular society as much as it is to resist, or more appropriately, to show discontent with the oppressive Israeli occupation. It is injustice that gives rise to
extremist fanaticism and strife. The moderate sections, who are by nature, patient, are the last to be moved into action. The cycle must be broken somehow.

In Algeria, one wonder how much of a popular movement the Islamic salvation front is. They are no doubt well organized and well financed by the Iranians who dearly love to export their revolution,
but with the support of 3 out of 14 million potential voters one cannot be certain that it commands the support of the majority. My interpretation of events there is that, once again, the ruling party
has failed the bread test.

From the examples I have just given, one can see, clearly I hope, that there are two prime movers for the Muslim masses in the Middle East; one is the bread test, the other is injured pride.

It might not be fully appreciated that pride means a lot to the Arabs and to the Muslims. I was rather puzzled by the reaction of the have-nots particularly in north Africa and the Jordanians to the
Gulf crisis. Surely these people were not supporting the occupation of an Arab country by Saddam Hussein, how could they be when it runs totally against verse 9 of Sura 49 that calls upon all
Muslims to fight the oppressor till he desists from his oppression, meaning to fight Saddam till he gets out of Kuwait.

I put it to some young North African Muslims of the type you may call fundamentalists (I call them fanatics), I asked them how a Muslim could support Saddam Hussein against the Qur’an?
The answer was; "we know what he is, we know that he is a crook, but anyone who stands up to the Americans and the Israelis will get our support".

For these people it was the two factors playing together; failing the bread test, for which they blame the West and the Americans in particular, through what they see as client governments,
and the other factor is injured pride. And what is there in their lives to give them dignity apart from Islam, which automatically becomes the rallying cry for the oppressed.

Failing the two tests of bread and pride, is what produces the pseudo-fanatic in the Muslim world today. I call them pseudo-fanatics, because their position is reversed by satisfying the stomach
and satisfying the pride. True fanatics are rather different; they will not be satisfied in the same way, for their needs are different. The prime movers for the hardened fanatics are power hunger
and blood thirst. Their motivation lies less in the land of Islam and more in the land of crime. Islam to them is a cloak that serves sanitize their actions.

I can still see the TV images of the killing of president Sadat. A group of hardened fanatics coming up with a highly imaginative plan to kill the president. One which Sadat himself would have
been proud. They had at their mercy the whole government of Egypt sitting there. They could have easily taken control of the whole country, but instead, they were running aimlessly in
the streets, and they subsequently became an easy catch.

Their behaviour before the shooting did not tally with that after the shooting. Why? Because their needs were satisfied. Power hunger was satisfied in the sense that they felt supreme by
the act of murder even though their lack of a long term strategy and a structured plan for government meant that they missed their opportunity. Moreover, they spilt the blood of the president;
what more could they ask?

You can reason to some extent with the pseudo-fanatic, but it is impossible to reason with the true fanatic. Sometimes you manage only to increase their flames by reasoning with them, for they
take it as a sign of weakness, and that they are right and you are wrong. Such was the experience of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the great Muslim leader and the fourth Khalifa. He suffered at their hands.
He was killed, in the mosque, by one of them. Yes, the fanatics have been with us ever since the beginning. They were there at the prophet’s time too. There were those who thought that the
prophet did not pray enough or fast enough.

When it comes to Islam, please give up your definition of the fanatic as the fundamentalist or the one who takes Islam literally, for he is not. It is the moderate who is the fundamentalist not
the fanatic. You must stop seeing the Muslim world through Euro-Christian eyes, for the scene is rather different there.

The prophet himself described the coming of people who would pray excessively and fast excessively, yet with their fanatical behaviour they would be deviating from the religion, leaving it as
the arrow leaves the bow.

Islam is a religion of moderation, it says so. It is a religion of tolerance, it says so. It is a religion of justice, compassion, equality, liberty, fraternity, it is the religion that affirms the dignity of
man and his right to freedom of worship, of thought and expression. If God in the Qur’an gave man the freedom to believe or not to believe, the right not to be coerced into any belief structure,
what right does man, any man, has to coerce others into anything? "So, remind them, for you are but a reminder, you are not a coercer. But he who rebels and disbelieves, It is Allah who will
punish him." God said to his messenger. Compare that with a certain Fatwa. If Mohammed, the messenger of God, did not have the power of coercion over people, who should?

That is what true Islam stands for. Which of these concepts would you not accept? Which ones are you afraid of? Much, indeed all of what is true Islam, are concepts that the secular West
should feel at home with. That is not strange, considering that European renaissance and enlightenment as we know it today were firmly built on the shoulders of Muslim thought as transmitted
to the West through Muslim Spain, during 800 years of tolerant coexistence during most of which all communities flourished most of the time.

I urge you to look at that crucial period of European history that was brushed under the carpet all too easily, and if I may say, unfairly. I urge you to help me bring to the attention of the history
teachers that it is no longer acceptable that their students should know nothing about such an important period.

I have my own perception as to why that period was actively brushed away from the conscience of the Europeans. It was too threatening to the influence of the church and the influence of
the nobility. It was at logger heads with feudal systems that enslaved the peasants, and the church that failed to serve them. It was a dangerous call for justice, compassion and equality.
Imagine the threat imposed in the Europe of the time from one Hadith of the prophet namely that, "people are as equal as the teeth of the comb". Such a concept, as you may imagine,
was dangerously unacceptable to the European society of the time. That is why Islam was actively vilified. That is one of the main reasons for the Crusades; Islam was too much of a
threat to the authority of the nobility and the authority of the Church.

I hope it is clear from this that it is not legitimate for Muslims to hold inquisition like those that took place all too often in Europe by members of the church. You will not find the equivalent
of the Spanish inquisition, which incidentally was mounted primarily against the Muslims and the Jews, in the Muslim world.

Five hundred years ago Columbus set sail, not to discover America, but to get the Muslims of the East to kneel at the feet of Ferdinand and Isabella.

I am a Muslim, a committed Muslim, I come originally from Egypt, I live in secular Britain and am a British citizen. I am completely at home here and I see no conflict between the various
bits of myself and my habitat. I see myself as a cultural bridge. I am privileged to be in a position where I can promote understanding between such important cultures.

The West and the Muslim world keep discovering every day that they are interdependent. The West must give up its aim of subjugating the Muslim world and must give up seeing it as the
enemy. Believe me, the Muslims do not in the main look at the West as the enemy. If it was true that they do, you would not find such a large number of them here in the West.
I see the two cultures as compatible, and that view is shared by every Muslim I know. It is a compatibility that comes, on the Muslim side, from his innate concept of tolerance.

A young Saudi once said to me, "I accept people in the West as they are, why don’t they accept me as I am?" To him, that was basic, but to the western eye, tainted with the Imperialist
past, with the sense of superiority of the white race upon any other, with the fear of being overpowered and overrun by a religion that converted certain backward warring tribes into a massive
fighting force that conquered a large part of the world within 100 years. The days of conquer or be conquered are largely over and that is one more reason why the secular West should not
be afraid of history repeating itself on that score.

There is, undoubtedly, Islam-phobia in the West today. I am frankly tired of attempts at Muslim-bashing that I witness daily. I wish that to stop. The technique is always the same; the Muslim-basher
latches on some weird incident in which a Muslim was involved and paints the 1200 million Muslims with the same brush. That is not fair. It can only lead to conflict where none is needed.

When Muslim-bashing stops, when Islam is looked at with new eyes, I am certain that there will be a great deal of mutual learning and mutual advancement.

This learning process never stopped anyway, but it was not always mutual. The West learned from the great advancement of Muslim thought and achievements in every field of knowledge and built
on it, while the militarily defeated Muslim world took one or two steps back. When the colonialist era was over, the Muslim world actively started to learn from the West at the earliest opportunity.

When I see how much technology transfer and catching up with the West was achieved by the Arab world within such a short period of time, I am filled with amazement and also hope.
The two societies are capable of living together, of learning from each other, without the need to coerce one another into adopting each other’s positions.

So far, I have limited myself to speaking about what is legitimately Islamic because that is the side of the coin that you do not know well. What is illegitimate of the actions of the religionist
Muslims is the side of the coin that you seem to know very well and seem to think is the norm. Well, it is not.

You may ask me, why isn’t the Muslim world more democratic? Why aren’t they indeed? When you consider that the prophet put himself up for elections, called Bay’a, not once, but three
times, you wonder why the Muslim world is not more democratic, and therefore, more Islamic. When you consider that the prophet did not appoint a successor, but left it to the Muslims to
choose freely, when you consider that the major Khalifas were freely chosen by the people, and when you consider the Qur’anic verse that says to the prophet, "So, forgive them, and ask
me to forgive them, and consult them in their affairs" you wonder why the Muslim world is not more democratic. I hope it is clear that the concept of democracy is enshrined in Islamic teachings.
What is common practice today, is more to do with political authority of a particular ruling largely military elite who may or may not be unseated by democratic reform. I put it to you that while
the West calls upon Muslim countries to be democratic, which is often a different way of saying that those countries are horribly backward and uncivilized, the West sees its interests threatened
by democratic reform in the Muslim world. For it will undoubtedly bring about more and more Muslim rule. I do not get the impression that the West was frowning at the military taking over in Algeria
do you? I do not hear voices of indignation at the canceling of the democratic process there.

As another manifestation of Muslim-bashing, some writers latch on a statement made by a young man of no authority in the Algerian Islamic Salvation front, in which he said words to the effect
that democracy is not compatible with Islam. That was immediately seized upon and blown up out of all proportions to indicate that the Muslim world and the West are ideological enemies, which is
not the case.

I was horrified to hear recent comments about the reason for the continued need for NATO after the demise of the Warsaw pact, that "there is still Islam" and also comparable noises to the same
effect. These must be resisted, for they are dangerously untrue. The case of Saddam Hussein, was not the West against Islam, it was the West in defense of Islam and Muslim countries from
a Baathi Empire-building monster. The partnership in the Gulf crisis was of mutual interest of all the allies; Muslims and secularists, Arabs and Westerners. Common interest there is.

Even the Iranian revolution is now coming around into some sort of coexistence with the West, after a very short time of open enmity indeed.

The greatest cause of enmity between the Muslim world and the West is Israel. It was the humiliation of the Arabs at the hands of the Israeli army that gave birth to the current wave of fanaticism.
The direction that fanaticism took was simply to humiliate the West back. Hostage taking was one such endeavour designed only to humiliate, not to liberate. Needless to say that it was a
crime punishable in Islam to take hostages, and punishable severely.

There has been a marked change in western attitude towards the Palestinian problem, and one is hopeful that a peace settlement will be reached soon.

I must mention here that the current western policy of supporting and financing the resettlement of Jews born in Russia in land inhabited by Palestinians born in Palestine, and giving no more
than lip service to the illegal expulsion of indigenous Palestinians can only serve to further humiliate the Arab world. That world, I must say, is far more politically aware than it is given credit for.
Their patience must not be mistaken for political unawareness. There silence must not be mistaken for acquiescence

I think the West must give up any idea that it will one day subjugate the Muslim world, or manage to wipe out the influence of Islam in the Muslim world. It is only natural that Muslims will want
to be ruled by Islam. That is what makes them Muslims. The present situation in many parts of the Muslim world is unnatural, and is unacceptable to the masses, who constantly look forward
to the day when Muslims are ruled entirely by the rules of the Qur’an. Of course as soon as the West hears the word Islamic rule, voices are raised; Ah, Shari’a laws! Ah, chopping off hands!
Ah, stoning for adulterers. ‘Islam is equivalent to barbarism is the constant charge.’ Well, there is a lot more to the Shari’a laws than chopping off hands. Let me tell you that western secular law is
actually moving in the direction of Islamic law. Consider the question of divorce in this country. Consider the question of women’s rights. Compare what the position was and has now become under
secular law to the 1400 year old Shari’a laws, and you will soon discover that secular laws are indeed moving closer to Shari’a laws despite all the condemnatory noises.

I must say here that we have a problem. According to the Qur’an, the only law that should govern Muslim life and Muslim societies is that of the Qur’an. Only God’s law is divine. "Judge them in
accordance with what God has revealed to you," The Qur’an says. Many scholars, however, expanded the book of law to include the prophet’s teachings, the Hadith. The problem is that there have
been many varying, and some times conflicting interpretations of the one Hadith. The expansion of the Shari’a through massive human input has some times been a problem for Muslims. It is God’s
will that he does not interfere excessively in the daily management of the believer. Minimal, but sufficient laws is the norm. There is room however, for human endeavour. There is room for cultural input.
There is room for accommodating the changing needs of the times. Whatever is good of whatever culture is allowed, and whatever is not is not. One must measure it with the scale of justice and
compassion, and accept the new or reject it accordingly, but it does not at any time constitute part of the Shari’a of Islam that must be taken to mean only the Qur’anic teaching. The prophet
himself said, "Whatever people relay to you, go back to the Qur’an, if it agrees with it, take it, and if it does not, reject it."

Islam is an all-encompassing belief system. It is best seen as the manufacturer’s book of instructions as to how to use a Hi Fi or a video or a computer. If you believe that your manufacturer is Allah,
who is the same as God the Father in Christianity, then the Qur’an is your guide as to how to live in the best possible way. Living life in goodness is rewarded with paradise in the after life, while living
sinfully will lead to hell.

There is nothing that the Qur’an says is good that a secularist will not agree it is, hence my assertion that it is indeed a system that the secularist west can live with. Indeed, one may ask, where did
the secularist get his code of ethics and his moral code from? Based on observation, I suspect that religious morality had a lot to do with it. Religion does indeed play an important role in the lives of
men and it is no use denying it. It is the illegitimate use of religion that you and I are against, not the moral codes of the religion itself. Christianity is, after all, the religion of "Love thy enemy." Shouldn’t
that at least allow for diversity of religious belief?

I know from my knowledge of Islam that it allows for diversity of belief within a peaceful society. It actively prohibits coercion. "Let there be no coercion in religion, for the right way has become clear from
the wrong way." The Qur’an says. When you look at Islam in practice, you will find Christian communities that live in Syria to this day as they lived in the days of Jesus, still speaking the same Aramaic
as he did. That community could not have survived the various inquisitions of the Christian church had it been under Roman rule instead of Muslim rule. It took 300 years for Egypt to become a predominantly
Muslim country, a situation that could not have arisen if it was not for the tolerance of the Muslims. If it had been a question of "convert or die", as it was with the Muslims at the hands of Ferdinand and
Isabella, it would have taken no more than two weeks or so. In the case of Spain, those who converted were still eventually put to death, for their conversion was not believed to be genuine.

The Muslims were indeed rewarded badly for all the good they did to Europe, including all advances in the various spheres of knowledge. To give you an idea of how great that influence was, I am going to
give you relatively trivial examples; it was the Muslims astronomers who called today Monday, meaning the day of the moon; Monday, and it was they who called yesterday the day of the sun. Likewise the
rest of the days of the week were named after various planets. When you write the date, you write it in Arabic numerals, not in Roman ones. Try working out modern mathematics without the Arab zero and
see what happens. Perhaps when you remember that, when you come to write the date, you might just like to take a fresh look at Islam, with a view to removing the enmity and help bring the Crusades to an
end. If you do, you will make me very happy indeed.

I must now leave you with the testimony of another; namely Professor Ernest Gellner, who is Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Cambridge. Commenting on the Muslim model, He states in
his book ‘Plough, Sword and Book’ that, "Here there is a traditional faith, which in its high culture variant is highly compatible with the requirements of modernization, and whose genuine local roots make it
ideally suitable as an expression of a new national identity."

I hope I made a good case for Islam as a partner, not an enemy, of the secular west, regardless of any ideological differences, for the shared concepts of tolerance in both faiths, the Muslim and the
secular faiths, would make such partnership possible, desirable, and indeed highly successful.