Within the current framework of Legislation in England & Wales, there are a defined set of protected characteristics that correspond to all persons by some measure or other and reflect a recognition within British Society, of a belief in fairness and justice for all.
These protected characteristics are broadly – Race (Including Ethnicity), Sex (Male and Female), Transsexual, Sexual Orientation, Faith, Disability, pregnancy and maternity & Age. It is clear that no one is exempt from protection in law, as defining their person. The broad scope of protected characteristics in UK law is also a reflection of the spirit and direction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
All Legislation takes account of the UDHR, within the UK. A copy can be seen on our website under our Home tab on the main page.
For the last four decades, we have embraced a definition of Racism that could loosely be defined as Colonial Race Theory or Imperial Race Theory. This theory proposed that British Society was inherently racist due to the inequality of the historical relationship between the colonising power (Britain) and the colonised subject (Colony). One defining characteristic of this theory stated that where a colonial subject came into contact with the imperial power, they would be subject to a cultural and institutional attitude which viewed them as inferior.
In the case of British Imperialism, skin colour would be the most obvious way of identifying a person of none Anglo-Saxon ethnicity in the UK itself – And skin colour, it is said, would necessarily engender a Racist attitude – albeit passively in the case of most people – expressed through institutional as well as social structures.
The Slave Trade in Britain would be a clear aggressive example of how a belief in the superiority of race (Pict, Scot, Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Norman) contributed to Racial and Ethnic attitudes, of subject populations, giving rise to culturally embedded racial stereotypes. On a practical level, colonial race theories may have served to inform all others, of the experience of British subjects from the former British Colonies, who emigrated to Britain and were subjected to clear Racism in a variety of Institutional and Social forms.
Race Laws have in part reflected that definition of Racism since the mid-1970s. Over that same period, Race Theories have broadened into Theories of Ethnicity, and at the same time, Racism, as a clear aggravated act by one person (racist), against another person (victim), by skin colour and ethnic characteristics, have been clearly defined. Identifying factors that inform racist attitudes is a benefit to society as a whole if that helps us to recognise racist views, institutionally and socially. It is clear that no one should be defined as inferior because of their skin colour or ethnic characteristics.
Perhaps one unintended consequence of race theories has been a negative perception of Christianity within the UK, where Missionary Societies themselves may have contributed to a stereotypical view of others, historically. There is no doubt in my mind that at least some Christian Missionaries of the past would be seen as racist, today. However, that is where the Law and social theory part company, as far as Religious Belief is concerned. In Law, Religious Hatred cannot be a matter of Race Hatred unless it is also proven to be intentionally Racist.
Hate Crimes more generally include:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
Although this definition of a Hate Crime is agreed upon by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service:
Section 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) Schedule — Protection of freedom of expression, states:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
Today we have a circumstance where it is not uncommon for a person who has an objection to Islam, because of concerns about Shari’ah (Islamic Law), to be branded a racist or else to be accused of a hate crime, whereas the law does not define Islam as a protected racial or ethnic characteristic. There are only two faiths that are defined ethnically, and they are Judaism and Sikhism. All expressions of faith, or none, are protected in law, as a faith characteristic of the individual.
The law also explicitly permits expressions of personal antipathy and abuse of religious belief as long as there is no threatening behaviour. Where there is an aggravating circumstance amounting to an intention to target an individual or a faith group on the ground of ethnicity, then that may be a race hate crime.
Islam is not a faith that is either the same as, or in any dependable part, similar, to the Christian faith. This is not just a matter of Shari’ah (Islamic Law); it is fundamentally a question of an explicit denial of the person of Christ. Those who are said to be of the faith of Islam in the UK are no doubt presumptuously held in the same benefit of respect for the individual, as are all others in society, and are therefore individually held to be innocent, in respect of their faith.
As with race hate, for those who are practising Christians, or else take the name of Christ – religious hate is also a common accusation, amounting to a claim of seeking to stir up religious hatred, against those Christians who express a faith view of Islam that is not favourable to Islam. Islam, will not permit Christians to express a clear faith position where Islam is exposed by the Shari’ah where Jews and Christians are Dhimmi’s – and where all non-Muslims are Kafirs. Some Muslim leaders have used claims to racial harassment and stirring up race, ethnic and religious hatred as a means to close down religious expressions that are not favourable to Islam.
Stirring Up Religious Hatred, according to the Crown Prosecution Service Advice, is that the defendant:
“……must intend to stir up religious hatred; recklessness is not enough.”
So while it may be reasonably apparent to understand what a religious hate incident, or else a religious hate crime may look like, stirring up religious hatred may be much harder to recognise where the burden of proof must establish intent to stir up religious hatred. I believe that it is unjust to accuse anyone of a religious Hate Crime where a person expresses sincerely held beliefs – either political or religious, that inform others of a genuine concern about another faith. It has become a standard practice to impose that precise accusation against anyone who speaks about Islam in anything other than politically correct terms. In several instances, this type of claim has led to prosecution.
One argument that is often presented is that the Christian Faith is necessarily the same as Islam, and as such an expression of concern for Islam, by Christians, must be racially motivated or else represent a hateful attitude.
It is also clear that the Bible contains accounts of religious practise, expressed through the Mosaic Law which is at apparent odds with Secular Law – As does the Qur’an. If you take the Old and New Testaments together and call that a book, then there are clear instances in the Judaeo-Christian Book, of extreme violence. There are even prophetic ordinances seeking the destruction of whole peoples, such as the Amalekites, who were the direct blood relations of the tribes of Jacob (Israel). Esau was Jacobs brother (first born twin), and Amalek was Esau’s grandson. On that basis alone it is not possible to attribute a racist motive for the destruction of the tribe of Amalek.
However, if you divide the Old Testament Torah, Psalms, History and Prophets, from the New Testament, and accept that Ancient Israel rejected Christ as their Messiah, then we have a basis, politically, to assert that Christianity represents a very different kind of faith than does Islam. Judaism has reformed completely, even though its adherents still reject Christ as their Messiah.
There are no injunctions whatsoever in the New Testament, to either take up arms or else compel anyone to believe in God or Christ. There are no commands to attack others in any context physically, and Christ Himself emphasised loving one’s enemies and treating others with respect and dignity. Indeed, the New Testament is the written record of a New Covenant, and it is that administration that gives the Christian faith its character and informs its Canon Law. Are we to say that Islam does not take its character from Qur’an? If we are to say that, then we have to demonstrate that Islam has reformed in the same way that Judaism has reformed.
Unless there is a clear intention to stir up religious hatred along racial lines, or else, where a clear racist motive evidence a hate crime, then race has no part. Those who cry racist against those who have concerns about Islam may be unknowingly expressing a socio-political theory contracted from the experience of diverse ethnic populations, of the former British Empire, and fail to recognise the necessary attitude of those who are concerned, in prospect, of the Qur’an being taken literally. That [the] Qur’an is taken literally by a significant number of Muslims is clear.
Any lawful purpose of limiting the ascendancy of Islam in the UK would initially have to take the form of asking the question whether Islam can be reformed and restrained in its desire to uphold the whole of the Qur’an, or else call upon the whole of the Qur’an, Sira and a’Hadith as a framework for Shari’ah (Islamic Law) – where that Shari’ah (Islamic Law) is seen as a necessary imposition.
If Christians were to follow the precise guidance of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles, Hebrews and Book of Revelation, then it would be an undoubted fact that anyone claiming to follow Christ, who intend to do physical harm to others on the ground of religious belief, even when that opinion is entirely hostile, cannot be called a faithful follower of Christ. Moreover, one would have to recognise that in the New Testament it is God Himself at the end of the Age, who exacts judgement on the Nations, and it is Christ who is coming to Rule over the Nations with a Rod of Iron. Christians are not asked or required to do that which God Himself has said; He will do.
One prominent example of how Islam views itself can be seen in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam – Where we can read these words:
“Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that “no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands, which are contained in the Revealed Books of Allah and which were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages and that safeguarding those fundamental rights and freedoms is an act of worship whereas the neglect or violation thereof is an abominable sin, and that the safeguarding of those fundamental rights and freedom is an individual responsibility of every person and a collective responsibility of the entire Ummah.”
It is not possible to understand Islam without understanding the real life of Muhammed. That knowledge is derived entirely through [the] Qur’an and the Sunna of Muhammed. [The] Qur’an is a single book, and according to Islamic theology, it is a final unchangeable, or else preserved recitation (Tablet). [The] Qur’an speaks of Islam and the Shari’ah (Islamic Law). That includes injunctions that are incompatible with western society, informed by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). The evidence for that perverse inclination in Islam can be established very quickly in the CDHRI itself and by realising that Islam always retains its core belief that the entirety of the Shari’ah is a necessary imposition where Islam gains ascendancy.
The CDHRI sets out a claim that Islam is “Keenly aware of the place of mankind in Islam as vicegerent of Allah on Earth.”
What that means in simple parlance is that Islam believes itself to be the embodiment of obedient humanity and the Charge of Obedience to Allah. With that claim firmly established and signed to by more than 45 Islamic States, as well as taking cognisance of…..
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.
…..It is difficult to see how anyone of ordinary intelligence could not realise that Islam, whilst recognising many of the principles of the UDHR, retains a Shari’ah interpretation in all matters about Universal Human Rights, including punishments such as flogging, amputation, stoning and decapitation.
The CDHRI establishes the principle that Islam represents the true faith of all humanity. It is the Qur’an, Sira and a’Hadith that constitute the evidence of what that claim means. However, Islam cannot be understood politically, until it is first understood theologically. Unless we have the means to differentiate Islamic theology from Political Islam, we will never understand Political Islam itself. Political Islam, can be best understood in the term Lesser Jihad. Theological Islam, can be best understood in the term, Greater Jihad. These are not fictional terms. They represent the way Islam, defines itself. They are grounded in canonical books in Islam, including Qur’an, and they are evidenced in real life in the way Muslims conduct themselves in this nation.
Inner struggle – Muhammed’s struggle to convince others that he was the Prophet of God – Greater Jihad– reason – persuasion – personal rejection – ending in the Hijra. Greater Jihad is presented to western minds as inner purity – and denotes a sense of one’s personal struggle inwardly to conform to Islamic ideals and ordinances.
Outer struggle – Muhammed’s physical struggle to implement Islam – Lesser Jihad– political demands – war – subjugation – culminating in the Hajj. Lesser Jihad is presented as Noble – and means all that which promotes the implementation of Islamic Rule regardless of its moral character.
Jihad is both Theological and Political Islam – which together form the Shari’ah (شريعة) Surah 45:18 of Islam (الإِسْلاَمُ) Surah 5:3.
It is essential to realise that Islam, as a religious expression, and Shari’ah similarly, cannot be precisely separated from the term Jihad.
In the UK, Islam is a minority faith. However, if we did nothing at all to address Islam, then that would amount to throwing Britain into the gutter and embracing Islam because that is what Islam intends. Whilst that is a religious meaning concerning our faith as defined by RHUOMAI, it also has political meaning. Protecting a religious belief system is not of itself an issue – where the difficulty lies is a failure of all others to realise as a fact of Islam – that Islam is grounded in the life and actions of Muhammed. That grounding is a canonical fact of Islam as defined in Qur’an, Sira and a’Hadith. These are the canonical source of Islam, and the Shari’ah is its historical outworking. In Islam there is little precise separation between political and theological Islam – because there is little acceptance of the distinction in Muhammed’s life between Mecca (pre-Hijra) and Medina (Hijra), giving rise to the Hajj.
THE CRŒSASID PARTY