This question and similar ones are usually thrown into the political and media circles to re-visit the exhausted subject of integration. Ever since 9/11 and more particularly after 7/7, the debate about being British and its ramifications have started to become more imposing and trying to shape a dominant  public opinion on the matter. However, for the government, there is a risk of  being so stringent with a definition about Britishness. The very fact that these question are being discussed in light of a community who live according to a different value system, they risk alienating them further and reducing the likelihood of ever integrating them successfully into a liberal democratic society.

British or Britishness is an invented political identity, its roots originating from the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James VI, King of Scots, ascended to the thrown of England, thus uniting Scotland and England under one monarch. Ever since then in British History it has been used to assert an identity on other communities. An example would be in 1607 large tracts of land in Northern Ireland fell to the crown. A new settlement was started, made up of Protestant settlers from Scotland and England. Over the years the settlers, surrounded by the hostile Catholic Irish, gradually cast off their separate English and Scottish roots, becoming British in the process, as a means of emphasising their ‘otherness’ from their Gaelic neighbours.

Many commentators have stated what they feel it means to be  Brtish in Modern Britain. Starting with Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he has mentioned several measures to promote Britishness, one of them being recapturing the Union Jack from the Far Right. “All the United Kingdom should honour it, not ignore it. We should assert that the Union flag by definition is a flag for tolerance and inclusion.”  A report commisioned by Gordon Brown on British Citizenship suggested that all school leavers should take an oath of allegiance to the Queen in order to develop a “sense of  belonging.”                                                                                                  

 Jeremey Paxman, a well known journalist and authour comments that  “I am more comfortable with my English identity. There are important residual values there, such as respect for the rule of law and for democracy and, I suppose, religious overtones too.”  Sharmi Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty feels it’s about underlying values that are capable of embracing not just British people but the best aspirations of democrats around the world. Another audacious view is from Michael Boyd, Artistic Director of the RSC, “The thing I like most about Britishness is its messiness and incompleteness. I am a good example of it myself: I was born in Belfast, brought up in London and educated in Edinburgh. I like the unfinishedness of the idea of Britishness and I think that’s what is shaping about it. It is part of our problem, but it is also defining.”

Having briefly highlighted the current context of discussion and its historical roots, is it a commendable way to engage with the Muslim Community in discussing or imposing such a controversial term? People who go on and on about it are usually the people trying to force the Muslim Community to behave a certain way based on their perception of best values for humanity. The government, ministers and certain think tanks that provide fodder to government legislation are usually the source  to stoke up what intended to be a harmless issue of having a cohesive society to a divisive topic where the people of influence try to impose their agenda on the Muslim Community in Britain.  

I think the first step in any conflict resolution is to talk to one another. It is given the problem today is that the British Society is unable to be fully inclusive of all the migrant or indeed some indigenous people. The majority being those who share a faith in Islam. So, ultimately to become fully inclusive what does the British Society need or to be brazen, deficient in, in order to resolve some of the problems faced in society? Quoting a 14yrs old boy at high school in response to school leavers taking an oath to the queen, ” It’s kind of dumb. Most people have proper faith in their own country, trying to get them to have allegiance to this one gets in the way. It’s more important to create better housing for people with youngsters. Getting rid of tower blocks would stop things like gang culture.” 

A recurrent theme in this subject is the issue of values. The notion of shared values is one of the conerstones of being British. I think there lies the answers to the questions asked earlier. A proper debate should ensue on what exactly are British Values and its validity. Starting from here will allow a level playing field where people on opposing sides will be able to air their views without being labelled as extremists or Anti – British.

 Right, enough on advertising Britishness, as Boris Johnson says “it’s quite unBritish to keep bashing on about Britishness.”

About 6 weeks ago, I was asked to take voluntary redundancy. I really didn’t see it coming. In fact my colleagues got the call, but it didn’t seem to register in me that I would receive the same call. You easily get stuck with the ‘it’s never gonna happen to me’ mentality. Anyway, I did. Another lesson in humility for me.

Fortunately voluntary redundancy is better than mandatory redundancy.  You’re given the option of resigning, and offered a ‘package’ upon leaving.  Upon consulting a few brothers and speaking to a honest recruiter, I decided it was the worst thing I could do. Not only are good jobs vanishing into the mist, salaries are being heavily undercut by the long lists of educated unemployed fighting for the few available positions.

So I still have a job, but I’ve been alerted that I’m in the firing line for the mandatory cuts that are just around the corner.

All in all, I don’t feel that bad. If I do lose my job, I’ll just move back with my parents. I don’t have any dependents and my savings will help me get by. Most importantly, Allah is Ar-Razzaq. The money I earn, to the air that I breathe is a provision that is granted for me. No need to feel depressed, or worse, to think about dodgy (read haraam) ways of trying to earn money.

The problem that people have is that the loss of a job actually means the total loss of security. In this society, you rarely own anything. Nor can you exercise independence in controlling your livelihood. Your house is likely owned by a landlord or a bank. Your right to water, electricity and fuel is at the mercy of privately controlled conglomerates. All of these need to be paid for; lose your job and you can’t ‘just get by’.

Or you can, but only just. That’s what welfare support from the state is supposedly for.

I dread welfare though.  Only once in my life did I take a jobseekers allowance. True, it is a little embarrassing walking into the local Jobcentre plus*, but it shouldn’t be from the worry of auntyjee catching sight of you holding out for your giro, but because you are ashamed about not earning your rizq. After all, the Prophet (saw) advised us that the best of earning is through our own two hands.

On many levels though, the idea of state welfare support is wrong. The key word here is state welfare support. I’m also primarily referring to the Capitalist countries.

For one thing, it’s easy to abuse. Given that rampant individualism and morally vacuous concepts exist aplenty, some people are easily inclined to switch to a mode of living for welfare. Stereotypical Asians trying to scam the system for income support come to mind here.

Next, is that leveling a price value for welfare payments distorts the market for jobs and disincentivises the want to work. If your welfare allowance provides you with £250 a month, then regardless of how honest and hardworking you are, why bother taking a job that only offers £240 a month? There are many reports in the UK of citizens unwilling to work manual labour jobs (and preferring illegal immigrants to do it instead).

Then we come to the whole issue of how welfare support is actually paid for. It is paid for by taxes (unless the government wants to take ‘quantitative easing’ to another level). Taxes are the price we pay for government services, and amongst many of such services one of them is welfare support. The question about welfare support though, is if the tax was removed and so thus welfare support also stopped, would I actually ever need support for my welfare?

The answer lies in everything I’ve talked about Islamic Economics in the other posts of this blog. I’ll post a more comprehensive blog post soon insh’Allah, but the summary is:

Welfare support is primarily the duty of the family, then your neighbours, then the local community, and then the (Islamic) State. Islamic economics does not exist devoid of the other relationship elements of society.  A strong family unit means that no man is an island – able or disabled.  The Islamic culture nurtures a collective sense of responsibility over your fellow brothers and sisters, something Capitalism cannot cater for, and thus in the Capitalist societies welfare support is relegated to the role of the state. This extra burden for the (Capitalist) state is handled via the raising of extra taxes on its citizens. A vicious cycle is now created. The application of crushing taxes, reduces the availability of disposable income. The very income that would allow people to ensure welfare for themselves, at the very basic level, by owning their own property. Due to the cyclical boom-bust nature of the Capitalist system, when the bad times roll, and people are caught short. They have no family or community to provide a helping hand, thus they resort to the state for support. The growing number of people seeking state support forces the state to increase taxation….and so the cycle continues.

*Non UK readers. The Jobcentre in the UK is also where you go to pick up your dole.

These rumblings have increasingly been reported in the media in the last decade as the call for a Green Environment gathers pace. Industries and Governments around the world have discovered a new venture of finding out the “Global Carbon Footprint,” and as a result a new industry in itself has emerged. I am not against saving the planet and the notion that there needs to be more consideration taken now, more than ever, for the environment, but measures such as birth control compels me to highlight the tacit mistakes that are being committed which if transformed to law, would be a disaster.

Without delving into the pros and cons of uncontrolled population growth, I would like to step back and look at the factors that have bought us into these trepid circumstances in the first place!

Ever since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the world has never seen in its history the astounding utilisation of natural resources, expansion of populations, destruction of natural habitats and species and lastly the new phenomenon of consumerism especially in the 21st Century. The Industrial Revolution created an unusual situation: for the first time in history products were available in outstanding quantities, at outstandingly low prices, being thus available to virtually everyone. The newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century continued to grow and feed the consumerism drive which has played its part in Globalisation.

Consumerism is an equation of personal happiness combined with the consumption and purchase of material possessions. Allow me to elaborate. A couple of decades ago once you had bought a car (let’s say a Nissan Cherry) the next time you buy a car would probably be after another decade. Nowadays people are exchanging their cars every three years (if not sooner)! Laptops are upgraded every two years and mobile phone promotions are held annually. The sheer desire to acquire a new product constantly either for luxury or status is the main culprit for the pervasive environmental degradation we see today.

What I have just described is exactly what has been happening in America and Europe for decades. But since China and India have emerged as the new Kids on the Block in the Economy world, does it now transpire for the Western Thinkers to start questioning about the environmental impact these populations will cause for adopting the consumerist life! Emulation is also a core component of 21st century consumerism. As a general trend, regular consumers seek to emulate those who are above them on the social hierarchy. The poor strive to imitate the rich and the rich imitate celebrities and other icons. One needs to look no further than the celebrity endorsement of products to realise that the American or British population rarely make their own lifestyle decisions.

It is the validity of personal happiness linked with purchasing and possessing materials as the ultimate objective of life that I question and believe to be just another example of the many rotten fruits of capitalism. I’m not advocating that everybody should live in a block of flats and drive Skodas. Nor am I advocating that we should live grey, mundane lives in a cave with no source of entertainment.

I am simply pointing out the obvious; if every individual is pushed in society to have a car, mobile phone, plasma TV, wireless Internet, iPod, large houses, buying expensive gifts for your girl friend on Valentines Day etc. you will naturally come to a point where no resources will be available to feed this addiction. An addiction created by the western world and its colonialist past.

Opponents of the anti-consumerist movement, namely, libertarians believe that no person should have the right to decide for others what goods are necessary for living and which aren’t, or that luxuries are necessarily wasteful, and thus argue that anti-consumerism is a precursor a totalitarian society. Twitchell, in his book Living It Up, sarcastically remarked that the logical outcome of the anti-consumerism movement would be a return to the sumptuary laws that existed in ancient Rome and during the Middle Ages, historical periods prior to the era of Karl Marx in the 19th century.

Ironically, Jonathan Porritt could now be labelled as one that calls for sumptuary laws!

In Islam it clearly delineates what is a necessity for living and what is a luxury. Obtaining luxurious items or earning tremendous amount of wealth is neither forbidden nor discouraged. However, based on the revelation from the Creator, it instructs how a society should function, where the real pursuit of happiness remains, what is the position of material wealth in the Islamic faith and more importantly how the environment should be treated. There is no draconian or appalling idea of population control which quite frankly would not correct the environmental problem the west or in fact the world faces today.

What is required is a fundamental change in living habits which can only happen when there is a change of fundamental ideas about life. I can see this can be a bit difficult for some people right now as they are probably too busy pondering about the Brit Awards right after they have watched the Baftas!

I’m not writing to deliberate on Russell Brand or Jonathan Ross.

Erm… Okay let me just say a few words about Brand then. I really hate Brand.  Ughhh, I mean can those trousers get any tighter? The worst I can esteem him with is thoughts of malevolence. At best, I liken him to a walking STD.

Oki doki, that’s out of the way then.

In his book ‘On Liberty‘, the British philosopher John Stuart Mills argued that

…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.

Beyond the realm of the chit-chat that philosophers and libertarians have privately bantered on about for centuries regarding the above quote, it’s the full on manifestation of testing the limits of freedom of expression that interests us.

Exercising freedom of expression is theoretically meant to take place in the context of competing values. The ‘competing values’ are typically considered the social and religious customs that help define the notions of offense, tolerance and respect.  In Britain though, where religious customs are fading and social norms shifting, there forms this black hole as to how far freedom of expression is exercised.

This is precisely where the current drama over the prank call made to Andrew Sachs by Brand and Ross, neatly fits in.  Even though the furore is still unfolding, more than 27,000 complaints made to the BBC have forced apologies from both Brand and Ross, and has led to the resignation of Russel Brand from BBC radio.

You can find the script of the call in the online site of The Telegraph, or simply just YouTube it (I’m not providing links).  Suffice to say all of it is trash, but the main insult is over the lurid way Brand exposed his previous relationship with Sach’s grand daughter.

I don’t really know that exact demographics of BBC2 listeners, but I would hazard a guess that the majority of them are old.  Old in the sense that they probably safeguard their Christian values, less likely to be divorced and have fond memories of ‘in my days, kids used to…’  I know its a strong statement, but it helps explain the high number of complaints, especially if they have their own grand children and thus feel offended by the Brand/Ross call.  Comparatively, the younger crowds don’t feel such indignation. It’s either harmless or just plain normal to them.  When I was young, I would watch ‘You’ve Been Framed’.  Amongst the MTV generation though, I believe ‘Jackass’ is the norm.  A program where crass insults and churlish behaviour have helped shape the next generation into believing that everything goes (down the crapper).

While the full outcome of what happens with the Brand/Ross case is yet to be decided, I’m hoping that any discourse by Muslims on this issue would lead them to seeing the inherent harms of free speech (codified via article 19 of the UDHR). Holding our tongues is one of the greatest virtues endeared to us by the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Now in relation to the Jewel of Madina…

As Muslims, we really don’t have any excuse to be confused.  Yet, when it became apparent that Sherry Jones was looking to publish her book in the UK (it’s on an indefinite hiatus now).  Some high profile Muslim commentators approached the matter in a somewhat placid manner.  By this I mean that they were caught in the trappings of using free speech as basis of whether the book should be published or not. Given the conciliatory tone of the author, and the constant repetition that the book was meant to show the life of ‘Ayesha (ra) in a positive light, such commentators could only weakly reply by saying that whilst they disagreed with the contents, free speech should permit the publication of the novel.

Where then is the inalienable belief that Islam defines what is clearly correct or incorrect?  How is it that BBC2 listeners can stand there ground, when they know something to be wrong?  My biggest fear is that the next generation of Muslim commentators, intellectuals and leaders, will have their thinking only shaped by Islam in the peripheries, but grounded in their core thoughts by the same fodder that feeds the MTV generation.

Allah knows best.

When blessed with a baby, a new parent will immediately start thinking about the responsibility they have towards their child. Thoughts about care, affection, protection (both physical and mental), and also greater aspirations come to mind. So naturally when we see, hear and sense the obstacles in society we become very defensive and prepare for the eventuality when our offspring will face the “real” world.

Instilling Islamic values is core to this process. So yes, I am proud to say I will teach my child the Qur’an (the so-called bastions of ‘freedom of speech’ think is a “fascist” book), to read, understand and most importantly implement every word to the letter. I hope to teach the idea that Shari’ah is the most superior system when compared to any other system on earth whether it is spiritual, social or political. Values of being honest, chaste, respecting women as opposed to objectifying them, being obedient to his/her superiors, to speak out against injustice, to be sincere in every interaction with human beings and most important of all that Allah (swt) will be watching and accounting us on the Day of Judgement.

Alongside these values, I hope to encourage deep thinking and a balanced Islamic personality who questions and probes before accepting the norms in a society – whether that’s a Muslim or non-Muslim society.

Now what can be an obstacle in making sure these values are maintained and passed on to the next generation? Well, fundamentally, the process of education (by whom and where) will be the single greatest factor in influencing this plan.

Imagine the horror of parents that will watch the program “To Sir with Love” on ITV tonight. I’ve just read the BBC news article informing us about this program in relation to the NASUWT and General Secretary Chris Keates said it was an “anomaly” that a teacher who had sex with a pupil aged over 16 could go on the sex offenders register. In other words, implying that it’s ok have sex with a pupil as long as they’re above 16 years old! This is not an eccentric teacher or an isolated person saying this filth; it is the Teachers’ Union chief!

Even then, I’m sure this is not even the pinnacle of an already decrepit and dilapidated system, where I am sure we can look forward to more sickening acts and laws are to be passed in the near future. Yes, the child protection professionals will criticize it since it interferes with their turf but how on earth can a civil human being come up with such statements? The answer becomes clear when we ponder on the values that most people in this society have.

The values of free speech and personal sexual freedom. Would it not be fair to say that this idea that ‘we are free to do as we please’ is to blame? There is a focus on the individual in this capitalistic society, and hence, every act is viewed through this prism. Thus the inevitable clash and misery that follows within interest groups and with the community at large. Imagine your 16 year old son or daughter having a relationship with a teacher because society permits it whether open or illicit!

The incident of teacher-student relations in this society is so demoralizing, you fear sending your kid to any of these schools. Since 1991, 129 teachers have been prosecuted for relationships with pupils but a Sheffield University study suggested as many as 1,500 intimate relationships develop every year. What is even more strange is that the British government and the Justice system of this country in the 21st century felt that a teacher having a relationship with a person under the age of 18 yrs old should be illegal. In 2001, the law was changed to make it illegal for teachers to engage in sexual activity with pupils at their school aged under 18.

This is yet another example of the plethora of problems this society faces due its corrupting values and yet its representatives have the gaul to criticize how Islam treats the institution of marriage with young women, where proper consent and a safe environment is set up before engaging in family life.