Loyalty oaths in America have their roots in the Civil War era, but in the
50s, they were an ugly product of the "Red Scare." Some people, including
university professors, were asked to sign them as testimony to their not
being a communist, or a communist sympathizer.
Now comes a proposal for a different type of loyalty oath, which may help
answer the question: how do we tell the difference between a peaceful Muslim
and a non-peaceful Muslim who wants to kill us? Granting that the majority
of Muslims are not terrorists, is there a method by which we can do a better
job of exposing those who are?
This week, the "Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding" is being presented
to the European Parliament. According to Gerard Batten, a member of the
European Parliament from London, who contributed the foreword, and the
charter's author, Sam Solomon, a Sharia 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 Sharia law.
- Respect Western freedoms, especially of belief and expression and prohibit
violent reaction against people who make use of these freedoms.
- Prohibit the issuing of any fatwa that would result in violence or threat
against individuals or institutions.
- Request Islamic institutions to revise and issue new interpretations of
Qur'anic verses calling for Jihad and violence against non-Muslims.
Solomon says, "We call on organizations representing the Islamic faith Š to
endorse and sign this Charter as an example to all European Muslims." By
doing so, they will make it clear that "Islam is a religion of peace Š and
that acts of terrorism committed in its name are the acts of misguided
individuals who have misunderstood and misinterpreted its teaching."
In the charter's foreword, Gerard Batten (MEP) writes, "The Western European
view of religion, achieved after centuries of bloodshed, conflict and
division, is that religion is a matter of private belief and conscience.
Islamic fundamentalists do not share this view. They believe in Islamic
theocracy. Such views are simply incompatible with Western liberal
democracy. The vast majority of Muslims that non-Muslims meet in everyday
life are decent, respectable, law-abiding and hardworking. Western
governments and societies have to offer them their support while standing
firm against the extremists." The charter is "a great step forward in this
process."
It certainly is, but what if someone signs it and doesn't mean it? Some
Muslims claim the Koran allows them to lie to "infidels." What happens then?
What would Solomon suggest be done to those who refuse to sign the charter,
as many refused to sign earlier loyalty oaths? How does one encourage
compliance? Sam Solomon answers that question via e-mail: "This charter is
like a passport application. If someone lies, he will be prosecuted. Once
agreed upon, it would give power to the authorities to bring them to
justice. Though we know they can lie, this time it would not be an
individual, it would be their leaders, and would be like putting their noses
in the dust, and accepting it for what it is worth, that the real cause of
terrorism is the interpretation of Qur'anic verses by certain factions of
their religion. One way or another, they have never been challenged like
this ever before."
As the European Parliament is often much slower than the American Congress,
the charter begins first as a discussion document. Sponsors hope it will
create interest and discussion among the European public, as well as in the
European Parliament. They are hoping one of the MEPs, possibly Gerard
Batten, will put forward a proposal to introduce this charter as a bill.
Batten and 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.
Does anyone have a better strategy for sorting out the violent Muslims from
the peaceful ones among us? And be sure, they are among us, as we
experienced on 9/11.