Ibrahim Mogra is the acceptable face of British Islam – a mainstream Muslim who rejects the perverted beliefs of terrorists. Yet while he accepts that secular pluralism is a good thing, offering him freedom, his discomfort over the freedoms it renders others highlights how complex a relationship Islam has with this country

Like the attitude of many people in Britain towards Islam, mine is becoming increasingly ambiguous. I am alarmed that extremist militant groups still seem to be plotting mass murder in Britain, but I am also taken aback by reports of growing alienation among young Muslims: according to a recent Channel 4 poll, only half of British Muslims consider Britain their country, and a third of Muslims aged between 18 and 24 would rather live under sharia law than secular British law.

On the other hand, I am increasingly aware of the more complex reality: many Muslims are peace-loving; if they feel alienated from British culture, this is not because they are fanatics but because they are repelled by many of our culture’s hedonistic excesses. But is there a full acceptance of the sovereignty of secular British law, and the principle of cultural freedom?

Ibrahim Mogra, from Leicester, is one of Britain’s respected mainstream imams, chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain and antidote to Abu Hamza. He is a slight, softly spoken man in his late thirties. He is sometimes labelled a liberal by fellow Muslims, which begs all sorts of questions.

Leicester’s Muslim minority is on the brink of becoming a majority, he tells me, and the evidence is unmissable. Every minute we seem to pass another mosque; he points out the site of a recently demolished church awaiting a new mosque, and  a church that has just been bought by a mosque. His local mosque is not nearly large enough to accommodate the Friday faithful, who spill out on to a large piazza in front. “See that bench? I was praying next to that last week.”

Mogra was born into the Indian community of Malawi; he arrived as a student to join family already living in Leicester. He studied in Lancashire, then briefly in Cairo, then at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, before teaching at a Muslim school. Since 2002 he has also done voluntary work for the Muslim Council of Britain, chairing the Mosque and Community Affairs Committee, before the Interfaith Relations Committee.

There have been no serious cases of militancy in Leicester’s mosques, he says. “If someone was preaching hate in one of our mosques, the congregation wouldn’t sit back and tolerate it, they would want to do something about it, to stop it.”

But Muslim leaders have often failed to curb extremism; and haven’t they, and many, come close to justifying violence? “We have always said very clearly that two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if Muslims are being butchered in other parts of the world, that gives no one the right to butcher people on the Underground [scene of the London bombings on 7 July last year]. That message has gone out very, very loudly.”

Has that message really been unequivocal throughout the Muslim community of Britain? “Yes, on the whole – there are more than 1,200 mosques and only a handful have been problematic. We have condemned terrorism very clearly from day one, without any ifs or buts, unconditionally. However, when we condemn atrocities it is important for us that we also address the reasons why people carry them out. That is not to justify, it’s to look at the surrounding issues.But there’s no two ways about it. The murder of innocents is wrong.”

There is still a minority in this country that disagrees, and twists Islam into an evil ideology, isn’t there? “There’s a small number of Muslims who have a perverted understanding of Islam, who consider themselves at war with Britain because of its foreign policy.”

What can be done to stop this cult of violence? “These people are attracted to violence by the ongoing international conflict – the bombers of 7/7 left videos in which they say that they are at war with their own country because of what’s happening around the world.”

Imam Mogra appears to believe that foreign policy that Muslims find questionable comes first, before militant extremism, rather than being an added-on justification. “If you take that policy out of the equation, these hate preachers will not have much ammunition to win recruits. So there has to be genuine effort to resolve these international issues: Palestine has been ignored for more than five decades.”

Another factor, I suggest, is that the terrorists seem to hate British culture. He pauses. “I’ll be very honest with you. There is so much in British culture that is beautiful, which has to be embraced by all. However there are a few things that I as a Muslim, along with other non-Muslims, find unacceptable. For instance, this growing culture of binge drinking, this culture of yobbish behaviour, of drug abuse. But the hatred is of the evil actions, not of the individuals – as a Muslim I’m not allowed to hate anyone.”

One can condemn these things, and yet also affirm the principle of pluralism, of cultural freedom. Isn’t there a danger of British Muslim culture emphasising the downside of pluralism and forgetting the positive side? “Yes, we often tend to focus on the negatives. But this is true on the other side as well: there’s a lot more emphasis on the negatives displayed by some Muslims than on the positives displayed by the majority.”

Something worrying secular Britain is the idea that Muslims want to reject secular liberalism in favour of sharia law, and that they believe the Qur’an overrules secular law. “Sharia simply means the path of obedience to God. There are four sources for sharia law. The Qur’an is complemented by the Traditions of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and then we have [the] consensus of scholars, and analogy, which helps scholars to derive new laws for contemporary issues. Every Muslim should have his or her life governed by sharia in a personal capacity. In some Muslim countries the government might want to implement sharia law, but that’s not
always the case.” Should it be implemented in those countries? “It’s up to the people. Do I want sharia to be implemented in Britain? No. I am happy to be ruled by sharia law in my personal life, and by UK law in my public life.”

But surely the original concept of sharia law is that it is one thing, totally comprehensive? “Even in Muslim countries, non-Muslim citizens have always been exempt from aspects of it. Sharia caters for other religions to follow their own laws, adapting to circumstances.”
 
So in practice a British Muslim follows sharia law within a certain confine – of compatibility with secular law? “In the vast majority of cases there is no conflict at all, but unfortunately the potential problems are always highlighted, and the beautiful things about sharia are never spoken of. Sharia says that when I cook a meal I should cook a little extra and share it with my neighbour.”

Yet there are some laws that are simply unacceptable to most modern-minded people, aren’t there? “Yes, there are aspects of the original understanding of sharia that contemporary liberal societies feel are outdated – capital punishment is normally seen in that way, for example. But within the mechanism of sharia there are so many aspects built into it that try to avert the final judgement. For example, the accusation of adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the act, making it almost impossible to get a conviction.”

So in practice there are different interpretations of sharia law – and he favours more liberal interpretations? He treads carefully: “I think in some instances less compassion is shown when a sharia judgement is passed than there ought to be, than sharia itself requires.”

But in Britain there is no question of punishment for adultery at all – secular law rules out the possibility of sharia law being implemented. “I would not want an alternative system of sharia law for British Muslims, and if there was an offer from the Government I would accept it possibly only in relation to some aspects of family law, principally marriage and divorce, and inheritance.”

But don’t many Muslims see Britain as essentially immoral because its secular law allows people the freedom to do things that Muslims see as immoral? “If people want to go out and get drunk, or have relations before they are married, that is their choice. But we also have a collective responsibility as citizens to ensure that our societies do not disintegrate, and Islam tries to offer an example of a better way of living.

But lots of non-Muslims are offended by pornography, promiscuity and so on. The question is whether Muslims accept that these things are a side-effect of freedom. “Yes, these things are a side-effect of our liberal culture.” Which is a good thing? “For those who want to live like that, fine.” No, I counter: it’s a good thing in an absolute sense. For example, it is a good thing that society allows people to have sex before marriage, rather than trying to outlaw it. “Because my religion says that people should not have sexual relations unless they are married to each other, I cannot say that that is a good thing. But I can say that it is the free choice of those who want to live like that.” Can’t he agree that it is a good system of law that protects people’s freedom to do such things? “Anything that my religion condemns as a sin I cannot endorse as a good thing. Had it been a good thing for society, God would not have categorised it as a sin. We Muslims have never called for a ban on premarital sex in Britain, and we never will, but we say it is wrong.”

I try another tack: he would rather live in Britain than in Iran, say? “There is no country I would rather live in than Britain. Britain allows me to be who I am, to practise my religion. Secular pluralism is good on the whole, but not because it allows sex before marriage.”

Does he favour constitutional reform, including disestablishment? If all were equal under a secular constitution, wouldn’t there be less cause for resentment? “I think we should now move towards bringing all religions on board. I don’t have a problem with Anglican bishops being in the House of Lords, because they represent a religious group, and we have many things in common – and that is surely a good thing. I would say, keep the bishops in there, and let’s also have imams, rabbis, pundits in there, and representatives from other faiths.” But surely a lot of younger Muslims feel excluded, and the creation of an explicitly secular state would remove any excuse for resentment? “I don’t see that as the dominant cause of feelings of exclusion. I don’t see why equality should be achieved by exclusion of bishops when it could be achieved by inclusion of others.”

Theo Hobson is a specialist writer on religious affairs.