Anglo-Saxon Nations and Their Muslim Politicians: The Need for Careful Consideration

Ifeoluwa Siddiq Oyelami

Much media attention has been drawn to the appointment of Humza Yousaf, a second-generation immigrant of Pakistani heritage, as the first minister of Scotland. In addition, some prominent Muslims have declared him a heretic for his views on homosexuality in Islam. This has sparked an ongoing debate that brings in the spotlight “successful Muslim politicians” in the West and especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries.

These politicians have always been lauded as ideal Muslims and presented by the Muslim community as representatives of Islam. It is common to see them invited to Islamic programmes to give speeches. The fact that their non-Muslim counterparts often victimise them has also made them very darling to the global Muslim community, who go online to defend them on almost everything. However, it is often forgotten that these individuals are regular politicians affiliating with the left or right wing of Western politics. Since most of these individuals are from the left wing, they tend to support free immigration policies and anti-islamophobic laws, but not without supporting non-Islamic policies like pro-abortion, feminism, and LGBT.

Previously, debates would centre around a “balance” of supporting the rights of members of the LGBT movement as equal citizens while simultaneously acknowledging the sinful nature of sodomy sexual acts. However, it appears that Humza has become the first prominent politician of Muslim heritage to explicitly declare that such acts are not sinful. Not only did the candidate prioritise the issue of LGBT rights, but he also placed it at the forefront of his campaign in contrast to his Catholic opponent Kate Forbes, a devout Christian affiliated with conservative Christian groups such as the Free Church of Scotland and Christian Action, Research and Education in the UK.

Setting the record straight

While the discussion at hand is not about who remains in Islam or not, it is essential to clarify certain aspects regarding homosexuality and Islam. Firstly, engaging in sexual acts between individuals of the same gender is considered a grave sin in Islam. Secondly, denouncing what Allah has prohibited is not considered an act of disbelief in Islamic theology. The act of sodomy, referred to as Fâhisha (naturally unpleasant act) in the Qur’an (Nisa: 15, Araf: 80), is regarded as not only a morally repugnant act but also a sin for which Allah destroyed the disbelievers among the people of Lut (Ankabut 29:30-35).

It is uncertain whether Humza is knowledgeable about these rulings or not. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognise that neither he nor his likes are recognised Islamic scholars, and as such, they lack the requisite qualifications to serve as exemplars for Muslims or to carry authoritative weight in matters of the faith.

An issue that has arisen is the tendency of young Muslims to view these individuals as role models solely because they are depicted in media as observing salah or wearing headscarves. This raises the question: are these not fundamental practices distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims? Is wearing a headscarf the bare minimum for modesty (an obligatory act), or is there more to it? Is someone who does not conform to these even considered a Muslim? Unfortunately, the media has capitalised on these issues to portray these individuals as ideal Muslims, amplifying their influence on mainstream Muslim discourse. Meanwhile, a little knowledge of history tells one how these reminiscences the tactic used by Anglo-Saxon politics, which has been passed down from the colonialist British Empire to present-day USA and Commonwealth giants.

The Anglo-Saxon Legacy on Islamic Thought

The United Kingdom and its offshoots are presently experiencing a period of pronounced liberalism and multiculturalism. In England, the Prime Minister is Hindu, while in Scotland, the Prime Minister is Muslim, both originating from the Indian subcontinent. These developments are frequently lauded for their multiculturalism and openness. However, for good students of history, this is not the result of benevolent intent on the part of the British Empire’s progenies but rather a manifestation of their political culture. Unlike the typical European approach of hostility towards Islam, Muslims, or other cultures, the prevalent tradition in the UK, North America, and Oceanian countries is to refrain from having any trouble with Muslims. Hence, it is rare to find official anti-Islamic policies such as hijab bans or mosque bans in these countries. They would instead make Muslims use their prestigious venues for their religious events, recite dua in their parliaments, organise and attend iftar programmes and lighten up their streets for Ramadan. In fact, they appear kind enough to afford Muslim space in the media and politics. However, these actions should not be misconstrued as expressions of compassion; they are purely political.

In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the aesthetic value of cultures and thoughts is deemed significant insofar as they do not threaten the state’s economic and political thought. Suppose there is dissent against the governing authority’s principles. In that case, quelling such opposition is imperative by presenting a more compelling antithesis. This cultural norm has facilitated the ascendance of unorthodox perspectives into leadership positions and prestige. More than a century ago, when the British Empire faced staunch opposition against its policies and ideology, it facilitated the emergence of the Ahmadiyya group, which, although heretical, displayed an affinity for British culture. This group quickly gained influence and eventually established itself as a vanguard for formal Islamic education in various Anglophone West Africa. As India’s push for independence gathered momentum, the anglophile Ahmed Khan was provided with a platform to not only advance in politics but also to significantly influence Islamic thought, particularly among contemporary modernists and the Quraniyun groups.

Conclusion

As the Prophet (peace be upon him) wisely said, “A Mumin is not stung from the same hole twice.” Therefore, it is crucial to exercise caution when observing the trend of rising Muslim politicians, speakers and movements and their potentially questionable conduct. In many cases, individuals such as Humza do not necessarily represent the broader Muslim community but rather a class of elites- as the late Ahmad Khan of India. Thus, it is essential to remain vigilant and cognisant of their actions and impact on the Islamic faith.

It is important to recognise that these politicians’ accomplishments should not be the primary concern of the global Muslim community. Many Muslims have seen these as a symbolic win for Islam but this is not the case. These achievements are mostly attained through associations with unislamic elements and the propagation of unislamic ideas. Muslims must be wary of such concepts and should not allow themselves to become unwitting victims of such trends. The Islamic faith is not inherently liberal, and political influence should not be allowed to compromise its core principles.