UKACIA – UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs
Over twenty like-minded Muslim organizations formed the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs (UKACIA) on 11 October 1988 in order to mobilize public opinion and coordinate actions against The Satanic Verses.
Both Dr Manazir Ahsan of the Islamic Foundation and Hashir Faruqi, Editor Impact International, were instrumental in convening this meeting. The Foundation had earlier requested a review copy from the publishers, but none was forthcoming. In September 1988 Dr Manazir Ahsan received an alert from the Jamaat Islami’s offices in India – via Syed Faiyazuddin Ahmed based in Leicester – on the blasphemous contents of The Satanic Verses. Dr Manazir then purchased the book and read it over a week-end. He acted immediately by notifying the main mosques in the UK and Hashir Faruqi.
Dr Ahsan succeeded in convincing Dr Mughram al-Ghamdi, Director General of the London Islamic Cultural Centre (ICC) of the seriousness of the issue. UKACIA appointed the representative from Balham Mosque, Iqbal Sacranie, and Dr Mughram Al-Ghamdi as joint-convenors of a steering committee. Active participants included Maulana Yakub Miftahi of the Hizbul Ulema UK, Blackburn, and Maulana Sher Azam, of the Bradford Council of Mosques. Shaikh Darsh also worked closely with UKACIA. He delivered memorable and powerful khutbas at the Muslim Welfare House, London, on the Islamic position on the so-called ‘satanic verses’ and also alerted the Islamic Shariah Council. UKACIA was based at the ICC, an indication of the courageous support of its Director General. By 21 October 1988, several hundred thousand Muslims had signed the petition protesting against the publication and calling on the publisher Viking Penguin for the book’s withdrawal. The appeal was ignored. On 27 October 1988, UKACIA wrote to all Muslim ambassadors in London calling for a ban on the book. Among the recipients was Mr Ahkunzadeh Basti the Iranian charge d’affaires, who forwarded it to Tehran. On 27 February 1989 a delegation from UKACIA met Mr. Patten, a Minister at the Home Office to press for legal redress against abuse and sacrilege of Muslims religious sanctities. Notwithstanding the efforts of Impact and UKACIA to channel Muslim protest through economic, legal and diplomatic pressure, this cerebral approach did not appeal to all sections of the community. The statement from the Attorney General that British law precluded any action against the publishers provided the trigger for more direct action. The ‘Bolton Action Committee’ organised a march in December 1988 at which the book was set alight. It was not widely covered in the media, but a month later, on 14 January 1989, when Muslims in Bradford repeated the book burning exercise the press was on hand.
The headlines portrayed Muslims as emotional hot-heads, both confirming and perpetuating a convenient stereotype. The media chose not to report the strenuous efforts that Muslims had made to resolve the matter with civility and dignity, particularly the dismissive way the publishers had responded to the large-scale petition. The Government of the day was also dismissive: on 1st February 1989 Douglas Hurd, Conservative Home Secretary, again ruled out any changes to the blasphemy law and instead asked British Muslims to “join the mainstream”.
World events, such as the deaths in Islamabad on 12 February 1989 during an anti-Rushdie demonstration, and the subsequent Khomeini Fatwa declared in February 1989, intensified the spotlight on British Muslims. On 27 May 1989, several thousand Muslims from all over Britain converged on Hyde Park for a march to Downing Street organised by an ad-hoc ‘British Muslim Action Front’.
It became self-evident to British Muslims that regardless of their numbers, their concerns could be treated lightly by the Government of the day. These numbers had to be converted to political muscle in order to make a difference. Having coming to an impasse on blasphemy laws, UKACIA now sought amendment to the Public Order Act to deal with publications such as The Satanic Verses and to protect the interests and dignity of religious communities.
In July 1989, following Hurd’s appointment as Foreign Secretary, the new Home Secretary, John Patten, sent a condescending letter to a number of British Muslim organizations, including UKACIA, which included homilies on the need to gain fluency in the English language and lessons on how democracies worked:
4 July 1989
Dear Mr Sacranie
I am writing to you, and to a number of other influential British Muslims, to set forth in full some of our recent thinking in the light of the continuing concern – focusing on, but not exclusively related to the publication of “The Satanic Verses”.
The last few months have been difficult ones for British Muslims. The issue of race relations has been thrown into sharp relief and all of us have had to think deeply about our objectives and priorities: about what it means to be British and particularly what it means to be a British Muslims. These reflections have been the more difficult because of the long-term importance of the consequences that hinge on them…..
Of course, the process of adjusting to large numbers of people with different backgrounds has not always been straightforward, nor could one have expected it to be. And similarly it has not been easy for many people who have had to adjust to a way of life very different from the one they had left behind. There are inevitable stresses and strains.
Putting down roots in a new community does not mean severing the old. No one would expect or indeed want British Muslims, or any other group, to lay aside their faith, traditions or heritage. But the new roots must be put down and must go deep, too. Language is the most obvious example. It is quite natural and reasonable for the parents of an Asian child, born in Britain, to want to bring that child up to speak their own mother tongue. But they must not forget that for that child to prosper in Britain and to reach his or her full potential, he or she will also have to have a fluent command of English. As with language, so with knowledge of institutions, history and traditions….The same freedom which has enabled Muslims to meet, march and protest against the book, also preserves the any author’s right to freedom of expression for so long as no law is broken. To rule otherwise would be to chip away at the fundamental freedom on which our democracy is built. That is why we have no power to intervene with publishers or to have “The Satanic Verses” removed from bookshop shelves. Nor would we seek or want such power…..
UKACIA’s hallmark was that it approached the Rushdie affair by applying pressure through the accepted routes in the British system – the courts, lobbying politicians, forming alliances. This was a strategy supported by legal professionals and other informed sections of the community, thus allowing UKACIA to draw on ‘in-house’ expertise and improve the quality of the Muslim presentation. The UKACIA response, drafted by the Trinidadian-born writer and educationalist AbdulWahid Hamid, is of historic importance because of its content – it set out an agenda – but also its form – the style and tone became a benchmark for Muslim presentations:
19 July 1989
Dear Mr Patten
Thank you very much for your letter dated 4 July 1989 setting forth ‘in full’ some of your ‘recent thinking’ concerning the Muslim community in Britain.
The UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs would like at the outset to assure you that as British Muslims we are concerned about the strength and stability of our country and the common concern of all. We do share the commitment you set out to the principle that all groups must aim at full participation in our society. Muslims are not and do not seek to be a ghetto community. Participation, however, cannot mean as you rightly observed, forfeiting our faith, the proper practice of which, we are convinced, can only contribute to the well-being of society as a whole…
We do welcome your many encouraging statements and assurances such as those on full participation, the right of people to worship in an atmosphere of mutual respect and toleration, and the recognition that each group in British society will have its own specific issues which are of importance. However there are a number of assumptions and inferences in your letter which seem to detract from the statement of these fine principles.
There is, I can assure you, no conflict or tension between practicing our faith and having a fluent command of English or having a clear understanding of British democratic processes, laws, system of Government and the history that lies behind them. There is no question that Muslims, like others in society, have rights and responsibilities and being British, have indeed put down roots that must grow deeper. However, the mere fact that you felt the need to refer to these self-evident truths, perhaps calling into question thereby the motives and objectives of the community, reflects on the communication gap between the Government and the Muslim community.
On the issue of race relations, which you highlight at the very beginning of your letter, we believe that it is very unhelpful to look at human relations in Britain on the basis of race and it is most misleading to see the Muslim community as an ethnic community. Such categorizations distort a lot of perspectives and serve to make racism endemic in our society; they also make for bad laws and create major difficulties in the provision of essential services…
While we acknowledge that we have responsibilities to the society we live in, we feel that these responsibilities will be better discharged if the community’s need to preserve its ethos is recognized and if the facilities and where necessary the legal provisions for doing so are accorded, not grudgingly or as a result of a process of attrition, but willingly and in a spirit of goodwill and harmony….
We do appreciate your statement that ‘the Government understands how much hurt and anxiety that book has caused’ but we find it incomprehensible that there is no discernable willingness on the part of the Government to take decisive action against what is not only sacrilege but a calculated attempt to create public disorder and mischief by giving free reign to insult and abuse...
Instead we are repeatedly told about two guiding principles: the freedom of speech, thought and expression; and the notion of the rule of law. All of us uphold and cherish these freedoms. But the notion that people have a ‘right’ to commit sacrilege and insult and abuse the deeply held sanctities of other people is extraordinary. There can be no absolute freedom of expression except in a society where there is complete absence of law or government. The notion of the rule of law and unregulated and undisciplined freedom of speech, thought and action cannot and do not go together.
The crisis over ‘The Satanic Verses’ refuses to go away for the perfectly understandable reason that our legal framework does not envisage a situation in which an offense of sacrilege could be committed against religions other than the Anglican faith…We strongly feel that there is an urgent and pressing need for legislation to deal with sacrilege and incitement to religious hatred and abuse…
UKACIA’s delegates also attended several of the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) meetings of Foreign Ministers held at Riyadh, Cairo, Tehran and Karachi, playing a major role in the adoption of the OIC Declaration and Resolutions for combating Blasphemy. UKACIA was invited to the Sixth Annual Summit in Dakar, Senegal, in December 1991, and worked energetically to brief Muslim heads of states of the real scale of the sacrilege and what was being done by British Muslims. The Rushdie Affair thus not only launched British Muslims on a new trajectory but also put them in the orbit of Muslim world affairs.
UKACIA’S 1997 General Election Publication
UKACIA published an 11-page ‘Muslim manifesto’, For a Fair and Caring Society, in time for the May 1997 general election. It referred to the findings of the survey to provide “an overall picture of community needs”:
The forthcoming General Elections will see a significant number of Muslims eligible to vote, including, for various demographic reasons, a greater than average proportion of young Muslim voters. The UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs (UKACIA), representing Muslim organisations and mosques throughout Britain, strongly supports the full participation of British Muslims in the electoral process. The UKACIA will be urging Muslims to exercise their right to vote. There are few constituencies today without a Muslim presence, and in some wards they are a majority. We hope that parliamentary candidates of the respective parties will be able to explain their stand on the matters raised in this statement, so that the Muslim voter can make an informed decision on polling day.
UKACIA was able to draw on the findings of the 1991 Census, which had included a question on ethnicity for the first time – the 1971 Census had included questions on birthplace/country of birth and parents’ country of birth, with the former retained in the 1981 and 1991 Census. Using ethnicity as a proxy, the size of the Muslim population was estimated to be 1.5 million. Age-sex demographics and socio-economic profiles of Pakistani and Bangladeshi-origin respondents also provided information on the characteristics of Muslim communities, raising issues of academic attainment and unemployment. Twelve ‘needs’ or calls for action were presented in For a Fair and Caring Society: Political Representation, Education, Protection against religious discrimination, Vilification and Incitement to Religious Hatred, Socio-economic Deprivation and its Impact on the Young, The National Lottery, Muslim stereotyping and ‘Islamophobia’, Family & Morality, International and Humanitarian Concerns. This was a quantitative and qualitative change from the one-page letters submitted by UMO to party leaders. Unlike previous communications at general election time, UKACIA’s eleven-page statement was robust and challenged the politicians seeking the Muslim vote:
There is no law in Great Britain that makes discrimination on grounds of religion unlawful. In Northern Ireland there is such a law. Why not introduce a similar law in Great Britain? …In the autumn of 1993, the UKACIA for example, submitted a detailed memorandum, The Need for Reform, calling for such legal measures. However, in a speech in July 1994 the Home Secretary said that he would only consider making discrimination on religious grounds unlawful if he was shown evidence that such discrimination was indeed occurring. This insistence on the production of numbers is a demonstration of the government’s unprincipled position. Moreover, even one case of unjustified discrimination is one too many.
The document was sent to each Member of Parliament. Under ‘Political Representation’, it noted,
Muslims are the second largest religious community in the UK but have not representation in either the Lower or Upper House. Many believe that this marginalisation of Muslims is by design, on the part of all the major political parties. There is no dearth of Muslims who have a record of public service and who are capable to contribute in the highest political and democratic institutions of this country. So far the response from the political parties has been disappointing to say the least. Some positive steps to redress this situation need to be taken.
In addressing issues such as the National Lottery, For a Fair and Caring Society showed that Muslims had a point of view on issues to do with the common good: “We strongly deplore the introduction of the National Lottery and the further aggressive extension of gambling to mid-week draws and other ‘games’. The lottery is having a massively detrimental impact on the lives and health of millions of people, encouraging false expectations and attitudes to individual worth, effort and achievement”. Meetings were also organised with prominent PCs, including the Home Secretary Michael Howard MP and the Shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw MP. UKACIA’s specific aim was to obtain a number of commitments from the next government, particularly to expedite voluntary-aided status for Muslim faith schools, place discrimination on grounds of being Muslim on par with the protection afforded to Jews and Sikhs and inclusion of a religion question in the 2001 Census.
A POST-SCRIPT – SOME COMMENTS ON RUSHDIE’S SATANIC VERSES
Impact International’s coverage
Those unwilling to purchase the book were able to read extracts in the October 1988 issue of Impact in its cover story ‘Sacrilege – literary but filthy’. This issue also provided some background to the Muslim campaign:
One had heard about the book mid 1986…it was said to be a social novel about India and Pakistan, the usual subject of the author’s sado-masochism, but one had no clue as to that filth he was going to come up with this…two things arrived nearly about the same time. One, a letter from the Islamic Foundation, Leicester, along with a copy of some extracts from The Satanic Verses; and two, the news that responding to strong protest by the Muslim leadership in India, Rajiv Gandhi had promptly acted to ban the entry of the title… the extracts read here were utterly shocking and outrageous….Muslim organizations in Britain are therefore asking Penguin:
One – to withdraw and pulp all the copies of The Satanic Verses and to undertake not to reprint it in the future.
Two – to offer unqualified public apology to the World Muslim community.
Three – to pay damages equal to the returns received from the copies already sold in Britain and abroad…..
We have never ever made an editorial appeal like this, but we are seeking readers to pursue these demands both with the publishers and Muslim authorities, through telegrams, letters, telephones, personal representations and through all civilized and legitimate means….
Among other unsung heroes of the era was Maulana Abdal Miah, imam of a mosque in Tower Hamlets: working on his own and with only two telephones at his disposal, he mobilised the community across Britain for a march in London. A prominent former activist in the Bangladesh Workers Association, Rumman Ahmed, was later to provide him invaluable support in its organisation. In the course of the march, the Police arrested five young Pakistanis. It was only after the pressure of a sit-in in front of New Scotland Yard on Victoria Street, master-minded by Rumman, that they were released and were able to rejoin the march.
There were other instances too of unprecedented direct action taking a leaf out of the Gandhian non-violent protest tradition: finding their route towards Parliament blocked at Westminster Bridge, the marchers lay down on the road across Westminster Bridge. Riot Police rough-handled a few protesters, but later gave way.
Salaam.co.uk comment on UKACIA’s role and the aftermath
The responses to the Satanic Affairs saga resulted in British Muslims becoming acutely aware of the lack of unity within their ranks. For example, UKACIA’s efforts were not well coordinated with local initiatives such as those of the Bolton Action Committee or the Bradford Council of Mosques in early 1989. The rhetoric from the articulate and media savvy head of the Muslim Institute, London, Dr Kalim Siddiqui, particularly in support of the Khomeini Fatwa, jarred with the approach of his erstwhile colleague, Dr Zaki Badawi of Muslim College, London, who publicly offered Rushdie a refuge in his own home from any would-be assailants. However the most positive outcome of the Rushdie Affair was that it permitted some level of coordination and networking among Muslim community bodies and activists, leading to the formation of UKACIA, which in turn was a precursor of a more ambitious initiative to unite British Muslims – the Muslim Council of Britain inaugurated in Brent Town Hall in November 1997. The activists involved in UKACIA, notably Abdul Wahid Hamid, Iqbal Sacranie, Maulana Sher Azam, Khurshid Drabu – to name a few – were also to be key in laying down the MCB’s foundations and ensuring broad-based, non-sectarian support.
It was the Rushdie controversy that forced us into the open. An invisible community then – if such a word could be used for a group as diverse as we were, divided by language, national origins, race and class – we were attacked by the racist scorpions then set loose, stinging us all without distinction.
Rana Kabbani, The Guardian, 17 June 2002