Islam is a lifestyle

At the core of my faith is the acceptance of God’s existence and His presence in my daily life

In Islam identity is fluid and can be acquired simply by learning the local language. In fact Islam requires of the Muslims that they learn the local language. Once someone asked the blessed Prophet "who is an Arab?" and he replied "anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab". While Islam transcends ethnic and national barriers no matter what I do, it seems as a Muslim I am never accepted as a local and native.

Islam and Muslims are often portrayed as abnormal and not compatible to the modern Western world. Muslims are shown in a negative way in today’s media; they are labelled as enemies within and out to destroy the West. My fear is that this has created the perfect environment for young people to feel excluded, increase community disarray and it is creating destructive popular cultures. There was a time when Jewish, Irish and Black people were part of the popular culture’s sick jokes, racist caricatures and hostility but now Muslims are on the receiving end of it all. This is a slippery slope and if we are not careful this may wreak havoc in our society.

My faith, Islam, teaches me to be colour and culture blind. I try my best to be a devout Muslim and at the same time to be a loyal citizen. I take my Bangladeshi ethnic background as an enriching feature and very proud of all layers of my identity. My religious duties and social responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. My faith is very important to me but not just as a set of rituals and "do’s and don’ts". It defines me as a person and shapes my worldview; it helps me develop deeper and more meaningful relationships with my surrounding and most importantly enables me to balance between material life and spirituality.

I have always had a very inquisitive mind and never accepted matters of faith without reason. I used to question every aspect of my faith and was never satisfied with emotional links to faith. Islam for me is a lifestyle, one that I have chosen as a result of conscious search, knowledge, faith and conviction. This lifestyle makes me conscious of my relationship with God.

At the core of my faith is the acceptance of God’s existence and His presence in my daily life. My relationship with God is direct and encompasses my private and public life.

My daily prayer is "O God please give me success of this world and the success of the Hereafter, strengthen me in my faith and help me to be content with what I have. Bless me with energy to be active and relieve me from laziness, help me to be generous with the richness that you give and relieve me of miserliness; help me to be just and save me from oppression."

Ajmal Masroor is regularly invited to speak on issues on integration and Islam in the modern world. He leads Friday prayers in several Mosques across London.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The three avoidable mistakes that Theresa May has made in the Brexit negotiations

She ignored the official Leave campaign, and many Remainers, in pursuing Brexit in the way she has.

We shouldn’t have triggered Article 50 at all before agreeing an exit deal

When John Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 wrote it, he believed it would only be used by “a dictatorial regime” that, having had its right to vote on EU decisions suspended “would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out”.

The process was designed to maximise the leverage of the remaining members of the bloc and disadvantage the departing state. At one stage, it was envisaged that any country not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be expelled under the process – Article 50 is not intended to get “the best Brexit deal” or anything like it.

Contrary to Theresa May’s expectation that she would be able to talk to individual member states, Article 50 is designed to ensure that agreement is reached “de vous, chez vous, mais sans vous” – “about you, in your own home, but without you”, as I wrote before the referendum result.

There is absolutely no reason for a departing nation to use Article 50 before agreement has largely been reached. A full member of the European Union obviously has more leverage than one that is two years away from falling out without a deal. There is no reason to trigger Article 50 until you’re good and ready, and the United Kingdom’s negotiating team is clearly very far from either being “good” or “ready”.

As Dominic Cummings, formerly of Vote Leave, said during the campaign: “No one in their right mind would begin a legally defined two-year maximum period to conduct negotiations before they actually knew, roughly speaking, what the process was going to yield…that would be like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger.”

If we were going to trigger Article 50, we shouldn’t have triggered it when we did

As I wrote before Theresa May triggered Article 50 in March, 2017 is very probably the worst year you could pick to start leaving the European Union. Elections across member states meant the bloc was in a state of flux, and those elections were always going to eat into the time. 

May has got lucky in that the French elections didn’t result in a tricky “co-habitation” between a president of one party and a legislature dominated by another, as Emmanuel Macron won the presidency and a majority for his new party, République en Marche.

It also looks likely that Angela Merkel will clearly win the German elections, meaning that there won’t be a prolonged absence of the German government after the vote in September.

But if the British government was determined to put the gun in its own mouth and pull the trigger, it should have waited until after the German elections to do so.

The government should have made a unilateral offer on the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom right away

The rights of the three million people from the European Union in the United Kingdom were a political sweet spot for Britain. We don’t have the ability to enforce a cut-off date until we leave the European Union, it wouldn’t be right to uproot three million people who have made their lives here, there is no political will to do so – more than 80 per cent of the public and a majority of MPs of all parties want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens – and as a result there is no plausible leverage to be had by suggesting we wouldn’t protect their rights.

If May had, the day she became PM, made a unilateral guarantee and brought forward legislation guaranteeing these rights, it would have bought Britain considerable goodwill – as opposed to the exercise of fictional leverage.

Although Britain’s refusal to accept the EU’s proposal on mutually shared rights has worried many EU citizens, the reality is that, because British public opinion – and the mood among MPs – is so sharply in favour of their right to remain, no one buys that the government won’t do it. So it doesn’t buy any leverage – while an early guarantee in July of last year would have bought Britain credit.

But at least the government hasn’t behaved foolishly about money

Despite the pressure on wages caused by the fall in the value of the pound and the slowdown in growth, the United Kingdom is still a large and growing economy that is perfectly well-placed to buy the access it needs to the single market, provided that it doesn’t throw its toys out of the pram over paying for its pre-agreed liabilities, and continuing to pay for the parts of EU membership Britain wants to retain, such as cross-border policing activity and research.

So there’s that at least.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496