Raheel Raza - Human Rights Activist HARDtalk

He warned the country could return to all-out war.

A surge of violence there has claimed close

Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur.

In recent years, there has been plenty of heated debate

about the relationship between Islam and extremism.

Much of the fiercest commentary has come from outside the religion,

but increasingly there have been calls for change

My guest has one of the most controversial voices

Raheel Raza is a Pakistan-born Canadian human rights

activist who co-founded the Muslim Reform Movement.

Welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You to talk her language?

Welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You use the language of war. A couple of

years ago, you wrote Canada is under attack for.

Is the enemy? The enemy is the radical extremists, the jihadist

is, who have declared war against the West. It is not just me saying

it. You have Islamic State, Taliban, they have said they are

against Western values and they will destroy it the West any way they

can. We have seen the results of that, or you have to do is take a

look at what has happened across the world from Madrid to Brussels to

Ottawa, it's all there. San Bernardino. There was a time when we

were sitting and working on the Muslim reform movement, the night

that San Bernardino happened. The interesting thing is that you talk

as if there are not just a few hundred hard-core man and possibly

women, you talk as though this is an enemy which incorporates anyone who

is a believer in political Islam, Sharia Law. You seem to believe that

all of those Muslims are the enemy. What I have said and what I believe

is that political Islam is the Allaby, that's why we call it ism

ism. Opposed to spiritual Islam, it is the difference between the Islam

of other and extreme Islam -- the enemy. Political Islam has a

purpose, that purpose is to Germany over the rest of the world. The

language of political Islam is embedded with terrorist propaganda,

you have said? It is. You just have to connect the dots to see that this

is what they have used. They have used violence as their tool to force

it on not just Muslims Muslims as well. What about the Somali born

writer and industry says, Islamic violence, that is what she calls it,

not Islamist violence but Islamic violence, is rooted not in social,

economic or political conditions or even in our, but rather in the very

foundation text of Islam itself? I don't agree. On some issues, she is

absolutely on the dot. We come from two different places. She is an ex-

Muslim, I am a Muslim and I want to bring about change from within. I

believe that political Islam is an ideology that has been rated on the

backs of billions of dollars going to be what hubby side. These are a

danger to spiritual Islam -- Wahabi. I would say she is maybe

more honest than you. She has lived away from the fate of her family and

wrote a book called heretic. She no longer writes as a Muslim. You claim

you are, but the words you issue suggest to me that you have the most

fundamental problems with the faith that you say you adhere to? I have

problems with Muslims, not with Islam. I have problems with the way

Muslims interpret, understand and implement their faith in their

lives. I am a follower of my face, so yes, there are questions and we

evolved to a point where we need to look at our scripture and faith and

decide that there is some stuff we need to leave behind. How well do

you know the scripture and the Koran? As I understand it you are

educated in Catholic school in Pakistan. To get deep into what

Islam is and what it should be, do you not need to be extraordinarily

well-placed in the scriptures and the Koran? One does not have to be a

Koran scholar to read it and understand it. There are many

understandings. There are many readings which give the historical

context. I think that one of the biggest problems for Muslims and

more Muslims is trying to understand the crime without historical context

and appreciating that it is not in the chronological order. It's not an

easy book to read. When you talk about Sharia Law, you are confident

that you can hold your own, theologically speaking, with the

lead scholars in Cairo, one of the great institutions of Islamic

scholarship? Absolutely not. As I said I am not in Islamic scholar.

When Sharia is mentioned in the Koran, it is referring to ethical

and moral guidance. In our Muslim reform movement and as our

organisation is facing, we don't want Sharia as a form of government

is living in the West. Muslims have not been able to quite figure out

what it is. I guess the question I am asking is one of credibility. Do

you think for most Muslims around the world, you and your message

carries real depth and credibility? That is hard to say. They have to

decide. I know that I am credible. The Islam I see today is not the

Islam I grew up with. I grew up in an Islam that was compassionate,

merciful and different. I have seen it go downhill and I have seen how

he it has been politicised. This is not rocket science. We see it in our

everyday life. You talk of diversity, it strikes me that there

is diversity within political Islam. You told me that as far as you're

concerned, political Islam is the problem. I have reported from many

different will some countries and met many branches of political

Islam. I am thinking of my conversations in commuter, a man who

held the reins of power after the Arab Spring. He was committed to

Sharia, but while he was leading Tunisia did not impose his will on

the nation undemocratically -- Tunisia. When the voice of the

people was that they no longer wanted him in power, he left. The

key word that use was in position. We don't want imposition of anyone

on the way they practise their faith. 1.7 billion Muslims practice

their faith today, in some ways there are 1.7 billion forms of

practising the faith. In the public square, that is where it counts. We

don't want to impose our version of Islam on anyone else. This is what

is happening through this packaged Islam which is being exported

through the Muslim brotherhood. But you are stereotyping to. You use

this phrase recently which struck me as extraordinarily stereotyping. He

talked about the Muslim reform movement sending a message to

generation Jihad. That is putting on a label to an entire generation of

Muslims. It is suggesting to them that they need to move into the 21st

century. The Muslim reform movement says that Muslims would like to come

into the 21st century as opposed to living under a caliphate in the

seventh century. It's a message to our youth, they are the future of

tomorrow. They are the ones are being radicalised to fight with

Islamic State. Obviously they are getting ideas from somewhere. The

Muslim movement wants to further this, it has a declaration that says

that this is what we are looking at if we want a reform. We want to

reform the way Muslims implement and practice their faith. We're not

looking to reform the faith itself. We are not looking to reform Islam.

That is why it is called the Muslim reform movement. You say we are not

looking to impose, simply to develop a new way of thinking. You are

Canadian, you have been for a long time. I assume you embrace the

values of Canada, including tolerance, openness, free

expression, democracy? Yes. If you don't mind me saying, you appear to

be personally extraordinarily intolerant of certain forms of

expression inside Canada today. I would say that one should always be

intolerant of hate, wouldn't you? Not talking about hate, talking

about the full face veil. Some Muslim women want to wear this, just

as they do in other nations. You have declared that it is entirely

unacceptable and Canada must ban it? It was actually originally Jack

Straw who put the cat among the pigeons. Yes, I did a lot of

research and study on it and I suggested it to the government. I

wanted it banned. The push for it is not because it is a religious act

requirement that it is not a religious requirement. It is freedom

of expression. The people who want where wear at our defenders of

freedom of expression and human rights. This is a fundamental

question of freedom. It is nothing to do with religion. When we wave

these freedoms against the safety and security of the country, it is a

safety issue. A health issue. A communication issue. We studied this

and wrote a letter with five points to the previous government, who then

banned it at citizenship ceremonies. The later government would act on

that. This is what a democracy is about, to express a concern and have

debate and discussion about what is best for the country and community.

Do you worry that you are inadvertently fuelling a form of

racism? It has been said that this is nothing to do with gender

equality, and everything to do with racism. How are you liberating women

by criminalising their clothing? This existed before the niqab issue

was on the table. I don't think what I say or do fuels racism and

bigotry. What fuels that is when Muslims don't address the issues

head on. In Canada, more than 52% of Canadians that they don't like the

face coverage and consider it a mask. That is what average Canadians

are saying. If it is not brought out to the public, that is when people

have a knee-jerk reaction. It is no good quoting the polling evidence

about what a majority of Canadian people think, there is such a thing

as the tyranny of majority. The whole essence of arguments about

freedom is defence of the minority. The few Muslim women in Canada who

want of way a niqab, they should have that right. If the Canadians

are you. It is, but a Canadian value is also accountability and the

safety and security of Canada comes first. This is the main issue that

we are talking about. The problem with arguing about security, we have

seen this in the United States recently with the declarations of

Donald Trump, you can use the security arguments to develop all

sorts of propositions which appear to undermine freedoms. You are going

in that direction yourself, you have argued for restrictions on

immigration from what you call Kheira producing countries. Can you

define and? A country where Muslims live. So

Muslim nations at her producing countries. Not all, but in Pakistan

I know there are training camps for radicals and I know for a fact that

there are Canadian youth who have gone and taken training and have

gone back. So this is not something that is rocket science. We know for

a fact that there are some countries in which there are training for

radicals taking place. To be clear about it, you want your own

government in Canada to put on moratorium on all immigration from

Muslim countries. Until they can sort out the problem. So you have to

understand that with the work we do both with security and with the

government we have to understand that that extremists and jihadist

are not living outside the western countries, they are right there as

well. And they have come as emigrants, maybe, or as visitors.

What we need to do is clean up what is happening inside and moratoria

means not ban but just temporarily. Well, it is a band, it is a band for

a limited amount of time which you have refused to be fine. You are

sounding an awful lot like Donald Trump. Do you embrace that

comparison? No, but in a different way. He has a cruel way of saying it

but I guess I would stand behind what I would say, that we do need to

do that. We need to do that... Do you think that would for one second

stand up in a Canadian court of law? The notion of banning all

immigration from Muslim nations? I'm not trying to make that a legal

issue. Canada is a country of laws, where the independence of the courts

as one of the most central pillars pillars of your democracy. I put

this idea out so we can debate this in public. Maybe in a democracy they

will decide it is not good for Canada and that is fine. I am not a

government official, I am not a policymaker, I am a grassroots

activist. My job is to light a fire under the feet of our leaders in our

religious leaders to bring about change. The current status quo is

not something that I want my future generations of children and

grandchildren to live with. But lighting fires is a dangerous

activity, because you end up burning things, perhaps things of value,

including trusts. Another of your propositions, close all mosques for

three months to have intense scrutiny on the Imams and their

sermons. This you say is not an abuse of religious freedom, it is

simply to ensure that religion can be free. Again, would that stand up

for a moment in a Canadian court of law? Perhaps if push comes to shove

it might. We have gone to mosques and heard hate speech there, we have

gone to mosques and her... But not all mosques, you are suggesting

closing all mosques for three months just because one or two have had

Imams preaching... It is not one or two. It is much more than one or two

back. Let us acknowledge that many of the messages of disloyalty, many

of the messages of hate, have come from the mosque pulpit and from

Islamic institutions are so closing a mosque for three months is not a

problem. For Muslims, they don't have to go and pray in the mosque.

They can offer their five-time sprayers, anywhere, any time, any

place. But in the United Kingdom and many other countries there is a

similar debate about how best to work with Muslim communities, to

ensure that extremism, where it is present, is rooted out. Do you think

that your approach is going to build bridges, is going to reach out and

win the confidence of Muslim communities, or is it simply going

to foster mistrust and even hatred? You will be surprised to know how

many Muslims actually follow what I say, and are part of this movement.

They are interested in bringing about change, and if it means

closing mosques for three months it is not the end of the world. It may

solve the problem. Really? Tell me, how many Muslims in Canada have

responded positively to the idea that all mosques be closed for three

months. Dozens have! Darzins? There are many millions of Muslims in

Canada, so doesn't have supported you. I don't do a poll after what I

write, I don't do a poll after what -- to see what was and is about it.

There is too much work to do in exposing the ideology of the

Islamist rule. They are growing faster than we are whereas we are in

a situation where we can't even use the terminology that this is

stemming from some form of the misuse of the faith. So we have to

have the dialogue. We have had the discussion. And that is what I do,

is put it out there so we can have this conversation. Well, you put it

out there and you say that you want to light fires. I just wonder how

effective it is. One other issue which you have made a big stand on

and which again I would like to hear whether you feel it has been at

effective, is your insistence that in your version of a reformed

Islam, women should be free to preach in the mosque, and indeed

they should be free to preach not just to women but the mixed groups

as well, essentially to get rid of gender demarcation inside the

mosque. You have on occasion preach to yourself to mixed groups. Do you

have any leveraged for your message, do you think? Yes. Everything that I

do and everything that I did has a reason for it. I led the mixed

gender pray not because I want to become an Imam or take over the job

of an Imam, I did it because there was an appalling lack of gender

equality in the mosques. It was a men's club. The women were relegated

to the basement and sometimes if there was they couldn't even come

and pray there so the message was to come and say that we are spiritually

equal. This is what my faith tells me. And it did have an effect. A

month after I led the prayers, the mosque, two mosques, put out

statements and press releases saying they would look into this gender

issue and they would make sure that women can come into the main

section. Today there is a women's only mosque in Copenhagen, there is

right here in London, there is one in Los Angeles and when I get the

funding I hope to have one in Canada. So there is a role over a

sect, there may be a knee-jerk reaction to begin with, but in the

end people talk about it and there is change. Nobody could accuse you

of not taking these issues head on and challenging Muslims around the

world, and you have taken your movement from Canada into an

international context. But it comes at a price. There are people who

want to shut you up. Of course. How frightened you feel by some of the

reaction you get? I don't think about it. And the irony is that when

they call with death threats or calling me to profess how much they

hate me, they never leave a phone number where I could call them back

to have a debate or a discussion. Have you had death threats? Yes, I

have had a death threat. Have you talked to the police about these

things? The police in Canada know about it. I have a fatwa. Who issued

a fatwa? Saudi cleric. Is incredible? Here you seem to be

smiling at me and suggesting you can live with this but we know from

Salman Rushdie and others as well that went fatwas are issued they are

serious business. Here is the difference, it is all about the

money. The fatwa on Salman Rushdie's had comes on the back a

lot of money. Mine is just people calling and saying they don't like

me and if they want to me, and get rid of me and bury me, they can't

bury the issues. -- if they want to kill me. You said that in 2014 you

are the -- I have the honour of receiving a fatwa. I plan to become

number one in the world. You are loving this, in a way. It is OK, it

is there. I may as well embrace it. I'm not going to stop saying what I

do, I'm not going to stop writing what I do. I want to push the

envelope so Muslims all over the world can start talking about these

issues. They don't have to like what they say. I gave up being popular a

long time ago. What I want to do is follow Truth and Justice which is

what my faith tells me to do and let people work it out. You are

ultimately still Muslim. Unlike others, you remain inside the faith.

Do you not worry that as more and more politicians and activists, many

on the far right, it has to be said, talk about Muslims in the way that

you have talked about political Islam, connecting all the time to

terrorism, do you not worry that there is a significant rise in a

phobia, we have seen it in the United Kingdom, we have seen it in

France, you could be accused of fostering that yourself. -- rise in

Islam phobia. I believe it is not just about speaking to the

converted. I speak in places where there is a lot of hate against

bosoms and I think when they hear us and speak out it changes the

dynamics and therefore I prefer to keep on speaking. Yes, there is

racism and bigotry. I do not deny that. It existed before 9/11, it

exists now, and we have to tackle it head on. It is a terrible thing to

have racism and bigotry. However, what I say does not necessarily

found the flames of racism because people appreciate Muslims speaking

out about the reality of the issues. We have two end there. Raheel Raza,

thank you very much for being on HARDtalk. My pleasure. Thank you

very much indeed.