"There Should Be a Clear Commitment to Secularism!"

Interview with the Islam Academic Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, a vehement critic of the Islamic Charter

You are a critic of the Islamic Charter. Why?

Spuler-Stegemann: In my opinion there is in the Charter no truly affirmative commitment to our Federal Republic and, above all, to the human rights which are established in our constitution. It is frightening when people speak of Western human rights being only applicable if they comply with God-given human rights. What do they mean when they say this point is not a contradiction in terms? It is actually quite a disaster. Equal rights for women do not exist – they just barely have the right to vote – no clarity in matters of religious freedom etc. And the Sharia is always referred to as a principle ranking above our laws and constitution. This is very clear in many sections, especially in points 10 and 13.

How then do you explain the practically undivided, positive response of political parties and the Church to the Charter? Did they not spend enough time on it or did they simply not read it correctly?

Spuler-Stegemann: Above all things, it was not understood correctly. In order to interpret it correctly, you have to recognize specific terms. For example, when the Charter states that visa allocation, recognition of asylum etc. are contracts. Why are contracts a basis upon which loyalty towards the state is expected? Only an Islam academic can see the old, classic world view of "House of Islam" and the "House of War" behind this. What is meant is that people can live here in this "House of Contract" – temporarily, under specific circumstances and these circumstance are fixed at the moment. And then this old, classic world view is woven into a secular state – that's not right! Anyone in this country who does not know the original meaning of the formulations cannot understand this. People with no background in Islam Science also cannot understand that the concept of the so-called Contract of Medina in relation to minorities plays a role here. One walks into the situation blindly.

What should the Charter be like so that it is not mere lip service to democracy? A Charter that is in line with a free, democratic basic order and one which Muslims in Germany truly want?

Spuler-Stegemann: There should be a clear commitment to the secular State. This is not settled in the Charter, in the sense that everything ranks below Islamic law, meaning the Sharia. And one cannot act on the assumption of merely "a basic stock of Western human rights" which one agrees upon. In fact, the universal human rights declaration would certainly have to be applicable to Muslims living in German. Furthermore, equal rights for women which up to now have not been considered in the Charter should be incorporated. And there should be no qualifying clauses in it. In my opinion, the Charter is vague and contains formulations which have been apparently misunderstood by renowned politicians, even by the Bavarian Interior Minister Mr Beckstein. There should be a clear and well-defined commitment to democracy, to our constitution with all its human rights aspects and to concordance with the principles of law. This is where a real revision of the document is required.

Interview: Arian Fariborz, Qantara.de, Translation: Helen Groumas