When we set up the Lindisfarne Centre for the Study of Christian Persecution we identified 10 aspects of freedom of religion which historically developed in the countries of the English-speaking world. We did this because we felt these were far more helpful in telling governments of Islamic countries where they needed to improve than the vaguely worded statement of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, we were also conscious that many of these aspects of freedom of religion were in danger of being forgotten by politicians, media and wider society. So, it was also important to remind people of what freedom of religion has historically meant in this country if we are to promote it overseas.

Now, we have just been asked to comment on a really interesting question:

Is Ramadan prayer in Trafalgar square a freedom of religion issue?

On Monday an estimated 3,000 Muslims gathered in Trafalgar Square to conduct Islamic prayers during a Ramadan event.

The event has prompted diametrically opposite reactions from different ends of the political spectrum, with some calling it “an act of domination” and others describing such comments as “appalling”.

Well life is rarely one dimensional and if we want to see the whole picture, we need to look at it from other people’s perspective as well as our own.

First perspective: Freedom of Religion

There is actually a very long and important history of the freedom to pray in public. In 1670 the Quakers William Penn and William Meade were arrested for an act of silent prayer in Gracechurch Street, London. Discovering that they had been locked out of their normal Quaker meeting room, they decided to conduct their silent prayer in the street. At the time it was illegal for more than five people to meet together for any religious meeting outside the Church of England.

#

At their trial Penn and Meade argued from amongst other things Magna Carta and the English Common law that they weren’t doing anything wrong. The judge however, looked at it from the letter of the law and ordered the jury to convict them. The jury however, regarding Penn and Meade’s conduct as not causing anyone any harm – refused! The judge then ordered the jury to be arrested! In what became known as Bushell’s case – named after the foreman of the jury which had refused to convict them, the court created an important legal precedent which exists to this day, that a jury is entitled to find someone not guilty even if they have technically broken the law.  So, both the jury and Penn and Meade were set free!

Why this case matters, is that William Penn later founded what became the State of Pennsylvania in the USA. He also wrote its constitution, which included a clause on freedom of religion which was later used as the basis for the First Amendment to the US constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

So, seen from that perspective, of course Muslims should be able to pray in a public place. The fact that Christians are not allowed to in virtually all Islamic countries is neither here nor there – we should be upholding higher standards!#

Second Perspective: Shrewd as snakes, innocent as doves

It is worth reminding ourselves that freedom of religion developed in a specifically Christian context. In the UK it was extended first to Protestant Non-Conformists, then to Catholics, then to Jews – and finally to Atheists who were finally allowed to sit in parliament in 1888. However, during the centuries long progress towards full freedom of religion, there were many people who argued strongly that there should be freedom of religion for their particular group – but vehemently opposed granting the same freedoms to those they disagreed with!

We have the same problem today with Islamists. By Islamists we mean those who want to create a modern Islamic state governed by shari’a. For them, Islam is not simply spiritual devotion it is also a political agenda. They are very happy to use the language of human rights and even freedom of religion to advance that agenda – but for them it is a means to create a society where those freedoms do not extend to others.

Now shari’a is a whole way of life, it ranges from advice about how to brush your teeth to things that can only properly be regarded as law. However one major aspect of it is to divide the world into the world of Islam (Dar-al-Islam) and the world which must be brought into subjection to Islam (Dar al-Harb).

This is where public Islamic prayer can potentially assume a political significance. This is because in the early centuries of Islam a theology developed that anywhere the Islamic call to prayer could be heard became part of Dar al-Islam i.e. the world subject to Islam - both spiritually and politically.

That is not to say that all Muslims praying in Trafalgar Square understood it that way – but that is a view widely held by Islamists both in the UK and worldwide.

As Jesus told us we should be “shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

Third perspective: equal treatment by the law

This might not seem so obvious – after all there is nothing to stop Christians or anyone else praying in Trafalgar Square.

Maybe not…but some of the people who are strongly advocating for the rights of Muslims to pray in Trafalgar Square and describing criticism of the event as “appalling” are the same MPs who three years ago – voted to introduce abortion buffer zones. These laws which came into forced 18 months ago, for the first time ever in British history banned prayer anywhere on public streets within 150m of an abortion zone.

Even worse, when there was an attempt by some MPs to exclude silent prayer from this – they voted against this. In doing so, they overturned a principle of freedom of religion which had been embedded in English law since the fifteenth century, when Lord Chief Justice Brian ruled that “the thoughts of a man are not try-able”.

Freedom of religion must apply equally to all