RAZAWI: Disagreeing Without Division: A Path to Strengthen Our National Cohesion

The First Minister of Scotland, Dr. Razawi, the Secretary of State for His Majesty's government, and the Jeweler to the late Queen, participate in an interfaith candle lighting ceremony.

This post was contributed by Dr. Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi

In an increasingly fragmented public sphere, Britain’s minority communities are facing a decision that will shape our national fabric for decades to come. We can retreat into isolation, speak only within the comfort of familiar circles, or we can commit to principled engagement – even with those whose views may challenge our own. The accords recently signed between senior Jewish and Muslim leaders represent the third – and most necessary – path.

The Drumlanrig Accords bring together senior representatives from across both communities – Orthodox and Progressive rabbis, Sunni, Shia, Ismaili and Bohra imams, alongside civic leaders – in a new framework for respectful dialogue. These are not agreements on theology or foreign policy. They are moral commitments to build civic trust, repair communication, and protect our shared future in Britain.

These accords are about relationships in the UK. They are civic in nature, concerned with how to live in a society where both communities are minorities in a majority culture that may not always be closely acquainted with their traditions and ways of life. To many outside faith traditions, ongoing tensions between Jews and Muslims – both of whom trace their belief to a shared Abrahamic monotheism – can obscure the ethical and spiritual truths of that heritage. This perceived disunity risks reinforcing a broader disengagement from belief in the One God.

Men, women, children, the elderly, professionals and the unemployed across both communities often feel powerless in the face of events unfolding in the Middle East. It is therefore vital to reaffirm that disagreement does not have to mean division. For the sake of community cohesion, we must allow for principled disagreement without rupturing our social fabric.

The initiative does not seek to erase difference. On the contrary, it recognises that difference is inevitable, even healthy, in a pluralistic democracy. But it refuses to allow those differences to become pretexts for suspicion, hatred, or silence.

Last year, the UK recorded over 3,500 antisemitic incidents – its second-highest annual total – while Islamophobic assaults surged by 73%. These are not mere statistics. They point to a deepening climate of fear for women, children, and the elderly in both communities.

The Southport stabbing in July 2024 showed how quickly misinformation can inflame community tensions. False social media claims wrongly identified the suspect as a Muslim immigrant. In reality, the attacker was born in Cardiff and had no ties to Islam or immigration.

Mosques have hired private security; funeral volunteers now escort elderly congregants to Friday prayers. British Muslims increasingly feel they are under suspicion – in the schoolyard, at the bus stop, online.

Jewish communities face parallel fears. Synagogues have tightened security. Schools and cemeteries have been targeted. Jewish men and women are being harassed in broad daylight. We are living in a moment where British Jews and Muslims feel equally unsafe. That is not just a communal crisis – it is a national one.

The accords should be seen as a response to this civic deterioration. They do not speak on behalf of international actors, nor do they presume to settle conflicts abroad. But they make one thing clear: if we do not speak to one another, others may shape the narrative – sometimes without the benefit of direct insight from within our communities.

Our traditions teach us to safeguard the vulnerable and act with justice. That applies not only within our community, but beyond it. When others feel uncertain or fearful about our beliefs or practices, rightly or wrongly, it becomes our responsibility to respond with clarity and empathy.

Silence is not neutrality.

It is abdication.

There are typically three ways minority communities respond to moments of social stress.

The first is disengagement – removing ourselves from public life. But that leaves our story to be shaped by others – sometimes without a full understanding of our views or values. In France, such withdrawal from national debates on secularism contributed to legislation restricting religious dress and impacting civil society.

In Canada, limited Muslim engagement during debates on Quebec’s Bill 21 – a law banning public servants from wearing religious symbols – allowed legislation that disproportionately affects Muslim women and Sikh men to pass largely unchallenged.

The second path is selective engagement – speaking only within familiar circles. While this can feel safer in periods of heightened tension, it limits the opportunity to engage with wider society.

During debates in parts of Europe over religious slaughter practices, some Muslim communities confined their conversations to internal forums. As a result, legitimate public concerns went unaddressed, and vital context was missing from public discourse.

The third option is principled engagement – sitting with those we may even disagree with, seeking common ground, and resolving tensions before they explode. That is the road these accords take.

They provide a safe space where grievances can be voiced directly. When misunderstandings occur, as they inevitably will, they can be addressed with honesty and dignity – not from a distance, but face-to-face. That is not political compromise. It is civic responsibility.

These conversations are only the beginning.

Similar engagement is needed between Muslim and Hindu communities to avoid the kind of tensions seen in Leicester in 2022. Those disturbances were not isolated – they were amplified by external narratives and online misinformation. We must not allow them to take root here. Proactive engagement is essential to keep our social fabric intact.

Fringe voices – on all sides – thrive in silence and resentment. Disconnection gives extremism space to grow. Engagement is not a luxury. It is a shield.

These accords do not ask us to agree. They ask us to disagree without hatred. For British Muslims and Jews, what unites us outweighs what divides us: a desire for safety, dignity, and a better future for our children. This is the Britain we must build. One of leadership, dialogue, and the courage to say: I may not agree with you, but I will not give up on you.

I am sure similar conversations are beginning in America too, as faith communities seek peace in a world that grows more turbulent.

As Imam Ali (peace be upon him) wrote in his letter to Malik al-Ashtar: “Never reject a peace to which you are called and in which is God’s pleasure, for in peace there is ease for your people, relaxation from your fears, and security for your land.” Nahj al-Balagha: Letter 53