Yahya Birt Research Director at the Ayaan Institute looks at the history of the oath of allegiance to British monarchs, and questions whether Muslims are bound to swear allegiance to King Charles III

At Saturday’s Coronation, the watching millions will be offered the chance to take a voluntary pledge of allegiance to King Charles III. Yahya Birt investigates what Muslim scholars in Britain advise on this matter and examines what conclusions can be drawn from their insights.

The Religious and Secular Significance of the Coronation

On Saturday 6th May, King Charles III will have his coronation at Westminster Abbey. It is a Christian act of worship that honours the age-old tradition of anointing and crowning British monarchs, yet the oath-taking parts of the service are secular and constitutional whose wording is defined in law, dating back to the Coronation Oath Act of 1689, with various amendments thereafter.

The five elements of the Coronation take place within a service of holy communion, which both King Charles and Queen Camila will receive during the service. The five elements are the Recognition, the Oath, the Anointing, the Investiture and Crowning, and the Enthronement and Homage. While there are ancient elements, there are new elements too. Seven decades on from the last Coronation, these new elements inter alia include other faith communities and acknowledge Britain as a multifaith society.

The ritual climax of the Coronation, the Anointing, which has always been part of this centuries-old ceremony, reflects the British state at its most precedent-led, where the new monarch is bound to God to discharge his new role faithfully. Ultimately, Anointing is a 3000-year old Biblical tradition based on the Prophet Samuel’s anointing of Saul and David as kings, but its current incorporation into European crowning rituals dates back more than 1400 years to Visigothic Spain. Anointing then spread to France and Germany before arriving in Northumbria in 787 during the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy and therefore before the emergence of the Kingdom of England itself.

It is worth describing the Anointing in some detail as this is the most striking remnant of the idea the British monarch rules by Divine dispensation, and underscores his position as Head of the established Church of England and its Protector (Fidei Defensor) and as Head of State. The Anointing is a notable example of a classic British fudge where the “dignified”, i.e. symbolic and ritual, dimension of the state is combined with the “efficient”, i.e. executive, reality of a constitutional monarch who reigns symbolically but does not rule over an increasingly post-Christian society. Only 46% identified as Christian in the 2021 Census, making Christianity a minority faith in Britain for the first time since the seventh century.

As for the ceremony itself, the King is anointed with olive oil from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but this happens out of sight behind a screen (as was the case with his mother’s anointing in 1953). Charles is only anointed after removing his clothes of state, wearing only a simple sleeveless linen tunic, to represent his divestment before God in order to dedicate his service with true intent. Then he is dressed in a golden embroidered coat, the Supertunica, which is a form of priestly dress, symbolising his consecration before God as king serving Him.

The new multifaith elements, which Charles has pushed for, in the Coronation include

• The participation of faith Leaders and representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shia Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahá’í and Zoroastrian communities in the procession into Westminster Abbey
• The message that the King and the Church of England must serve all faith communities and protect their religious liberties
• The presentation of secular (not religious) royal regalia to the King by Peers who belong to the Jewish, Islamic, Hindu and Sikh faiths
• At the closing procession, the King receives a greeting by Leaders and Representatives from Faith Communities (Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist). They will say together, “Your Majesty, as neighbours in faith, we acknowledge the value of public service. We unite with people of all faiths and beliefs in thanksgiving, and in service with you for the common good.”

If the Anointing is the greatest ritual element in the Coronation, historically speaking, the greatest secular and political element, i.e. the non-religious and non-liturgical part, has been the Homage. This became instituted as part of the Coronation service after the Norman conquest, and was meant to cement an individual relationship between the Crown and the Nobility, underscoring a direct relationship of loyalty between individual nobles and the King. But now there is the new feature of a homage of the people. A homage is a declaration of allegiance. This homage of the people replaces the traditional homage of the Peers, or members of the House of Lords. The Archbishop of Canterbury will invite (obviously, not order) British citizens and others watching the live broadcast on TV, radio, smart phones, tablets, etc. to make a sincere homage to the King using the following words:

I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

This contemporaneous homage of the people harkens back to the ancient Anglo-Saxon tradition of Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder that all free men should pledge faith to the King.

What do British Muslim religious scholars (ulama) say?

So how does Islamic ethical reasoning view this voluntary pledge of allegiance to the Christian constitutional monarch of a secular democracy with regard to the moral choices available to his British Muslim subjects and citizens? I took the opportunity this week to consult privately with some imams, religious scholars and legal specialists (muftis) on the matter of the public homage. I did so to get their private thoughts rather than impractically committing them to researching and writing a public formal non-binding legal opinion (fatwa) on the matter at such short notice. Specifically, I asked them whether it was desirable for British Muslims to take part in this oath of allegiance or not?

There are four separate main points that the British ulama I spoke to raised with regard on this issue.

1. The Proprieties of Allegiance

All agree that oaths and pledges are implicitly conditional in Sharia on the grounds of the principle that there is no obedience to any of God’s creatures if it entails disobedience to God. This is the case even if the actual wording of any pledge ostensibly entails unconditioned loyalty. However, the wording of the People’s Homage is conditional, as the pledge only holds if it is “according to law”. The King is bound by the law just as his subjects are. As the reference in the People’s Homage is obviously to the law of the land, Muslims are bound to recognise the law of the land under a contractual definition of citizenship. This is termed as dar al-sulh (abode of peace) which allows them to practise Islam freely and does not persecute them.[3] Some British ulama suggest that Muslims would be free to interpret “according to law” to include the Islamic law and ethics (the Sharia) in line with the principle that all oaths are conditional.

However, some argue that as the People’s Homage is voluntary or discretionary, something emphasized further after criticism in the run-up to the Coronation,[3a] and not binding like the Citizenship Pledge, it is better not to be permissive in this matter. Their reasoning is that their vocation as inheritors of the prophets means they should emphasize to British Muslims that their primary allegiance is to God and His Prophet, and that all other forms of allegiance are conditioned by this. It is more important to uphold this primary message because many British Muslims are ignorant and confused about their faith, and many are becoming assimilated, so the question of primary religious allegiance should be clear and uncomplicated, especially when pledges of allegiance are discretionary.

2. Forestalling Detraditionalization

Another argument made in favour of supporting the dignified aspects of the British state, viz. the Monarchy and the established Anglican Church, as well as the House of Lords as a secondary law-making chamber that allows for some religious representation, is that some formal recognition of faith is better than none, particularly as this now includes a semi-formal interfaith establishment under the patronage of the Anglican Church and the Monarchy. In private meetings with British Muslim faith leaders since becoming King, Charles has stressed that he regards it as his duty to protect the religious liberties of non-Christian minorities. In essence, this argument boils down to support for an evolving integrative status quo on the grounds that, whatever its shortcomings, an emerging interfaith establishment is better than none at all. It helps of course that Charles’ Islamophilia is widely appreciated among British Muslims,[4] and so, given all the other antagonistic political forces at play in Britain today, then why not join hands with Britain’s historically most Islamophile monarch?

3. The Seductive State

The final two arguments express more scepticism about the soft power of the dignified aspect of the British state, and about the contradictions of soft power in general, given that it is potentially both seductive and hollow at the same time. The British monarchy’s soft power retains a global reach, selling the idea of Britain through the stories of a gilded family with a millennium of history under its belt. It is the ultimate soap opera that in recent decades has been driven by the tabloidization of the British press.[5] Britain’s celebrity monarchy retains great power to seduce, despite its frailties and shortcomings, and has considerable appeal among British Muslims. Yet that seduction also hides unwelcome truths. The post-war British monarchy gave the violent end of Empire the gloss and afterglow of the Commonwealth’s comity of nations. In the words of one imam, “it is a continuous symbol of colonialism.” Another imam points out that it underpins the British class system and its system of honours, and enjoys hundreds of tax and legal exemptions, yet costs millions of pounds at a time when foodbanks are burgeoning. It felt threatened by Meghan Markle, a “Californian wellness bore” of mixed heritage, such that it remains a resolutely white institution. Charles as the Prince of Wales pushed 14.5 billion in British arms sales after the Arab Spring to Gulf sheikhdoms that brutally suppressed their own peoples, although it is said he has insisted that as King he will no longer play this role. [6]

4. The Hollow State

However, the main objection is that the promise of an expanded multifaith settlement that is truly accommodating of Britain’s 3.9 million Muslims, its second largest religious community, is a promise that rings increasingly hollow. Despite the assurances of the King and the Church of England to protect the religious liberties of all given privately and to be symbolized in the Coronation itself, they ring increasingly hollow to many British Muslims. How can the Church protect Islam, one mufti commented, if it cannot protect Christianity? As churches empty is it even reasonable or sensible to assume the Church could keep the mosques full even if it wanted to? The Church has been conspicuously silent in the wake of two major government reviews, the Shawcross and the Bloom Reviews, both of which advocate for major state interference into British Muslim religious institutions and they undermine their rights of religious association, political organising and freedoms of conscience and of expression for Muslim communities in Britain. Headed up by a committed Evangelical, the recent Bloom Review does much to define non-Christian religious minorities as sources of risk, harm and danger to themselves and wider society, and makes no compelling case for the state as the enabler of religion as a source of public good. [7]

Conclusion

After reviewing the private views of religious scholars, I would conclude that naïve support for forestalling detraditionalization and pledging conditional allegiance to the Monarchy does not obviate the need for a critical assessment of this wider picture. And what is that bigger picture? It is that British Muslims cannot rely upon the Monarchy or the Church, the symbolic parts of the British state, to guarantee their religious liberties against the attritional attacks of the executive branch, the government, upon their fundamental religious liberties. To face that challenge British Muslims need like-minded allies who share their concern for civil liberties, rather than symbolic accommodation from the King or the Church of England as an unreliable interlocutor on matters of faith. Perhaps it is time to realize just how much the Monarchy and the Church of England now rely on multifaith legitimacy and thus we should act accordingly.

Notes

[1] “The Coronation Liturgy”, Church of England,  https://www.churchofengland.org/coronation/liturgy.

[2] “The Coronation is based on 3,000-year old Biblical tradition”, University of Oxford, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-people/George-Garnett.

[3] A.M. Mohammed, Muslims in Non-Muslim Lands: A Legal Study With Applications (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2013, pp. 147, 167.

[3a] V. Ward, G. Swerling and S. Ward, “Coronation service changed after homage to King likened to ‘something out of 1984’”, Daily Telegraph, 6 May 2023, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/06/coronation-service-changed-after-allegiance-backlash/.

[4] Y. Birt, “To British Muslims who may be easily charmed by King Charles III”, The New Arab, 16 Sept 2022, https://www.newarab.com/opinion/british-muslims-who-may-be-easily-charmed-king-charles.

[5] A. Baker, “The ‘invisible’ pact binding the UK royals and their tabloid tormentors”, Financial Times, 10 March 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/9fc4cde5-b8da-49e4-b8e3-4ccb800e700e.

[6] Birt, ibid.; “Californian wellness bore”, M. Hyde, “Whatever you think of Harry and Meghan, their media critics are far worse”, Guardian, 16 February 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/16/harry-meghan-media-critics-worse.

[7] J. Holmwood and L. Aitlhadj, The People’s Reivew of Prevent (London: PreventWatch, 2023), https://peoplesreviewofprevent.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/A-Response-to-the-Shawcross-Report.pdf;