By Tehmina Kazi

One of the main questions at the moment is who is dividing Muslims? The answer that sometimes springs from the lips of disgruntled associates is non-Muslims putting us into categories such as extremist and moderate, pro-Caliphate vs secular, austere vs fun enough to go down the pub with.

While it is true that the wider populace could really do with a more nuanced understanding of the rainbow of sectarian and political factions that are associated with Muslims, we should never forget that we are the ones responsible for making this happen. But think carefully as to how you go about this. A wise person once told me: "Take the cause seriously, but never fall into the trap of taking yourself too seriously."

The harsh reality is that as long as we have labels like Ahmadiyya, Deobandi, Barelwi, Shia, Ismaili, Dawoodi Bohra, Tablighi Jamaat, Bektashi etc, we are essentially divided anyway. Of course, it's highly unlikely that Muslims as a whole will transcend schisms like these in our lifetime. However, it becomes problematic when some of these sects try to deny other (perfectly peaceful and lawful) groups their portion of the public space. To me that is the real definition of an extremist.

For instance, I recently heard about a taxpayer-funded Muslim school in Leicester that denied entry to Shias, referring to them as "kaffirs/unbelievers". Also, this group of Walsall Sunnis who stopped an Ahmadi mosque from being built on the grounds that it was a "public nuisance" and that there were "enough places of worship in the area". Funny how when it suits their purpose, they use the same rationale as anti-Muslim groups use against them.

While I don't agree with Ahmadi theology, they have as much right to build religious establishments in a secular democracy as anyone else. The notion of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed being a Prophet, the Messiah and the Mahdi (also a reincarnation of Krishna) is strange in my eyes, but at least the Ahmadiyya are a peace-loving movement. Yet the hateful rhetoric of the Wahhabis - and their claim of being rightfully guided - is rarely called into question with the same vehemence or viciousness. Petrodollars, anyone? Some people even believe that my beloved Sufis are kaffir. My point is, where does it all end? The definition of "Muslim" appears to be shrinking before our very eyes.

I think an extremist is defined not only by the kind of ideas they hold, but more so by their unwillingness to accept dissent or enter into dialogue, plus generally poor adab/etiquette. For instance, those Al-Muhajiroun members who egged Conservative spokeswoman Baroness Warsi in Luton, insulted her in front of TV cameras, and then refused her request for an open debate. What was startling was her calm, measured response to these animals, regardless of the fact that egg yolk was dripping down her locks. Even the people who secretly agree with Al-Muhajiroun's views must cringe every time they see them on TV.

This democracy is far from perfect and yes, the interests of the ruling elite are often prioritised. However, this is human nature and would happen in lots of different systems of governance. At least in a democracy we have checks and balances to challenge any tyrannical decisions. The deeper our level of engagement with the democratic system, the more successful we will be. Just look at sister Salma Yaqoob on Question Time; the only anti-war panellist among a group of oligarchs, and she challenged them superbly, with most of the audience cheering her on.

We have a strong welfare state, which is more than I can say for most majority-Muslim countries. In practice, these non-Muslim rulers are actually better at implementing the principles behind Hadiths like: "Whoever is put in charge of any of the affairs of the Muslims and remains aloof from them and pays no attention to their needs and poverty, Allah will remain aloof from him on the Day of Resurrection, and will pay no attention to his needs and poverty." Abu Dawood, Ibn Maajah, Al-Haakim.

Granted, popular culture in the UK is not particularly conducive to overt displays of religious observance. However, the UK has an excellent record on public consultations for different faith groups (I should know; I've been to many of them). For instance, I cannot see the Danish government making any real effort to obtain Muslim opinion on a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Yet over here the British government did exactly that, with a wide range of Muslim voices at the table.

Finally, we should not be self-interested and inward-looking, and should lobby for a wide range of interest groups as well as our own:

"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."

- Pastor Martin Niemöller, Holocaust victim

Tehmina Kazi is director of British Muslims for Secular Democracy