#Religion: Despite the claim of the ECFR and other bodies involved in guidance for Muslims living outside Islamic jurisdiction to work towards a modus vivendi with Western governments, laws and cultural norms, the members of the ECFR nevertheless tend to approach this challenge in a way that can make the rapprochement problematic

Two matters engage much of their attention, namely secularism and democracy. Al-Qaradawi has spoken and written clearly on these. In one of his books, he separates Christian and Muslim beliefs:

Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari'ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience....

The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans' limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: "Say! Do you know better than Allah?" (2:140).... For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari'ah is downright riddah [apostasy].... This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who "...takes account of every single thing" (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr [unbelief], aggression, and transgression." 

Al-Qaradawi considers himself to be a moderate, but that is not always obvious from the positions he takes. He originally rejected democracy, but later advanced the proposition that liberal democracy functions in majority Islamic countries as an alternative to dictatorship and tyranny. The problem with this should be obvious. There have never been any effective democracies in the Islamic world. Democracies require a secular approach that involves the separation of church and state even where religion is given an important role to play.

The idea that human beings can replace God as legislators is obnoxious to classical Islamic thought and to modern Islamist convictions. Men and women do not choose how to live: God has been there first. He has sent down his laws through the Qur'an, the utterances of the Prophet, or the deliberations of the law schools. Since shari'a is all-embracing, only the most emboldened reformers dare to limit it to devotional or personal issues, to go so far as to make observance of its rulings a matter for individual choice, or even to relegate the bulk of it to history.