Writing in the Sunday Telegraph - the paper which once gave column inches to a writer who described Muslims as "dogs" with "black hearts" - Nazir-Ali claims:
"…there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already
separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.
"Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer."
The bishop here chooses not to explore the (political) causes behind the rise of "Islamic extremism", and its associated "ideology", but instead prefers to make extravagant and sensationalist claims without any substance or source. For example, can he name a single city, town, suburb or neighbourhood in England where Muslims have physically prevented non-Muslims from entering, living or working (especially on the grounds of faith)? If so, he conveniently chooses not to mention a single real-life example in his article.
He then outrageously makes a comparison between the criminals, thugs and racists who make up the British National Party and Muslims who want to have the Adhan played on loudspeakers from their mosques on Fridays. How on earth can he justify such a ridiculous analogy? It honestly makes me wonder whether he is a closet supporter of British fascism - otherwise I find it difficult to understand how such an educated man can downplay the far-Right's 'intimidation' (which consists of actual violence, beatings, arson attacks, etc) and equate it with the (admittedly) segregationist yet non-violent tendences of some (note: some, not all!) segments of the British Muslim community.
As for his focus on the Adhan, and its "amplification", I find it deeply hypocritical for a Christian bishop, of all people, to make such a criticism. As an undergraduate at Oxford University, I spent three years being woken up every Sunday morning by the sound of cathedral bells ringing away, one after another, week after week. Why on earth should Christians get this 'right' and not Muslims? In a multi-faith nation, where freedom of speech is a right protected for one and all, either both communities have the right to make religious 'noises' in public (and ruin my sleep!), or they both should be denied it - in fact, this is precisely the point made by the arch-secularist Lib Dem MP for Oxford, Dr Evan Davis, in an interview on Sky News this evening.
What depresses me more than the obvious double standards, however, is the Bishop's woeful ignorance and prejudice. For someone who is of Islamic descent himself (his father having converted from Islam to Christianity), and who was born in a Muslim country (the 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan'), Nazir-Ali shows little understanding of the nuances and complexities of the Islamic faith or the varied views of ordinary Muslims, especially British Muslims. According to his Wikipedia entry, the learned bishop is the author of not one but three books on Islam (two of them unsurprisingly published since 9-11 and the start of the so-called 'War on Terror'), and yet these books - and articles like today's rant in the Sunday Telegraph - suggest someone who is not interested in writing about Islam in some objective, dispassionate and scholarly sense, nor interested in Islam as a prelude to inter-faith dialogue, but someone who has a transparently one-sided, critical and negative agenda; perhaps the result of a traumatic Christian childhood in Pakistan or an ex-Muslim father with a chip on his shoulder. Who knows?
And, despite the attention given to the piece by the various rolling-news channels and all the Sunday papers, none of this vitriol and bombast from the bishop is anything new or novel. Michael Nazir-Ali has a long history of attacks on Islam, Muslims and multiculturalism. In November 2007, he accused Muslims of having a "victim mentality". In August 2006, he accused Muslims of having been "perverted" by multiculturalism. In March 2006, he accused Muslims of not having respect for Christians or Christianity.
He even wandered, purposely and uninvited, into the row over the face veil, denouncing British Muslim women who freely choose to wear a niqab or a burqa. His boss, on the other hand - the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams - showed commendable senstivitiy and balance at the time, and warned the secularists and atheists to lay off both the cross and veil. (Full disclosure: I personally am not a supporter of the veil but I am a supporter of the right of Muslim women, if they so choose, to wear the veil for whatever reason).
For me, then, the Bishop of Rochester thus fits into the category of 'right-wing Christian Islamophobe' - a category inhabited by millions of US evangelical Christians who believe Islam is the religion of Devil, the Prophet of Islam is a paedophile and that the War on Terror is - or should be - a war on Muslims.
It saddens me that in an era of declining religiosity in the West - especially in Britan - some Christians should see fellow monotheists (i.e. Muslims) as a threat, or as enemies, rather than as natural allies and co-believers. So I can only hope and pray that Nazir-Ali's less evangelical, less belligerent and more moderate co-religionists on this side of the Atlantic (led by the wise and humane Archbishop of Canterbury) will disown the Bishop of Rochester's constant Muslim-bashing and naked Islamophobia and instead encourage an alliance of Christians and Muslims against their real and common enemy - the "aggressive secularists and illiberal atheists" (to quote the Right Reverend John Sentamu, Archbishop of York).
6 comments:
The Bishop is not talking about being physically stopped from entering certain areas, but about areas where non-muslims would not feel welcome.
I'm sure there are many areas in Bradford, Leeds & Birmingham dominated by Islamic radicals (much like yourself by the looks of it) where non-muslims would feel most unwelcome.
It's like a white person going to Brixton or Moss Side. They'd feel completely intimidated in those areas although wouldn't be physically stopped from entering.
Just because he's unable to talk of actual incidents of physical intervention doesn't mean he's wrong. His view is surely held by many others living in aforementioned areas and many others I'm sure.
Dear 'Anti-Radical',
Thanks for stopping by to air your sadly bigoted views. What makes you think I am an "Islamic radical"? How do you define such a person? Do you have any actual evidence or do you, like the bishop, trade only in generalisations, stereotypes, cliches and prejudices?
As for your point about Bradford et al, I did actually mention 'segregation' in my original posting. I am not denying these areas are segregated but on ethnic and cultural - primarily indigenous white versus immigrant Pakistani - grounds, and influenced more by social and economic factors rather than religious ones. And, incidentally, one of the reasons you choose to overlook for the segregation is 'white flight' - i.e. white people not so much being prevented from entering Asian areas but fleeing areas once Asians arrive, thereby exacerbating (causing?) the segregation.
As for white people feeling "intimidated" in Brixton or Moss Side - grow up! Stop being such a (racist) baby.
- The Radical
This is the problem with you bloggers and the whole blogging world. You can't face any sort of criticism.
I'm not a racist or a bigot. Perhaps the Rt Rev was being melodramatic in describing areas as "no-go," but the fact remains that people of certain backgrounds will not be welcome or will feel intimidated in certain ethnic minority areas, not purley because of socio-cultural differences, but because of Islamic radicals.
Some of the 7/7 bombers came from the same area in Leeds I believe. I'm sure people in that area knew of certain buildings/parks or whatever that were "no-go" areas because the Islamic radicals/fundamentalists gathered there.
Of course I don't have any evidence of you being an Islamic radical, I have no idea who you are and I take that remark back.
I find it irritating that you can criticise the Bishop for this view when I'm certain many people will sympathise and feel the same. I know I feel that certain areas near where I live would be very dangerous for me to visit on my own.
Been reading the Independent today and they have 2 articles on the same subject. Infact I would say that perhaps they've read this blog before writing as the points they make are almost identical to yours! Perhaps you should leave a comment on their blog if possible?
As for the Anti-Radical - picking a nickname like that is asking for trouble - hope you can live up to it, not a good first impression!
'Anti-Radical' - when do you plan to stop trading in generalities and name these specific areas in Britain that you and the bishop are too frightened to visit, without someone holding your hands? You mention Leeds and the 7/7 bombers. How ironic! In fact, Mohammed Siddique Khan, their ringleader, was praised as a pillar of the community, a quiet and friendly man, and happened to be a teacher's assistant. I doubt he ever prevented anyone from entering an area in Beeston or 'intimidated' them. If so, there is no record of it.
The fact that people 'feel' the same as the bishop, btw, is irrelevant. People feel lots of things - without evidence, however, or facts, their feelings are irrelevant. In fact, their feelings simply become uninformed prejudices.
Oh, and thanks for withdrawing your ridiculous 'Islamic radical' insult.
- The Radical
Anti-radical is talking nonsense as aptly demonstrated by his silly remark: "Just because he's unable to talk of actual incidents of physical intervention doesn't mean he's wrong."
As to the Bishop, how sad that - as is shown by this blog - he has such a consistent and bigoted and generalised problem with Muslims.
Speaking as an Anglican Christian, it depressed me more than I can say that we do not come together and fight anti-religion, and that these two beautiful, monotheistic religions that have so much in common cannot do more to unite.
Post a Comment