The
Spectator’s selective silence exposes hidden
agenda
By Shaikh
Riyad Nadwi, Ph.D
The
Spectator magazine has once again published an article
by Anthony Browne (‘Church of Martyrs’,
27 March 2005) in which he attempts to create community
tension between Muslims and Christians in Britain
by using spurious statistics, hearsay and fabrication.
He is at pains to tell us how objective he is “…I
do believe that all persecution is wrong”
and “As a liberal democrat atheist,
I believe all persecuted people should be helped
equally, irrespective of their religion”,
yet in his supposedly global survey of Christians
being persecuted, there is one country whose omission
is conspicuous: Israel. The Christians living in
Israel do not exist for the Spectator, and Mr Browne
does not tell the world why the first suicide bomber
in the intifada was a Christian. Nor does
he mention the fact that the largest Christian Cathedral
in Africa was built in 1970 in a Muslim country,
Egypt.
According to Mr Browne, ‘Across the Islamic
world, Christians are systematically discriminated
against and persecuted’. He cites Saudi Arabia,
Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia
and, to conceal his anti-Muslim and pro-Israel bias,
Mr Browne straddles the planet highlighting the
persecution of Christians from China to Sri Lanka
and from India to North Korea. He even accuses some
European countries of persecuting Christians but
Israel does not feature whatsoever.
At the time of the creation of the Israeli state
in 1948, it is estimated that the Christians in
Palestine numbered some 350,000. Almost 20 per cent
of the total population at the time, they constituted
a vibrant and ancient community, living in harmony
with their Muslim neighbours for over a thousand
years. However, the Zionist doctrine held that Palestine
was ‘a land without a people for a people
without a land.’ Of the 750,000 Palestinians
that were forced from their homes in 1948, some
50,000 were Christians – 7 per cent of the
total number of refugees and 15 per cent of the
total number of Christians living in Palestine at
the time.
In the process of ‘Judaizing’ Palestine,
numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches
were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian
owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular
attacks on a Christian target, on 17 May 1948, the
Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with
about 100 mortar rounds, launched by Zionist forces
from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine
Fathers on Mount Zion. The bombardment also damaged
St Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s
Convent, their appended churches, two elementary
and seminary schools, as well as their libraries.
Eight people were killed and 120 wounded.
Today it is believed that Christians in Israel and
occupied Palestine number some 175,000 – just
over 2 percent of the entire population –
but the numbers are rapidly dwindling due to mass
emigration (Forgotten Christians, The American Conservative,
May 2004). In April 2002 the Israeli army besieged
the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for weeks
and they used explosives to gain entry by blowing
up a door on one of the most revered buildings for
Christians around the world. Last year Palestinian
Christians in the West Bank were prevented by the
Israeli authorities from their annual Easter pilgrimage
because Easter coincided with the Jewish holiday
of Passover. For thousands of Christians from Bethlehem,
it meant another year barred from praying at Jerusalem's
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Bethlehem Mayor, Hanna
Nasser, who has presided over a city re-occupied
by the Israeli army, told the ABC's Mark Willacy:
“It is depressing to see Bethlehem closed
for 60 days. And not a single citizen is able to
get out or visit if he doesn't get a permission.
And although some of them had permission, they were
turned back from the military checkpoints."
(13.04. 2004)
Patrick
Sookhdeo’s Israeli cause?
Anthony
Browne draws heavily from one Patrick Sookhdeo,
Director of the Barnabus Fund, who is also very
selective in tiptoeing around the persecution of
Christians in Israel whilst maintaining a biased
focus on Islam and Muslims worldwide. He is currently
being hailed as the defender of Christians and has
been called on to advise some Western governments
on Islam in the post 9/11 hype. If Patrick Sookhdeo
were genuinely interested in protecting Christians
all around the world, as he claims is his mission,
it would have put him on a collision course with
the anti-Christian policies of the Israeli regime.
Astonishingly
however, Patrick Sookhdeo happens to be a showpiece
figure for the Israeli government! Israel’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs journal (Christians
and Israel Vol VIII, No 1 – Autumn 1999) speaks
proudly of Sookhdeo’s visit to Israel, which
was sponsored by the Anglo-Israel Association. It
is therefore not surprising when other pro-Israel
activists like Melanie Phillips applaud Sookhdeo
for saying: “What disturbs me at the moment
is the very deeply rooted anti-Semitism latent in
Britain and the West, I simply hadn't realised how
deep within the English psyche is this fear of the
power and influence of the Jews” (Melanie
Phillips, The Spectator, March 22 2002). It is worth
noting also that Dr Sookhdeo was initially promoted
by the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) and
his articles are published in its Nativ journal
(e.g. Nativ Volume 15, Number 3 (86) 2002).
In my response to Mr Browne’s previous article
in July 2004, I cited the words of one Professor
Paul Eidelberg from the ACPR website and, given
the Spectator’s recurrent zeal to create religious
tension in Britain, I think it is important that
Muslims and Christians in this country remain cognisant
of Professor Eidelberg’s contentions in his
policy paper entitled ‘The Clash of two Decadent
Civilizations, towards an Hebraic Alternative’:
“It is in the clash between Western relativism
and Islamic absolutism that we are to understand
the world-historical necessity of Hebraic civilization,
whose restoration awaits the establishment of a
New Israel” (http://www.acpr.org.il)
Charities such as Oxfam are prohibited by the Charity
Commission from indulging in political advocacy
because it is beyond the scope of the charity legislation.
But this seems to be exactly what Patrick Sookhdeo’s
charities are doing.
He runs two multi-million pound charities (Barnabas
Fund, Reg. Charity No. 1092935 which received 4.2
million pounds in 2002-2003 and The Barnabas Fund,
Reg. Charity No. 271602 which received 2.9 million
pounds in 2002). These are used as advocacy vehicles
to lobby politicians for what might be the agenda
of a foreign government and yet no one in the Charity
Commission appears to have taken notice. There is
no way of knowing what is the true source of the
funding of these organisations. Patrick Sookhdeo
also runs an institution called The Institute
for the Study of Islam and Christianity (ISIC)
which is publicised as the educational arm of Barnabas
Fund. To all intents and purposes, this Institute
appears to functions as the British equivalent of
the well known American Middle East Media Research
Institute (MEMRI), whose function, it seems, is
to cherry-pick soundbites from the Arab media, for
Western consumption, in support of Israeli policy.
(See Guardian Investigation by Brian Whitaker 12.08.02)
From an analysis of the publications of both institutes,
it becomes clear that Muslim minority communities
in the West are invariably the target. If one reads
these publications carefully, it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that their principal function
is not to create awareness of the declared aim,
which seems to be benign, but to foment anger against
Muslims in the West. It should therefore come as
no surprise that Patrick Sookhdeo is in the vanguard
of those fighting against legislation to protect
the sensibilities of Muslim minorities in the West.
We need to be alert to the presence of a small but
loud network of people, spread across the world,
masquerading as objective reporters, politicians,
academics and missionaries. In reality however,
they are advocates of an agenda that has one focus
of loyalty: it is not Christian, Muslim or secular,
even though most of their front line members seek
cover under the humanist network.
Evan Harris’s
campaign to criticise Islam
Over
recent months we have witnessed an intensified spate
of direct and indirect attacks on the Muslim community
in Britain by this network of pro-Israel activists.
Whilst hiding under the cover of the Liberal Democrats
and the Secular Society, the Treasurer of the All-Party
British-Israel Parliamentary Group organised and
chaired a conference (on 6 December 2004) to whip
up support against the government's proposed new
laws on incitement to religious hatred because the
pro-Israel activists believe it will hamper their
plans. (See my letter to Dr Evan Harris MP dated
29th February 2004 in Appendix A 1 of the current
document and Hijab and Spin series at occri.org.uk).
Among
the major participants in the conference were comedian
Rowan Atkinson and one Paul Cook, the advocacy manager
of Patrick Sookhdeo’s Barnabas Fund, who declared
that, "There is a real danger that this
law could be used by extremists [sic] to silence
organisations like ourselves." Last month
the Barnabas Fund produced a briefing pack for all
British Members of Parliament warning of the dangers
of the bill. Patrick Sookhdeo issued a statement
saying, "We are urging MPs to think carefully
and vote against Schedule 10 of this Bill".
The result of this campaign has been that the members
of the Government have begun to shy away from the
bill. It is worth noting that there is no need to
take further action (i.e. pass the bill) to safeguard
Judaism because it is already protected by (i) the
law against incitement to racial hatred because
followers of the Jewish faith are 99.9% Jewish by
race; and (ii) the charge of anti-Semitism, which
remains a highly effective weapon for silencing
all forms of criticism. This was recently bolstered
on the international scene by the US House of Representatives
in the form of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act
2004.
Rowan Atkinson’s
half-baked philosophy
Having attended the Evan Harris conference in December
2004, Mr Atkinson appeared in the House of Lords
on 25 January 2005 and argued that “to
criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational
but to criticise their religion, that is a right…
Why shouldn’t you do so, if the belief of
that religion or the activities perpetrated in its
name deserve to be intensely disliked?”
My
question for Mr Atkinson is what would he say about
the activities perpetrated in the name of race by
the Hutu and Tutsi in the Rwandan massacre where
religion (specifically Islam) became the source
of sanctuary? Muslim Hutus and Tutsis were told
by Muslim clerics that if they wanted to kill each
other they would need to tear out the pages of the
Quran first. The result was that Rwandan Muslim
areas became safe havens for both Hutus and Tutsis.
According to one report, ‘Muslims now make
up 14 percent of the 8.2 million people here in
Africa’s most Catholic nation, twice as many
as before the killings began.’ (Washington
Post, 23 September 2003). People accepted Islam
because it allowed them to rise above the political
exploitation of race.
The
fact is that tenets of identity such as race and
religion are both susceptible to
exploitation by contextual politics, which is deserving
of the criticism it receives e.g. Nazi atrocities
in the name of race. The issue at hand, however,
is not merely a simplistic and static lexical distinction
between two words but a complex social, psychological
and, for many people, spiritual phenomenon. In essence
it is about what people hold dear to their hearts.
You might think, Mr Atkinson, that someone’s
child is ‘ugly’ because you do not have
the heart and eyes of the child’s parents.
But that does not give you the right to trample
all over the heart of the mother and father by demanding
the freedom to challenge their fascination with
their child. For millions of Muslims all around
the world, God, the Prophet, the Quran and Islam
are as close to their hearts as their own children.
Demanding the right to trample all over their hearts
in pursuit of jest and laughter is not only misguided
but inhumane and cruel. You are no different, Mr
Atkinson, from the comedian who devastates the heart
of a mother by pointing to her child in the audience
and saying “I have the right to tell you that
I think your child is ugly”. Racial tolerance
and community cohesion require broad understanding
and sophisticated appreciation for the things that
people hold close to their hearts. Pseudo-philosophical
arguments from a comedian should not dissuade any
serious politician from supporting the bill. Mr
Atkinson agues that a right ‘not to be offended,
shouldn’t exist’ yet he maintains that
the outlawing of racial discrimination is correct.
Racial discrimination is not wrong merely because
it is ‘manifestly irrational’. Racial
and religious discrimination are wrong because they
target core concepts through which people perceive
themselves. Identities are not just ideas floating
in ether.
Privatisation
and the War on ‘Error’
The
strange psychological war of organised manipulation
and exploitation that we are witnessing in Britain
today is similar to that played out in the United
States in the build up to the Iraq war, in relation
to which ex-CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison
referred to the US Congress as being "Israeli-occupied
territory". This was based on their close observation
and first hand knowledge of the situation in Washington.
For example, they noted that the head of Radio Liberty,
which was broadcasting propaganda to Iraq, was someone
called Thomas Dine, the same person who had been
actively in charge of the powerful lobbying group
AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
throughout most of the Reagan and Bush (senior)
administrations. The irony of this is amplified
when one considers the fact the the Qatar based
al-Jazeerah TV was banned from Iraq by the US backed
administration. Upon hearing Mr Bush repeated sermons
about the need for freedom and a free press one
wonders if he speaks about freedom for pro-Israel
activists.
If
Britain is to prevent itself from also becoming
“Israeli-occupied territory”, we need
to pay closer attention to potential conflicts of
interest among civil servants, and to the dangers
of privatising sensitive components in governmental
mechanisms. Dodgy dossiers and inaccurate intelligence
do not come out of thin air. To protect our business
interests, we are usually keen to make sure that
board members do not have any conflicting interests.
It is vital that the same degree of scrutiny be
applied to all intelligence gathering and civil
service bodies (e.g. The Home Office and the Office
for National Statistics). It is possible that there
are many more civil servants like Steve Moxon (who
thought that Muslims should be ‘bombed with
nuclear weapons’) and Harry Cummings (who
described Islam as a ‘black heart’ and
a ‘black face’), waiting for an opportune
moment to influence policy. We have seen how privatisation
of the war in Iraq has contributed immensely to
the moral degradation at the Abu Ghuraib prison
(Outsourcing War on Iraq, by Singer, Foreign
Affairs, April 2005 and This is about Israel,
not anti-Semitism by the Mayor of London Ken
Livingston, Guardian, 5 March 2005).
The need
for community cohesion
The
Muslim community still remembers that while all
the leaders of major faith communities in Britain
voiced their opposition to the war in Iraq, the
Chief Rabbi, Professor Jonathan Sacks, remained
alone in his firm support of war against a Muslim
country (Chief Rabbi breaks ranks with churches
on Iraq, The Telegraph, 04 January 2003). In order
to promote community cohesion in Britain, there
is a need for prominent members of the Jewish community
to speak up in support of this bill and declare
their opposition to the repressive policies of the
Israeli regime. They need to challenge the pro-Israel
media that is fuelling racial and religious tension
among Muslims and Christians across the Western
world.
I
believe Mr Browne’s article in the Spectator
on Sunday is part of an organised campaign, conducted
in order to undermine the benefits of interfaith
relations in this country. The aim is to counteract
the effects of, for example, the recent Channel
4 programme (Saladin and Richard I), which showed
the tolerance and magnanimity of Muslims towards
Christians even at times of war. What the editor
of the Spectator and Mr Browne fail to realise,
is that the British public is not as malleable as
those who live on a constant diet of Fox News propaganda
for Israel. In this country, people will see their
motives in both the things they say and what they
choose not to say.
Subscribers
to the Spectator need to be cognisant of the fact
that their money is being used to promote a pro-Israel
agenda. The continued sleight of-hand by the likes
of Mr Browne attempts to foment strife among Muslims
and Christians, but it cannot hide the fact that
Christian communities have lived and flourished
in Muslim lands for hundreds of years. The presence
of Arabic speaking Christian communities in the
21st century is testimony to Muslim tolerance and
respect for the followers of Isa (Jesus, on whom
be peace). If Muslims were inherently hostile to
the existence of Christians in their lands, they
would not have waited 14 centuries to attack churches.
The question we need to ask is: what is so different
about the 21st century?
Shaikh
Riyad Nadwi M.A., Ph.D.
Oxford, UK
31 March 2005
Appendix
A 1
Open
letter to Dr Evan Harris from Shaikh Riyad Nadwi
Dr Evan Harris MP
27 Park End Street
Oxford
OX1 1HU
29th February 2004
Dear Dr Harris
I
have listened to a recording of your lecture at
the Hijab Conference at St. Catherine’s College,
Oxford University, on 28th February 2004 and I am
astonished at the various claims you have made.
Firstly, you claimed that you were unable to respond
to my letter because of the absence of any contact
details. Both you and I know that you did contact
OCCRi and that there were several email exchanges
relating to my letter. In fact, when you sent us
your first email, claiming that we had misrepresented
you, we requested that you clarify your concerns.
We wrote: “We would appreciate it if you
could provide us with details of the areas in which
you feel the letter has misrepresented your views.
Your comments will be given careful consideration
and we will make the necessary corrections if need
be.” (Our email to you dated 04 February
2004 10:26)
You
have chosen to ignore this request and continued
instead to attack and intimidate those who published
my letter. You should be aware that some Muslims
do understand English and frankly find it condescending
to hear you claim that we are misrepresenting what
you actually said, even though we quoted you verbatim
and provided the context. Anyone who listens to
the whole programme of 29th January will agree that
you did indeed argue for schools in this country
to have the right to implement a similar ban.
As
for your remarks that suggest that you have absolutely
no affiliation to anything remotely connected to
Israel, I think you should know that the Muslims
of this country are well aware of the fact that
your are the Treasurer of the All-Party
British-Israel Parliamentary group
and that you were part of a Liberal Democrat Friends
of Israel group visit to Israel in June
2000. It came as no surprise to the Muslims of Oxford
that in your reading aloud of my entire letter in
the conference, the only sentence you chose to omit
was the sentence dealing with the sacking of Jenny
Tonge. Jenny Tonge was dismissed due to pressure
from ‘Friends of Israel’
MPs in various parties (e.g. Louise Ellman, James
Purnell et al). On the one hand, Jenny Tonge was
sacked by Charles Kennedy for expressing reasonable
sympathy with the Palestinians and the party publicly
dissociated itself from her remarks. On the other
hand however, your remarks on the radio, which were
deeply offensive to Muslims, received not even a
reprimand. My demand was merely for consistency.
In
addition, despite your secular rhetoric in the lecture,
you are a committee member (Treasurer) of the Council
of Christians and Jews All-Party Parliamentary
Group and your official Party website describes
you as a member of the Jewish congregation in Oxford.
Indeed, it would have been entirely natural for
you to discuss the rulings and views of Rabbis in
regard to the ban on skull caps. Instead however,
you have chosen to adopt a fatwa from Shaikh Tantawi
as your campaign slogan against hijab and you continue
to ridicule and sneer at anyone who challenges your
‘clever’ criticisms of Islam and Muslims.
You are not an expert on French society, or French
politics, or French culture, and you are dependent
on translations to understand French. What right
do you have to tell the Muslims of France, or of
this country, which fatwa they should follow?
It
is time you and your friends stop interpreting the
generosity and hospitality of Muslims as idiocy.
If you wish to respond to anything that I have written
about you or your comments, I suggest you get in
touch with us (as you have before) using the contact
details on our website.
Yours
sincerely
Shaikh
Riyad Nadwi, M.A., Ph.D.
OCCR Institute
www.occri.org.uk
29th February 2004
p.s.
– I am interested to know the source of information
for your erroneous claim that my area of expertise
is computing.
