Rev.
Patrick Sookhdeo, mimicking Daniel Pipes' 'There Are
No Moderates' theory (1995), writes: "The Muslim community
now inhabits principally the urban centres of England
as well as some parts of Scotland and Wales. It forms
a spine running down the centre of England from Bradford
to London, with ribs extending east and west. It is
said that within 10 to 15 years most British cities
in these areas will have Muslim-majority populations,
and will be under local Islamic political control,
with the Muslim community living under Sharia." (The
Spectator, 30 July 2005).
It is obvious, apart from the deception aimed at those
who are unfamiliar with the demographic realities
of the Muslim population in Britain, that Rev. Sookhdeo
is attempting to exploit the recent tragedies in London
to foment religious and racial tension. This comes
as no surprise since we know that the Reverend has
made a career for himself over the last decade by
peddling 'Israeli-conceived' fallacies and tactics
against Islam and Muslims.
This is evident in the fact that although he claims
the ill-treatment of Christians around the world as
is primary concern, the anti-Christian policies of
the Israeli regime is seldom mentioned in his writing.
Rather strangely, the Reverend 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, 22 March 2002). We must also
note that Rev. 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 article of July 2004, I had cited the
words of Professor Paul Eidelberg from the ACPR website.
Now, given The Spectator's recurrent zeal to create
religious tension in Britain, I think it is important
that Muslims and Christians in this country are reminded
repeatedly 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'. The executive
summary reads:
'Part
I discusses the decadence of Islamic civilization.
Part II discusses the decadence of Western civilization.
Part III discusses the basis of Hebraic civilization,
showing how it transcends East and West. Part I portrays
Islam's decline as rooted in hate. Part II reveals
the West's decline as rooted in indifference. Part
III reveals Hebraic civilization as rooted in Hesed
- kindness. What is called the 'West' today is not
equivalent to Western civilization. The latter has
been eroded and emasculated by multiculturalism and
feminism. The Great Books of Western civilization
no longer set the tone of higher education in the
West. The quest for the True, the Good, and the Beautiful
have been replaced by relativism. Pop culture is the
result. Spread abroad, it threatens Islam. In reacting
to this threat by means of suicide bombers, Islam
reveals itself not only as a religion driven by hate,
but a religion that has exhausted its original creativity.
Islamic absolutism, like Western relativism, ends
in nihilism. 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' (Policy Paper published by the Ariel Center
for Policy Research (ACPR). http://www.acpr.org.il/)
If
we are willing to propagate Rev. Sookhdeo's conspiracy
theories about Muslims taking over Britain in ten
years time might we not, at least, consider the theories
of Professor Eidelberg, who is an influential player
in Israeli politics? Also, given his view that an
Hebraic civilisation will rise from the ashes of a
clash between the West and Islam, should we not then
speculate on reasons for the recent quality meltdown
in global intelligence reports? Similarly, we should
ponder the reasons why we are constantly being told
about the 'threat of a Muslim invasion', or that the
Quran is to be blamed for everything (instead of actual
invasions of Muslim countries), or that Islam needs
to be reformed.
Rev.
Sookhdeo runs two multi-million pound charities (Barnabas
Fund, Reg. Charity No. 1092935 which received £4.2
million in 2002-2003 and The Barnabas Fund, Reg. Charity
No. 271602 which received £2.9 million 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 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 the Barnabas Fund. To all intents and purposes,
this Institute appears to function as the British
equivalent of the well known 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 the
investigation by Brian Whitaker, The Guardian,
12 August 2002).
In
February 2002, Rev. Sookhdeo lectured to an audience
in Fairfax County saying: "The question is what policies
Western governments take vis-à-vis Islam? I think
we must drive Islam to have a reformation, which is
what Salman Rushdie is saying, that Islam unreformed
will be brutal and barbaric. Its only future is in
having a Martin Luther..." (Washington Times,
16 January 2002).
Instead
of regurgitating 'Israeli spin' theories, if the Reverend
had actually studied the reformation of Christianity
and Judaism, he would have seen the inherent flaws
in his argument. Far from preventing violence and
terrorism, the reformation of Judaism is arguably
one of the causes of Jewish terrorism in Palestine
during the 1940s. Zionism and modern Jewish terrorism
share a common history rooted in reformation. For
example, on 31 July 1947, Zionist Irgun terrorists
killed two British sergeants, Marvyn Paice and Clifford
Martin. Their booby-trapped bodies were found hanging
from eucalyptus trees. Martin's guts were blown to
bits all over the officers who tried to cut him down.
Have we forgotten that Zionist justification for such
terrorism was derived in a post 18th century reformation
of Judaism, a Judaism that had departed from the passive
and traditional interpretations of waiting for the
Messiah before reclaiming the Holy Land? Zionist ideology
as a whole is only feasible with 're-interpretation'
of the text and extreme relativism, a relativism that
even led some Zionists to welcome Hitler's rise to
power. For example the Zionist Rabbi Dr Joachim Prinz,
who later became vice-chairman of the World Jewish
Congress and friend of Golda Meir, had famously published
a special book in 1934 - Wir Juden (We Jews)
- to celebrate Hitler's German Revolution and the
defeat of liberalism.
Perhaps
the Reverend, who is so keen for Islam to have its
own 'Martin Luther', has not yet read Martin Luther's
'dirty little book' on the Jews, which provided justification
to Hitler for his Final Solution. Luther's reformation
was responsible for promoting anti-Semitism to a level
never before seen in Europe. His 1543 book, On the
Jews and Their Lies ends with a chilling plea: "My
essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any
case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material
not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous
Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice,
lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that
their belief is false but that they are surely possessed
by all devils… Amen." Luther wanted to 'be rid of
them' and urged European governments and ministers
to deal with what he saw as 'the problem'. He requested
pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing
warnings against the Jews. He declared that "We are
at fault in not slaying them" in order to avenge the
death of Jesus Christ. Luther's Jewish eliminationist
rhetoric is identical to that of the beliefs held
by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s.
In fact, his reformation set the stage for the future
of German nationalistic fanaticism. In Mein Kampf,
Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest
of reformers. In addition to his vile anti-Semitism,
Luther's reformation was followed by what is arguably
some of the most brutal and violent phases of European
history. Let us not forget the Inquisition that massacred
thousands of innocent women.
Anyone
who suggests that a 'reformation' of Islam will stop
terrorism is not only deceiving themselves and others
but they are also demonstrating a profound ignorance
of history and a serious lack of knowledge of the
human condition. Telling the world that 'belief in
the Quran is the problem' while we continue to invade
Muslim countries, carpet bomb cities, usurp Muslim
land wholesale, destroy homes with impunity, displace
families without compassion and build walls to imprison
millions may indeed provide some comfort to a guilty
conscience, but for Muslims it will always remain
an offensive proposition and will be perceived as
furthering the onslaught against everything to do
with Islam and Muslims. Anyone vaguely familiar with
traditional Islamic scholarship would know that fiqh
(jurisprudence) is not derived from isolated chapters
and verses of the Quran. Moreover it is incredibly
ignorant to argue that tafsir (Quranic exegesis)
has been restricted to Madinan surahs alone for 1400
years or that naskh (abrogation) is the primary or
sole principle through which meanings are derived.
These are myths based on ill intent on the part of
orientalist clerics, and on ignorance on the part
of their confused and intellectually inept 'Muslim'
students.
When
the bill against incitement to religious hatred was
defeated in April 2005 in Parliament, Rev. Sookhdeo,
following the campaign led by Evan Harris MP, had
remarked triumphantly: "We are very pleased that the
government has been forced to withdraw these laws'
(CNS News, 7 April 2005). Reading his venomous article
today in The Spectator sheds ample light on the motives
behind his opposition to the bill. He is evidently
keen to continue his attack on Islam and Muslims.
Over
the past two weeks we have been told repeatedly, despite
our prompt and unambiguous statements in denouncing
the London bombings, that Muslim scholars are not
speaking out enough against terrorism. I think the
time has now come to focus on a plea towards the leaders
of churches and synagogues. In the interest of community
cohesion we need to see them stand up and speak out
against these attacks on Islam disguised in the rhetoric
of 'reformation' as postulated by Rev. Sookhdeo and
others. When Muslims are expected to look within and
bring out intelligent and sincere voices to deal with
the problems we face in the modern world, we expect
the same from the Christian and Jewish leadership
in curbing incitement against the Quran and Islam.
I strongly believe that if it is allowed to continue
unabated it will lead us further down a road towards
a clash of civilizations - precisely of the sort envisaged
by Professor Eidelberg (above).
Related articles:
- Mr Charles Moore, is
it only Christianity and Islam that are fair game?
- Statement on the bombing
of London
- It's the "attack" on
Islam stupid!
- An Open letter
in response to the Prime Minister's Brighton Conference
Speech
- The Triumph of the
East? Who are the real winners? A response to the
Spectator
- Questions
for the BBC Producers