Ban on the burka reveals our fear of Islam

For what it is worth, I think Belgium's decision to ban the burka, and France's consideration of the same says very little about a European concern for women's liberation and an awful lot about our fear of Islam.

At the same time, I don't think this is, as Amnesty International have apparently argued, an issue to be resolved by an appeal to human rights or religious freedom (though essentially I'm personally committed to both).

Why do I think it is a move based on fear? Well, imagine a situation where a slightly loopy man decided not to go out in public except wearing a Zorro mask. We would think him sad, he would probably be jeered at by children, and he might cause some alarm in banks. But we would not expect to see the police arrest him, or want Parliament to be bothered with legislation to prevent his eccentricity.

Now our modern advocates of secularism are all for reminding us that religious people are all 'fruit loops' who believe in a 'magical friend' or something similar, and that our outlook is laughable and our influence is waning prior to our inevitable and much-to-be welcomed demise.

But surely what is sauce for the Christian goose (because that is where most of these remarks are directed) is equally sauce for the Muslim gander, the Jewish duck and so on?

In other words, Muslim women in burkas are just a gaggle of equally fruit-loopy people, who are just as much to be pitied as our hypothetical Zorro-mask wearer. And although we should perhaps, in the interests of public order, protect them from the jeers of children, we will have to work jolly hard (if we are secularists) not to despise them just a little bit for the folly of their own practices and the iniquity of them passing their empty notions onto their children.

But given that their ideas are stupid, their practices eccentric and their beliefs doomed to die out, what's Parliament got to do with it? A few more years, a bit more education and the burka will go the way of the Vestal Virgin's distinctive outfit.

That, at least, is what a confident secular society ought to think.

So why the need for a ban?

It is, I suggest, not because we feel sympathy for the women under the burkas. It is because we feel fear. And that is something worth a bit of self-examination.

John Richardson
1 May 2010


Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Discouraging Barnabas? A most odd tale

A very odd story seems to be developing in the blogosphere (or Devil’s Playground, as I am increasingly viewing it).

A couple of days ago, I received a circular e-mail (this link appears to be the same) from the Barnabas Fund, of which I am a supporter, alleging a concerted campaign against its director, Patrick Sookhdeo, and members of its staff.

The e-mail referred to “an article by an anonymous Western missionary, which ... has appeared on various websites” and which described “what appears to be an orchestrated, multi-pronged attack on Patrick Sookhdeo (and therefore on Barnabas Fund) and other evangelical Christians.”

The e-mail went on, “The most shocking element is the deliberate passing of negative criticism about Patrick from an evangelical Christian to a radical Muslim,” and claimed that, “We have checked several of the allegations in the article and found all of them to be correct.”

One of these allegations, borne out on his website, is that a Muslim blogger, Indigo Jo, had indeed had his attention drawn to a negative review of Patrick Sookhdeo’s book “Global Jihad” on the Fulcrum website by the author of the piece, Ben White. In fact, White has posted a further comment on this site to say, jokingly, that he would not “describe [himself] as a conservative Christian ;)”.

Indigo Jo, meanwhile, whose real name is Matthew Smith, describes himself as a convert to Islam, and thus also takes the name Yusuf. Jo’s name for Sookhdeo, rather less charmingly, is Sookhdevil, a name which he seems to have coined as early as 2005.

Jo’s hostility to Sookhdeo is thus clear, and one does indeed wonder at the appropriateness of Ben White’s eagerness to point Jo in the direction of his own criticisms of Sookhdeo, if White is a Christian at all (a denial that he is a conservative Christian obviously being not the same as a denial of any Christian faith).

Meanwhile, there was enormous excitement on the Fulcrum discussion forums about two different versions of a response to White’s review by David Zeidan, who is associated with the Barnabas fund, and Tawfik Hamid, who I understand is not.

A version sent round by Barnabas e-mail was considerably less temperate in some of its language than that which appeared on the Fulcrum website as a reply to White’s critique. This is perhaps to be regretted, but it led to speculation by Graham Kings, the Theological Secretary of Fulcrum, as to who might be responsible for the intemperate sections (see his message 10104, here).

All this put me in mind of St Paul’s warning to the Galatians, “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” And indeed, in the spirit of this warning I had a telephone conversation several days ago with David Zeidan to try to answer some of Graham King’s questions. I was also telephoned by Graham Kings, though unfortunately just as I was leaving on holiday so that I was unable to talk for long.

It would be inappropriate to go into detail, but what both these conversations confirmed to me was that there was considerable heat being generated for reasons which were not immediately clear.

I was therefore further concerned that the article quoted in the later Barnabas e-mail spoke of an “invitation-only meeting ... at All Nations Christian College 21-22 July 2008” at which, it is alleged, “a document was drafted called Gracious Christian Responses to Muslims in Britain Today” which aims (it is further alleged) “to discredit two British Christian leaders who are converts from Islam (one being Patrick Sookhdeo)”.

The Barnabas e-mail states specifically,

We have confirmed by a telephone call to the principal of All Nations Christian College that the secret meeting described in the article was held on their premises in July 2008 and that a representative of the college was in attendance. He emphasised that in no way did the college sponsor the meeting, but simply that the group used their premises and the college felt it important that a member of their staff should be present.

It stated further that the specific targets of Gracious Responses are Patrick Sookhdeo and Sam Soloman (another Muslim convert, and also, as it happens, known to me personally). The e-mail then goes on to request prayer, especially for Sookhdeo, Soloman and the work of the Barnabas fund.

Now my own point in posting all this is along the lines of Matthew 10:26, “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” Most Christians in this country will be blissfully unaware of these actions and allegations. And many others, like me, will be very unclear as to what is actually going on.

If the anxieties at the Barnabas Fund are groundless, then at very least they should be reassured and should pass that reassurance on to their supporters. If, on the other hand, there is substance to them, then that needs to be made public and responded to accordingly by the wider Christian community. And above all, if there are untruths being spread, either accidentally or deliberately, then these must be corrected.

So I invite comment and clarification, absolutely none of which will be published without a name and address.

Revd John Richardson
22 February 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information will not be posted.

It’s OK - he’s not evil, he’s just mad

The police reaction to the apparent attempt by Nicky Reilly, said to be a convert to Islam, to explode a bomb or bombs in Exeter is clearly meant to calm public fears. “It’s OK,” seems to be the message, “Because this is a man with a ‘history of mental illness.’”

So it was the work of a madman. Nothing to worry about there, then.

Personally, I’m not quite as reassured as I’m clearly meant to be. The real issue here is whether, as the police are suggesting it, ideas were planted in Mr Reilly’s head not by his ‘madness’ but by people who want to bomb family restaurants in cities across the country.

I would further be interested to know the nature of Mr Reilly’s ‘historic’ mental illness. Has he been treated for schizophrenia or depression? Either is very unpleasant, but whereas the former involves a detachment from reality, the latter is more an exaggerated, but normal, reaction to real life — and is, moreover, very common. In other words, Mr Reilly may not be what we would popularly characterize as ‘mad’, but actually completely sane.

The myth that suicide bombers (of any stripe, Muslim, Tamil, Bushido, etc) are ‘mad’ is the way people who don’t understand their motivation try to protect themselves from the unpalatable truth. ‘Madmen’ who want to take over the world are actually far less frightening than entirely sane people who want to do the same (unless wanting to take over the world is seen as definitive of madness).

The bottom line, though, is that when it comes to evil ambition we’re all a bit ‘mad’ that way. I remember vividly a conversation with the Australian artist, George Gittoes, who was actually present with an Australian Defence Forces medical team at the Kibeho camp during the Rwandan massacres. What he saw there, and depicted subsequently in his paintings, would make any ‘sane’ person plead for the God of heaven to come down in wrath and burn up the evildoers.

What I can’t forget, though, is his observation that both those who were massacred and those doing the massacring went to church that morning.

George Gittoes is a remarkable man (and slightly scary), not least because he is a man of faith. (He once painted the Dalai Lama’s portrait, at his request, and said it was very strange trying to hold a conversation on spiritual matters with a religious leader who doesn’t believe in God.) Most remarkable of all, though, is his ability to see goodness in situations where most of us would despair of God’s existence at all: the preacher, bringing comfort to those about to be killed, as he himself undoubtedly was; the badly injured woman who carried the wounded to the first-aid post until she died.

The point is, any one of us could be any one of those people. We could be the person who hid in the camp cess-pit (the ‘shitter’ as George called it), driven literally mad with fear. We could be the army commander who oversaw the massacre but ‘allowed’ the Australian medics (armed only with a few rifles) to treat anyone who wasn’t actually left dead. We could be the men with the machetes. We could be the victims, or the medical team. Press the right (or wrong) buttons, and you get out the most astonishing good, or the purest evil.

I’m not sure where this is taking me, except to reflect once again on how little we care to think about reality. Much better that we should be threatened by madmen than the sane. Let nothing disturb us, so we can sit in front of the TV watching ‘reality TV’ (an oxymoron of the first order), like ‘I’d do anything’, and wondering desperately who will be the next Nancy. At least we’re not hurting anyone else. But then we’re not exactly reflecting the image of God, either, I think.

The other thing, I suppose, is that salvation is not a ‘bonus prize’ awarded to those who aren’t the ‘evil’ people exploiting the poor or using up the world’s oil. Inside each of us is something that we really would rather not see. Salvation is not just to fullness of life, it is from our own sinfulness, which is held in check by our veneer of civilization, but which, given the opportunity, would result in something that would make ‘madness’ the best excuse we could offer.

Revd John P Richardson
23 May 2008

PS George Gittoes allowed me free use of ‘The Preacher’ on the front of my book, Revelation Unwrapped. He has never asked a penny in return and got quite cross when I tried to offer him some!

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.

Jesus' "no" to Shari'ah

(See also Rowan and Islam for Dummies)

From one of my favourite books: Mission to Islam and Beyond (pdf file), by Jens Christensen (originally The Practical Approach to Muslims)

29. Muslims (and some Christians) will tell you that as man is limited by the imperfections and evils of sin, a practical shariat like that of Moses or of Muhammed is a necessity. Everybody knows that a state needs laws. What the Muslim and some Christians forget is that the word ‘shariat’ implies a God-given, revealed law for a kingdom of God here on earth. (It makes no difference if that kingdom of God is thought of as identical with the kingdom of Israel or the kingdom of Islam.) That is what our Lord protests against. The kingdom of God is the Kingdom of heaven; it is not of this world, and therefore the subjects of that kingdom must not and cannot blend or confuse its laws with that of any temporal state. Its laws must be purely religious (that is, related directly to God) and unattainable.

‘Why unattainable?’, is the question that both Christians and Muslims ask. The answer is simple. For if sinful man could attain perfection by keeping the law then he is either no longer sinful, or else sin has become a recognised and admitted part of the kingdom of God. The righteousness of the Pharisees was the best, the highest of which the Jews knew, and our Lord said that unless your righteousness exceeds theirs you cannot have a hope of getting into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). The unattainable nature of the Christian way of life constantly reminds man of his sinful state and of his need of God’s righteousness.

30. The Jews thought this was a strange, astonishing, new teaching. So it was. The Muslims feel exactly the same way about it. However, until the Jew or the Muslim sees that Christ has unconditionally rejected the idea of a theocratic state as bringing in the kingdom of God, he will not be able to understand our Lord’s attitude towards his shariat.

31. Let me illustrate this very important point in another way. Our Lord said the law and the prophets all hang on these two commandments: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God . . . [and] thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matt.22:37–40). The first of these commandments is taken from Deuteronomy, the second from Leviticus. The second more or less obscure command is found in Leviticus 19:18 and reads like this: ‘Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’. When the lawyer asked our Lord to define ‘neighbour’, He would, if he had accepted the context in which that commandment is written, have said; ‘The children of your people, whom you contact’. Instead, He made the Jews and (of all people!) the hated Samaritans neighbours. Our Lord took the sense, the idea, in the old commandment and lifted it out of the covenant law which was the state law and applied it universally and personally.

32. When our Lord said, ‘Those of old said such and such, but I say unto you . . .’, He was not just spiritualising the law, as some would have us think. He was actually introducing a new element. He was introducing the consequences of His own preaching when he said: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye and believe the Gospel’ (Mark 1:15). The kingdom of God is the kingdom of heaven.

No theocratic state with its shariat could ever bring it near. Repent, that is, turn your back on that idea, and believe the Gospel, believe that the Messiah, the Son of Man, the suffering and dying servant of Jehovah, has brought the kingdom near, and has introduced God’s righteousness for all men equally, everywhere.

33. The difference between our Lord and the Jews of His time was, concisely, this: The Jews knew that Jehovah had chosen them to be His covenanted people on earth. They therefore thought that they should establish a worldly kingdom of God on earth, probably through the work of the coming King Messiah. Jehovah had given them a shariat together with the Covenant. This they thought was everlasting and was to be applied universally as the law of that universal theocratic state, for by keeping it men became pleasing in the sight of God.

34. Jesus, on the other hand, said that while the purpose of the Covenant with Israel was to establish a special relationship to them, it was not intended to establish a universal theocratic state with a universal law, in which Israel, as a nation, was God’s viceroy on earth. No theocratic state, no shariat, could ever establish righteousness on earth, that is, God’s righteousness. With the rejection of the theocratic state, the law of that state (as the instrument appointed by God whereby men could be wellpleasing in His sight) must also be thrown overboard. Righteousness, God’s righteousness, could only come, as Isaiah said, through the suffering and death of Jehovah’s righteous servant, the Son of Man or, if you like, the Messiah.

35. If you will take this whole idea and apply it to Islam you will find how remarkably applicable it is. Although some of the details will differ (as for example, sabbath-keeping, which is unknown in Islam), yet as such, the picture is clear. Our Lord would be in direct, clear-cut opposition to the Muslims at every step. Nothing they could do would be right, because it is all based on the idea that they belong to the people whose God-given right it is to dominate the world in Allah’s name and thus bring in the ‘kingdom of God’ (although they never use that particular expression) on earth.

36. The Jews thought that they were bringing in the kingdom of God. The Muslims think they are bringing in the kingdom of God—and our Lord says to both: The time is fulfilled. The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel, which you need as well as every other person on earth.

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.