A glimpse of the many veils

If this Muslim woman appeared in Jack Straw's surgery, I wonder whether he would ask her to take her veil off? I took this evocative picture from flickr. I  was just wondering whether I dared use put a headline on this blog, "Jack Straw asks Muslim women to remove their tops," when I received an email from GMTV's Sunday programme. According to the press release from GMTV, in an interview they have recorded with Dr Tom Wright to go out this Sunday he will liken asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil to saying:  "I want you to take your blouse off."

The BBC has done a good summary with a graphic of the main types of Hijab, or Islamically-correct clothing for women. The problem is that, for Jack Straw, it is clearly not politically correct by the standards of multi-cultural Britain. I am tempted to speculate that he is having a Chirac moment. This government, after all, does very little by mistake. Over the last couple of years, Straw has been moving away from Blair and towards Gordon Brown. And Brown has for some time been writing about how important it is to restore this country's sense of Britishness. Although some might accuse him of trying to please the Chancellor, I think Straw will have done this of his own volition. It cannot have escaped his notice that, since 7/7, there are votes to be won is appealing to the white working class heartlands of Britain as well as to the growing ethnic commujnities. It is slightly surprising that he should lift the veil on his views in this way, given the large Muslim popuilation in his constituency. But he does so from a position where he has established his credentials. Some Tories might be nervous of doing this, out of fear of being accused of racism, although David Davies has backed Straw on his blog. Straw can say it because he can never be accused of racism because, well, he is not racist. So his decision to open a debate on the hijab could count as a very astute move politically. It is clever positioning for Labour to pick up on the growing challenge in the public mood to multi-culturalism.

But it is worth remembering that for many centuries, Jewish and Christian women wore veils also and female monastic dress even today is not that dissimilar from the hijab.

These are the relevant passages from the Koran and Hadith:

The Koran: Surah 23.30-31: 'Say to the believing man that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them; and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands.'
Sur'ah 33.59: 'O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed.'

The Had'ith: Sunnan Abu Dawud 32.4092: 'Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.'

A possible interpretation of these is that Muslim should in fact cover everything except their hands and faces.

One British expert on the hijab, Dr Gillian Vogelsang, an academic at Leiden university in Holland, explained to me the different types of hijab worn in Britain. There are four main types, and the differences are explained more by cultural than religious differences.

Muslim women of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin traditionally wear the shalwar kameez, or trousers and tunic, with a headscarf. These are often brightly coloured and made of anything from silk and cotton to synthetic materials.Like most of the other forms of dress, these can be bought for hundreds or even thousands of pounds in designer and department stores in London and Paris, or for a few pounds in colourful shops in Hounslow, Slough and other parts of West London. Culturally, in some communities it is frowned upon for married women to wear this because its too expressive of body shape, which is meant to be discerned only by the husband.

A much more strict dress code applies to Muslim women from some Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia, and from Afghanistan. Arab women will go out onto the streets in black, wearing a headscarf called a shelagh and with their faces veiled by a niqab or burqa. The Afghan burqa, pictured above, is a full length body cover that is made of a cap, cape and face veil section – based on the 19th century Iranian chador and ruband. The niqab, pictured on a Yemeni woman on the left, is made out of one piece of naterial with a slit or two eye holes to enable the women to see. It is the niqab that Jack Straw was referring to specifically. The classic Arab burqa is made out of two pieces of material sewn together and fastened at the sides and in the middle. The eyes are not visible at all in an Afghan burqa, the woman sees through a finely-woven grille at the front. On their bodies these women will wear an abayeh, a large black cloack with arm holes. Iraqi women will dress similarly, but wear the abayeh falling down over their shoulders from their head, with a headscarf underneath covering their hair. Beneath all this, however, they might wear very little, such as shorts and t-shirt when hot, or even a bikini.

Sudanese wear a long sari-like garment known as the thob or sob which covers the body and head at the same time. These can be of many colours and materials, the only requirement being that they are not transparent. Sadly, this "rather lovely voluminous and diaphanous garment worn sail-style to cover the head if desired" and which in Sudan was the most commonly worn garment before the National Islamic Front came to power, has been supplanted in many parts by the chador. One woman protester was flogged for wearing trousers.

Liberal Iranians will often wear western clothing with a headscarf only, while the stricter ones will wear the chador,  a full body cloak with a headscarf underneath. Moroccans wear kaftans and headscarves.

Headscarves can vary. One popular style is the al-amira, on sale in this online catalogue for £1.99 and consisting of a cap attached to a tube-like scarf. But the styles and fashions are evolving all the time. There is now a popular sports range, such as this skating hijab, pictured left, for £17. But veiling in Islam has not always been compulsory.

In one sample essay on the history and culture of the hijab, the author writes: "Beyond the Near East, the practice of hiding one's face and largely living in seclusion appeared in classical Greece, in the Byzantine Christian world, in Persia, and in India among upper caste Rajput women. Muslims in their first century at first were relaxed about female dress. When the son of a prominent companion of the Prophet asked his wife Aisha bint Talha to veil her face, she answered, 'Since the Almighty hath put on me the stamp of beauty, it is my wish that the public should view the beauty and thereby recognized His grace unto them. On no account, therefore, will I veil myself'."

Comments

[Yasmin]

By the way, I do not wear the niqab and have nothing against it. I do wear hejab however. But I believe in "La iqra hafid deen"-There is no compulsion in religion (quote from quran). The key is to be modest and moderate. To cover oneself up so much to the extent it burdens him or herself, is defeating to the simple and moderate message of Islam. Yes, the shaykh of Saudia can claim that the niqab is compulsory, yet most saudia women are privilleged anyway. They have maids, they dont have to work, they have drivers. So even if their garments stop them from being too active outside the house (they can wear anything in the house)-its not a problem because they are basically like princess-all their needs are being met. However other non-arab muslims have problems with covering everything up. Most others like so many of us, needs to go outside and work. We need to go to souq and bazaars (market) to do business, etc. Hence, to have to cover so much like the saudia women would be very difficult and burdensome for us- and God NEVER intend to burden us. Yes, go ahead and wear the burqa or neqab or whatever but dont hate God after that because it is not God who obliges you to wear it-it is your shaykhs. (So many muslim women left Islam and claim it is because it is too burdensome-again;it is your SHAYKHS that make it burdensome-not God).

[Yasmin]

Yes Kate. The Quran says do not take the Jews nor Christians as friends. But in the same time we are asked to treat them with kindness unless if they attack us (self-defense is not wrong even in common law-common sense, yes?). We are told not to make Jews and Christians as BESTFRIENDS i.e. sharing secrets etc-yet there is nothing wrong with being their neighbor or workmate. In conclusion, do not love and do not hate. Pondering on that, it is only good for all of us if we keep our distance somewhat, and remain civil and respectful with each other. To be too close-that is when you become resentful of us for not following your ways or opinions (i.e.not dressing up freely or showing the face or doing whatever thing that you think is "right"). Agree to disagree

[Yasmin]

I havent a chance to read all the comments above. But let me just say after reading so much of the things said here, there are so much confusion, misunderstanding and ignorance with the real message of Islam. Regarding the blind woman and the dog, if such story is true, than shame on that taxi driver. He forgot that he could go to Heaven just by helping the blind lady-nevermind the dog. The only impure thing in the dog is its saliva and even that, the hadith did not mention to wash oneself with clay when in contact with dog's saliva but rather it was talking about washing a FOOD CONTAINER when it is in contact with dog's saliva. Now EVEN IF he still believe that he has to wash himslef from the dog's saliva (I dont think so the dog is so interested in licking him anyway)-so just go wash yourself up, whats the big deal? You will get hasanat (credit) for helping the blind lady! This is just one example of the ignorance that has plagued not only muslims or christians or whatever religion people takes-but the whole mankind! You will see so much ignorance in mankind as the day of judgment is getting near. Having said that, Many things that your muslim friends have claimed as "quoting from koran" is FALSE-you would not find even half of what they claim in the quran (stoning is NEVER mentioned in the quran, for example- please check the DIRECT LITERAL english translation of arabic quran by MUSLIMS translators).The problem that plagues most muslims these days is that they have stopped using their reason and simply listens to everything that a "shaykh" has to say (just like christians would listen to a priest rather than to God or the Bible). The prophet Muhammad peace be upon him has stated that when the day of judgment is near, there will be so many muslims on earth (like the amount of bubbles on sea) and they dress very piously (i.e.big beard, long garb, big hejab etc) YET THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION. And he fears so much for this people". I would end my post with a quote from quran which says that "religion is easy, but human makes it difficult".
God Knows Best.

[Ali Uddin]

People must understand that women should wear Hijab, regardless if they coose to or not, as it is their way of expressing that they submit to Allah. It was ordained for woman to cover herself, in appropriate fashion.

[Jill]

What a sensible letter from Mary Forman. Thank you, Mary. We see quite a lot of these veils in London, where I live, and pretty scary they are too. I often wonder if they wear them to avoid inhaling the noxious exhaust fumes from the London traffic. Or perhaps the reverse is true, that they suffer from respiratory problems through constantly breathing in their own exhalations. I wonder if there is any data on this? Also, the young woman interviewed on TV had an extraordinary amount of eye makeup on the little bit of her face that showed. This struck me as very odd.

If they insist they are talking about 'rights', I think Jack Straw is within his rights to refuse to see any woman wearing one of these things, on security grounds.

It strikes me that it is political point-scoring - just to let us know who is calling the shots now.

[alistair mcbay]

I see from the weekend press that the niqab-wearing teacher in Dewsbury has now confessed that she was not wearing the garment out of her personal choice and exercise of freewill after all - she was weearing it because of a religious fatwa issued by a man, a hardline imam!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426770,00.html

Why am I not surprised? Will she now have the decency to hand over the compensation she received from the employment tribunal, assuming that her testimony to it contained no reference to this fact?

[MARY FORMAN]

I am an Indian living in the Uk for past 14 years. I am a christain by faith and have nothing against any religion. I go to churches have been to Muslim sacred places like the Imambaras been to Hindu and Sikh temples. I do what other people do regarding their religions. I need be I cover my head with a scarf or take off my footwear if need be, because I respect all faiths. I took one of my white friends to India and when we visited Muslim Imambaras we covered our heads and took of our shoes. It was nothing new to me, but my friend did the same because she was ina different country and abided by its culture and values. This just shows how literterate and respectful the British are to other cultures.
So the point here is when the Muslims are in a different country why are they finding it so hard to mingle with the British culture and not adapting to it.
I agree wit Jack Straw about Muslims women taking their vels off so that he knows who he is talking to. I don't see any problem with that. If people say Sikhs wear turbans and the Jews wear hats thats entirely different they don't hide their faces and you can see who you are talking to. The lady teacher Aisha who is creating this commotion is entirely baseless. The British are not alienating her or the Muslims its her and her community is, by walking in the streets like ghosts. When I was in India I went to a very old part of Lucknow where a majority of the population is Muslims I went ther when I was in my 20ies for the 1st time and to my utter shoch when I saw all these ladies dressed in Burqa I was terrified. Didn't know who they were.
I don't blame the British of getting scared too.
I was a teacher there handling 60 children in a class. Children love to interact with the teacher they want to see the smiles the laughter and the even the frowns on the teachers because then they can see whats happening. Body language is very very important in all professions especially if you are dealing with a mass. My pupils knew what I wanted and never ever had any problem with discipline. I loved playing around with them and so did they. I can't imagine myself in a Burqa and teaching.
I would like all the Miss Aishas in the UK to wake up and face the realities of life this is not a Muslim cultural country. 1 simple and straightforward solution to them would be to go back to the country who welcomes the burqa. There is no need to impose your culture in a different country.
For God sake this is the 20th century people have been to the moon and come back. Certainly Miss Aisha could not expect herself to land the moon in a burqa.
I beleive ( while in Rome do as the Roamns do) that does not mean if they are murderers you also have to be a murderer. Thats simply means try and adopt their ways so that one does not alienate oneself and intergrate and mingle with the different culture.
Come you all stop this silly debate open your eyes. Just see what your men are allowed to do have 4 wives wear jeans trousers have late nights out etc: What are you allowed? can you have 4 husbands? Can you go out with friends without being interrogated? Can you have late nights out? Can you go to the mosques and pray besides your husbands? Can you attend the cemetries during burials? Wheres the equality? If you say you wear a burqa to cover your dignity who are you scared of? Don't you trust your men? People hide themselves if they are guilty or ashamed of of to expose themselves. Now especially when the whole world is living in fear of terrorists it would be worthwhile not to wear Burquas because nobody knows whats inside the Burqa, it could be a man, a rapist, a peodophile, a person with a gun or a dagger ot even a suicide bomber. Who is being an alien?
Come on folks the likes of Aishas forget the past and try and live a life.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

There is an excellent article on the role of the veil in Islam in Friday's Catholic Tablet newspaper by Professor Mona Siddiqi of Glasgow University.

[alistair mcbay]

Emmanuel - there is no proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but that doesn't mean it is a fiction. Ditto fairies at the bottom of the garden.

By the way the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is now available. And it will delight all who read this blog to know that a Great Schism has now occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0007231601/sr=8-1/qid=1161211016/ref=sr_1_1/026-3129362-9931625?ie=UTF8&s=books

But back to veils - it is clear that the Muslim world is as divided over the niqab as the rest of us, and most crucially Muslim women are divided over it. Some choose it and feel liberated, some are forced to wear it and are oppressed by (guess who) men.

Jack Straw was within his rights to ask that a veil be removed when someone was speaking to him. A muslim woman would be within her rights to refuse - but would she in all cases where she was asked to remove it?

Some people (men?) seem to think women can be subjected to various restrictions and humiliations providing these are culturally or religiously required and imposed. There is no law against wearing a veil, but should there also be no law against female circumcision or forced marriage, which the UK is "interfering with"?

Where do we all think the current spat has got us, and where do we go next?

By the way, there was a disturbing report on Sky today of Christians being oppressed in China. In the midst of this, Sky interviewed a Chinese christian minister, filmed telling his congregation that "their rights come direct from God, not anyone else".

That had a very disturbing yet familiar ring to it.....

[Kate]

Apologies to all - particularly Irene - for any confusion I have wrought in attempting to close-down what appeared a 'red herring' with little relevance to the topic.

I am, of course, fully accepting of the place of the OT and Jewish philosophy in the teachings of Christ. That said, it has been my experience that 'the gospels', are, for many Christians, the focus of their religious belief.

While I agree with Alan Marsh: "It is better to view the OT and the NT together as one Bible ...", I suggest I have been involved (with alistair) in a separate and distinct argument. Historically and philosophically, the OT gives insight into the formative teachings and the society from which Christ emerged.

However, alistair's proposition, that the OT constitutes 'proof' of correspondence between Christianity (today) and the ideology and methodology of Islam, is disingenuous.

Back to topic. I am inclined to agreement with Christopher's comments on 'Freedom of Expression'. It is difficult, to come to accommodation and social 'integration' with an ideology which also forbids freedom of association.

Koran Sura 5:51 - "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

[Katherine]

Re Christopher's attempt to return to the subject of this blog, the face mask is actually referred to by a Moslem directive as a 'face curtain' which, when you think of it, is totally accurate. After all, when a curtain is called upon to perform its function, it acts to shut out the light. No light, no enlightenment. I think in this instance, we might dispense with assumptions of Al-Taqqiya and accept that Moslems are trying to tell us something.

[Christopher]

Ahem.....getting back to the subject of veils, the thing called a niqtab with eye-slits is not so much a veil in the traditional sense but a face mask. Years ago in the Jerusalem bus station I observed a woman draw aside the piece of tapestry that obscured her face to get a better look at the clock. (A huge embroidered rose appeared where her face should have been.) She was very ancient, wrinkled like a prune, so I suppose the veil, till that moment, did make her more rather than less alluring to any lustful males who happened to be lurking.

The trouble with the argument of women in the west that the face-mask allows them to be who they really are (i.e.not sex objects) raises a couple of questions:

(a) does becoming a cipher by hiding almost all of the most expressive part of the human anatomy really express who you really are?

and (b) what about a bit of solidarity with their sisters in countries where they are forced by the religious police to wear it by deliberately choosing not to wear the instrument of oppression of those women? 'Freedom of expression', isn't that too much a product of western liberalism to sit comfortably with traditional islamic values anyway?

If people want to wander round wrapped up against the lustful gaze of anyone, that's their prerogative, just so long as they realise their freedom to choose comes by courtesy of this 'corrupt' western state, while their sisters in islamic regimes are obliged to wear the same garb for completely different reasons, and for them choice hardly enters into it.

[Alan Marsh]

I see Alistair - is it the official view of the NSS that Jesus never existed but is merely a mythical figure?

I would love to see THAT on the record.

I am waiting with eager anticipation.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mr. McBay,

There's no physical proof that someone named Mohammed ever existed. Some claim to have samples of his beard, or nail, or fallen arches but is that proof? Ditto for the Buddha, or Jesus, or Abraham or Moses, etc. It doesn't prove that they were fictions.

The whole purpose of a "Religion" column is the struggle of Substance over Form, Principles over Politeness. If I could dig up a Greek frieze showing Vespasian and Jesus partying on Mykonos, at Paradise Beach, would that convince you? If it does, would that make you accept Christianity? You'd be a fool to do so if the theology doesn't suit you.

If you want to criticize Christianity in particular, arm yourself with a knowledge of the times. The Jewish War by Josephus (Penguin) gives a great picture of the period and it'll enable you to understand the temper of the times.

[alistair mcbay]

"I can think of any number of historical figures who wrote nothing of their own, but to intimate that their existence or views are therefore doubtful is really rather feeble."

Well, Alan, there are a great many people, including ex-Christians, who now believe Jesus is a myth cnceived to fit a prophecy. And while there may indeed be many other historical figures you can think of who wrote nothing of their own, no-one is claiming for them that in a specific case one was "son of god" and we must therefore follow his 'teachings'! We have only third-party accounts of what those teachings were, and third-party accounts copied and edited and translated and interpreted through the centuries, and as you know various theologians interpret the bible differently......

There are of course many other 'historical' figures who wrote nothing - Thor, Zeus, Minerva. They're myths too, Alan.

[Alan Marsh]

So far as the Nazis' interest in the occult is concerned there is quite a considerable body of writing available, which I would say was mostly reliable as an account of what Hitler and his closest circle actually believed and intended.

Wartime propaganda which set out to dismiss Hitler as mad or stupid may have had some purpose, but he was capable of considerable analysis and planning for his project, which would not have been served by a full frontal attack on the Catholic Church at the same time as everyone else. The "Table Talk" and other accounts indicate that Hitler was perfectly willing to exploit his links with the Church for as long as it suited him, or at least to refrain from antagonising its leaders, until he was in a sufficiently powerful position to start sending them to Auschwitz as well.

The core Nazi leadership was however committed to the new world order, founded on Aryan blood lines (the red part of the Nazi flag) in which Jesus Christ simply did not figure. Hitler had become a very committed occult adept while in Vienna: the SS was intended as a new order of somewhat satanic chivalry, for which the castle at Wewelsburg was adapted by Himmler as a headquarters, with a round table chamber and a mausoleum.

Antisemitism was commonplace and vile in Europe and elsewhere, with sporadic outbreaks of violence and murder, but it is as nothing compared with what was devised by this core Nazi leadership as a final solution, implemented with a fervour which was the opposite of religious. It was not the product of a Catholic upbringing. To my mind it was a manifestation of the appalling evil which the Nazis had sought to enlist in order to advance their bizarre ambitions for the reich.

The final solution was conceived and designed in some secrecy by these men, not by any other state or organisation, and blame can only be attached to those who bore responsibility for it, however deplorable the generalised antisemitism of that time may have been.

[Alan Marsh]

Irene is quite right to point out that "85% of the NT is based on Jewish thought, gleaned from the OT". This fact comes as a surprise to many Christians, as well as to secularists, but Jesus is in Christian understanding (eg John 1.1-14) God's word of love to his people, and the fulfilment of many OT prophecies. It is impossible to understand him without understanding the Hebrew scriptures.

Much of the NT is taken up with making the connection, initially for a Jewish audience, between those prophecies and Jesus, in order to demonstrate that he is the Messiah.

The gospels, which are more concerned with reporting his teaching and his ministry, describe a teacher of extraordinary gifts and insight, brought up firmly within the Jewish law and contemporary religious culture, but much more than a teacher, one who was consciously setting a new direction for Israel. He and they believed that he was the one anointed (the "Christ") to make a fresh start for the human race.

There were moments in the early days when it seemed that the whole of Israel might accept him as Messiah but Christianity was eventually expelled from Judaism. It nevertheless depends on the Hebrew scriptures as its own history out of which Jesus is born. It is for this reason that the NT can never stand on its own, as some seem to think it could or should. It is better to view the OT and the NT together as one Bible, so far as Christian belief is concerned.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, you are becoming lazy! I can think of any number of historical figures who wrote nothing of their own, but to intimate that their existence or views are therefore doubtful is really rather feeble.

[alistair mcbay]

"I pointed out that technically and historically, the OT is not the book of Christ"

So why are Christian faith schools intent on filling children's heads with Noah, Joshua, burning bushes, talking snakes, Adam and Eve, David and Goliath?

And in what sense is the NT "the book of Christ?" Christ wrote nothing himself. We don't even know who worte the first four books of the NT. The NT is at best a book of conflicting stories 'about' him. Perhaps we should look for other contemporaray accounts of Jesus for further evidence but of course...there are none.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Hi to all: I really must disagree with Kate, who sounds like a fine person, but the so-called OT was what Jesus based his philosophy on and 85% of the NT is based on Jewish thought, gleaned from the OT. This includes the Sermon on the Mount.
The rest of the OT is mainly, I am afraid, anti-Judaism pure and simple.

Haven't got time now to explain how and why (even if people are interested, which they may not be) as I am giving a lecture myself in Haifa entitled

The British media and antisemitism' (their title, not mine).

And the Times generally, and this blog in particular, will come out of my talk smelling of roses: the best religion (including atheists and humanists) blog in the world in my view.

Irene

[Kate]

alistair - "Kate, I presume you want that "innate goodness" to come from the supernatural, Kate - your version of it, I guess."

With respect Alistair, you are inclined to the production of 'fire rather than light'. I requested: 'Evidence please for the innate 'goodness' of any society not constrained by agreed and commonly understood codes of moral and civic behaviour.' You produce this absurd assumption - 'supernatural'?!! What is that about? It is not argument.

I have been arguing against extreme ideologies of whatever flavour. You cited the OT as evidence of Christian fascism. I pointed out that technically and historically, the OT is not the book of Christ.

The argument is tedious but not personal; I suspect 'all who are not for you (undeclared) are assumed to be against you'. Nonetheless, I would be grateful if you would not presume to categorise me.

As an Irish woman, I am intellectually implacable in my opposition to any form of coercive religiosity or theocratic rule. The Enlightenment philosophers, many of whom were 'religious', considered the meaning of life and society and concluded state and church should be separate institutions. That is my position.

emanuel: "Dear Kate: We view the world through different lenses. To Jews and their nation there is a great amount of hostility not only in this blog but across most of the British media ( BBC, Guardian, Independent, even some staff of the Times)."

I am very aware of that. I seem to spend a great deal of the little free time I have available confronting precisely those attitudes on the web and by letter to various media.

[emanuel appel]

"The Holocaust can certainly not be pinned on Anglicans or Scottish presbyterians or British Christians of any kind, or indeed on much of Christian Europe which, far from participating in what Germany was doing, was at war seeking to bring an end to Hitler's regime." Alan Marsh

A letter from America,

Dear Mr. Marsh,

I understand your point and to those who had the courage to stand against Hitlerism, I bend my knee.

The history of Israel, the people, is mixed with those Europeans who were decent and those who were swine. For every Churchill, there was a Petain.

I do not wish to rehash the Holocaust here but be advised that incident will guide Israel's psychology for the next 1000 years as the destruction of the Temple formed us for the last 2000.

What can you do? Make sure that Britain has British standards equally applied . If anyone has to ask what is British, he's unqualified to apply them. That is worth more than 500 Holocaust memorials.

[alistair mcbay]

Not unaware, Alan, as I have read some of it. There are some huge leaps of faith (can I say that?) involved though. One of the men for whom a contribution to Nazism is claimed is Goerg Lanz von Lieberfels, due to his magazine Ostara in Vienna. Lanz himslef later claimed credit for influencing Nazi ideology, and I have seen "proof" of this, or at least a description of it as "a claim which has some merit" because one of Lanz's books was found in Hitler's personal library!

Flimsy or what? I wonder if the Pythons had been around then and Hitler had had a Python video in his library, do you think John Cleese would have claimed credit for the Nazi goosestep due to his Ministry of Silly Walks sketch?

Seriously though, there may indeed have been some mysticism involved with the Nazis, but too often it's presented as a "get out of jail free" card used by christians to airbrush Hitler's lifelong catholicism, german christianity's support for him and the Catholic Church's "acquiescence" in his actions out of the Naziism blame chart.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

All I can say to these responses is to ask the following question:
a) If my analysis is incorrect, why then have successive post-war Popes acknowledged that changes had to be made in Christian attitudes to Jews, and
b) why also has Anglican vicar in Iraq, Canon Andrew White (inter alia) stated that Christians were responsible for the Holocaust and incidentally, that they have murdered more Jews than have Muslims.

This is not to make people feel guilty: I have my own views on problems within Judaism, problems that in the present climate it would be unwise to air in public, even on my own blog. But believe me, in my own community I do not hesitate to point things out as to our own responsiblity for many of the misconceptions surrounding our community and aspirations.

But the fact that Jews and Judaism are not perfect, and that paganism certainly exists, as it did also with under Hitler, does not change the fact that Christianity as practised in Germany, Russia, Poland and the Baltic countries (as well as the Ukraine, Hungary and countless other places)was responsible for the Holocaust. And that Einsatzgruppenfuhrer would quote Luther's words, as cited by Alistair, as they murdered Jews, especially in Russia.

And I am afraid that spontaneous massacring of Jews in these Baltic areas happened just as I said, based on Baltic Christian ideas about Judaism. Often these murders would take place before the Nazis had even arrived or given orders to the populations.

After the war, there was again a massacre of Jews in Polish towns to which survivors of the Holocaust had returned.

The effectiveness of the Holocaust was an idea: the idea being that the Jews were deicides: they had killed God, they were unclean money-lovers, who drank the blood of Christian children.

Most worryingly these classic and mediaeval images have also been played out also in the media in Britain in the last few years, especially since 9/11.

The Council of Christians and Jews, under its very new leadership, is trying its utmost to counter some of these images, which it has now at least recognized, which is always a start.

Maybe those who are shocked by my perfectly mainstream ideas should offer their assistance to CCJ, in order to help them in their work of rooting out antisemitism in Britain forever, be it in the Churches, schools, universities, media (including the Church media) and all other walks of life.

Before I left, I met the new CEO of CCJ and there is no doubt about his enthusiasm, integrity and level-headedness.

[Alan Marsh]

Well, yes and no! There is no doubt that many Germans, Catholic and Lutheran as well as Christians to the East were complicit in the killing, but so much of Germany and its satellites were caught up in the power and glamour of the new world order which had been promised that they abandoned the faith in which they were taught not to commit murder.

Responsibility for devising and carrying through the Holocaust lies firmly, however, at the feet of the inner core of the Nazi Party - Hitler, Himmler and Goering, as well as others. The plans for concentration camps, mass killing, forced labour until death, were not the work of Christian leaders, or Christian minds, or of Christian teaching. Such things are utterly and overwhelmingly repugnant to our faith.

If the Nazi regime had sought simply to conquer Europe and extend its Lebensraum, as it might well have done without Hitler's pathological hatred for Jews, it seems most unlikely that the careful and detailed plans they made for genocide would have been instigated spontaneously in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and Russia, or that anti-semites in these places would have taken licence to do what they did.

The Holocaust can certainly not be pinned on Anglicans or Scottish presbyterians or British Christians of any kind, or indeed on much of Christian Europe which, far from participating in what Germany was doing, was at war seeking to bring an end to Hitler's regime.

Racist and antisemitic opinion was sadly commonplace and not remarked upon throughout Europe before the last war, but it is inaccurate and somewhat offensive to blame the Holocaust on those who fought and died to put an end to it.

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, you seem to be unaware of what Hitler was doing and studying before and after the first world war, let alone the occult activities of the SS and the Ahnenerbe. He was very actively involved in occult circles, experimenting with hallucinatory drugs, and developing what he imagined were links with demonic powers.

The bizarre fantasies which prompted the invention of a mythical Aryan super-race were the driving force behind the attempt to establish the third reich as a superior master race. The reich pressed into its service all kinds of academics ranging from anthropologists to archaeologists to "prove" that Germany was the surviving remnant of the people of Atlantis, and the "evidence" they provided was used to embroider a national myth perhaps best typified by Wagner and his use of quack-Norse legends. It was this which deceived the German people into adopting the Nazi elite's programme, of which the primary symbol was what they believed to be an early Aryan motif, the swastika.

None of this has anything to do with Christianity, however lamentable the cultural hostility to Jews may have been in some nations, which the church failed properly to address, like national governments, until it became known what the Nazis had been doing in their concentration camps.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear All

As is usually the case with the truth, all are right on the question of the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was mainly carried out in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as in Russia. The first three tend to be Catholic; Estonia tends to be Protestant and Russia is predominantly Russian Orthodox, but a good mix.
In the first four at least, traditional Christian anti-Judaism was the main reason for the Holocaust. And some of these views still remain. Solidarity (remember them) made a TV programme in the 1990s, including the interviewing of youngish Polish professors, who stated on air that Jews had survived the Holocaust by eating the blood of Christian children. I still have the video, somewhere.

If you travel to the Baltic areas, you will see that the German Nazis were even surprised that they did not have to build concentration camps, or as many as they expected, because these areas were even more keen than were the Nazis on making Europe Judenrein and often murdered Jews even before the Nazi leadership gave the order to do so.

Not only do I have my own eye-witness, family accounts of this from Poland, but my husband's family were originally from Lithuania and we visited there 10 years ago. The statistics are that 90% of all Polish Jews were murdered, 96% of Lithuanians and similar figures for Latvians and Estonians.

Alan is, however, right about Hitler himself, but he did things gradually, sounding people out and receiving feedback. The Nazis maintained that Jesus was an Aryan and not of Jewish origin. Similar things are being said by Anglican Bishop Riah of Jerusalem today. He has stated that there are no Jewish roots of Christianity, and many who have transferred their hatred of Jews (a bit politically incorrect) to hatred of the Jewish State, support and endorse him.
Hitler found that the German people on the whole were with him (but not all) but Hitler used the age-old Christian fear of Judaism (both Protestant and Catholic, as pointed out by Alistair) to fuel the flames.

This is what many Israel haters are doing today: using hatred of Jews and Judaism still unconsciously there in Christianity (but certainly not in all Christians) to attack the notion of there being a Jewish State at all. And no, I do not think that criticism of Israel, or of Jews is off-limits, just trying to show that hatreds do not die, they just get transferred.

Please blame my psychologist husband for the fact that I do tend to see things from a psychological point of view and believe very much in the unconscious.

The Christian antecedants of the Holocaust have been well documented and when I taught Jewish history at Manchester University, I would do the following:

seeing the crucifixes round the necks of some of the students (thankfully not banned yet before 9/11), I made a statement saying that I was going to teach people from first-hand written sources, many of which I had translated, but that I was not blaming anyone present for what the Church had done to the Jews. On the contrary, I found it wonderful that so many Christians wanted to study Jewish history.

At Manchester, my course (unique in the UK) spanned a period dating from 500 BCE (fall of the 1st Temple) to the present day, including a trip round the Orthodox area of Broughton Park, where I lived. They loved this bit.

However, what stunned people more than anything was the quotes they could see in his own words by Martin Luther, in which he advocates what later the Einsatzgruppenfuhrer stated were his 'orders' to wipe out the Jews, which they then carried out. Alistair is also absolutely right about this link.

Interestingly, when I wrote an article, entitled 'Anglicans have Betrayed the Jews' (their title, not mine) for the Church of England Church Times just over a year ago, they disallowed a quote from Canon Andrew White of Iraq, in which he pointed out that Anglicans should also feel responsible for the Holocaust. When I asked why this censorship, I was given the following answer, which is actually factually inaccurate:

'Most of our readers think that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Catholics in Germany': in other words, Protestants can wash their hands of the whole affair.

Sorry, this is plain wrong.

Hope this helps.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from america

"Take away the OT and you take away prophecies of a messiah, and there would be no need for www.messiahrevealed.org, now would there? " A McBay

Dear Sir,

I totally disagree based on historical evidence.

Mohamed was able to set up a belief system without the Hebrew Bible. So the New Testament could stand on its own.
More important , we have the case of the "only American religious genius", Joseph Smith, as Alan Bloom has described him.

Joseph Smith was an upstate New York Protestant divine who saw Jesus in the forest. He was the founder of the Mormon movement and single handedly wrote the Book of Mormon. Whatever you think of them, he created a religion or wrote God's Word from scratch depending of your world view. The Hebrew Bible is not necessary for them unless it's for historical prestige.

Yes, I know the whole rationale re Isaiah, etc, but something else could be penned. Call in Ricky Gervais and his team.

I like to mock too but the work of agnostics and atheists in world affairs, in the politics of nations, has not been good.

[alistair mcbay]

"The mistake you make is to use the culture and stories of the Jews to attack Christians. Use Christian theology and stories to attack Christians if you're able."

Emmanuel, I do really want you to take your Book back, honest, but it's the Christians who won't let you do this, not me. I don't attack Christians, having been one once, but I do question them.

Christianity is unable drop the OT. Take away the OT and you take away prophecies of a messiah, and there would be no need for www.messiahrevealed.org, now would there?

[alistair mcbay]

"The German state was taken over by a clique, revolving around Hitler, which had immersed itself in the occult, and regarded him as having demonic powers of a high order."

What tosh! More convenient airbrushing of history to show christianity in a good light. In fifty years or so, the Alans of this world will have been duped into believing the Catholic Church wasn't engaged in covering up child abuse by its priests but was in fact the leading light in exposing the scandal, calling in the police instantly to investigate every allegation and sacking every complicit archbishop. No doubt Law of Boston will be sanctified by then too.

When he was a humble nobody in jail, lifelong catholic Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in which his faith shines through and in which he saw even then that eliminating the Jews was doing the Lord’s work. “Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work." Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude." In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work." Much of this inspration for anti-semitism came from the great man himslef, Martin Luther. Read his 1543 epic Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, in which he spoke of the need to set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews' property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and ensure that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labour or expelled "for all time." Four centuries later, a first edition of that pamphlet was given to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, by the city of Nuremberg in honour of his birthday in 1937. You might then read Luther’s 1545 pamphlet entitled ‘Against the Roman Papacy: an Institution of the Devil’, which sets a sectarian agenda many north of the border maintain to this day.

Yes, the deluded Hitler might have later in life seen himself as the Christ figure for Germany, but religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators, Alan. I suppose you will tell me next that the fact that the buckles on the belts of German soldiers bore the legend "Gott mit uns" was an atheist conspiracy all along?

Have a look at this interesting collection of memorabilia.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

[Alan Marsh]

Dear Irene

I do have to disagree with you about your statement that the Holocaust was brought about by "revisionist Christianity".

The German state was taken over by a clique, revolving around Hitler, which had immersed itself in the occult, and regarded him as having demonic powers of a high order. It set out to create a myth of German nationalism which was profoundly unchristian, let alone antisemitic, with restoration of Atlantis and Aryan blood as its goal.

If you read Hitler's Table Talk, you will see that he had profound contempt for the Christian faith as well as for Jewish people, and had he established an unchallenged reich, it is quite clear that Christian clergy, churches and people would have been part of his final solution for Europe.

The Aryan myth, not doubtful Christian theology, was what captured the imagination of Germany and drove it to commit the most appalling and inhuman crimes against humanity, including Catholic priests and nuns, homosexuals, travellers and others, alongside the attempt to extinguish European Jewry.

What little opposition there was within Germany to his reign of terror came from Christians, and the liberation of Europe from 1944 was led by Christian nations. I therefore profoundly and respectfully disagree with you about the role of Christianity in this darkest period of European history.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

dear Mr. McVay,

You take the agnostic, secular position re religion in general. That's fine. There were Jewish values before Judaism, before Abraham.

The mistake you make is to use the culture and stories of the Jews to attack Christians. Use Christian theology and stories to attack Christians if you're able. It's more valid.

The conflict with Islam is a political one, not a religious one. It's always been so if you've ever read a competent history of the movement. Islam has always used the power of the army and later, state power, to force conformity and conversion. It has nothing to do with "I was here first".

What does an agnostic, secularist like you do in an Islamicized society? He shuts his mouth , ultimately.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I am sorry to see that so many contributors to this blog appear to espouse the revisionist and triumphalist view of Christianity, that it is superior to Judaism and came to replace it.

It had been hoped that this view had been put to bed after the Holocaust, which was mainly caused by such revisionist Christianity, aided and abetted by the latest techinal slaughtering equipment provided by the 20th century. Apparently, however, this is not the case, despite the best efforts of the previous and present ABCs (the latter ably assisted by his interfaith advisor, and by the new CEO of the Council of Christians and Jews) to acknowledge the role played by the so-called OT (Hebrew Bible to many) in the foundation of Christianity and in the education of Jesus himself, let alone its appeal for Jews all over the world, including in Britain.

As I have said before, this year has seen the largest immigration of British Jews to Israel since 1948 and one of the major reasons for this is the attitude not only of many Muslims towards the Jewish community and their aspirations, but also the attitude of many Christians towards Jewish aspirations and ideals.

That out of the way, I very much agree with Alan's latest posting, except to say that the espousal of Sharia law is more widespread in Britain than has been thought, or acknowledged. In my experience of teaching and engaging with Muslims in Britain (a bit difficult when they so obviously think that my religion is vastly inferior to theirs), Sharia law is taken for granted as the only way forward for the citizens of this country. What is more, the mainstream Muslims who advocate these views are given prime time on the media, in order to advance them, and are usually treated with kid gloves (the recent John Humphrys 'Today' interview with a so-called 'extremist' being an outstanding exception, except that he was not an 'extremist', but mainstream).

On the other hand, Judaism, is treated with disrespect and mocked by the same media, with apparently no comeback at all.

The scenario I have depicted above is of course the position of Hamas, vis a vis, Israel. The problem here is a theological one, not merely a political one, as so many people would prefer to believe.

As for Jack Straw, it is tasteless to discuss his religious affiliations, if any, behind his back. It is not yet a crime in law to be Jewish in Britain, though certainly a stigma attaches to it in every walk of life (just look, for instance, at the pig, Shylock, Fagin and Svengali posters of Michael Howard put out by Straw's own Labour Party during the last election, first drawn to my attention by Ruth, straight after Holocaust Memorial Day 2005). However, reading some of these blogs would lead you to think that Judaism and Jewish scripture constitute a criminal offence.

Finally, the Jewish definition of a Jewish person is having a Jewish mother, or having converted to the religion.

Hope this is helpful, and for those who do not know, I am still involved in interfaith work, both in Israel and in Britain. I am sure that bloggers would agree, however, that in order to solve the many problems involving dialogue and engagement, it is as well to point out the situation as it is and not pretend that there is a level playing field for all religions.

Progress in this field, at least in Israel, can be accessed on my own blog, together with the matter of my becoming an Israeli citizen, having now lived here for two months.

[alistair mcbay]

"Evidence please for the innate 'goodness' of any society not constrained by agreed and commonly understood codes of moral and civic behaviour."

Kate, I presume you want that "innate goodness" to come from the supernatural, Kate - your version of it, I guess. No thanks. It's convenient for all Christians to think their religious faith automatically brings innate goodness but history proves otherwise. Muslims believe their faith brings innate goodness too.

"The OT is not 'Christian'. Historically, Christ came later, and overturned old dogmas, ergo 'Christians'."

Nice try! 'The OT is an embarassment, let's airbrush it away'. But I'm afraid the OT does count in Christianity, and JC definitely did not turn over old dogmas. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's why sunday and primary school kids get taught about Noah, Moses in the rushes, the parting of the Red Sea, Joshua and Jericho, Adam and Eve, burning yet conversational bushes and talkative snakes and all that jazz as part and parcel of the Christian faith and the christian God - have you forgotten the Trinity, or is that airbrushed out too? Three persons all distinct in the unity of the godhead, and each is God yet there aren't three gods but one, to paraphrase the Catholic encyclopedia definition and the Anathasian creed. And there is also the small matter of Jesus himself:

Matthew 5: 17-18

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

According to bible-history.com, the meaning of this passage is very clear. Not even the smallest letter or even its decorative spur will ever disappear from the "God Breathed" Word until all is fulfilled. In fact when heaven and earth are replaced by a new heaven and earth, the Word of the Lord will have accomplished its purpose and will be fulfilled in every detail even to the very letter.

Still, I'm told a lot of the Bible is metaphor and allegory and I am not able to understand it until I have a theology degree. And anyway, Kate, you do have a 'get out' clause - Mr Appel has said often enough on this blog that he wants his Book back, so let him take it, I say!

JPearce "Would I be on very dodgy ground if I were to speculate that secular, humanist values are merely intellectually refined Christian values?"

Yes.... and no! I imagine that argument could outlast all of us, JPearce, so let's not go there. My point was simply that I do not see the conflict with Islam in Britain being resolved by Christians saying "we were 'ere first, and our faith trumps yours, sunshine" which is what many people seem to be advocating. I wonder what goes on in all those "interfaith understanding" groups that Blair & Co like so much - do you think that's what's being said? In which case Orwell, 1984 and the Ministry of Peace spring to mind.

What many people have been so well brainwashed into saying are Christian values pre-date Christianity. It is absurd to think that tolerance, compassion and forgiveness, for example, did not exist before Christianity. Hermes, son of Zeus and his messenger, stole Apollo's herds but Zeus made him give them back, and Hermes won Apollo's forgiveness by given him the lyre which he made out of a tortoise shell. It has always been human nature for humans to attribute desirable qualities like forgiveness to their gods. But it happened that way round.

Christianity has proved very adept at absorbing other influences and claiming them as its own, with Christmas being the most obvious example.

[emanuel appel]

"I do not think you will find ANY anti-Jewish prejudice here. Au contraire. The majority are arguing for the protection of a Jewish-Christian heritage and democratic values." Kate

Dear Kate,

We view the world through different lenses.

To Jews and their nation there is a great amount of hostility not only in this blog but across most of the British media ( BBC, Guardian, Independent, even some staff of the Times). The Times' own man in Jerusalem, Stephen Farrell, has no interest in Israel itself but spends most of his time covering the area from the Arab's point of view. Fine, go live in Amman and indulge yourself. But, to live in a modern State, in all the comforts of Israel and bash it, to act as propagandist for the PLO/Hamas axis is piggy.

Michael Smith, who has his own blog here, has never found a terrorist he didn't defend except when they bomb his route to work.

My object is to talk with people who're fair minded. The others will bow to Islam while baring their fangs to us.

[Alan Marsh]

No, Frank, I was suggesting that islam in the UK should insist that its imams are able to relate to western society - not that they should somehow be licensed by the government.

No amount of government initiatives will deal with the problem: islam itself has to adapt if it wishes to integrate into post-Enlightenment Britain. So far the loudest voices (not representative voices, merely the loudest) are demanding not integration with western societies but subjugation of existing populations and the imposition of Sharia.

Only the existing islamic communities can assert what is commonly claimed to be the peaceful nature of islam, and ensure that it truly is a religion of peace in the West.

[Frank Schnittger]

"The quickest way that can be achieved by islam in the UK is to insist that its imams are western-educated and English speaking, and capable of comprehending the differences between Saudi Arabia or rural Pakistan, and the liberal culture of western nations such as the UK." - Alan Marsh

Interesting, Alan. You seem to be suggesting a sort of domesticated "British" Islam with Imams appointed by Royal or Government Approval a bit like the Established Church. The Chinese have attempted similar with the Catholic Church.

I cannot think of a better way of alienating “British” Moslems from their more extreme “foreign” counterparts and removing any vestige of influence that moderate Moslems might have with more extreme ones. Divide and conquer? I think you would be setting the scene for a bitter civil war within Moslem England.

Whilst I sympathise with your difficulty in defining a “British Christian identity” (I said more or less the same thing in an earlier post – and see also Alistair’s contribution) the problem with any practical or legal measures is that they require strict definition in order to be enforceable.

I can sympathise with the distaste shown for many aspects of Islam on this blog – particularly it’s political and violent dimensions – but the difficulty is in coming up with practical, legally enforceable measures which are both effective and which do not undermine the freedoms which are part of what “Britishness” has come to be all about. I accept Irene Lancaster’s point about anti-Jewish pogroms having a different motivation, but either way, we really don’t want to go there again.

Alistair – as an Irishman you really don’t have to tell me about Christianity’s dodgy history – but I can understand Alan’s chagrin at any suggestion that you might have to secularise Britain still further as the price of devising an effective strategy against militant Islam.

Saying we were Christian for many hundreds of years and we got here first probably isn’t a very effective rationale for combating Islam. Christians seem to have lost all faith in their God and in the saving power of Christ when they look to the State to do the dirty work of removing heathen threats for them. However I doubt that radical Islam will quake in its boots at your secularist or humanitarian arguments either.

The bottom line is that Britain can fight Islam as it fought Nazism – some contributors have pointed to the Fascist elements in Islam. But let us not kid ourselves – that would be just one more war by one people seeking dominance against another – as James has been advocating. In that case humanity will be the loser on both sides.

The challenge is can we find a better way – by respecting our differences and yet still living together in a civilised fashion. That I understand (as an Irishman) is what Britain likes to think it is all about. Britain has more or less succeeded in doing that with many other waves of immigration.

Islam represents a bigger challenge. My suggestion is that we should engage rather than fight with them. I am not suggesting it will be easy. And yes – those who argue for a bigger secular space may have a role to play in this. The question is, will it be a Christian secular space or an Islamic one! - -ok, ok, I know your answer to that one.

[Kate]

alistair mcbay: "Come on, Jill, you have just described Christianity too, at least the Old Testament portion!"

alistair - my name is Kate but since you quote me, I am replying. Your premise, with the greatest respect, is absurd and inaccurate. The OT is not 'Christian'. Historically, Christ came later, and overturned old dogmas, ergo 'Christians'.

I attempted precision in my definition of 'fascism' and its application to core Islamic teaching. I don't think you will find any of these propensities in the New Testament; 'tit-for-tat' historical analogies tend to cloud the issue.

At the same time, insistence on the 'superior' value of secular humanism versus all religious faith suggests a despotic proclivity not too far removed from fanatical religiosity.

Equally, your latest post re. 'common humanity' requires a definition of terms. What do you mean? Evidence please for the innate 'goodness' of any society not constrained by agreed and commonly understood codes of moral and civic behaviour.

emanuel appell - I am responding to you because, I think I, for my sins, was the first here to refer to Jack Straw as Jewish. I fear you have been too literal in your reading, or perhaps I was tardy in assuming readers would 'pick up' on nuance. I had previously (on another thread) confronted a poster who stated, as explanation of Straw's request "he is a Jew".

I do not think you will find ANY anti-Jewish prejudice here. Au contraire. The majority are arguing for the protection of a Jewish-Christian heritage and democratic values.

[J Pearce]

Alistair, Frank,

Would I be on very dodgy ground if I were to speculate that secular, humanist values are merely intellectually refined Christian values?

My point about the influence of Christianity is that it has pervaded British life for thousands of years - secular liberalism as we understand it was borne out of such a culture. It makes sense to acknowledge the deep strand of Christian belief that imbues our modern day values (although some Christians would argue that influence is waning rapidly, I guess).

To respond to your point Frank, I'm not suggesting we rigidly enforce British Christian values upon immigrant populations, but to mangle one of Emanuels quotes, "no one fears a Sikh in a turban". The problem lies with the Muslim population - it has become a focus of attention, precisely because of its more extreme adherents and their violent rejection of our value system.

Rightly or wrongly, highly visual cultural statements such the veil are part of the moral panic we are experiencing over Islam. Therefore, I don't think its unreasonable for Muslims to show a bit more effort in trying to integrate at this time, given the sensitivites that we (the indigenous population) have, regarding Islam.

Whether they like it or not, when Muslims put on an obvious display of allegiance to their native culture, it alienates them further from the non-Muslim majority. As long as this continues, I cannot see how they can be integrated successfully into mainstream UK culture.

[alistair mcbay]

What are these Christian values, Frank?

You use terms like 'Christian identity' and 'Christian heritage' as though it was something to be immensely proud of. But religion has caused too much death and misery over many centuries in Britain to claim freely the benefits of a "Christian heritage", whether through civil war or sectarianism, with countless numbers killed, imprisoned, tortured etc. Think of the Covenanters, Cromwell, Knox, the Stewarts, Protestant -v Catholic, the Killing Years, witch-burning, the Clarendon Code, Thirty Years War, The list goes on.

Our moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone, and our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions.

The current debate over Islam shows the difficulty that arises (and then some) when people believe their moral code is dictated to them by ‘sacred text’ from supernatural revelation and its associated doctrine and dogma. The current difficulties also demonstrate that organised religion based on supposed revelation can make and apply whatever morality it wishes, according to which version of the supernatural the individual adherent happens to believe in.

As you said earlier in this thread, "Christianity has a dodgy history which is precisely why we don't want to go there again with Islam". But the problem with that will persist precisely because we do "go there again" - some people are tackling this by asserting Christian values must trump Islamic ones -cue red rags to bulls. The primary school playground mentality of "My religion is better than your religion and it's been here longer too" is not going to get us anywhere, except into another conflict. The conflict may arise anyway, but that historical religious twist is one we could do without.

If secularists and atheists and humanists are allowed to rubbish/reject Christian values, it is because those values have given us that "dodgy history". And we reject Islamic ones as well!

Let's get our values derived from our common humanity, not competing divine revelation.

[Alan Marsh]

FS, It would be impossible to DEFINE what constitutes a British Christian identity, but all around us there is plenty of evidence of its existence, and presence in these islands for at least 1700 years.

Christians would be horrified at any suggestion of requiring anyone to convert to the Christian faith - as a condition of residence or for any other reason than a genuine belief in Jesus Christ.

Somewhere between these two lies a reasonable way forward. Islam is accustomed to thinking of certain countries as being islamic nations. It ought not to be too difficult to see that certain countries are identifiably Christian, and to respect that fact.

Most muslims in the UK do already live in harmony with their neighbours and respect their integrity and identity. They need collectively to ensure that their fundamentalist brethren, who are determined to practise dark age islamic imperialism, are educated by their own community to accept a more modern version of peaceful islamic piety.

There is no need to secularise everything, and thereby throw out the cultural (or Christian) baby with the bathwater: simply to insist on mutual respect, not only from Christians, but from islam. The quickest way that can be achieved by islam in the UK is to insist that its imams are western-educated and English speaking, and capable of comprehending the differences between Saudi Arabia or rural Pakistan, and the liberal culture of western nations such as the UK.

[emanuel appel]

."(the answer to your rather tasteless question emanuel is that here in the UK no-one has to marry anyone in order to choose their faith - black or white)"

Tom Allen

a letter from America,

Dear Tom,

The only "tasteless" thing around here is most of your "group attitude" re the Jews and their distant offspring. Jack Straw can be the top Anglican prelate but he's still "the Jew" in your eyes.

Some of you like to indulge in the Jewish conspiracy position that , when any matter of policy comes up that displeases you for any reason, the Jew is behind it , i.e. Jack Straw. What you're seeing is what passes for a public debate in the Arab/ Moslem media where scapegoats are the reason for everything and not objective fact.

I like the idea that it'd be easier for the Straw clan to escape "Jewishness" by marrying a coal black Jamaican than by marrying one of Princess Diana's comelier Spencer relatives.

America is easier on the subject than you in Europe but, of course, you did solve the problem once and for all.

[Frank Schnittger]

OK - J Pearce - fair point - if you accept that Britain has a fundamentally Christian identity. Does that mean that Moslems living in Britain must be required to conform to this fundamentally Christian Identity if they want to stay livng here? In effect are we saying to them they must convert to Christianity or live elsewhere?

In practice, British Liberal tradition might allow Moslem's to follow Islamic tradition privately, but all public expressions of Islam, dress codes, customs, political loyalties, etc. would have to be "British" - either Christian or possibly even Hindu if that too is considered British?

It would be ironic if we allowed secularists/atheists/Hindus to rubbish/reject Christian values, but not Moslems? Is this Christian Britishness going to be enforced equally on all or just a handy stick to beat Moslem's with?

It seems to me that would be an abuse of Christianity as much as an abuse of the law to enforce some kind of Christian British conformity so selectively. You'd have to enforce a Christian British identity on Alistair as much as Iqbal!

PS - can even Christians agree on what constitutes a Christian British Identity?

[J Pearce]

Frank wrote:

"But what you can't do is to try and maintain Britain as a Christian country and actively discriminate against all forms of Islamic culture as well. That would be dhimminisation in reverse."

I would have to object to that Frank, on the grounds of national identity. Christianity - and all its attendent icons and symbols - is one of the few constants of British life. Outside of the metropolitan melting pots, it is part of the very fabric of British culture, even if only in a subliminal sense to many people.

So I do not see a problem with discriminating against Islamic cultural values and symbols whilst retaining our own, given that they are alien to this country, and represent a value system which I (and probably many others) percieve to be completely at odds with our native value system.

Our institutions (e.g educational establishments, the state, our legal system) reflect long established Christian-oriented values which have been a bulwark of British culture for centuries. To abandon these deeply held mores and values for the sake of accomodating what appears to be a fundamentally incompatible culture (Islam), seems to be a recipie for disaster. "Multiculturalism" only appears to work when an immigrant culture reflects or complements many of the core values and beliefs of the indigenous culture, (hence the relative success integrating Hindu's into our mainstream).

I do not believe the same is going to happen with Muslims.

[Frank Schnittger]

Yes Alistair - Christianity has a dodgy history which is precisely why we don't want to go there again with Islam. But Christians have also been instrumental in the development of the political, religious, and civil freedoms we enjoy today. Many would not wish to see the end of these more positive Christian influences.

It seems to me that if you want to oppose Islam (as many here do) then you can do so from two standpoints:

1) Christian - try to start a reasoned dialogue a la Benedict - but also respect the right of Moslems to live in acordance with Islamic tradition. Inevitably, as the proportionate size of the islamic community increases, this means that Islam will have an increasing influence over public policy and popular culture.

2) Secular - which bans all overtly religious influences in public institutions - schools, hospitals, workplaces. This means if you want to ban the niqab in schools, you must logically also ban the Cross - although it might be argued that it is much less visible and disruptive of interpersonal communication.

But what you can't do is to try and maintain Britain as a Christian country and actively discriminate against all forms of Islamic culture as well. That would be dhimminisation in reverse.

So here's a deal - Disestablish the Church of England - and ban the wearing of a face concealments in public. Any takers?

[Tom Jackson]

Listening to a daily phone-in radio program this morning, there was a debate concerning a primary school teacher who is taking her school to the employment tribunal after being asked to remove her niqab while teaching English to a class of young children. The Muslim teacher concerned was allowed to cover her face in all other areas of the school including the staff room and the playground.

One contributor to the program, who herself wears the niqab and who has young children, commented that when attending functions at her child's Islamic school, she will uncover her face because "it frightens the young children" who, in the main, are not used to the garment. She did choose to sit somewhere secluded - such as the back of the school hall - as unobtrusively as possible and to restrict the sense of exposure she felt.

Interestingly, this Muslim lady who is obviously very serious about her faith, mentioned that when male teachers were not available in this Islamic school to take the classes for her eldest son - who was 13 - and a woman teacher was seconded, she did wear a niqab but her younger son was taught all the time by women with their faces uncovered!

So, we have a normal English school being taken to a tribunal for insisting on something that an Islamic school does as a matter of course.

Personally, I would not like children of any age to be taught by someone whose face was covered but that aside, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion in this matter that the Muslim teacher in the English school is making a political statement rather than complying with her religious beliefs.

In agreement with other contributors, my concern is stimulated by the increase I perceive of such politic statements being made in one way or another. The unavoidable conclusion is that an attempt is being made to change our society in a direction that many of the Islamic faith would find more comfortable but which those of us in the majority - practising Christians or not - are distinctly uncomfortable about.

[alistair mcbay]

"Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often it promotes racial superiority, ethnic persecution (victimisation), imperialist expansion, and genocide. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its own ideological vision. It uses organized violence to suppress opposition."

Come on, Jill, you have just described Christianity too, at least the Old Testament portion!

As Dawkins says in his new book, a read of the OT reveals a God "jealous and proud of it, a petty unjust unforgiving control freak, a bloodthirsty vindictive ethnic cleanser, a mysoginistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully."

If you don't believe this, I suggest you get yer bible out and have another read!

[Katherine]

May I suggest that everyone reading and commenting on this blog should look at the contribution of "Azra" on Mary Beard's blog of "Sikhs, Turbans and Powell's River of Blood Speech." It is an excellent and quite comprehensive statement by a Moslem woman who is totally opposed to the all-encompassing apparel on theological, cultural, political grounds. I believe such viewpoints and the people stating them should be supported by us; we discuss matters openly because of the Judaeo-Christian civilisation in which we live but, only those who are aware of Islam's grip on human thought and expression, can appreciate the courage it takes for a Moslem to speak publicly in this manner.

[Kate]

Tom: Sorry, I did not mean to ignore your query.

Got the information on another web site. Not sure which one. It rang vague bells from when he was President of NUS. Checked Wikipedia's list of British Jews - his name is there.

[Kate]

Frank: 'Let's get practical'. Yes, I identify with your natural repugnance for any action that smacks of fascism or pograms but, I think Katherine seeks to 'inform' on the realities of core Islam - not to incite persecution.

I am aware, there are many strands of Islam, as there are Protestants, but the 'unity' of Islam lies in an absolutist adherence to revealed truth. Protestants, like Jews, are forever 'splitting' because somebody has revised an interpretation of the text. The majority of Muslims reject revision.

Generally speaking, the majority community had no idea of what being a Muslim entailed. I have done a great deal of research since 7/7 when my son escaped from Kings Cross with his life. It is both illuminating and frightening. It is significant that there has been a noticeable increase in numbers of Muslims in Europe adopting dress codes (uniforms) which identify them as 'separate'. Demonstrably more 'uniforms' on British streets since 7/7.

It is also significant that we are faced (daily) with examples of Muslims refusing to adhere to European law as practised by the majority of citizens.

It is not legal for anyone to discriminate against a blind person on the grounds of religious belief. It is not legal for a Muslim in Windsor to ignore the council's refusal of planning permission for a mosque and go ahead anyway - pop of Windsor 30,000 souls, of that Muslims total 500!! Also, policemen take an oath to do their duty irrespective of the class or creed of those they are required to protect.

These actions, taken together with hysterical protest and violence, are all means of undermining the structures of civic society. I believe it will continue and grow. It smacks of Hitler's brownshirts - uniform, dissent, political demands, denigration of, and violence against, all who do not conform.

It is therefore essential to be informed, active and vocal. To be aware and to seek to protect a democratic culture is not to embrace fascism.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates an organic community transcending all other loyalties. So does Islam. Fascism emphasizes a myth of national or racial (in this case religious) rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. Ergo the Caliphate.

Fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. This is precisely WHY Muslims claim all their protests are against western decadence.

Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Ergo the bombers. Often it promotes racial (or in the case of Islam, religious) superiority, ethnic persecution (victimisation), imperialist expansion, and genocide. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its own ideological vision. It uses organized violence to suppress opposition.

Fascism rejects individual autonomy and rights, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. It has a complex relationship with established elites (which explains the government 'advisers') but it is never a puppet of the ruling class; it is an autonomous movement with its own social base.

All extreme ideologies are fascist - as the Irish know too well, theocracies are no exception. Islam is an extreme ideology and the majority in Britain are too accustomed to 60 years of peace and a dumbed-down culture to have noticed the stealthy incursion.