In 1529 and 1683, jihadi Muslim armies besieged Vienna, intent on conquering Europe. And now they are back again, some perhaps with the same objective. The voices of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, Michael Gove, Pope Benedict XVI and now, at long last, the Church of England should be heard.
The Church of England has often trod a hesitant path. Now the Church appears to have found its voice and rediscovered its convictions. Its report, Moral but no Compass, says Government ministers only pay "lip service" to Christianity, while listening "intently" to Muslims. Despite its work on the frontlines of society, the Church has been marginalised. Belatedly, it is speaking up.
The Church’s report follows the decision by a Muslim policeman in Birmingham to stop two Christian preachers from distributing Bible tracts, because they were in a "Muslim" area. That incident must surely give us pause for thought. Whatever the policeman’s intentions, it is an ominous sign. Bishop Nazir-Ali has warned that some some Muslim areas are becoming "no-go" places in Britain today. Are we being colonised without our realising it?
With that politically incorrect opening, let me add some important caveats, not to be politically correct, nor to protect myself, but out of genuine belief. First, the majority of Muslims still live peaceful, hospitable, decent, law-abiding lives. They do not intend to conquer Europe or blow us all up. Many are good, honest people, who are the prime victims of radical Islamism. Second, as a Christian I know that the behaviour of some over-zealous evangelicals is off-putting. Handing out tracts on the street is not my style, though I would defend their right to do it. Third, no one should gratuitously set out to offend others – we should always be ready to listen and learn. And finally, there must always be room for different beliefs – that is the nature of open, liberal democracy. Diversity creates richness. Much of my life is spent with people of different cultures, and many of my friends are refugees and asylum-seekers.
Nevertheless, we need to wake up. We don’t so much need to smell the coffee, as to drink pots of it. At a conference in Vienna, a speaker announced that "you are not the target" of the Islamist terrorists. Well in that case the bombs in Madrid and London and the planes in New York and Washington, DC were spectacularly off course, don’t you think? And a bombing in Exeter, albeit by a mentally unstable convert to Islamism, cannot be dismissed as Mr Bean-like failure of navigation?
An immigrant moves to another country seeking a new life, and accepts life in that new land on its terms. A colonialist enters another country and seeks to impose their way of life upon it, sometimes by force, otherwise by stealth. Are the Islamists – not just the bombers, but the non-violent ideologues – the new colonialists? The creeping introduction of Shari’ah, including Shari’ah finance, indicates they are – or at least, their ideology is. Of course, some are British-born and so are technically neither immigrants nor colonialists. But the continuing honour crimes, documented by the Centre for Social Cohesion, including female genital mutilation, suggests they are living by a value system significantly at odds with our own. The treatment of apostates here in Britain raises doubts about their commitment to liberal democracy. And Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of Islamism whose Milestones is the Islamist equivalent of Mein Kampf, states clearly: "The flag of a Muslim, which he honours and under which he is martyred, is not the flag of a country."
We need to develop our response. As the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, has written, "as our world demonstrates more and more obviously, when you pretend evil isn’t there, you merely give it more space to operate". The hate-filled political ideology known as Islamism amounts to evil. What else is it, when it advocates the murder of apostates and blasphemers? Even when it is non-violent, at very best Islamism regards non-Muslims as dhimmis, second-class citizens.
Ignoring Islamism does not work. Nor does apologising for our errors. In the struggle for freedom against communism, Vaclav Havel wrote of the Soviets: "They are not impressed by abject apologies: that is just grist to their mill. What works with them is taking a firm stand. But can people who are full of illusions take a firm stand? Not very likely." Havel argues that Soviet appeasers "made concession after concession in the hopes of salvaging something, but all it did was saw off the very limb it was sitting on." The same applies to Islamism today.
So let us cease our guilt-trips about the past. That does not mean we justify everything done in the name of Christendom. Terrible crimes were committed, and the conduct of many Christians during the Crusades, the Inquisition and other dark periods of history, has little in common with the teachings of Christianity. We should acknowledge that. But we should remember that in the Crusades, Christians were not the aggressors. They were responding to several decades of Islamic aggression.
If we apply Havel’s principles today, we need to stop making concessions. That means no more Saudi funding for universities, which has purchased the silence, even the acquiescence, of some of Britain's ’s academic elite. No more hate literature in our public libraries or Muslim bookshops. No more Shari’ah, thank you very much, and no Shari'ah finance. No more mega-mosques. If you want mega-mosques and Shari’ah, you can find them in Riyadh, Jeddah, Tehran and Khartoum, but not in London, Birmingham and Manchester, thank you. It means adopting Australian-style rules, telling Muslims they are very welcome in our country, and welcoming to practice their religion, provided they abide by our rules rather than seek to impose their own.
We need to straighten out our topsy-turvy asylum system. We have given asylum to known Islamist clerics and preachers, who use the sanctuary to train and recruit terrorists. Yet I know several Burmese, some Buddhist, some Animist, some Christian, who pose no threat to us and have genuine reasons for fleeing their country, whose cases are delayed for years or rejected. I know Pakistani Christians who have fled for their lives, and whose cases are delayed or refused – and sometimes their evidence is deliberately twisted by Muslim translators in British court hearings, resulting in the loss of their case.
If we are to defeat this creeping colonialism, we must adopt three further strategies. We must strongly reject Islamophobia. Ordinary Muslims are the first victims of radical Islamism, because they get it from both sides. They are preyed upon by the radicals, and risk being targeted by the far-right – actually two almost identical ideologies, both based on hatred. And we should reject the growing Christianophobia and anti-Semitism too.
Secondly, we must defend free speech. That means the freedom to criticise the Prophet and the Koran, and to draw cartoons. I personally would not wilfully set out to offend Muslims, and I thought the cartoons were unwise. I would not pro-actively critique the Koran, although I would defend the right of non-Muslims to ask questions about it in public. And if asked, I would venture an opinion – as is my right, in a democracy. Pakistan is completely out of order to be putting pressure on the EU to curb our freedom of expression. British Muslims need to get used to being offended, just as British Christians are. The media daily cracks jokes and insults – some funny, some offensive – against Christians, but would never dare do the same to Muslims. That is unjust. I would vigorously defend free speech. I find some things said about the Bible and Jesus offensive – but I would rather be offended than stifled, because freedom – free speech, free enquiry, free choice of religion – is the lifeblood of Judeo-Christian values.
Lastly, let us stop – once and for all – giving platforms to Islamists. With a new Mayor of London, Yusuf al-Qaradawi will hopefully fade into obscurity, but there are others like him who still gain the ear of Government. Engaging with Islamists legitimises them, facilitates Islamism, and undermines liberal Muslims. There are known Muslim Brotherhood representatives being touted to the British Government as moderates who are, in reality, Islamists. In a Hudson Institute paper, Zeyno Baran emphasises the need for caution in assessing which Muslim groups to deal with. Most important, she argues, is to consider "the ideology of any potential partners" rather than the "tactics". The Muslim Brotherhood may not openly call for violence or terrorism, but – says Baran – "it still does little to oppose it. In fact it may provide an ideological springboard for future violence." The first step on the road to jihadi terrorism, Baran adds, "is instruction in Islamist ideology". Remember that the September 11 mastermind, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, was trained in Muslim Brotherhood camps. "It is therefore inexplicable that policymakers should seek to empower Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a strategy to combat terrorism".
The Church of England is right to speak out. It is wrong, however, to advocate the creation of a government minister for religion. That has echoes of totalitarian states which create such positions to control religion or promote one particular religion. That is not the business of government. However, government should recognise the importance of our Christian heritage, and the role of the Church in society. In doing so, we should simultaneously reach out to genuine Muslim democrats, strengthen their voice, and help build a society in which true religious freedom is respected for all. This is a cause around which everyone, from the left and the right, religious and non-religious, who believes in liberal democracy should rally. We must defeat this new colonialism which threatens the values and institutions of freedom we cherish.
