|
Saturday, 02 February 2008 |
Religious leaders are commonly expected to utter calculated words of wisdom and play an active role in reducing conflict and bringing cohesion to society. Their many roles tend to include the preaching of tolerance, respect and humility, especially in relation to other faiths. But this does not appear to have been the case for the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael James Nazir-Ali. And the irony is that his particular academic interests include the comparative philosophy of religion.
The Pakistani-born Bishop’s latest Islamophobic outburst this month has been widely condemned. His assertion of there being no-go areas for non-Muslims has been challenged as unsubstantiated on the basis of a lack of any evidence. Accusations are that his comments are not only Islamophobic but inflammatory. They are akin to inciting hatred against Muslims and, as such, should be investigated by the police with a view to even pressing charges. Like everyone else, Nazir-Ali should be subject to the law, not in spite of his esteemed
position but because of it: the high office he holds includes being a respected
peer in the House of Lords.
This is not the first time that the Bishop has been found expressing anti-Muslim remarks that are far from befitting for one of the most senior Anglican clergymen. (Prior to the appointment of Dr Rowan Williams in 2002, he had been tipped to become the Archbishop of Canterbury.) In November 2006, Nazir-Ali criticised Muslims in Britain for having what he termed a “victim mentality” and claimed that it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands. Some had a “dual psychology” in which they desired both “victimhood and domination,” he
said in an interview with the Sunday Times. “Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq,” he said.
In December 2006, the Church of England’s only Asian Bishop, called for Muslim women to be banned from wearing the niqab (face veil) in public: “It is fine if they want to wear the veil in private, but there are occasions in public life when it is inappropriate for them to wear it.”
The Bishop, who describes himself as being on the “evangelical and catholic” wing of the Anglican communion, had an opportunity to retract his latest unfortunate comments when insisting that he did not intend to offend Muslims; but, instead, chose to add insult to injury, warning that “unless we diagnose the malaise from which we all suffer, we shall not be able to discover the remedy.” The question that must be asked is, why is Nazir-Ali, whose father converted from Islam and who himself changed from Catholicism to Anglicanism, allowed to persist in making irresponsible statements? Whether it is his background and search for identity, having reportedly sought refuge in Britain, or the schisms within the Anglican Church, there can be no excuse for being allowed to abuse his position.
While there has been criticism of his views, no Church leader has condemned his inflammatory remarks. More importantly, interfaith organisations have been deafeningly silent. The Archbishop of Canterbury has not even said a word.
There are people who stand on guard to induce Muslim leaders to condemn their fellow Muslims whenever they could be inciting hatred, but when it comes to correcting people of any other faith, the righteousness of these guardians falls worryingly short.
Source: The Muslim News
Comments posted are the sole opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of AIM. |
