A story is breaking in Northern Ireland where an extremist pastor has dubbed Islam as “satanic” That is reprehensible in itself but he has received support from some Unionist politicians and in particular Peter Robinson the First Minister. The Guardian reported
…Robinson, who sometimes attends McConnell’s mega-church on the shores of Belfast Lough, was quoted in the Irish News on Wednesday as describing the pastor as “someone who preaches the gospel”.
The Democratic Unionist party leader said he would continue to visit McConnell’s church.
He then went on to say Muslims can’t be trusted although he felt that he could ask them to go to the shops for him.
All of this has forced the Alliance MLA Anna Lo to announce that she will not seek re-election and is even considering leaving Northern Ireland. Anna Lo has served the community with grace and has lived there for 40 years after arriving from Hong Kong. During that time she has been subjected to frequent vile racist attacks and was recently chased by a Loyalist mob during her election campaign for the European Parliament.
There is already a campaign to persuade her to change her mind and it is important that everyone from all political persuasions encourages this brave woman to stay in politics and continue to fly the flag for tolerance and diversity. She needs to have our support. Please show her that she is not alone.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
Nell Jerram
69 Comments
Ian Butler
A story is breaking in Northern Ireland where an extremist pastor has dubbed Islam as “satanic” That is reprehensible in itself but he has received support from some Unionist politicians and in particular Peter Robinson the First Minister.
This is no different from how the leading members of Peter Robinson’s party, and I would guess most of their member and supporters, regard the Roman Catholic church, see here. Why does it suddenly become an issue when it’s Islam?
The woman we need to stand with at the moment is the one stoned to death the other day in Pakistan for “marrying against her family’s wishes”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27599325
I couldn’t believe it. I want to stand with Anna too, but we need to prioritise. As soon as I heard it I thought the Lib Dems should jump on it. I can’t believe it goes on, it seems inhumane. The Pakistani government denounced it, but we need to do more.
It doesn’t at all. The intolerable racism/sectarianism is always an issue. This attack on Islam is the straw that has broken the camel’s back.. Northern Ireland needs Anna Lo and she needs our support.
If theres one part of The UK that desperately needs outsiders to join them its Northern Ireland. The Peace Process has, so far, only entrenched the old divisions & stregthened the most extreme elements on both sides.
I dont honstly feel I can call on Anna Lo to stay in NI, its her life shes risking.
Some people, no doubt, “need to prioritise” among humanitarian concerns. Others, I believe, have the curious super-power of being able to walk and chew at the same time.
@Eddie,
It’s worse. The prospective husband killed his first wife to marry this second one. And the stoning occurred because the prospective husband refused to pay an increased demand for money from the woman’s family. This is a very sick, ignorant, and old part of Pakistani culture of extreme inequality for women. It’s certainly not Islam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642528/Farzana-Parveen-Pakistani-woman-stoned-death-marrying-man-loved-pictured.html
It sounds awful, Richard. I have felt for a while that the UK needs to stop being obsessed with free trade and more concerned about getting tough on countries with appalling human rights records.
It’s not about bullying either, it’s about responsibility. You are partly responsible for the actions of those you do business with and that should apply with governments too.
So in response to a First Minister backing a seriously bigoted statement and a key politician feeling forced out of the country we get a load of petty whataboutism…
Yes, of course it was also wrong when catholics were targeted and of course stoning and other forms of “honour killing” are beyond the pale.
When did these two issues become excuses to dismiss calls to stand up against racism and bigotry?
Full support to Anna Lo and the rest of the Alliance members who have had to put up with disgraceful treatment from thuggish political opponents over the past few years.
I believe this is known as “threadjacking.”
There seems to be a confusion in the article between race and religious identity. Racism is not the same as religious identity, as one can be a muslim and be a member of any race.
Unfortunately in parts of Northern Ireland, a version of evangelical protestantism which is literalist and conveys simple messages is embedded and gains a willing hearing. One can find in America, the same ‘brand’ exported by emigrants from parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland in the eighteenth century.
This is an area worth exploring in relation to growing Islamophobia across Britain.
But it seems to me, that this is a story about racism, as Ann Lo wants to stand down for that reason, not the Islamophobia reason.
Hey guys, I’m fully behind Anna, let’s not get into infighting when there’s women getting stoned to death and Muslim’s being intimidated.
Ian Butler
It doesn’t at all. The intolerable racism/sectarianism is always an issue.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of Ian Paisley when he says what he says in the link I gave. This is what he truly believes. I think the remarks reported in your article need to be seen in that context – that is what these people believe about ANY religion except their own. The language being used here is somewhat old-fashioned religious language in which the term you mention is widely applied to anything which isn’t in accord with their own religious values. If it is a “seriously bigoted statement”, then why was it no big issue when previous “seriously bigoted statements” were made, and probably are in every service in this church?
Personally, I think we have to accept freedom of speech and freedom of religion – and if these people believe every religion but their own is Satanic, and that really is their belief, let them get on with it. The best reaction is to calm down and not get worked up about it. Let them worship God in their way, and, papist that I am, I’ll worship God in His way. By the way, I do believe that anyone who has given support to Sinn Fein is guilty of mortal sin – I cannot interpret my Church’s teaching on Just War in any other way than that. Is it unacceptable bigotry to say that?
That a woman of the stature of Anna Lo is considering leaving Northern Ireland after 40 years and a courageous record of public service is shocking indictment of the state of affairs in Ulster.
Paul Barker says “If there’s one part of The UK that desperately needs outsiders to join them its Northern Ireland. The Peace Process has, so far, only entrenched the old divisions & strengthened the most extreme elements on both sides.”
This may be the case, but I am not so sure that throwing in the inevitable social tensions that come with a n increasingly dogmatic Islamist presence into what is already a volatile sectarian divide is the answer.
I came across a post on a local forum recently from a man in a mixed-race muslim marriage and share the account of his experiences in Egypt and London here:
In a sense, Islam had its reformation before Christianity – from the twelfth century onwards, Islamic thinking retreating from a position of reason to one of Koranic literalism and revelation. From the twentieth century onwards this dogmatic literalism has been reinforced by Wahhabi-Salafist petrodollars – and exported around the world.
Now, very few Muslims are aware that the Islamic ‘Golden Age’ coincided with a relatively keen focus on reason and intellectual curiosity. The Mutazilites lost to the Asharites, and it’s been downhill ever since.
My wife has an Egypto-Sudanese background. The elder females in her family all underwent FGM but, until around the millennium, were unveiled. Now all the women are veiled, not entirely by personal choice.
I’ve seen the hardening of attitudes in the Middle East – those wanting to keep religion a private matter being pressured by the coercive and overtly religious. In Tahrir Square, my wife was punched walking next to me for being unveiled. We were stopped by the police at gunpoint late at night for being a prostitute and punter (an unveiled brown woman late at night with a white foreigner regarded as a woman of low morals).
For a while, our home town in Madinet Nasr became the epicentre of the Muslim Brotherhood. They clamped down on all manner of things (the internet café I’ve posted to this forum from, for example, is now shut, the owner being Christian).
The nutcases came out of the woodwork. A member of the family – a professor of modern art – fully expected to lose his job under the Brotherhood due to the likes of Henry Moore being judged un-Islamic. Another was on a list to be interned, for being a journalist with secular views. Another – a retired judge – faced death threats for stating a legal position (that marriages where Christian girls are kidnapped, married off to Muslim men and threatened with death for apostasy if their return to their families, are not real marriages at all and should instead be regarded as illegal kidnappings).
Unfortunately, much of this ignorance, misogyny and bigotry has been imported into the West and the UK. FGM, honour killings, child grooming, consanguineous marriage, sanctified violence and misogyny, threats to free speech and freedom of conscience, etc, etc. My late father-in-law didn’t want my wife to study here due to the perceived extremism on English campuses.
In London, the sheikh officiating our wedding advised me to “Try not to hit your wife”. I doubt your average Catholic padre offers similar advice to the newly married! A member of our family in the Middle East was sentenced to death by a cleric granted asylum in the UK. A friend was beaten up in the East End for being on a “Muslim estate”. The police said there had been over 20 similar attacks but their hands were tied (they’d speak to ‘community leaders’).
My car was surrounded and kicked after doing a three-point turn outside a mosque. The gay couple downstairs from my sister moved out due to the perceived threat from Muslim youths. My sister and her flatmate took cabs the half mile home from the station to avoid the sexual harassment. In the East End, a friend was disavowed by her family for the dishonour of leaving her imported husband after repeated beatings (a blind eye turned to his affairs with white, non-Muslim women).
Another friend’s imported husband had never worked – as he was too busy escorting his wife to and from work in order to make sure she didn’t speak to other men. The above examples aren’t the norm, but they’re there, lurking, growing and largely ignored.
Last year, we even removed our children from Saturday Arabic school. They’d been taught the downright offensive – nursery rhymes about the “kuffar”, scolded for mentioning pigs when singing Old MacDonald Had A Farm. They’d also been taught the outright banal – how many times a Muslim should knock on a door, for example, my son scolding me for not knocking on our neighbour’s door an Islamic three times.
It’s no good relativizing away the wrongs of modern Islamism by making comparison to the religion of the past (or comparing Islamism to the likes of Westboro Baptist Church). We live in the here and now. The double standards, intolerance and backwardism shouldn’t be tolerated.
I have to agree with him that “the double standards, intolerance and backwardism shouldn’t be tolerated”. Whether it’s old time fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalists or Islamic hate preachers – they do us all a great disservice.
Matthew:
I am led to believe there is already a long-standing controversy in Northern Ireland related to the views of some leading Unionists regarding the Catholic Church. Indeed, I gather it has given rise to some degree of dispute in recent decades, and possibly even earlier.
@ Joe Burke
According to the blogger you quote: ” Now, very few Muslims are aware that the Islamic ‘Golden Age’ coincided with a relatively keen focus on reason and intellectual curiosity.”
On the contrary, quite a few do, especially educated Muslims in Britain who are not extreme apart from a tiny number (some of whom are British converts) and they know their history and their culture. Egypt is the birth-place of modern Islamism so it is not that surprising that the blogger writes so strongly.
I note he doesn’t mention the number of attacks on Christians in Egypt by extremists and whose churches are being protected by local Imams and Muslims who are peace-loving.
We have to be very careful not to conflate salafism, wahabism with other schools of Islamic thinking which are moderate, tolerant and peace-loving. The danger is that the population begins to believe that all Muslims are violent extremists, because of the fear whipped up on social media and the wider media – and then this untruth is used by others to promote their own literalist viewpoints.
I repeat my earlier point. The article is conflating two things: Islamophobia and in a wider sense religious identity and racism.
Anna Lo, according to the article, wants to resign and leave because of racism. She is not a Muslim as far as I am aware.
Iain Coleman
Indeed. The Northern Irish love to tell us “It isn’t us, we’re all lovable friendly people, it’s our politicians”. And then vote for those politicians. Except every so often they’ll decide their current bunch aren’t extreme enough, so they’ll vote in an even more extreme bunch.
I don’t know the full background to this article, but I find it a little odd that Anna Lo is reported to have lived in NI for 40 years (through sectarian bombing and maiming) and is now put off to the point of throwing in the towel by speech (albeit I accept, speech of the most intolerant kind). Of course, no one should have to put up with such intolerance, and perhaps the effect is cumulative, but I’d have thought that the climate has been immeasurably better over the past 10 years than during the previous 30, even if there has been some recent backsliding. If she really is going, I wish her well.
“All of this has forced the Alliance MLA Anna Lo to announce that she will not seek re-election and is even considering leaving Northern Ireland.”
I think that’s a little misleading. It’s clear from interviews that Lo has suffered direct personal racism many times over the past 40 years and was already considering quitting before the McConnell furore broke. Her sons, who live in England, have been trying to persuade her to join them for some time.
What I do find curious about this kind of thing (and apologies for indulging in a little whataboutery) is that when a Muslim preacher says hateful and inflammatory things, we are told that we should take no notice whatsoever since he is an extremist, not representative of the average Muslim, and in most cases should not even be regarded as a true Muslim at all. Yet in the case of McConnell, a lot of people seem prepared to believe that he speaks for large numbers of protestants and is symptomatic of an endemic problem within his community.
@Matthew Huntbach
“The Northern Irish love to tell us ‘It isn’t us, we’re all lovable friendly people, it’s our politicians’. And then vote for those politicians.”
I’m sure Joey Barton could offer an explanation for that.
Stuart, in this case the weird preacher got full backing from the DUP First Minister.
I think that if a UK politician backed an Islamic extremist in a similar way there would probably be an even greater uproar.
Stuart
Yet in the case of McConnell, a lot of people seem prepared to believe that he speaks for large numbers of protestants and is symptomatic of an endemic problem within his community.
The website which I referenced with use of language condemned in the original article against another religion is the product of the person who founded the political party which came second in the recent elections in Northern Ireland. The party which came first is supported by someone who agreed with an organisation that pulled a mother away from her screaming children and killed her because she showed a bit of humanity to someone who was sent there to try and keep the peace, felt mutilation was appropriate punishment for juvenile offenders who civilized people might think should do a bit of community service, and made its arguments by randomly planting bombs whereas other groups in our society which faced discrimination seem to have got that ended in more peaceful ways. I was not joking when I said what I said about people of my religion who voted for them – if they are serious about their religion, I cannot see any other way in which its teaching can be interpreted but that.
@Daniel Henry
“in this case the weird preacher got full backing from the DUP First Minister”
That’s debatable. Robinson’s comments – lamentable though they are – seem to fall well short of giving “full backing” to everything McConnell said. Robinson himself claims his comments have been “misinterpreted” and that he was only defending McConnell’s right to free speech – not what he actually said.
Sadly the original Irish News article is behind a paywall so I must reserve judgement. But it’s certainly true that Robinson has been busy issuing grovelling apologies to Muslims and claiming that he didn’t mean what he’s been reported to have said.
@ Stuart
“when a Muslim preacher says hateful and inflammatory things, we are told that we should take no notice whatsoever since he is an extremist…”
Who is telling you and others that you should take no notice of incitement to hatred?
” not representative of the average Muslim, and in most cases should not even be regarded as a true Muslim at
all.”
Are you suggesting that extremists are indicative of average Muslims and that to use violence is in accordance with Islam? Evidence please.
” Yet in the case of McConnell, a lot of people seem prepared to believe that he speaks for large numbers of protestants and is symptomatic of an endemic problem within his community.”
There is a strand of evangelical protestantism which is literalist and fundamentalist and exists in Northern Ireland and in America. There are fundamentalist Muslims. Neither are representative of most Christians and Muslims.
There is a difference between incitement to hatred and intolerance of another religion and incitement to racism. Sometimes they are conflated and it is hard to discern the difference. Intolerance of religion is when one tries to drive out the adherents because their beliefs and practices are considered dangerous and alien. Racism is different to this as I’m sure you appreciate.
Fear of the other is at the heart of both but they manifest differently.
Helen,
In the 19th century, a preacher such as Reverend McConnell, would be expected by his congregation to denounce heathen Mohammedens and Hindus and godless papists and received the unequivocal support of such heroes of empire as the abolitionist William Wilberforce, the explorer David Livingstone and General Gordon of Khartoum.
It would also have been perfectly natural to expect that Ottoman Sultans, Mullahs, Sheiks and Imams would equally denounce infidels and call for their extermination at the earliest opportunity.
We have in the 21st Century, I hope, for the most part moved on to a better educated and more tolerant society, respectful of each others traditions, culture and religious beliefs while preserving the right of free speech subject only to the insistence that it does not cross into incitement to hatred or violence.
Baroness Warsi has the government brief for combatting Islamaphobia in the UK and says ” I grew up when, actually, no one cared about somebody’s religion; race was the issue that defined you.” But now, she says, “religion is the new race” http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/26/baroness-warsi_n_5036065.htm.
Is it really the case though that “religion is the new race” or do the great majority of people still not care about somebody’s religion and perhaps we have to look to other causes to discern the source of prejudice?
How would you answer these two multiple choice questions:
1. What were the causes of anti-Irish sentiment in Britain during the period of the troubles in N. Ireland:
a) Lots of Irishmen wearing donkey jackets.
b) Celtic features like ginger hair and freckles.
c) Too much singing of Danny Boy.
d) Roman Catholicism.
e) IRA and Loyalist Terrorism.
2. What were/are the causes of anti-muslim sentiment in Britain following the 9/11 atrocities in New York and the London bombings.
a) Lots of women wearing veils.
b) Dark Skin colour.
c) Too much shouting of Allahu Akbar.
d) The Islamic religion.
e) Islamist terrorism.
If the answer is e) for anti-irish sentiment – well this largely disappeared in Britain when the troubles were over and the atrocities ended. This gives us, and the British Muslim community, the answer as to how to combat Islamaphobia in the UK – expel the extremists and radicals from any position of influence in Mosques, Islamic Schools and British campuses and rid this country of their extreme ideology of hatred and division.
@Helen Tedcastle
“Who is telling you and others that you should take no notice of incitement to hatred?”
I’m thinking of this kind of thing :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22652340
Note I’m not saying Clegg’s response was wrong. I’m just wondering why we don’t take the same dismissive approach to the kind of nonsense spouted by the likes of Pastor McConnell.
“Are you suggesting that extremists are indicative of average Muslims”
No. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people and are not extremists.
“and that to use violence is in accordance with Islam? Evidence please.”
I have no idea. Where do you think would be a good place for me to find out? The Qu’ran?
Jenny Tonge was treated appallingly by the Leader’s office because she spoke her mind on political issues which upset some people.
Now Anna Lo is on the end of racist abuse, the sort of racist abuse which we all know is made worse when figures in authority say the sorts of thing that the DUP minister has been saying .
Why does the party not stand by brave women who speak out for the political beliefs of this party?
The DUP man would be the subject of police enquiries if he said such things in London, why is he allowed to get away with it in Belfast?
Or does this just cast a bit more light on the police in Northern Ireland?
One law for the DUP leader another law for the Sinn Fein President?
Everything is complicated in NI.
Anna was born in 1950 and will be 66 in 2016 and 71 in 2021. She’s been in NI since 1974. She appears to be Taoist, not Islamic, so she doesn’t seem to be the mistaken 75-year old pastor’s direct target. She’s done great work against racism and come through lots worse that this before. Peter Robinson is reported as having tried to defuse the row, not inflame it.
Is it possible that Anna’s decided to retire for one reason and someone’s given it spin for another?
http://www.annalo.org/about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Lo
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/anna-lo-to-quit-politics-due-to-ongoing-racist-abuse-by-loyalists-30314364.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/peter-robinson-islam-row-doctors-may-quit-health-service-30315801.html
Stuart
” I have no idea. ”
I take it that your final sentence to me is indicative of this. Quite offensive actually.
@Richard Dean
That last article you link to states: “Mr Robinson sparked fury after he said he would not trust Muslims for spiritual advice.”
Previously, we have been told simply that Robinson said he did not trust Muslims.
Does anyone have a full version of the original comments? As I mentioned earlier, it seems to be an Irish News article that is hidden behind a paywall.
If the Belfast Telegraph’s version is correct, then you have to wonder what all the fuss is about. I wouldn’t trust any Muslim for spiritual advice either – and the same applies to Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians and Wiccans. So what?
@Helen Tedcastle
“Quite offensive actually.”
If you’re going to accuse me of being “offensive” I hope you’ll do me the courtesy of explaining why, since I don’t accept that I was and cannot imagine why you should conclude that.
Here is a more complete version of Robinson’s original comments – and a video of Pastor McConnell in action :-
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/peter-robinson-i-wouldnt-trust-muslims-devoted-to-sharia-law-but-i-would-trust-them-to-go-down-to-the-shops-for-me-30313447.html
@ Joe Bourke
During the period of the troubles, anti-Irish sentiment was more prevalent than anti-Catholicism but anti-Catholicism was still there. People might answer a survey and say ‘they don’t care’ about it but it didn’t and still doesn’t stop them from making anti-Catholic remarks. I have read and heard them myself on social media and in conversations.
I don’t doubt that some people are motivated genuinely by your concerns simply to rid the country of extremism but others are not. Hence, the killing of an innocent Muslim pensioner in Birmingham last year by a young man motivated by hatred of Muslims, the fire-bombing of mosques, name-calling, pulling off of the veil of young women by youths. In some peoples’ minds, violence is conflated with Islam and difference frightens people.
Sadly, this has gone on for a thousand years. In fact, you mention intolerant Ottoman Sultans and Shaikhs. In fact, there is evidence of great tolerance toward other faiths in the Ottoman empire and in earlier Islam. However, there is violence towards Muslims documented from the Crusades and on into tolerant, Moorish/Muslim Spain.
I don’t doubt that hardline versions of Islam and extreme ideologies have to be rooted out but not everyone is able to distinguish between the hardliners and the moderates. As far as they are concerned, they are one and the same. It’s old-fashioned prejudice and fear of the other.
@Stuart
That sermon sounds just as bad as the sermons of Islamic radicals against Christianity. Are there not laws against inciting racial hatred that can be applied in this case?
Turning this into a campaign to get Anna to change her mind about retiring doesn’t seem a good way forward. Recognizing the actual problem and dealing with it does.
racial hatred –> religious hatred
@ Stuart
I asked whether you could provide evidence to support the idea that violence is in accordance with Islam, to which you replied you had no idea but asked whether a good place to start would be the Qur’an, the sacred text of Muslims.
Perhaps it was just the way it was written but it came across to me as if you were implying it was a violent text. If you didn’t mean or imply that, okay but it is a common misapprehension in some quarters.
@Richard Dean
“Turning this into a campaign to get Anna to change her mind about retiring doesn’t seem a good way forward.”
I’m inclined to agree with that. Anna is clearly an admirable woman and it’s great that people want to show solidarity with her, but I don’t think it’s anybody’s place to persuade her to change her mind. She’s endured 40 years of this kind of thing, and if she’s now had enough and wants a quiet life, good luck to her. She’s done more than her bit. I just hope there’s some young person somewhere with the fortitude to replace her.
@ Richard Dean
” racial hatred –> religious hatred”
They are not the same thing as Muslims are not a race. If you look carefully at the words of the Preacher, he is using Sixteenth century hellfire language of biblical literalism, to denounce another religion of spiritual and religious grounds.
It is a fundamentalist message of intolerance.
However, Peter Robinson conflates that message with racism. Mistakenly, he assumes Muslims are a race. They are not a race because many different racial groups can be Muslims, even white people eg: in the Balkans, Bulgaria and white converts in the UK.
At heart both religious intolerance and racial prejudice are based on fear of the other and lack of knowledge or understanding of the other.
I noticed Anna Lo, in an interview on Channel Four, called Muslims a race. She is leaving because of racism towards her. She is right that Robinson shows a great deal of prejudice towards Muslims but he too mistakes them for a race.
In reality, lots of complex issues are being conflated here in support of intolerance and misunderstanding in general.
@Helen
My original comment was brief in the belief that it is polite not to burden others with the task of reading a lot of verbiage when something short might do. It seems that I was too short, so I’ll expand my comment. Here is the expanded version
Many apologies. I meant to write “religious hatred” instead of “racial hatred”. If anyone
is moderating this discussion, it would be nice if you could just edit my contribution to
change racial into religious. Failing that, if anyone reads my comment, please change the
word “racial” to the word “religious”. Thanks in advance.
Although, of course, many people don’t quite understand the difference between the two.
Reading the responses to this thread, I really wish I hadn’t brought up the issue of sending support to a victim of racism and by extension opposing religious bigotry. Thanks to the people who saw my point.
@Stuart
fair point – I hadn’t read the source martial either. You’re probably right.
@Daniel Henry
I think we’ve all been taken in – Robinson has been misquoted widely. His comments were clumsy and foolish but not really offensive.
Pastor McConnell, on the other hand, is right off the scale of offensiveness. In his case, actually seeing and hearing him in action is worse than the quotes suggest.
John Tilley
“One law for the DUP leader another law for the Sinn Fein President?”
Would this be the same Sinn Fein President that once said – after the IRA had murdered the baby daughter of a british serviceman – the families of british servicemen were legitimate targets for the IRA. Also Adams recent arrest was part of a murder investigation which is rather more serious than racial abuse – no matter how nasty it is.
Ian,
you say ” I really wish I hadn’t brought up the issue of sending support to a victim of racism and by extension opposing religious bigotry.”
Anna Lo, to her great credit, has been fighting this most of her life, Regrettably, despite all her efforts and those like her, it remains the case that inter-marriage across the religious divide remains something of a taboo in Northern Ireland with many couples facing ostracism within their communities and having to leave the province to make a new life elsewhere.
That is a sad indictment of Northern Ireland society and the persistent sectarian divisions that continue to this day.
Your article goes on to suggest that Ill-advised comments by N. Ireland’s First Minister concerning the muslim community has tipped Ana over the edge and suggest that we should persuade her to change her mind.
Unfortunately, wherever Ana goes she is likely to run into condemnations of Islamism – some as noted above justified, much unwarranted bigotry.
Today, the UK prime minister, David Cameron has quite rightly joined international calls for the absurd and barbaric death sentence on a Christian Sudanese woman for the alleged crime of apostasy to be reversed http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-denounces-barbaric-sudan-death-sentence-9464882.html.
As Helen Tedcastle comments above “hardline versions of Islam and extreme ideologies have to be rooted out but not everyone is able to distinguish between the hardliners and the moderates.” Ensuring this distinction is made is the challenge we have to deal with in N. Ireland and the UK as a whole.
Helen Tedcastle
I asked whether you could provide evidence to support the idea that violence is in accordance with Islam, to which you replied you had no idea but asked whether a good place to start would be the Qur’an, the sacred text of Muslims.
I have read the Qur’an, at least in English translation, and unfortunately there IS a fair amount of it which comes across as violent and intolerant. There are other parts which are not, but on balance after reading it I felt dispirited and less willing to take the line you’re trying to push than before.
I do very much appreciate that there were times in history when Islam showed tolerance and Christianity did not, and you have drawn our attention to that. So I’m happy to agree that neither religion can be said absolutely to be more violent and intolerant than the other. Nevertheless, when one looks at what is happening in the Muslim world at the moment, with the fleeing of ancient Christian communities from so much of it, right now I’d say there’s a BIG problem, and it’s hypocritical of Muslims to demand tolerance here and yet keep quiet about their co-religionists in so many other parts of the world.
Stuart
She’s endured 40 years of this kind of thing, and if she’s now had enough and wants a quiet life, good luck to her.
I don’t blame her. It must be pretty horrible trying to be the force of moderation there, with the additional race issue.
Maybe like me she had the hope that the Good Friday Agreement would eventually lead to the people of Northern Ireland saying to the violent and extremist groups “Thanks for stopping it, a period of silence on your part now would be greatly appreciated” and they’d fade away. As the recent elections have shown, that has not happened, instead these groups continue to get the backing of a huge proportion of the Northern Irish people.
As my previous comments may have suggested, I am disgusted with my co-religionists there, and I feel I have a duty to condemn them. I used to take great comfort from the fact that most did not back the pro-violence party, but it’s a long time since that was true. Voting for Sinn Fein is sending out the message that violence works, bombing your way to the top and pushing out the moderates is the path to a good political career. My feeling is that if Sinn Fein and the IRA had not done what they did, Orange Unionism would have died out as it has died out in other places in the UK where it was once powerful, so THEY, SF/IRA are the biggest forces responsible for the continuing division and hatred in Ireland. The current SF leaders have condemned not a jot of what the IRA did in the past, and continue to regard it as heroic, while expecting apologies from everyone else. That is why, in my opinion, to vote for them even today is to give support for that violence, and the guilt for that violence even now should fall on the head of EVERY person who casts a vote for them. It is completely and utterly against what Jesus Christ said we should do.
Please also take my remarks about Muslims who stay silent at abuse done elsewhere by their co-religionists in this light. Also, I am fully aware that SF and IRA never claim or claimed to have any attachment to religion and never used religious language, it just happened that they were nearly all of one religious background, and many of them outwardly practised that religion, though how they fitted that in with their conscience I do not know.
@Matthew, the bible has plenty of horrific violence in it, as well, so I feel that point does not stand on its own, unless you are saying that the bible means that violence is in accordance with Christianity. On your point about free speech, if he does have the right to say this, then we have the right to completely lambaste him for it – and the fact he probably believes this about ‘all’ other religions is not a defence, it makes his words only yet more repugnant. In relation to your final point about the hypocritical nature of certain Muslims, well, not to pull a reductio ad absurdum (as I have no doubt there are many hypocritical Muslims out there), but if one says we should not tolerance Muslims because they hypocritically call for tolerance, when being/accepting intolerance against others, then one has basically said their viewpoint is correct and we should call for tolerance, whilst being intolerant ourselves – not a very Christian mindset, I think.
@Helen, much of what you say, I agree with; however, one must accept that much religious intolerance is intrinsically linked to racial intolerance. When a EDL member thinks of a Muslim, a blond, white, English person is not what comes to his (her) mind. This is because intolerance comes from perceptions and most religions are perceived in a certain way, as are most racial/ethnic groups. While I was growing up in Taiwan, people could not believe that that a white, British person was not Christian, all white people (especially British people) are Christian.
@Ian Butler
What does it mean “Please show her that she is not alone”. There’s no link to any website in your article, no mention of the march today (Saturday), and no mention of the complexities of this march and the probable fact that people need to be rather careful and aware of complexities when supporting sides in NI.
@Liberal Al: Yes, the bible does contain a lot of horrific violence, that is why people like the Westboro Baptist Church are able to claim that they are “true” christians. The koran is the same, it is wide open to interpretation and both the moderates and the fundamentalists can claim that they are the “true” moslems. Being able to be interpreted like this means that no one can ever really know who are the “true” followers of any religion so condemnation/praise of any faction is wrong. We can only condemn the actions of people.
As for the point about free speech, yes, this minister does have the right to free speech. Unless he calls for or incites violence towards others then his speech, however offensive it may be, should always remain legal and yes, we do also have the right to take him to task for his speech. The answer to offensive speech is never to close down that speech but to argue against it and prove the speech wrong.
@Matthew
“I have read the Qur’an, at least in English translation, and unfortunately there IS a fair amount of it which comes across as violent and intolerant.”
That is indisputably true. Anyone who thinks it isn’t should start with 9:5, 9:73 and 9:123.
However, we have arrived at a situation where it is very difficult to even discuss these matters without being condemned – even on a liberal forum. Yesterday I hinted very obliquely at it and was immediately denounced as “offensive” by Helen.
I find this situation entirely lamentable – not least because it doesn’t help the cause of advancing moderation and tolerance. We can’t pretend these teachings don’t exist; we need to confront them and point out that the vast majority of Muslims live moral and peaceful lives if we’re to isolate the extremists.
There has been a great liberal tradition of holding organised religion to account, going back to Hume, Voltaire and beyond. So long as this was directed almost entirely at Christianity, liberals everywhere approved. Liberals applauded when Bertrand Russell wrote “Why I Am Not A Christian”, when Gay News and Monty Python upset the likes of Mary Whitehouse, and when Richard Dawkins used the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to tell the nation’s kids that the Bible was a lot of nonsense. All these things were welcomed as legitimate attacks on ancient, monolithic and illiberal ways of thinking.
Criticism of Islam is greeted with much less enthusiasm – or often, outright hostility. In the wake of the “war on terror”, increasing numbers of people have sought to conflate criticism of Islam with racism. This has been very successful, and it’s not difficult to see why – many critics of Islam are blatantly racist and have used Islam as a means of attacking minorities and encouraging hatred and intolerance.
This leaves the old-fashioned “liberal who doesn’t like religiously-inspired illiberalism” in a quandary. Sure, he can still attack Chrsitianity pretty much as before, but voicing any criticism of Islam at all, however mild, qualified and justified, is like walking on eggshells.
Matthew Huntbach
” There are other parts which are not, but on balance after reading it I felt dispirited and less willing to take the line you’re trying to push than before.”
There are parts of the Qur’an, like the Bible, which are violent or are about violence, that is the case. However, Stuart was asking about whether using violence was ‘in accordance’ with Islam, which I took to mean agreeable with Islam.
Again, there is nuance needed. How Muslims read the Qur’an is different to how those outside the faith will read it. As with literature, there are layers of meanings and interpretations which go into depth about each verse and it’s spiritual and religious meaning. For Sufis for example, there are three progressive layers of meaning, the ‘lowest’ or first being the literal meaning, the highest the mystical meaning.
Also one has to bear in mind that the Qur’an is consulted along with further traditions of the Prophet ( Hadith) and sayings and example of Muhammad (Sunnah), again interpreted according to Islamic schools.
No Muslim would simply read the Qur’an without consulting all these other elements – preachers, scholars and schools are important to interpretation.
This is where one can distinguish between a Salafist reading and interpretation of the Qur’an (fundamentalist-literalist) and a Sufi reading ( spiritual-mystical). We have a problem with the fundamentalists not the Sufis.
@Graham, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me, or trying to refute a point that I was not trying to make, so I was just clarify my position to avoid any confusion:
– I know bibles (there are so many of them, most very poorly translated) and other religious texts are open to interpretation, but that sort of goes to the heart of my point; Matthew seems to be suggesting that because the Qur’an contains passages with violence, it is by definition a violence religion. However, if it is a violent and intolerant religion for this reason, then Christianity would have to be defined as a violent and intolerant religion, as well. Matthew can interpret the Qur’an (and by extension Islamic religions) in that way, if he wishes, but if he does, then he needs to hold the bible (and by extension Christian religions) to the same level of accountability. Something tells me that Matthew would not consider Christian religions violent and intolerant for this reason, which means that this point cannot on its own lead to Muslim religions being defined as violent and intolerant. (So to confirm, I am not saying that the violent and intolerant in the bible makes Christian religions violent and intolerant, I am merely pointing out a discrepancy in Matthew’s position.)
As for the second point, well, I think that is basically what I said, only a sentence or two longer, with some points about the law thrown in (which, ironically, I have very little to say on, despite (or maybe due to) training to be a human rights barrister).
Liberal Al:
” When a EDL member thinks of a Muslim, a blond, white, English person is not what comes to his (her) mind.”
You’re right and this is why the debate is rather simplistic in this country. People don’t realise that there is a trend of disaffected white British youth, often with non-religious/secular backgrounds, to convert to Salafism.
There was a documentary on this on Channel Four about a white middle class British man converting to this version of Islam: ‘My Brother, the Islamist:’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/my-brother-the-islamist-richard-darts-extremist-beliefs-laid-bare-in-tv-documentary-8587897.html
So when the EDL and other conflate race and religion, it’s because perhaps they cannot believe that Islam contains white people – but it does.
@Liberal Al
“Matthew seems to be suggesting that because the Qur’an contains passages with violence, it is by definition a violence religion. However, if it is a violent and intolerant religion for this reason, then Christianity would have to be defined as a violent and intolerant religion, as well.”
No, you are completely missing the point. The issue is not whether the Bible and/or the Koran contain “passages with violence”. Probably 95% of the books on my shelf contain “passages with violence” but I don’t consider the authors to be promoting violence and intolerance.
@Stuart, well, I was responding to Matthew, but even if I am to respond to this specific point you have now raised, my point still stands because the bible both contains and ‘can be interpreted to promote’ violence! Whether you personally consider the bible to promote violence is a completely moot point because the bible can still be interpreted to promote violence.
It is, therefore, disingenuous to use the point about the Qur’an containing and being interpretable to promote violence as a point to prove that Islamic religions are violent and intolerant (promoting such positions) , unless you hold Christian religions and their bibles to the same level of accountability.
Liberal Al
In relation to your final point about the hypocritical nature of certain Muslims, well, not to pull a reductio ad absurdum (as I have no doubt there are many hypocritical Muslims out there), but if one says we should not tolerance Muslims because they hypocritically call for tolerance, when being/accepting intolerance against others,
No, that is not at all what I am saying. Being critical of people for hypocritical behaviour is not the same as not tolerating them. I would hope that in a free society we can accept people expressing a wide variety of viewpoints, and be tolerant of them doing so – but to me that tolerance also means we should be free to be critical of them. I am not, as you seem to be suggesting, making a blanket criticism of all Muslims here either. I am pointing out a tendency which seems at present to be string, that’s not the same as saying every single Muslim is like that.
Liberal Al
Matthew seems to be suggesting that because the Qur’an contains passages with violence, it is by definition a violence religion.
Again, this is a complete misinterpretation of what I was saying.
if he wishes, but if he does, then he needs to hold the bible (and by extension Christian religions) to the same level of accountability
But I am not a Protestant.
Look, I don’t want to go into long theological arguments here, but your argument starts with the assumption that Christianity means starting with the Bible and inventing a religion on that basis. It doesn’t, that’s a simplistic view associated only with certain forms of Protestantism.
There were in fact long arguments about the point you are making here in the earliest days of Christianity, starting with Jesus himself. The idea that Christianity is about taking random bits from the Bible and inventing a religion from it is contradicted in the Bible itself.
Helen Tedcastle
No Muslim would simply read the Qur’an without consulting all these other elements – preachers, scholars and schools are important to interpretation.
Yes, that and everything else you said in that reply was actually the point I was making, it was certainly not what “Liberal Al” accused me of. As I said, if you go back in history you find a time when Islam was far more tolerant than Christianity. However, I do think the streak of Islam which rejects the sort of scholarly overview and over-concentrates on certain passages which advocate intolerance, and on a crude mechanistic approach to religion, is becoming far too dominant, and that concerns me greatly. I’m just as concerned at that streak in Christianity. Part of the reason I’ve become reconciled to the Catholic Church is a growing realisation that without some over-arching authority it does seem to be the case that loud-mouthed literalists seem to be able to dominate and push everyone else out. Islam lacks such an authority.
My particular concern is that because we want to be seen to be tolerant towards a religion most of whose adherents in this country are of recent immigrant origin, and because we don’t want to be accused of being “racist”, we are just too ready to want to paint every aspect of it in a good light and to feel that any criticism of it is bad, and thus to turn a blind eye to the growth of nasty streaks in it which has been happening recently – as I said, NOT in accord with how it was historically.
Liberal Al
Something tells me that Matthew would not consider Christian religions violent and intolerant for this reason,
Again, you are completely wrong. I very much DO acknowledge the violence and intolerance that was done in the name of Christianity in the past, and I have mentioned that it this thread. What interests me is how that violence and intolerance was thrown away – it took a long time, and it took patient reformers. I think Islam is in a desperate need for such reformers now, for powerful people who will stand up and build a better and more spiritual version of it. I don’t think it helps if we adopt a patronising attitude to it where we treat it as beyond criticism. Legitimate criticism of wrong things done in the name of Christianity did act as a spur to those reformers.
@Matthew, whilst this is an interesting conversation, I feel it is getting off topic, so I will keep my response brief (ish) as I would not wish to undermine an article on an important issue.
In relation to intolerance point, if that is what you meant, then fair enough.
In relation to your next point, when I wrote my point, I knew you are a Catholic. It may also help if you do not assume that I assumed anything, I went to a Catholic school which took its ‘Catholic responsibilities very seriously’. However, as I actually do not know what you are getting with the protestant bit anyway because you seem to saying my point back to me as if it was not my point, I will leave that there.
Fundamentally, what I was getting at is that, basically, you cannot define a religion by JUST reading a book (even an atheist, such as myself, accepts that). I made this point because you seemed to be claiming that the violence and intolerance in the Qur’an is the evidence Helen wanted to you to provide to show that violence and intolerance is in accordance with Islam. The way I made this point is by showing that if we use the bible in the same you were using the Qur’an, then we would get same result for Christianity that you got for Islam. I did this because you are Catholic and therefore would know that this result would not be a fair interpretation of any form of Christianity (I use Christianity because it is umbrella of religions, as is Islam, but I had faith your knowledge as a Catholic would be enough for you to get the message). I was hoping that once you viewed your comments in this reflective way, you would see that just as it is unfair to view Christianity in this way, it would also be unfair to view Islam in such a way.
“Something tells me that Matthew would not consider Christian religions violent and intolerant FOR THIS REASON,
Again, you are completely wrong. I very much DO acknowledge the violence and intolerance that was done in the name of Christianity in the past, ”
As for this final point – the last three words again.
@Matthew Huntbach: What interests me is how that violence and intolerance was thrown away – it took a long time, and it took patient reformers. I think Islam is in a desperate need for such reformers now, for powerful people who will stand up and build a better and more spiritual version of it.
But that’s not actually how ‘reforms’ have taken place. Rather, there’s a social change, outside of religion, pushed largely by people who don’t care about a religious establishment (or are actively hostile to it), against which the conservative faction kicks and screams for decades (sometimes centuries) until it’s quite clear that their opposition is useless, at which point, after finessing away the social-religious contradictions for some time, they turn around and (via selective and misleading quotation) pretend that they’d always been in favour of the social change from the beginning.
In other words, the changes don’t start inside the religious organisations. They start outside, and the religious establishments play catch-up. And it’s the traditional formulations of intolerance, in prayer and ritual, which are always the last to go.
@Liberal Al
“you cannot define a religion by JUST reading a book (even an atheist, such as myself, accepts that). I made this point because you seemed to be claiming that the violence and intolerance in the Qur’an is the evidence Helen wanted to you to provide to show that violence and intolerance is in accordance with Islam. The way I made this point is by showing that if we use the bible in the same you were using the Qur’an, then we would get same result for Christianity that you got for Islam.”
The trouble with this – and I think we’ve had this discussion before – is that your comparison is false. Muslims believe that the Qu’ran is the literal, unalterable, and inviolable word of God. It was literally written by God. Christians, by and large, do not believe the same of the Bible. You are not comparing like with like.
As a Party we should make Anna welcome, approval for PPC and then invited to apply for selection anywhere in the UK, we need more good women.
@Stuart Mitchell, I think you should read Helen’s comment which is actually a far better response than I could give:
“How Muslims read the Qur’an is different to how those outside the faith will read it. As with literature, there are layers of meanings and interpretations which go into depth about each verse and it’s spiritual and religious meaning. For Sufis for example, there are three progressive layers of meaning, the ‘lowest’ or first being the literal meaning, the highest the mystical meaning.
Also one has to bear in mind that the Qur’an is consulted along with further traditions of the Prophet ( Hadith) and sayings and example of Muhammad (Sunnah), again interpreted according to Islamic schools.
No Muslim would simply read the Qur’an without consulting all these other elements – preachers, scholars and schools are important to interpretation.
This is where one can distinguish between a Salafist reading and interpretation of the Qur’an (fundamentalist-literalist) and a Sufi reading ( spiritual-mystical). We have a problem with the fundamentalists not the Sufis.”
@Helen, sorry, missed your comment. In relation to your comments about white, male atheists being converted to Islam; well, I do not really know enough about such a supposed issue to comment (and due to my own prejudice against news organisations, I am not sure I trust using Channel as the source to find out about it), but in relation to your other point about the overly simplistic way the debate can framed in the UK at times, well, I do agree with you on that point. It is all too often framed in a far too simplistic way with a small, loud and often stereotyped, but generally unrepresentative cross-section of Muslims being dubbed ‘community leaders’ and the ‘voice of the Islamic community’ by large sections of society (something which is done because it is convenient, but that is also unhelpful and only serves to fuel stereotypes and prejudice, which then leads back to your point about the lack of awareness of White Muslims). However, I do also believe that it may not serve the debate any better to over simplify it the other way by completely splitting the racial issues inherently linked to religious prejudice from the religious issues.
This is for two reasons:
1= Much religious intolerance is actually racial intolerance, but because it is easier to attack religious groups than it is to attack racial groups (at times), religious intolerance is used as a mask to cover the underlying, real issue.
2= If you do these two issues, which are often heavily intertwined, then you cannot properly deal with all the issues involved. As such, you end up with the problem we are now seeing in China, where a minority ethnic group actually wishes for self-determination and acceptance from society and is using its religion as a way to rally parts of its ‘community’. However, the Chinese authorities seem to be ignoring the ethnic issues involved. I suspect this is because it is much easier and more convenient to focus on just the religious issues as then you can isolate the issues as ‘just a problem with that religion’, as opposed to having to accept that their may be a wider social issue in the way the Chinese authorities are treating minority groups. The problem is that this means the ethnic tenses are being ignored meaning they are only getting worse and this is being exacerbated further because it is then creating further religious tensions and issues, where none needed to exist. I know China is very different to the UK, but I think we do need to remain mindful of these issues as currently both ways are oversimplifying what we both know is a very complex issue.
@Liberal Al
There’s nothing you’ve quoted there that addresses my point at all.
I’m aware of the fact that Muslims also look to the Hadith and Sunnah for inspiration, but this is not always an improvement on the Qu’ran. For instance, the judge who sentenced Meriam Ibrahim to death believed he was following an instruction in the Hadith. The Qu’ran specifies no such punishment for apostasy. Other Muslims would argue that the part of the Hadith in question is invalid because its based on a single witness account. With all these layers of complexity, it’s no wonder that different people come to different conclusions.
When you get right down to it, it’s this need for interpretation that is the real problem here. If Islam’s sacred texts and traditions were unambiguously peaceful, there would be nothing to interpret. The fact that interpretation is clearly necessary to sort out all the conflicting messages puts us at the mercy of human nature. Hence you’ll have wicked scholars stressing the pro-violence bits while others stress the peaceful bits. This has been going on for centuries and will go on for centuries more, and it’s the reason why I’ve always felt that organised religion is one of the single worst ideas anybody ever had. (And yes, since this is of importance to you, everything I’ve just said applies 100% equally to Christianity and the Bible.)
Stuart Mitchell
The trouble with this – and I think we’ve had this discussion before – is that your comparison is false. Muslims believe that the Qu’ran is the literal, unalterable, and inviolable word of God. It was literally written by God. Christians, by and large, do not believe the same of the Bible.
That, but also that the Protestant position on the Bible tends to be closer to this than the Catholic position, particularly with the demise of much of old fashioned liberal Protestantism and the rise of various forms of evangelical Protestantism most of which take a “fundamentalist” approach, a word I don’t like, because it actually means an obsession with incidental aspects while ignoring the real fundamentals.
Part of the problem here is that religious education in this country tends to be “this is what Christians are like” and “this is what Muslims are like” and so on, and does not admit to the idea that there are different forms of these and other religions, and that many of the big religious issues are cross-cutting the religions. Plus also, our country IS a Protestant country historically, thus even people who have no religious background tend to pick up Protestant assumptions about religion without realising it.
The point I was making as that the ideas that Christianity starts with the Bible and builds a religion around it, which was “Liberal Al’s” assumption, is actually the Protestant religious approach, it is not the Catholic one. Now this is a very simplistic line, but if Liberal Al doesn’t even appreciate that line, he’s really not in a position to take things forward to a deeper discussion on these issues.
“The point I was making as that the ideas that Christianity starts with the Bible and builds a religion around it, which was “Liberal Al’s” assumption, is actually the Protestant religious approach, it is not the Catholic one. Now this is a very simplistic line, but if Liberal Al doesn’t even appreciate that line, he’s really not in a position to take things forward to a deeper discussion on these issues.”
Matthew, I have always had much respect for you, even when I disagree with you (which is not actually that often), but that respect has been greatly weakened by this comment.
If you feel that my knowledge is not as great as yours, then teach me, rather insult me. If you feel I am wrong, explain why so to, instead of speaking against me.
This comment was proved little (well, other than the fact that you do not know much about me as a person, or my experiences), but damaged much.
It is hard for a discussion to progress and for knowledge to be shared, Matthew, if you are more bothered about telling me how much smarter you are than me and ensuring I am put in my place.
Still, if that is how you wish to speak about me, there is not much I can do about it, it is just a shame, as I always respected you and I guess I dislike being wrong about someone.
Liberal Al
If you feel that my knowledge is not as great as yours, then teach me, rather insult me. If you feel I am wrong, explain why so to, instead of speaking against me.
I did not intend to insult you. The point I was making was that your comment about the Bible and Christianity had a strong assumption in it which is closely correlated to Protestantism. I am sure you did not intend this or even realise it. I think the reason why many people in this country who know very little about Christian theory and practice and history tend to make such assumptions – completely unconsciously – is partly to do with the history of this country, and partly to do with the powerful and well-funded presence of extremist evangelical groups, who generally have very loud mouths. I myself am VERY concerned about the way that bunch, who I detest and in some cases yes I would use the “S” word which is the 16th word in the original article about them, and the way they are coming to dominate the image of what it means to be “Christian”.
Look, I can’t (well, I could, but I have other things to do, and here is not the appropriate place to do it) write reams and reams of stuff on the Catholic interpretation of religion, on the Church fathers of the first few centuries AD, of how the canon of the Bible came about and so on. That is why I summarised it all very briefly – you were looking at it through a Protestant perspective, though I didn’t think you realised that.