Posted on 11/05/2006 6:13:11 AM PST by Heatseeker
A senior Anglican bishop has accused many Muslims of being guilty of double standards in their view of the world.
The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told the Sunday Times some had a "dual psychology" in which they sought "victimhood and domination".
The Muslim Council of Britain said the comments were "not very helpful".
The bishop, whose father converted from Islam, also said situations such as teaching could require Muslim women not to wear full-face veils.
Mr Nazir-Ali argued it would never be possible to satisfy all of the demands made by Muslims because "their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims... and always wrong when Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists".
He compared Bosnia and Kosovo, where he said Muslims were oppressed, with the powerful position of the Taleban in Afghanistan, who he said had been the oppressors.
He added: "Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made."
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the Sunday Times such remarks could affect "community relationships".
Veil debate
The bishop's comments on the use of full-face veils by Muslim women add to the debate sparked by Commons Leader Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, last month.
He disclosed that he asks Muslim women to remove the veil when they attend his Blackburn constituency surgeries.
Mr Straw also suggested that Muslim women who wear veils over their faces can make community relations harder.
In the Sunday Times, Mr Nazir-Ali referred to a "huge increase" in the wearing of Muslim dress in Egypt, Pakistan and Malaysia.
He said: "I can see nothing in Islam that prescribes the wearing of the full-face veil.
"In the supermarket those at the cash till need to be recognised. Teaching is another profession in which society requires recognition and identification."
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, entered the veil debate last month by saying people should be free to wear visible religious symbols.
He said aiming for a society where no symbols such as veils, crosses, sidelocks or turbans would be seen was "politically dangerous".
Actually it's a wonder they haven't killed him just because his father abandoned Islam for Christianity.
This Bish. is a good one - a rare breed in the C of E - an Evangelical.
Plus standing up for Christ and the truth.
He's right. Expect him to be criticized by the left and jihadists.
"Expect him to be criticized by the left and jihadists"
Expect some of them to try to kill him.
"He said: "I can see nothing in Islam that prescribes the wearing of the full-face veil."
The face is identity. The desire is to deny that identity, to reduce to a "persona" that relegates women to the status of object, something to be posessed and controlled. That identity is denied to the woman, and her individuality is denied to society.
From what I can tell, for Islam, heaven is conceived not as a place where you experience union and relationship with God and the other saints, the city of God, but a place where men dominate and possess and control objects of your desire, virgins and young boys in a walled garden.
I guess Islamic men are just practicing up for the afterlife.
This guy has a lot of guts. Hope it ends ok for him. I'm not hopeful.
Yup!
Why couldn't he have been Archbishop of Canterbury?
True - but I assumed Evangelical means that (I know it isn't always the case!).
He was second in the race. In truth Rowan was groomed for the position.
I really knew that, I was just whining. I had prayed so fervently he would be the choice, but I guess God has other plans for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.