The Archbishop of Canterbury expresses an unqualified hatred of Islam

In a BBC interview, shown on the Heaven and Earth Show, 05 March 2006, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of 76 million Anglicans, in perhaps his most telling interview of his real views on Islam, said "I hold no brief for Muslim extremism I think it's appalling, I think it is an insult to God and man."

This is quite some statement because, without qualifying what he perceives Muslim extremism to be, he has denounced it as an "insult to God and man", hence he is suggesting it is apostasy. When the Patriarch of the Anglican Church makes such statement it can not be easily dismissed. This defines his positions towards Islam: "moderate" Islam is acceptable and "extremist" Islam is not. Only it is not the Muslim communities defintion of extremism or moderation, it is his own Christian view that should be the bench mark of acceptable Islamic belief. In fact, concepts of extremism and moderation are rejected as intellectually bereft by Islamic jurists, as they are meaningless abstractions.

He was also quick to dismiss any suggestion that he was "soft of Muslim hotheads", stating that the Anglican Church was only "building bridges with moderate Muslim opinion", and even went so far as to ask the the rhetorical questions regarding Islam "how are we going to make a difference? Where do we apply the pressure that brings about change?" This is illuminating because it can leave no doubt that he perceives so-called "moderate Islam" as in need of reformation. Thus even if he does not consider "moderate Islam" an insult to God and man, he does consider it undesirable.

Hence, for all his talk of friendship, interfaith dialogue and tolerance, the Anglican Patriarch does not want to engage with Islam at all, he wants to "reform" it. Thus he wants to rid the World of Islam as an existential reality and remould it to fit the caprices of the Church of England. His aim to reform Islam or help Islam reform itself is the epitome of arrogance: firstly, he assume that there is need for Islam to reform and that such reformation would be welcomed. There are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the World and the corollary of what Rowan Williams is saying is that your religion is unacceptable and therefore needs to change to fit my superior Christian morality.

If there was any doubt as to his hostility towards Islam, he went on to suggest: "we British liberals, right thinking people, we look out and think that Islam is strong menacing and terrifying". He explained that this view was at contrast with how Muslims perceived themselves - which might be considered stating the obvious - and said Muslims perceive themselves as marginalized. he postulates that this is a cause for tension. One might have expected his criticism of Islam to be rational and theological, not couched in the language of blind Islamophobia, which he gives credence.

He was also unequivocal in his dismissal of the relevance the Mosque in British society, he suggested that even if Mosque attendance was to exceed Church attendance that the Mosque is not the the "religious institution of first resort". I do not wish to be disingenuous, so I will suppose that it is a given that he meant the Mosque would not be the "religious institution of first resort" for the non-Muslim community and he was not implying that it was not for British Muslims. Nevertheless, one is left wondering why he should suppose that the Church of England would remain the "religious institution of first resort" to non-Muslims, if they are not Anglicans. He appears to be suggesting that the Church of England remains the "religious institution of first resort" for non Church attending Anglicans, that is to say that it gives spiritual guidance. Why therefore does he suppose that this is not true of the Mosque?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams also when asked if the Holocaust was a hate crime said "yes I think it has to be at a moment when the president of Iran is able to say the things that he has said about Israel and seems, you know, to regard the Holocaust as an arguable matter words about the Holocaust are not neutral". However, he was prepared to describe the Muslim reaction in parts of the World to the cartoons demonizing the Prophet (saw) and the vilification of a religion and its adherents, as both "hysterical" and "violent" overreactions, he did not however describe this as a hate crime. It astounding that the Archbishop of Canterbury would so describe the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, yet fails to perceive the incarceration of Irving - for what is after all no more than disputing the factual veracity of certain claims made about a particular historical period - as a violent or hysterical overreaction.

One might have thought that a man of learning would favour the Socratic method and argue that questioning beliefs, particularly dogma, is a necessity of academic debate. Moreover, one might further consider that such a man would believe that criminalising disbelief, is to show more than antipathy for the view; it is also to persecute the disbeliever. Holocaust denial laws amount to State sanctioned hatred of the agnostic or blasphemer.

However, we may consider there to be a certain amount of truth in the Archbishop of Canterbury statement "words about the Holocaust are not neutral"; indeed it is hard to think of a more politicised episode in history. However this applies in equal merit to his own words; we might questions is motives for wishing to prevent the Holocaust from being subject to academic scrutiny: regardless of the sympathies that many Anglicans hold for the Palestinians, the Church of England officially endorses Zionism.