Sir, Gratuitous offence to religious sensibilities emanating from Denmark is nothing new (letters, Feb 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7). In the 1970s a Danish film- maker, Jens Thorsen, was intent on making a movie about the sex life of Jesus, which he intended to film in Britain.

I was newly ordained — aged only 22 — and it occurred to the chairman of the deanery synod that it would be good if I would agree to move an emergency motion at the synod calling for the Government to ban Jens Thorsen from entering the UK. I said I would think about it.

Protests were getting out of hand: a Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Danish Embassy. At the synod I argued against Christians seeking special protection in the face of insult and persecution, saying that Jens Thorsen presented an opportunity to put the clear teaching of Jesus and the New Testament into practice: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you (Matthew v: 44)”, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him . . . Do not let evil conquer you, but use good to conquer evil (Romans xii: 20-21)”.

It was reported in the local paper that I had voted against the motion and swayed others to do so, without reporting the reasons. An editorial vilified me, prompting hate mail. Members of the church where I was the new curate withdrew their financial support. The outrage of many respectable, religious people was white hot. Being at the wrong end of their anger made it one of the worst times of my life. It felt as if my ministry was blighted from the outset.

My sympathies in the present situation are with moderate Muslims who, in remaining calm and reasonable, will be despised by fanatics.

CANON GLYNN RICHERBY
St James the Greater Vicarage
Leicester

Sir, I cannot take issue with William Rees-Mogg’s contention that John Locke, the apostle of liberty, would never have defended these indefensible cartoons (Feb 6), but I can with Locke where he avers that it “is ridiculous for anyone to profess himself a Mohametan only in his religion but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, while at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor”.

Locke is aware that Islam does not recognise any distinction between sacred and profane authority, but is on less sure grounds about the degree of obedience expected either of the Sheikh al-Islam or an ordinary believer. It is even possible to argue that the reverse is the case, for it was the Sheikh al-Islam’s fatwas (legal rulings) that the Sultan relied on if he were to retain legitimacy, eg, he could not declare a war a jihad without the prior authority of a fatwa, which would only be issued once the Sheikh al-Islam was convinced that the war in question met all the conditions for a holy war, an assessment resting not on his private judgment but the canonical writings on the subject he would have to consult and the judicial authorities whose opinion he might need in interpreting these texts. In Islam the Caliph is a mere executive, whose function it is to execute, not interpret, the provisions of the law.

Nor is the obedience expected of either the appointed Sheikh or the individual unconditional. The principle of communal consensus (ijma‘) is a source of infallible truth because the Prophet said: “My nation shall never agree upon an error.”

There are two classes of ijma‘, the consensus of the jurists and the consensus of the believers; and, since the phrase “my nation” vests authority in the entire body of believers, in the case of conflict the latter overrides the former, which means that the oekumene, not the scholars, is the ultimate vehicle of authority. Ijma‘ can do everything but negate an unambiguous text of the Koran, which precludes anything homologous to papal infallibility.

It is in fact the form which democracy takes in Islam, rendering superfluous imported or imposed versions of the same concept.

DR YAQUB ZAKI
Deputy Director
The Muslim Institute
London W6

Explore Letters

• Feedback