A picture recently appeared on the Lambeth Palace Flickr account, showing The Most Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Right Reverend Sarah Mullally, (the only woman in the picture whose face is visible), handing an award for interfaith relations to the Muslim cleric Maulana Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi, chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Council. Ashrafi is sharing the award with his wife, who is wearing a niqab. The location is Lambeth Palace, the historic home of the Archbishops of Canterbury. 

The two main participants - Mullally and Ashrafi - are each symbols of their office and culture. The Archbishop is head of the worldwide Anglican communion, which includes the Episcopal Church. She is a living symbol of the English Church, the spiritual and cultural movement that traces its roots back to St. Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury in AD 597.

Mr Ashrafi, on the other hand, stands for Islam, a religion whose significant presence in England dates back to only the past forty years. He, his wife and daughter were invited to Lambeth Palace to receive the award. This was a special opportunity to celebrate the mutual co-operation between the two faiths. What could possibly go wrong?

Not long after the picture was posted online, it was taken down. Someone had objected to Ashrafi receiving the award. It turns out that the Muslim cleric had made a number of statements in the past that were problematic. One of these was to praise the terrorists who had taken part in the pre-meditated rape, butchering and kidnapping of over 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023. The other occurred in 2007 when Ashrafi, while serving as Chairman of the Ulema Council, bestowed the title of saifullah, meaning “Sword of Allah,” on Osama Bin Laden, for “serving Muslims by waging jihad against infidels”.

What made matters worse was that the date on which Ashrafi received his award was the 25th anniversary of 9/11. When news of the award spread, a wave of anger arose from within the Church and outside of it. The National Secular Society criticized the honor as “obscene, and almost beyond parody.” One survivor of a British terror attack called the award “a grave misjudgment.” A number of prominent commentators called on the Archbishop to resign.

Both the Archbishop and the Imam were guilty, to a certain extent, of naïvety. Ashrafi wanted his wife (who was nameless as well as faceless) to share in the award. You can see her holding the piece of paper. Later, the Archbishop placed a medal around her neck. Mullally was not permitted to place it around the neck of the Imam, since under Islamic custom men are forbidden to have physical contact with other women.

Symbols have power and meaning. In this case, when two symbols - one of Christianity and one of Islam - come together, they create meanings neither of their representatives anticipated. These meanings completely overwhelmed the good intentions of the Archbishop, who apparently did not realize what she was doing. 

At her installation at St. Paul’s cathedral in January this year, Mullally pledged to speak out against misogyny, saying that “there are some that don't necessarily have the status or power of this role, and feel more hesitant to do it. I commit myself to making an environment where all people can flourish and which is safer for all.” Did those words flash across her mind as she placed the medal around the neck of the woman whose face was invisible, and whose husband’s practice of the Islamic faith denied his wife independence and autonomy?

At St. Paul’s cathedral the Archbishop also promised to provide “moral leadership.” Was it moral to reward someone with such repellent and odious views? At what point do you step back and say, “I’m sorry, but the very things you hold dear are anathema to me and my church?” One wonders if there was anyone in the Church of England aware of how damaging this whole event would turn out to be?

This story points to the danger of turning Christianity into a series of well-intentioned but ill-considered gestures. Rather than extolling the harmony of interfaith relations, as intended, the picture showed the head of the Church of England rewarding a man whose views are antithetical to the culture that honors him. In England, Islam is a society within a society. The senior clerics do not preach assimilation. On the contrary, their aim is to make England an Islamic country. By pandering to such people, Mullally has disregarded Christian probity in favor of religious relativism.

How did the Church arrive at this position? Commentator Niall Gooch believes the Church of England’s leadership “tends to reflect the culture and the priorities of the educated English middle class.” Interfaith work “easily becomes an adjunct to the essentially political projects favored by that class: multiculturalism, the DEI regime, and an insistently liberal approach to controversies around immigration and identity.” 

At the time of writing, the Archbishop remains in her post. The award has now been withdrawn. A painful lesson has been learnt, that when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. It is a three way disaster. The Archbishop has given offense to those who suffered through 9/11 and October 7. She has lost the respect and goodwill of the Church and the public, and has disrespected the Muslim leaders by rescinding the award.

At some point, the Church will understand that moral leadership matters more than symbolism, more than robes and titles. It means standing up for Christian culture and for the fruits of that culture: our western civilization and the freedoms that we enjoy, ones that are at variance with the religion it misguidedly seeks to honor. A jellyfish looks wonderful at sea, but not so much on land. On the shores of reality, the Church needs to grow a backbone. 

Father David

For those interested in reading more about this subject, I have written the article “Islam in Britain” here https://davidberesford.net/newsletter/islam-in-britain-85, and the Church’s response to the scandal of the Muslim rape gangs here https://davidberesford.net/newsletter/the-cost-of-moral-cowardice-46.