Author: regan

Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It is a true honour to be here. I have had the privilege of speaking from the pulpits of Britain’s oldest cathedrals and from the lecterns of the world’s greatest universities… But there is nothing quite like standing here at Muscat’s spectacular Grand Mosque, a place of deep spirituality and immense beauty. For me, this is something of a home from home – not only because it is a symbol of the faith I hold so dearly, Islam, but because its construction was partly down to a British company! And it is therefore the perfect backdrop for me to talk about religious tolerance. For Oman under His Majesty’s wise leadership is a symbol of that very co-existence we are all striving for. Proof that sectarianism is not inevitable – even when a religion is blighted by splits in a region that is constantly the focus of such tensions. Now I look forward to saying more about the lessons I think we can learn from your example later on in this speech. Ladies and gentlemen, I serve in the British government, in which I am the first ever Minister for Faith. In 2010, I became the first Muslim to serve as British Cabinet Minister. Alongside my responsibility for South Asia, Central Asia, and the United Nations….my remit covers faith at home and religious freedom abroad. In both cases, I have made religious freedom my personal priority: promoting and protecting people’s right to hold a faith, to manifest their faith, or indeed to change their faith. This is something which I believe is not only integral to personal identity but also leads to fairer, more secure and more progressive communities. My own faith – Islam – has been shaped by my upbringing, coloured by the country I was born in, shaped by my experiences as a lawyer, a campaigner and a politician and my personal experience as a daughter, a wife and a mother. In my country, for a politician to talk honestly and openly about faith, especially one’s own faith, is not particularly fashionable. As Tony Blair’s advisor famously said “ we don’t do God.”. But back in 2010, when we came to government, the first major speech that I made was to state that we would “do God”. What I meant when I said that was that the way in which faith was being sidelined and marginalised was wrong, and that it had to change. That faith should be an important informer of public debate and that the role of faith charities, voluntary organisations and individuals motivated by faith to serve their societies would be supported. I said that we would tackle head on, the tough issues like the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. In the UK I felt the bigotry of Islamophobia had increased, so much so that sentiment against Muslims had become acceptable even in the most civilised of settings. I felt that it was time for government to respond. I’m delighted that this government has done so, including through working with partners such as the OIC. I said that we would reach out to new faith communities as well as revive and restore some of our oldest relationships. In 2012 I had the privilege to lead the largest ever British ministerial delegation to the Vatican, where I argued that Europe should be stronger in its Christian identity. Why? Because minorities are most welcomed and accepted in places where they are sure of their own identity, and that militant secularism creeping across our continent was alienating minorities rather than welcoming them. I said that we would not shirk from our responsibility as a staunch defender of religious freedom. And it was right that last year, when I spoke at Georgetown University in Washington, I warned about religious persecution, especially against Christian minorities in parts of the Middle East. That is a tragic global crisis and it demands an international response. These are difficult and complex subjects, which have the potential to arouse passionate and emotional responses. But I hope my approach is from a position of hopefulness and optimism for the future. I also feel it is a responsibility – a responsibility to use my privileged position in politics to highlight injustice and encourage tolerance. I am a proud Muslim. I am patriotically British – indeed, one who is at her proudest when standing here in a part British-built mosque. Despite the oft asked unanswerable question as to which I am first – whether I am Muslim first or British first – I see no conflict in these parts of my identity. My patriotism and my faithfulness are both strong, positive forces which drive me. But today ladies and gentlemen I want to focus on an aspect of my identity that I have rarely mentioned publicly: my Sunni-Shia upbringing. The diversity of my religious teaching and the inquisitive approach to religion that was encouraged in our home. As a child Ashura was as much as part of my life as regular attendance at a Deobandi mosque. In the past I have argued that faith forms the fault lines of modern conflict, something which has come into stark relief in recent years. But these cracks are as present – and often deeper – within faiths as they are between them. This infighting is rarely confronted; but it is something which, I feel, poses a great danger to faith and to our world. Today I want to speak from a very personal perspective, in relation to my personal faith, Islam, and argue that hostile and violent sectarianism is not just un-Islamic: it is anti-Islamic. It has no roots in the practice of our faith – indeed, I believe it is condemned in the founding tenets. It is tragically the cause of tension, turmoil and terrorism. It should have no place in our world today, and is something we all have a duty to condemn and tackle. Now of course, sects, denominations, factions – in religions as in life – are nothing new. Cliques and rivalries are part of human nature. I should know that – I work in politics! But whilst people have always defined themselves by a whole series of characteristics – I describe myself as British, as working class, as Muslim, as a mum – today, sadly, one’s sect is becoming the dominant identifier. With the faithful not only increasingly identifying themselves by sect, but also defining themselves in comparison and in superiority to others. The hatred that can exist between sects – between people who follow the same God and share the same holy book – disturbs and saddens me. And even in Britain we are not immune from this. With division being preached by some, and belittling another’s faith or denomination being used as a way of reaffirming one’s own faith. Often the strongest condemnation seems to be reserved for your brother or sister in faith. The fact that their version of their faith does not replicate yours is no longer seen as an inevitable, healthy difference of opinion, but is seen as an insurmountable difference – to the point where sectarian difference is used as a way of justifying acts of religious extremism. Around the world such violence is reaching an all-time high. In Iraq, according to the UN, at the height of the sectarian conflict, more than 50,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of terrorist violence. More than 8,000 Iraqis died in such violence last year alone. In Pakistan, in the past two years, more than 1000 people have died in sectarian violence. Sectarian violence continues to blight in Lebanon. It takes place in Somalia, between al Shabaab and its opponents, and in Yemen, with the targeting of Shia Houthi Muslims. Now I accept that not all of these deaths were necessarily motivated by sectarianism alone. Some attacks were simply an attempt by terrorists to destabilise a community or a country. But the fact that terrorists use sectarianism as a basis for their actions shows how deep and dangerous this problem has become. It reflects an attitude that underpins a worldview that states you are only acceptable if you follow my version of my faith. This Takfiri worldview, which rejects the longstanding Islamic tradition of ikhtilaf – of difference – is deeply worrying to me, where the faithful appear far more concerned with others’ faithfulness than with their own. I’ve been a victim of this judgementalism myself; a few years ago attacked on the streets of Britain by a gang who accused me of not being a ‘proper Muslim’. They didn’t approve of my involvement in politics and they didn’t approve of me appearing in public with my face uncovered. They reduced my faith to a list of ‘don’ts’, defined only in the negative, defining their faith in terms of what they are against, rather than what they stand for. Stripping out the soulfulness and kindness of spirit that sits at the heart of Islam. I believe that this approach is at odds with the teachings of Islam, and leaves the faithful vulnerable to extremists who justify violence in the name of Allah. For I have always been taught that faith is at its strongest when people find their own way to the Almighty. And as Oman’s Religious Tolerance website so wisely states: “everyone must answer for himself before God”. But there’s a deeply disturbing political element to sectarianism when negative political forces exploit these differences. And this approach takes on an even more sinister tone when sect is equated with nationality or loyalty to a particular country. Where Shia Muslims in Sunni majority countries are seen as loyal to another country, and vice versa. I’ve spoken about this previously, in relation to the tensions between different faiths, such as when Christians are persecuted in Muslim-majority countries because they are seen as agents of the west, and where Muslims in the west are held responsible for the actions of their co-religionists in the east. Of course violent sectarianism isn’t peculiar to Islam. The United Kingdom knows all too well what happens when religious differences and divisions are used as a proxy for political problems. Over decades the divisions in the historic struggle in Northern Ireland were aligned with religious difference – that of Protestants and Catholics. Many lives were lost. The Troubles, and the scars remain. Indeed, the course of our history – in the UK but more so elsewhere in Europe – has been shaped by the bitter and historic clashes within Christianity. One only has to recall during the Crusades the cry of Christians against fellow Christians “kill them all, God will know his own.” Now Ladies and gentlemen, this is an incredibly complex problem. There are no easy solutions. But let me lay out an approach which I think we could start to tackle it. Let me go back to basics. The universal Islamic definition of what constitutes a believer in Islam is extremely simple: la ilaha illallah Muhammadur rasulullah: a belief in God and Muhammad as his Prophet (peace be upon him). There are no other stipulations or conditions at all for belief. Even at the time of the Prophet, there were differences of opinion between his Companions over his religious instructions that were interpreted in different ways, even over sacred duties such as prayers. The Prophet viewed those differences of opinions as healthy, as an inevitable diversity, and even as a blessing of, the faith. Therefore any notion of rejectionist sectarianism goes against the very foundation of the Muslim faith. Political and religious leaders must repeat this message, loudly and clearly, far and wide. We need to point to history to show violent sectarianism is not inevitable. We must look to times when different sects within Islam worked together and worshipped together. They must look to the fact that Imam Jafar, a key figure in Shia Islam, was actually a teacher of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa, founders of two of the most widely followed Sunni Schools of Thought throughout the world today. All of us, believers and leaders alike, must reclaim the true meaning of Islam, and focus on the things that unite us, rather than those that divide us. And in reclaiming the true meaning of Islam we must also reclaim the language of Islam, much of which has been distorted and usurped for political ends So let me start by restoring the concept of ‘ummah’. Ummah is, by its very nature, a definition of community, one that includes difference, not excludes it. The Prophet’s ‘Ummah’ in Medina was multi-faith and multi-ethnic. It was an Ummah of Conscience. And let’s not forget: the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is constantly referred to as “Rahmat lil Alameen” – mercy for the world. There could not be a more clear statement than that of the inclusive concept of ummah in Islam. So, we must reclaim the faith, and the language of the faith. But we must go beyond that. We must highlight great living examples that show how violent sectarianism is not inevitable. Oman is one such example. It is an oasis of tolerance in a desert of division – proving that, right in the geographical centre of a troubled region, different sects can and do live side by side. This is testament to His Majesty the Sultan’s wise leadership and the character of the Omani people. The warm encounters between Ibadhi and Shia Muslims at the Al Lawati Wall; the praying side-by-side of Sunni and Ibadhi Muslims in mosques like this one. The humility and openness seamlessly extended to other faiths; the welcome given to the new Christian church in Ruwi by the Omani authorities. These are principles on which Oman thrives and I couldn’t put it better than the Omani Ministry for Religious Affairs, when it states: “Bloodshed due to theological differences is shameful. Prayers in the mosques throughout the country are conducted with Sunnis and Shiites at the sides of the Ibadhis. The communal prayer to God knows no theological disputes. Everyone must answer for himself before God.” And I couldn’t think of greater symbolism of this than His Eminence, the Grand Mufti of Oman, an Ibadhi, conducting a wedding between a Shia bride and Sunni groom. So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen, those of us who have had the privilege of experiencing this social harmony must make the case for it, over and over again. To share, to provide, to demonstrate the benefits of such co-existence. To highlight the benefits of pluralism, and warn of the stifling impact of sectarianism. In previous speeches I have made the case that Islam – by it’s very nature – is moderate. Today, I hope I have made the case that violent sectarianism isn’t just unIslamic, it is anti-Islamic. It is at odds with Islam’s principles and perspective and it jeopardises the future of the faith. I want to thank my hosts for giving me the great privilege of allowing me to make this personal plea from yet another pulpit in the most soulful of surroundings. Thank you

INTRODUCTION I am delighted to be here to celebrate interfaith week and I am very grateful to Bishop Tony for inviting me. For many decades I have called not just for interfaith dialogue but for interfaith action. It’s no good the local vicar and local imam just sharing a cuppa and a samosa. Different faiths need to come together, work together and together make a difference to their communities. I believe that over the last few years we have seen a shift from interfaith dialogue to interfaith action. To encourage that, we have ensured our faith-based programmes in government are interfaith programmes. And they don’t just bring communities together for the sake of bringing them together; they bring them together to make a difference. Programmes like the Big Iftar… …which encourages mosques and community centres to open their doors and break their fast with different communities during Ramadan. Like Near Neighbours… …which gives grants to grassroots projects of many different faiths in the areas which need it most. And like the First World War Commonwealth Contribution programme …which shines a spotlight on those Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and others who fought and fell, side by side, a hundred years ago. I have often argued that the presence of another faith is not a threat to your own identity. It shows that you are unshakeable in your identity. Working alongside someone of a different faith doesn’t make you less of a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew. It actually makes you more of one. It’s something I believe we do very well in this country. And I think we can do it even better. DEFEATING BIGOTRY AT HOME I believe this sort of interfaith action is more important than ever. It is particularly crucial if we are to defeat the bigotry levelled at faith communities in this country. And even more vital if we are to stamp out the persecution suffered by religious minorities around our world. Let’s look first at Britain. I had an interesting interfaith week experience this week in the House of Lords. Lord Pearson of UKIP asked the basis for the Prime Minister’s statement that ‘there is nothing in Islam which justifies acts of terror’. What this question was implying, not very subtly, was that Islam does justify terrorism. But it wasn’t just Muslim colleagues who came to tell Lord Pearson how wrong he was. It was peers of all faiths. In fact, the most stinging attacks came from a man of Church, the Bishop of Birmingham, and a peer of Jewish background, Lord Triesman. In that debate, we were all – well, all except Lord Pearson – singing from the same hymn sheet. Saying there is nothing within our faiths that justifies terrorism. And that to hold coreligionists responsible for the actions of a minority… …a minority who hijack and betray a faith… …and to suggest that coreligionists should become apologists for this evil minority… …is simply not unacceptable. TACKLING PERSECUTION ABROAD And this cross-faith approach, as I argued during a speech in Washington last week, is vital if we are to tackle the persecution of religious minorities abroad. I used that speech to highlight the plight of Christians. In various parts of the world they are discriminated against, driven out, or even murdered simply because of their faith. They are like other minorities which have been persecuted for years. They need protection from the states, the militant groups, the individuals, which single them out. We need an international response to what has become a global crisis. But it shouldn’t just be Christians speaking up for Christians. Muslims for Muslims. Or any faith for its co-religionists. It requires everyone to speak our against intolerance and injustice. And to speak up for those who come under attack. If our response is sectarian then that actually reinforces the divisions. So a bomb going off in a Pakistani church shouldn’t just reverberate through Christian communities; it should stir the world. We should be inspired by the teachings of Islam, which tell us your fellow man is your brother – either your brother in faith, or your brother in humanity. And we should be guided by the example of the Good Samaritan, who wouldn’t have stopped to question the faith of the robbed, beaten man before he helped him. After all, we have only defeated intolerance in the past when we have all come together, whatever the cause. Apartheid was defeated when the whole world realised the terrible injustice that was taking place in South Africa. The American Civil Rights movement received the boost it needed when the international community, black, white and brown, got behind the cause. Gay rights in the UK were truly established once the wider community got on board. For me there is great hope, and that hope stems from the goodwill of ordinary people. NO CLASH OF FAITHS There is nothing in our respective religions that precludes us from working together. People will cite divisive or aggressive passages from the Quran and the Bible. They will say look: you cannot coexist. But they will forget that the holy books must be taken in context. And that the teachings and histories of these faiths actually demonstrate that conflict is not inevitable. One of my earliest introductions to the concept of interfaith was the Constitution of Medina. This was a formal agreement between the Prophet and all the local tribes, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and pagans. It instituted a number of rights for all these people – collectively known as the ummah. It showed me that interfaith work was being woven into my faith even before my faith was born. As the anthropologist James Benthall says: “Islam has proved to be just as flexible as Christianity in accommodating popular forms of belief and practice.” Many people would do well to remember that. Those who want Islam to be seen as monolithic and rejecting of non-Muslims. Or those, like Lord Pearson, who want to portray Islam as closed off to all other faiths. LEADERSHIP Leadership is very important in encouraging this approach. When there was a horrific spate of attacks against Muslim communities in Britain, one of the leading opponents of such hatred was not a Muslim but a Christian: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. He assured British Muslims: “We want you to know that we stand with you, we will do so privately and publicly. We will do so persistently and I pray in the grace of God, persuasively. “We will do all we can to support the security forces, the police, in bringing to justice those who seek to spread hate and cause division in our community.” When the scale of Christian persecution around the world was coming to light, one of the biggest voices was not a Christian but a Jew: Former Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks. He said: I think this is a human tragedy that is going almost unremarked. I don’t know what the name for this is, it is the religious equivalent of ethnic cleansing.” “This is a story that is crying out for a public voice, and I have not heard an adequate public voice,” he added. But of course his voice, and more like it, whatever their faith, are just what is needed. CONCLUSION Sot my point today is very clear: Interfaith dialogue needs to become interfaith action. And that cooperation is crucial if we are to defeat intolerance at home… …and speak out effectively about persecution abroad. Whether your symbol is the cross or the crescent. Whichever name you give the God you pray to. It is your duty to speak out for and work alongside everyone: Whether they are your brother in faith, or your brother in humanity. Thank you.

Our world has, at various points, been divided into empires, carved into countries, and separated by ethnicities. Conflict has taken many forms. Today I want to focus on a dangerous and rising phenomenon. One where we see religion turning on religion, sect upon sect. In other words, where faith is forming the fault lines. According to this worldview – and it’s the view of many… …my ally and my enemy are determined not by geography or politics or colour, but more and more so by religion. The fundamental tenets of the major faiths don’t lend themselves to this. They are not intrinsically on some collision course. However, religion is being used by some as a means of division, segregation, discrimination and persecution. And that persecution, I believe, is the biggest challenge we face in this young century. It has become a global crisis. THE SITUATION Across the world, people are being singled out and hounded out simply for the faith they follow or the beliefs they hold. Baha’is, Shias, Sunnis, and Alawites… …Hindus, Sikhs, atheists – I could go on. All are falling victim to the new sectarianism that is breaking out across continents. But today I want to focus on a religion which is suffering particularly in the wake of changes to the Middle East: Christianity. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians and others are the victims of this type of militant sectarianism. These communities have lived in these regions for centuries, in places where their faith was born. Yet some are portrayed as newcomers. Many are rooted in their societies, adopting and even shaping local customs. Yet they are increasingly treated as outsiders. These minority populations have co-existed with the majority for generations. Yet a mass exodus is taking place, on a Biblical scale. In some places, there is real danger that Christianity will become extinct. And one of the most disheartening visits for me was to churches in the Holy Land and see a deserted Bethlehem. Of course, this sectarianism can take different forms. From ostracism, discrimination and abuse to forced conversion, torture and even murder. The perpetrators range from states to militant groups, and even to a person’s own family. And there are countless causes: Turf wars, social unrest and corruption. Political transition, authoritarianism and terrorism. And, very often, faith is used as a proxy for other divisions. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT But what links many of these cases is that they are examples of collective punishment. A person being held responsible for the alleged crimes, connections or connotations of their coreligionists. Now of course, this isn’t to say the persecution of religious minorities is new. Sadly, this fact is woven into the history of most of our faiths. But these religious fault lines are being ever more exploited by those who wish to cause division. In an increasingly connected world, people lash out against minorities in response to events happening many miles away. And sometimes, a person of another faith is just a convenient ‘other’ – a scapegoat. EXAMPLES First, let’s look at Syria, home to one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, and one of the largest in the Middle East. A country where too many have suffered for too long and continue to do so. The ongoing widespread bloodshed there masks another huge change: The rapid haemorrhaging of the Christian population. Many have already fled the country. Now, Christians fear that a country which is the setting for many Biblical stories may lose its Christian character. The fate of the Christian-majority town Maaloula gives an insight into this tragedy. Just months ago the Lord’s Prayer could be heard recited in Jesus’ language, Aramaic. But savage fighting there in September threatened to destroy that treasured culture. And it gave rise to wider questions about the targeting of minorities, such as Christians. Collective punishment for being associated with the regime and the West. And masking the fact that, the vast majority of Syrians – whatever their faith – want a peaceful, democratic future. Second, look at Pakistan, where the worshippers at Peshawar’s All Saints Church were recently targeted by militants who vowed to kill all non-Muslims. Two suicide bombers carried out an appalling attack outside the church after a Sunday service. Scores of people died. The attackers’ illogical logic being that because America is a Christian nation, to attack local Christians is somehow retaliation. Again, an example of collective punishment being meted out by extremist groups. And again, not reflecting the fact that the vast majority of Pakistanis want to get on with their lives, and live alongside their neighbours, as they have done for generations. Third look at Iran. In the last three years, hundreds of Christians have been arrested there. At this moment, many languish in jail, including Pastor Abedini, who was imprisoned for setting up house churches. But in each of these countries it’s not just Christians who are suffering. In Syria, all communities, of all faiths, are suffering from the cycle of violence that we have seen occur over the last two years. In Pakistan, the violence suffered by Christians is well known by the country’s Shia communities, who have been subjected to attacks for many years. And in Iran, Baha’is have been enduring discrimination and persecution for years. THE WORLD’S RESPONSE When it comes to persecution, the world is beginning to take note. As the faithful come together at Friday prayers, at the Synagogue on Saturday, at Church on Sunday, sermons ring out about the plight of the persecuted. Politicians, policymakers, academics, journalists all agonise over the problem. And there are countless charities and groups bravely, painstakingly monitoring the fragile situations. And yes, there are laws in place. But laws mean little when you consider that some of the most oppressive states in the world theoretically guarantee religious freedom in their constitutions. In fact, 83 per cent of countries [with populations over two million] protect freedom of religion by law. But a great many of those do not put this into practice – often doing quite the opposite. And internationally too, religious freedom is guaranteed. Article 18 is the most translated article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. But I believe it is one of the least heeded. So this is a global crisis and it needs an international response. Statutes and sanctions, aid and ambassadors – none of these will make a material difference. What we must do is make religious freedom a priority, change the way we approach this global crisis, and ensure we tackle it together. And today I want to offer some suggestions about how we might do this. MY STORY Now you may be wondering why this matters to me. Why a British government minister of the Muslim faith feels the need to stand here and talk about the persecution of Christians and other minorities. I grew up practising a minority religion, Islam, in a majority-Christian country. My father migrated to England from Pakistan in the 1960s. He had little money but a deep sense of rootedness in his faith, and loyalty to his new country. He brought up his five daughters to follow Islam. Back then, it wasn’t my religion which made me different, it was my colour. And, inspired by the heroism of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, I became a lawyer and a campaigner for racial justice. But after September 11th 2001, more and more it was no longer my colour that defined me, but my religion. I had fought those battles once; I wasn’t ready to fight them all over again. So I left Britain. But having spent a year away I realised I had taken the easy option. Because if there now was a sense of unease between my faith and my country then I felt I had to duty to play my part and to try to make things a little better. When I returned I got involved in national politics. I was appointed to the House of Lords. I became a member of David Cameron’s shadow cabinet. And in 2010 I had the privilege of being appointed as the chairman of the Conservative Party and the first Muslim Cabinet Minister. We formed government at a time when faith was being sidelined in politics and public life, the last government having pledged they would not do God. I felt the need to make the case for faith and I said that the new government would ‘do God’. That we would support faith groups to worship freely, to act upon their faith for the good of society, and to be protected from intolerance. I saw the worrying rise of anti-Muslim hatred and I felt it needed to be put it on the agenda. Arguing, to much criticism, that Islamophobia had passed the dinner table test – that, unfortunately, it could be found in the most civilised of settings. And that we must learn the lessons from our ongoing fight to defeat scourge of our societies, anti-Semitism. But there was also another worrying phenomenon developing: societies being told they needed to dilute their faith in order to accommodate others. I believed that my experience of pluralism, of growing up as a Muslim in a country with an Established Church, showed otherwise. I knew that that the presence of other faiths was not a threat to another identity. So when I led the largest ever delegation of UK ministers to the Vatican, I called on Europe to become stronger and more confident in its Christianity. And in a private audience, Pope Benedict urged me to continue making this case. And today I sit in cabinet as the first Minister for Faith in the UK and Senior Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, responsible for freedom of religion and belief at home and abroad. WHAT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF So let me explain what religious freedom means to me. It means the freedom to have a religion. To believe what one chooses to believe. The freedom to manifest those beliefs. To show them outwardly. To share them with others. It means being free to change your faith. And it means being free to have no faith. And to do all this without fear of discrimination, without fear of attack, without fear of persecution. And that is why we’ve made freedom of religion and belief a key priority for the British government. First, through our work with multilateral organisations. Within this we have committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council to implement Resolution 16/18. This resolution lays the foundations for combating discrimination against people based on their religion throughout the world. Political consensus is crucial to achieving this, so in January I brought together ministers and senior officials, from the Foreign Minister of Canada to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, in London. And in September held a further meeting in New York during UN General Assembly week. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation also remains a key partner in our quest to promote religious freedom. And progress was made that OIC Heads of Government summit earlier this year. Second through bilateral engagement. I have made freedom of religion and belief a priority within my human rights brief and each and every minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is an ambassador for religious freedom. Every one of us raises and promotes these issues in the countries for which we have responsibility. Third, through project work. In which we are working with human rights and faith-based organisations across the world. Particularly ones which bridge sectarian divides and promote dialogue between religions. And fourth, given the key role faith plays in our global politics today, we are equipping our diplomats with the understanding of the crucial role religion plays in the world today. STAY TRUE TO HISTORY To tackle this global crisis I believe we need to go further. There are four pathways to this approach. First, making clear the facts of history. My father’s teaching was that to be faithful, one must pay heed to history as much as theology. But unfortunately we see people distort history for their own divisive ends. Like those who try to portray Christianity as a Western import in the Middle East. Like those in some parts of India, where, despite the church having roots there since the Apostles, there have been attacks against Christians. Like in Burma, where the Muslim Rohingha, stripped of their citizenship in 1982, remain in limbo, stateless, despite their community having lived there for over 200 years. Like those in Pakistan, where the founding father Mohammed Ali Jinnah represented minorities in the flag with a strip of white alongside the green. I was taught his famous words as a child: “You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Yet today those words ring hollow. And then there are those who insist on an unbridgeable divide between Jews and Muslims. But they forget about the Righteous Muslims, from Albania to Tunisia, who risked their lives to shelter Jews during the Holocaust. And they ignore the fact that Jews helped the Bosnian Muslims to rebuild their lives after the Balkans war and genocide in Srebrenica. Now in the UK we too have our challenges. Extremists there will tell you that you cannot reconcile being British and being Muslim. You cannot follow Islam and be loyal to the UK. But history doesn’t support them. Muslims have contributed to Britain for decades. In fact, hundreds of thousands from the British Indian Army fought and fell for our country in the First World War. And surveys have shown that British Muslims show higher levels of patriotism than the wider population. In the US, too, you have individuals like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer denying the place of Muslims in society. Yet these so-called patriots ignore the founding tenets of their nation, of freedom and equality. And that America’s founding father, Thomas Jefferson, over 200 years ago hosted an iftar at the White House and had a Quran on his bookshelf. History is one of our most powerful tools in promoting religious freedom. It proves that there is nothing inevitable about sectarian conflict around the world. And I reject that there is a Muslim world and a Christian world. There is no unbridgeable divide between Jew and Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, or indeed within religions, between Catholic and Protestant or Sunni and Shia. Now of course there have been times in history where religious conflict has taken place. But history shows that it is possible for these religions to live together. So we must expose those who seek to twist history, who are neither true to the roots of their faiths or the founding principles of their nations. NO THREAT TO IDENTITY Our second pathway is the fact that the presence of other faiths does not threaten the identity of a religion or a state or a culture. Time and again we see the motivation for persecution being the desire to preserve national, political or religious identity. Internationally we need to make very clear: that the presence of other faiths doesn’t come at the expense of your own. That, in fact, accepting and co-existing with another faith doesn’t make you less of a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu – it makes you more of one. As I mentioned earlier, the fact that I grew up in a majority Christian country actually made me feel stronger in my own faith. Sending my own daughter to a Christian convent school didn’t make her less of a Muslim. Indeed she adapted the Lord’s prayer and made it her own by ending it ameen, instead of amen. For me, rejection of another faith just reveals a weakness in your own. For just as the bully bullies because he or she is insecure, so too the state, group or community suppresses because it fears a threat to its identity. As Hillary Clinton put it after the tragic murder of US Ambassador Stevens in Libya last year. Withstanding threats and insults are a ‘sign that one’s faith is unshakeable’. There are countless examples of the persecution of the ‘other’ in order to protect identity. Why did the Nazis want to exterminate Jews? In part because they feared they polluted their purity, their Aryan identity. Why did the communist regimes crack down on religion? Because they wanted to eliminate all competing loyalties and remove all ideological opposition. And why, today, do we see, in some Muslim-majority countries, extremists turning on their minorities? Because they think it makes them stronger and more powerful in their Islamic identity to reject the other. So once again, we need to show that acceptance of the ‘other’ proves not that you are weak, but that you are unshakeable in your identity. BENEFITS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM There is a third case for us to make: the benefits of religious freedom. That quite apart from protecting minorities being the right thing to do morally, it is also the right thing to do socially, economically and politically. Pioneering research by academics, including from here at Georgetown, has proven the link between religious freedom and a society’s ability to flourish. In short, if people are free to believe and to worship, then they are able to make a bigger contribution to society. A society which is religiously free attracts people who boost the economy. Religious freedom guards against violence, extremism and social strife, all of which hold back the development of a society. This is nothing new. Back in the 17th century people were actually emigrating to the Netherlands for its religious freedoms and consequent economic opportunities. Spain’s Islamic Golden Age was a period of harmony and progress; a safe haven for persecuted Jews, and therefore a space for everyone to reach their full potential. It has long been argued that greater religious tolerance was the reason some regions of Europe surged ahead of others in terms of economic growth and trade. And look at America. Would this nation of many races and many religions have been so successful without its founding principles of freedom, fairness and equality? Because, ladies and gentlemen, persecution is bad for business. In the time of the Raj, Britain knew religious tolerance fostered peace and productivity. The Dutch when conquering the New World insisted on religious freedom in their newfound colonies. There has been a similar realisation recently when it comes to girls’ right to an education. Of course, giving girls this right is in itself is the right thing to do. But there is also a knock-on impact for the rest of society. It’s a boost to a country’s GDP; curbs child mortality; guards against poverty; ensures better health. That is why the UK is so dedicated to helping girls get an education around the world. The world has woken up to these facts. It needs to wake up to the benefits of religious freedom too. MAJORITY DEFENDING MINORITY Fourth and finally, I believe our response to this global crisis must not itself be sectarian. It must not be a case of Christians defending Christians, Muslims defending Muslims, or indeed faith groups defending faith groups. A bomb going off in a Pakistani church shouldn’t just reverberate through Christian communities; it should stir the world. In this I am inspired by the teachings of Islam, which tell us your fellow man is your brother – either your brother in faith, or your brother in humanity. I am guided by the example of the Good Samaritan, who wouldn’t have stopped to question the faith of the robbed, beaten man before he helped him. Of course, the notion that you can only care about a person who shares you faith is, in places, deeply entrenched. Over the summer we all saw the car crash interview on Fox News, where scholar, Reza Aslan, was interviewed about his new book: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. The presenter could not comprehend why the writer, who was, incidentally, a Muslim, would write a book about Christianity. Our duty is to challenge such bigoted preconceptions, for these feed into the divisions between faith and create the conditions for intolerance. This cross-faith stance will be crucial in tackling religious persecution. After all, we have only defeated intolerance in the past when we have all come together, whatever the cause. Apartheid was defeated when the whole world realised the terrible injustice that was taking place in South Africa. The American Civil Rights movement received the boost it needed when the international community, black, white and brown, got behind the cause. Gay rights in the UK were truly established once the wider community got on board. For me there is great hope, and that hope stems from the goodwill of ordinary people. We must remember the Arab Spring sprung not from sectarian tension but from a mutual desire for democracy, freedom, and equality. This was summed up in that iconic slogan “Muslim, Christian, one hand”. It was embodied in the Christians who joined hands and encircled Muslims in Tahrir Square, protecting them as they prayed. Around the world we hear of the bomb blasts and the attacks. But we don’t hear about the Muslims and Christians defending each other’s places of worship, as happens from Nigeria to Indonesia. We don’t hear enough about the moderate Syrian opposition’s strong commitments to protecting minorities, ahead of a political transition. Nor, when the terrible attack took place in Peshawar did we hear about the hundreds of local Muslims rushing to give blood for the victims. Let’s share more of those stories and let’s show that freedom of religion or belief is a universal concern. CONCLUSION So these are the four components of my vision for how we can tackle this global crisis: One. Ensuring that extremists aren’t able to twist history for their divisive ends… …demonstrating that co-existence has succeeded and sectarianism is not inevitable. Two. Proving that the presence of other faiths is not a threat to identity… …and accommodating others actually provides you are strong and secure in your own beliefs. Three. Showing that religious freedom isn’t just a good thing in itself… …but it’s a good thing for economies and for societies to progress and flourish. And four: making sure our response to this global crisis is not sectarian, but united, strong and, ultimately, effective. We need to start to turn this vision into practical action. For we must act. Religious persecution is blighting lives, ruining lives, ending lives; right now, right across our world. This is not just a problem for the people who are affected. It’s not just a faith problem. It’s a global crisis. And it can no longer be ignored. Thank you very much.

INTRODUCTION I am delighted to speak about the vital place I believe faith has in politics. For the Conservative Party has always put faith at the heart of policy making. Religion runs through our history and through our veins. So today I want to argue that, in government… …even in a Coalition government… …we are staying true to those roots. CHURCHILL You only have to look around this building to see the evidence. Winston Churchill’s letters, speeches and papers make repeated references to faith. The pages may have yellowed, but the sentiment remains as clear as ever: For him, religion was of the utmost importance to British society. Churchill was a big supporter of the Established Church. He urged Britain to “most strenuously resist any measure which [would] aim at severing the connection between church and state”. He later likened himself not to a ‘pillar’ of the Church of England, but a ‘buttress, supporting it from the outside’. But it was the teachings of Christianity – the ‘flame of Christian ethics’ – that truly set him alight. These Christian ethics, these universal values, were not defined in opposition to the ethics of other faiths. Instead, they were defined in opposition to evil, namely Nazism. In fact, his wider criticism of totalitarian ideologies was that they were ‘Godless’. Meanwhile, Britain’s Christian ethics remained ‘our highest guide’. Praise indeed – and all the more striking given the lukewarmness of this ‘optimistic agnostic’s’ own beliefs. THATCHER From the greatest wartime Prime Minister to our greatest peacetime Prime Minister. A woman whose own faith was far from tepid. Under this roof are the carefully-annotated catechism of the young Margaret Roberts. And school exercise books, with her father’s sermon’s scrawled in the back. All reminding us that this leader… …whom we so sadly lost this year… …wasn’t just a grocer’s daughter; she was a minister’s daughter. Someone who believed that faith had a firm place in politics. From her speeches “I Believe” to her so-called “Sermon on the Mound”, this sentiment was hammered home. In the latter she took issue with the phrase “Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform.” For her, there was no separation between the two. There was, she thought, an undeniable role for faith in society. Faith reached areas politics never could. “For a nation to be noted for its industry, honesty and responsibility and justice,” she said, “Its people need a purpose and an ethic. “The State cannot provide these—they can only come from the teachings of a Faith.” Today we talk about the role of faith in politics and society. Well Mrs Thatcher viewed it the other way round. Talking about the ‘the role of the state in Christian society’. The state – politics – for her was a mere add-on; faith was constant and a necessity. GOVERNMENT TODAY Our party’s faith in faith – our devotion to devotion – is clear when we look at the lives and careers of our greatest Prime Ministers. I believe their pro-faith sentiment is still very much in evidence today. That we see flickers of Churchill’s flame and echoes of Thatcher’s sermons in all we do. But this was never inevitable. When we came back into power in 2010, I felt that some of the reverence for religion had disappeared from politics. Despite 78 per cent of people in this country professing a religion, faith was being sidelined, even dismissed. As the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it, religion was viewed as the preserve of oddities, foreigners and minorities (And some people said I was all three!) I was concerned with what I saw was public policy being secularised. To the extent that Christmas was being downgraded. It’s no wonder that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the ‘sense of goodwill towards faith groups in rhetoric was not being matched by policy’. Sadly I found that the last government didn’t just refuse to ‘do God’ – they didn’t get God either. COALITION APPROACH My first speech in government promised that we would be different. That, unlike the previous government, we would ‘do God’. So we paved the way for everyday worship, changing the law to safeguard town hall prayers. We didn’t just get behind faith schools, we created more. And of our flagship free schools, one in four are faith-based: Sikh, Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Christian, Muslim and Hindu. We consistently rejected calls to curb people’s right to express or manifest their religion. By welcoming the ruling which saw Nadia Eweida win the right to wear a small crucifix. More recently, standing firm against the calls to legislate over what women can and cannot wear, when the veil, or niqab, came under fire. And the creation of the Minister for Faith post. Giving religion a voice at the top table. Not a privileged position, but an equal informer of the debate. This is further proof, as one commentator put it, that the Coalition is the most pro-faith government in the West. SOCIAL ACTION Our approach isn’t just about enabling people to practice their faith. It’s about allowing people to act upon their faith. To provide public services, to undertake social action, to enhance communities. Not being suspicious of their motives, or fearing that they will be proselytising. But understanding that charity, virtue, and helping others are key components of religion. And that, more often than not, people who do God do good. We fund the Church of England, through the Church Urban Fund, for the social action Near Neighbours programme. Bringing together different faiths to bring about real change in communities. And we have removed the barrier of discriminatory attitudes in government against faith groups winning voluntary sector contracts. I know that Mrs Thatcher would have approved of devolving power to faith communities. There was nobody clearer on society’s duties to its fellow man, and the shortcomings of the state. As she once said: “I wonder whether the State services would have done as much for the man who fell among thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him?” And I like to think we are mobilising Good Samaritans the country over. HATRED AND DISCRIMINATION There is a third strand of our approach to faith in politics. It is a whole-hearted, unwavering intolerance of intolerance. This government completely rejects discrimination against a person because of their faith. Quite apart from our emphasis on interfaith programmes, on tackling anti-Semitism, on recording incidents of hate crime. I am proud to say we have done more than any other government to tackle Islamophobia. Churchill may have had some interesting things to say about Islam. But I will leave it to Warren Dockter to address that issue specifically, and I am interested to read his new book on the subject. Personally, I think Churchill’s own removal of his passage on Islam from ‘The River War’ shows that he revised and contextualised some of these views. After all, this was a man who argued for ‘a spirit of religious toleration’. And who took the bigots to task, berating one anti-Semitic politician and telling him his views did not represent the Conservative Party. Arguing that it was quite possible to be a good Englishman and a good Jew. And that has inspired me again and again to say that it is entirely possible to be British and Muslim. CONCLUSION So I hope I have been able to demonstrate that we are staying true to our roots. Putting faith in its rightful place – at the heart of British politics. Of course there are those who disagree. Who describe faith leaders and politicians as a ‘gruesome combination’. Who talk about curbing my ‘theocratic ambitions’. Who say that the country should brace itself for the pro-religion Conservatives’ return to power. But that’s enough air time for the National Secular Society. What really matters is that we support people in their right to believe. That we mobilise those who want to do good deeds motivated by the faith. And that we protect people from discrimination, bigotry and intolerance. That is our stance on the place of faith in politics. I know Churchill would have welcomed it. I know Mrs Thatcher would have championed it. And that is why we, as a party, and I, as a politician, are committed to it. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION In his speech ‘A Time of Triumph’, Winston Churchill praised those who came ‘from the uttermost ends of the earth’ to fight alongside Britain in the Second World War. “From the poorest colony to the most powerful dominion”, he said, “the great maxim held: when the King declares war, the Empire is at war”. Both of my grandfathers were among those brave men. And for that reason I have always known something of British India’s role in that conflict. But for many years I was unaware of the role their fellow countrymen played 30 years earlier. The one and a half million from modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who served, fought and fell for Britain in the Great War. So many others from what is now the Commonwealth served too. Nearly half a million from Canada. The same number from Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Newfoundland. 74,000 from South Africa. 16,000 from the West Indies. 30,000 from other dominions. And many more from beyond the British Empire. As I’ve said on many occasions, our boys were not just Tommies – they were Tariqs and Tajinders too. And for far too long this has been overlooked, like a chapter torn from the book of our history. This project, the lectures, the multi-media presentations, are a way of using the forthcoming centenary to make us all better informed. REAL STORIES It’s important that the focus is on the individuals. Using letters and photographs; war diaries and anecdotes. To reveal the stories behind the statistics. As the Prime Minister said: some will make you cry, some will make you laugh. Let me tell you one which inspired me. Mir Dast, from Tirah, Pakistan, found himself in a poisonous gas attack on the Ypres Salient. There were no gas masks. His comrades resorted to makeshift measures to survive. Dipping their turban ends in chloride of lime and holding them over their mouths. Meanwhile, Mir Dast rallied all the men he could. He brought in eight wounded officers, despite being wounded and gassed himself. For this, he won the highest military honour. And this is how he described it to his family: “The men who came from our regiment have done very well and will do so again. “I want your congratulations. I have got the Victoria Cross.” What astonishing humility – putting his comrades first in his letter, just as he had done on the battlefield. INTERFAITH COOPERATION Earlier this year I visited the battlefields of Belgium and northern France. And those long, even lines of headstones give some insight into the scale of sacrifice. Each one representing a life extinguished and a family bereft. The inscriptions and symbols on the stones… Christian crosses. But also Stars of David. Urdu and Hindi script. Even Chinese lettering. For me that diversity is the starkest reminder: That comradeship, companionship and co-existence cut cross all faiths. Of course, this doesn’t sit particularly well with extremists’ views. And it doesn’t fit the extremists’ narrative that other faiths have no place in Britain. It dispels the myth that you cannot be both devoted to a faith and loyal to a country. Our shared history scuppers their argument. It says to the far-right: this wasn’t the all-white war you believe it was. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we may have wrestled the Union Flag back from the extremists. And I believe highlighting these multi-ethnic, multi-faith stories will reclaim our proud, patriotic history too. There will be many who don’t want these stories to come to light. Whether it’s the extremists on the far-right. Or ignorant people like Anjem Choudary and his followers. Because this is about commemorating, honouring and, above all, learning – and it is good for Britain. CONCLUSION So I’m delighted to stand here and see this project come to fruition. Can I thank the Curzon Institute, whose blood, toil, sweat and tears has especially helped to make this happen. I know how important the support of the former chief of the defence staff has been. So I will now hand you over to a short video message from him: General Sir David Richards.