Letters

Matthew Smith (Indigo Jo)

I submitted a letter in response to Melanie Phillips's article in which I and my blog were mentioned. Since you have declined to print it, here it is:

As the "Indigo Jo" mentioned in Melanie Phillips's article (Beware the New Axis etc.), I feel her description of me as an "Islamist" needs qualifying. The Barnabas Fund, who issued a "prayer request" after I had flagged up Ben White's review of Patrick Sookhdeo's book, called me a "radical Muslim" on the basis that I describe myself as "pro-madhhab", the reasoning that a *madhhab* is a school of Shari'ah, which makes me "pro-sharia, i.e. a radical Muslim". However, Shari'ah is all of Islamic law, the prayer and fasting as well as the stoning and hand-cutting, so this definition of "radical" or "Islamist" is so broad as to take in any practising or orthodox Muslim. Being pro-madhhab means following one of the four traditions of Islamic law; most radicals, except for some in Pakistan, are in fact anti-madhhab.

As for my calling Patrick Sookhdeo "Sookhdevil", I have been calling him this since 2005, on the basis that his articles frequently contain staggering falsehoods against Islam. One which appeared in your publication (Will London burn too, 12th Nov 2005) accused Muslims of "sacralising whole neighbourhoods ... by means of marches and processions". In Islam, only mosques are sacred; marches and processions are not a ritual, and are held by some elements in the community for celebrations, usually the Prophet's birthday, which is rejected by most radicals. It has nothing to do with sacralising the streets marched on; if it were, it would be forbidden to march on streets which would be used for normal traffic as soon as it had passed.

The man seems to take any opportunity to present Islam as a threat, magnifying small local incidents, such as a spot of bother between Kurdish and Pakistani youths at an Asian festival in Peterborough (in the same article from 2005), out of all proportion. He is not fit to be called an "Islam scholar"; he is nothing but a pseudo-intellectual hatemonger.

Mordechai

"I have never knowingly, to use her words, "given interviews to, endorsed or forwarded material from American white supremists and Holocaust deniers".

Really?

http://seismicshock.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/yes-stephen-sizer-didforwards-emails-written-by-9-11-conspiracy-theorists-and-holocaust-deniers/

Stephen Sizer

Mordechai,

Why do you persist in using the cloak of anonymity to make your libelous and defamatory allegations? Why are you so afraid to meet face to face and discuss your questions? You merely fuel the suspicions of those who really do believe in "the men in the shadows" as Jackson Browne calls them.

As someone who displays the characteristics of a misguided and immature Christian, I recommend you heed the advice of the Apostle Paul when he writes, “Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2).

Andy Cunningham

I'm afraid, Reverend Sizer, that
Mordechai and his links to your various 'conspiracy theories' and your, quite simply, Jew hating friends, has you 'Bang to rights'.

Luke Rodgers

Stephen Sizer:
I have looked at Mordechai's post and it seems to me that you are dodging the issue. It is a carefully linked and sourced post which appears to show that you have sent out antisemitic emails. If the only response you can make is that he's doing it anonymously (since when was that a crime?) that doesn't reflect well on you. Why not try to disprove his allegations? If you didn't knowingly send out those emails, how else do you explain their existence?

Also, your claim that you "categorically reject any position that threatens the integrity of Israel as a sovereign nation" is untrue, when you went to Iran you said this:

"Asked to comment on the United Nations requirement to repatriate the Palestinian refugees to their homeland, he said that repatriation of Palestinians to their own territory will be effective in retaking their own country, because, when the Palestinian refugees come to their home, they will form majority of the population and would form a multi-ethnic state including Jews, Muslims and Christians."
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/071023/2007102301.html

Why do you say one thing to a British audience and one to an Iranian one?

Zechariah

Hi Stephen,

I agree it's terrible that people should hide behind pseudonyms, but I don't really think you've answered any of his questions.

Simple question: why did you forward emails written by Holocaust deniers containing explicitly antisemitic material?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PalestinianOrthodoxy/message/8241

Hawkeye

Aside from anything else, Stephen Sizer seems to have an amusingly poor grasp of English grammar and syntax:

"As someone who displays the characteristics of a misguided and immature Christian, I recommend..."

Stephen, if you are a misguided and immature Christian, how did you get your post as a vicar?

Jeremy W.

This guilt by association stuff is getting very very tired. Rev. Sizer forwarded an email containing a news story and a commentary. He did not write either. He did not necessarily endorse either. And the content of the commentary had nothing to do with Holocaust denial or Jew hatred. Whatever other views the author had they are not relevant to the case in point.
Note how Sizer's critics never actually tackle what he says about Christian Zionism. Instead he is ritually denounced through guilt by association - a tactic generally use by those who use fear as a weapon for beating down (avoiding) the truth. If I'm wrong, perhaps Sizer's critics could actually engage with his theses re. Christian Zionism. I'm waiting.

Ben

The occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan by Israel is perfectly legal under international law. It came after an illegal war of aggression that was launched against Israel by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967, and therefore is legal under international law, just as the occupation of Germany and Japan by the Allies after WW2 was lawful.

Falsely accusing Israel of illegaly occupying these territories even though Israel itself was the target of illegal aggression is further proof of Sizer's hatred.

Luke Rodgers

Jeremy W,
The email Sizer forwarded includes the following text:

"Orthodox Judaism is distinguished by its dictatorial tyranny over the mind of man. The totalitarian control exerted during the Communist revolution in Russia
had Talmudic roots. No iota of deviation from the Oral Law is permitted, including any nostalgia for Jesus Christ, who is regarded as an idol who prac-
ticed sorcery and is now in gehenna boiling in his own feces.What is instructive about this AP article is the fact that it showcases the
Israeli penchant for violence -- using bombs, book-burning and arson against any who deviate, however minutely, from the dogma of Judaism or the Israeli state.Judaism considers western civilization to be Edom and despises it with
far greater rancor than even Muslim fundamentalists." Sounds like Jew-hatred to me. So why did Sizer, whi claims (a) to repudiate antisemitism and (b) that he has never knowingly forwarded material by a Holocausrt denier, forward it?

As for what Sizer writes about Christian Zionism, why does he cite antisemitic sources (have you checked any of these - I suspect not) and show a callous indifference to Israeli pain?
See http://largebluefootballs.blogspot.com/2008/04/overstepping-mark.html

Mordechai

Jeremy - the link provided contains an advert for Michael A Hoffman's Holocaust denial bulletin within the commentary:

"In the meantime, you can obtain a huge collection of his writing, all 44 back issues of his bulletin, "Revisionist History," newly issued in pdf."

How can you say the commentary and the article contained no Jew-hatred?

Or this email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PalestinianOrthodoxy/message/8241

"Today, evangelicals reflexively honor the code that, no matter how true an unflattering fact or opinion about Jews may be, it will not be repeated. As a result of a century of self-censorship, tens of millions of evangelicals live in a virtual iron curtain of exclusion of truth about Jews, Judaism and Israel. Taught to see, hear, and speak no evil of Israel, they subsist on a religious and political diet of Zionist-approved pablum. The magnitude of truth that has never been allowed to reach them is encyclopedic."

I don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss the shocking nature of these emails.

In addition, in his book Zion's Christian Soldiers he accuses Mossad of being involved in 9-11, and cites a Holocaust denier (Dale Crowley) in his book Christian Zionism as a 'Washington-based journalist.' Does Rev Sizer find Crowley's views on the Jews and Israel more palatable than those of the Christian Zionists he is critiquing?

There's plenty of information out there available about Rev Sizer's theology - one book I've heard is good for this purpose is Barry Horner's Future Israel:

http://www.bunyanministries.org/books/Future%20Israel.pdf

Jeremy W.

The question is - why does one have to assume that Sizer automatically endorses EVERY proposition made in an email he has forwarded? Given that he has specifically repudiated anti-Semitism elsewhere I don't see why the assumptio should count against him.
Instead of tackling his views on Christian Zionism Sizer's critics then focus on sources for certain claims (not particularly related to CZ). The link dismisses Walt and Mearshmier as anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists (completely unsubtantiated) and dismisses Chomsky as a Holocaust-denier-defender (i.e. defender of basic rights of free speech NOT endorsement of Holocaust denial).
If Sizer has cited a dodgy source then the point that needs to be addressed is whether what he has cited is inaccurate or not (Raul Hilberg has cited David Irving - NOT because he agrees with him - but because he had made a useful statement in one area).
Re. Mossad and 911 - well, that story has been reported (and by no means dismissed by), among others, Jane's Intelligence Digest, Carl Cameron's four-part Fox-News series, Le Monde, and Insight, the supplement of the Washington Times. Are they all Jew-haters too? Or should people investiage certain claims.

Again - this is all obfuscation - aside from the book recommendation (having studied theology (and not sharing Sizer's religion) I am cinfident in my judgements of the complete hetrerodoxy of Christian Zionism - whatever one thinks of Sizer's other views (and I mean HIS views - not the views of extraneous others).

Luke Rodgers

Re 9/11, "Articles about the Israeli spy ring also began to appear in the mainstream press — including
on the Associated Press wire; in Le Monde, the French newspaper; in Insight On the News —
The Washington Times magazine; the Forward, a New York-based Jewish newspaper; and elsewhere.
In the wake of these reports, the Washington Post investigated the story and concluded
that it was apocryphal, quoting officials who called the spy ring story nothing more than an
"urban myth."" So why has Sizer repeated it? It doesn't add anything to his arguements, actually he cites it at virutally the only point in his "Christian Zionism" book (not ZCS, Mordechai) where he is discussing the terrorist threat AGAINST Israel!
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf

Mordechai

Jeremy W - you say:

"If Sizer has cited a dodgy source then the point that needs to be addressed is whether what he has cited is inaccurate or not (Raul Hilberg has cited David Irving - NOT because he agrees with him - but because he had made a useful statement in one area)."

Right - so let's look the commentary by Michael A. Hoffman that Rev Sizer quoted:

"Today, evangelicals reflexively honor the code that, no matter how true an unflattering fact or opinion about Jews may be, it will not be repeated. As a result of a century of self-censorship, tens of millions of evangelicals live in a virtual iron curtain of exclusion of truth about Jews, Judaism and Israel. Taught to see, hear, and speak no evil of Israel, they subsist on a religious and political diet of Zionist-approved pablum. The magnitude of truth that has never been allowed to reach them is encyclopedic."

Is this statement in any way accurate?

Jeremy W.

Mordechai
Firstly, I don't know whether Sizer signs up to that particular statement - and nor do you.
Secondly, the statement is an empirical one the holding of which need not imply in any way anti-Semitism.
Thirdly, that kind of statement is, rightly or wrongly, very widely held across the political and religious spectrum (esp. among largely liberal Jews in America) and the pronouncements of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson fit perfectly in line with the statement. So, the statement is, at least, not obviously inaccurate (regardless of the other views of the author). Even if it is inaccurate, Sizer doesn't necessarily sign up to it. If he does, it's not at all obvious he is being remiss in doing so. And, most importantly, none of it implies any anti-Semitism on his part whatsoever.