Angry Letters, But No Bombings, Riots Or Calls For Beheading

Many Christians have been offended by the BBC broadcasting a documentary suggesting Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. But, despite the BBC’s additional provocation of showing the documentary on Good Friday, Christians aren’t rioting in the streets, calling for the beheading of the producer or making general threats of retribution against atheists.

Christians from devoutly Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina or Mexico are not burning the British flag and calling for revenge attacks. No groups of easily riled, bearded wogs will travel from the Orthodox countries of eastern Europe to blow up a London bus, shoot Melvyn Bragg or fire a rocket propelled grenade at the BBC.

Mary Magdalene was certainly an important person in Jesus’ life and one of his most devoted apostles. Despite Melvyn Bragg claiming “there is one taunting scrap of record which may well lead to the conclusion that she was his wife”, the overwhelming majority of Christian scholars consider this an unjustifiable conclusion.

Few, if any, of the gospels are believed to have been by their titular authors. The omission of the Gospel of Mary from the New Testament as this canon was assembled is not per se evidence for or against Mary being Jesus’ wife. The omission was probably due to its Gnostic character and it may well have been viewed as a fabrication. The effort to assert male authority within the emerging Christian church also probably played no small part, as it did in the casting of Mary as a reformed prostitute, which is almost certainly untrue.

However, were Mary actually Jesus’ wife, it is extremely doubtful all of the gospels of the New Testament would have omitted this crucial fact, which must have been well known and considered normal amongst his followers.

So, it appears this BBC programme has assembled some “evidence” from gospels and other manuscripts excluded from the Bible and done a bit of shit stirring, as opposed to focussing on the really interesting historical question: the intellectual divisions and power struggles during the early period of the development of Christianity.

I suspect at least some smug, sneering, Guardian reading BBC staff did think they would be rubbing Christians’ noses in it by airing this “documentary” on Good Friday.

If you had any integrity, you’d treat all religions equally. Have the courage of your convictions and make a series about the controversies within various religions, including a programme about the more controversial aspects of Mohammed’s life. There’s plenty of material.

Conjecturing from stronger evidence than available in the case of Jesus and Mary, why not suggest Mohammed actually had sex with his 9 year old wife, Aisha as soon as they were married (he was 53)? There are many who like to suggest he did, and it may even be true. But even for those who see Muslims as the enemy, rigorous standards of scholarship must apply (perhaps even more so, given the likely accusations of bias). It’s detrimental to attack your enemy on false or dubious premises.

There are various reports in the Hadiths (reports of the sayings and acts of Mohammed, mostly compiled in the two centuries after his death) which imply that Aisha became engaged to Mohammed at the age of six and was “admitted to his house” at the age of nine. Many are tempted on this basis to accuse their enemy’s figurehead of paedophilia, but we need to carefully consider what phrases translated from old Arabic, like “betrothed”, “consummated” and “admitted to his house” actually meant in the original language and culture.

Although Mohammed’s first (and for a long time, only) wife, Khadija had died prior to his engagement to Aisha, he seems to have already married a second wife, Sawda, older than himself, apparently for political and financial reasons. Perhaps she may have tolerated her husband consummating (in the modern sense of the word) his marriage to a nine year old. He also had four adult daughters, who may (or may not) have held more forthright views.

In this respect, it is interesting that despite Aisha having reached puberty several years prior to his death, Mohammed is reported to have only fathered one child, Ibrahim (to Maria), with all his wives post the death of Khadija.

Not really solid proof of kiddy fiddling, but based on the standard set in your Jesus doco, certainly enough "taunting evidence" to have a crack, eh Melvin? So what’s your problem? Lack of sufficient spine to take on violent Muslims and their apologist quislings in the British parliament, media, public service and legal system, I suggest.

Why not make something of the fact Mohammed had 13 wives (by some accounts, more), despite his teaching that a man may only have 4? In fact, he married 11 of the 13 after his revelation from Allah and subsequent relocation to Medina in order to cement political relationships with surrounding Arab tribes.

A much easier target is the Battle of Badr. After the Hijra (relocation to Medina), Mohammed and his followers needed funds, so they attacked a lucrative Meccan caravan. They had previously attacked others, but this one was a big score … and despite being outnumbered, they were successful.

Muslims don’t see this as Mohammed and his followers resorting to the traditional banditry in order to fund their campaign against their enemies in Mecca. They interpret it as a manifestation of Allah’s choice of Mohammed as prophet. In fact, they revere the victory in the Quran.

That’s the way: rob your enemy’s caravan because Allah wills it, not because you’re simply a warlord with a new story looking to finance a campaign against the city which exiled you.

My main point here is one of double standards. Worse, double standards against their own society and culture; the one which provides the social structures which not only allow the BBC the political freedom to make a programme suggesting Mary was Jesus’ wife, but which publicly fund it.

The double standard is that these mealy mouthed cowards at the BBC would not dare make a similar programme, critical of aspects of Islam and the life of Mohammed. Many in the UK Labor Party and Liberal Democrats (an absurd misnomer) would support this position.

I’m not saying the programme shouldn’t be aired: there’s plenty of rubbish on TV. I’m saying the principle should be extended to all religions. Point out their contradictions and the hypocrisies in the lives of their key figures. When sections of the Islamic “community” dishonestly use both violence and the cover of Western legal institutions to promote their cause and stifle criticism, arrest and deport those who seek to prevent the exercise of free speech, revoking their citizenship if necessary. They do not deserve it, because they do not believe in its institutions.

It’s easy to attack soft targets within your own cultural group, who you know will only write angry letters and emails. If you really believe in the value of the principal constructs of Western Liberalism, use them to challenge their opponents.

Islamists see the implication of this post's title as a weakness. We'll only show them it's a strength if we're prepared to identify and fight Liberalism's enemies, which includes asserting that only those who support these principles can expect to rely on the civil rights which are their corollary.