Episode 5 Sunday Morning Live

major isn't -- Islamic organisation says Muslims are living in fear. Is

it because of an unfair portrayal in Morning Live. Also on the programme:

Jesus kicked moneychangers out of the temple, but this week the

Archbishop of Canterbury said the church should invite lenders in.

And as the Pope welcomes 2 million young pilgrims to a gathering in

Brazil, we examine whether pilgrimage is still relevant. My

guests this week are Douglas Murray, a journalist and author, and

his latest book argues that we are too reluctant to criticise Islam.

Anne Atkins is also a vicar and knows more than most about church

finances. And Mehdi Hasan is the political director of the Huffington

Post UK. We want to know what you think. You can join us through

Many in the Muslim community in Britain say they have been alarmed

at what they call an unprecedented escalation of violence following the

backlash after the murder of Lee Rigby. There has been an increase in

reported hate crime and a newly asked weeks there have been three

bomb attacks on mosques. This week, the Muslim Council of Britain Road

to the Home Secretary calling for a co-ordinated response. They say it

cannot be right that a minority is allowed to be targeted in that way.

The government says it takes any such attacks seriously, but some

muslins say the planting bombs is symptomatic of a deeper problem in

society. Douglas Murray thinks we are too soft on Islam. First, Mehdi

I love this country. As a Muslim, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

The sad fact is that these days in Britain you can say things about

Islam and Muslims that you can't say about any other minority. Imagine if

you picked up a newspaper to discover a headline saying Christmas

is banned, it offends dues. Or maybe, a gay plot to kill me -- the

Pope. You would be shocked. Outraged, even. But change the word

gay or black to Muslim and these become very real headlines that have

appeared on the front pages of our newspapers. The truth is that the

negative stereotyping of what I would say is a pretty powerless and

voices minority is now out of control. -- voice less. It is

especially evident online, where anti-Ms limp bigotry flourishes. --

anti-Muslim. Take it from somebody who has had to deal with a lot of

it. Look, this isn't about Islamic beliefs are being given special

treatment. It is about Muslims being treated no differently to other

minorities. It is about equal treatment, not fear mongering. There

is a terror threat to be tackled. But those are the actions of a tiny

minority and should not be used to smear the entire Muslim community.

Remember, portraying Muslims as different or dangerous has serious

repercussions on community relations. In the wake of Lee

Rigby's murder, anti-Muslim attacks quadrupled. At least 25 mosques have

been attacked. Three of them were tagged with bombs. We need to change

the way we talk and write about Islam and Muslims. Believe me when I

tell you this we are not in doubt with magically thicker skins than

anybody else. What do you think? Are Muslims

expected to have thicker skin? Or are they too sensitive? They are not

expected to have thinner skin, either. It is important to make sure

that nobody demonises anybody else because of the actions of the few.

But if gay people or Jewish people or any other minority had people who

had carried out terrorist attacks, I think we would read those headlines.

That is the question for our text vote. Our Muslims are being

full terms and conditions. You say that it is not about demonising

anyone. But the scale of these attacks does suggest that there is a

unique problem. Most Muslims are powerless and finding themselves

victims of a backlash. I am not sure they are more power less than

anybody else. Lots of people feel they have no voice. The idea

that... It is important that as you said, in the wake of Lee Rigby, we

should not lose sight of the fact that the murder was an important

thing. Now there seems to have been a backlash against that. It

obviously has to be said that anybody who takes out the action of

a minority on a group as a whole has to be condemned. If people think the

reaction should be to commit violence against any individual, of

course that is wrong. Of course it is wrong. Mehdi, there is a concern

about oversensitivity. Is Lamb is not a person and cannot answer

questions. Muslims can. Nobody is denying that. A couple of things for

Douglas. We can talk about the Woolwich murder. But Mohammed

Saleem, a pensioner who was murdered. But we cannot talk about

that. That happened a month before the Woolwich attacks. The media

headlines all happened beforehand. As for terrorists, let's talk about

terrorism. But I am talking about stories about Muslim women's

clothing. The Daily Mail runs campaigns for the two weeks.

Are these legitimate questions always there in idea that it is

racism masquerading as something else? I think Muslims are demonised,

without question. I have the misfortune to be on the e-mail list

of a friend of mine, and I receive stuff he sends out and some of it is

appalling, appalling. It is not really even anti-Muslim. It is sheer

racism. A lot of it comes from America. We were in America a few

years ago, staying with a lovely family. Over dinner, one of them

said, what about this problem with Muslims in your country? We said,

what problem? He said, they are all terrorists, aren't they? That is an

appalling equation that is there in a lot of people 's minds. It is

confusing Asian, Muslim and terrorist. But there is another side

to this. A lot of what you were saying, I know Christians would say

the same. You can attack Christians in a way that you can't attack any

other faith. There are ways in which, for instance, an example...

It was over 50 years ago, Ian McKellen tore out bits of the Bible

because he said it was anti-gay. No Christian is going to say, he has to

be assassinated. You cannot do that with the Koran. I understand that

the Koran for Muslims is different, it is wholly in itself. The response

underlines the concerns that there is a special treatment required for

muslins. Douglas, how do you see People show themselves in an ugly

light on the Internet. But I would say to Mehdi that he should compare

his responses on the internets to anybody who has ever criticised

Mohammed or the Koran. It is very unsavoury, too. I can assure you

that there is a good reason for people to fear that kind of thing

because they have seen what happens to come -- critics of Islam. They

have seen what happened to Salman Rushdie. In our society, we have

internalised this. People are right to be fearful of doing that. There

is fear in all sorts of directions. Some of that is legitimate. I take

that on board. The difference is we are talking about a minority

community which come across Europe, is being targeted by an array of

discriminatory laws right parties, media treatment. You can't compare

the two. Two years ago in Norway we saw what happened when hysteria

reaches a peak. He didn't target Muslims. He said he was a crusader.

That is one madman, just as it is... Hang on, hang on. You can't

equate one person doing something crazy with the whole of... I am

not! I am saying that words have consequences. If we carry on with

this hysterical level... We should not claim people are demonised when

they are treated as equal. The media treats a lot of people unfairly.

Let's go to our guests. We have a counter extremism expert. One of the

underlying issues is there had been a number of convictions over the

past few years for terrorism. But it is a tiny number. In some ways you

could argue this is not a Muslim problem, just a problem with a few

terrorists of all backgrounds. respect, the British people no

longer really believe the words of British Muslim leaders. People

should recognise that the words of extremist groups is not so different

to the same kind of literalist, supremacist readings of the same

stricture by mainstream groups. -- Scripture. What is required is a

true for recognition that Islamic, Jewish, Abraham Nick sects contain

some violent versus. -- passages. Muslim scholars need to do work. We

can't do it if the nature of our discourse is limited and controlled

by an anti-Islamic industry. Mehdi, there is this industry. But I would

say it is the people pushing narratives about a clash of

civilisations. What about the side he has described? There are radical

ideologies. But a lot of the roots are political. To claim it is

Islamic is nonsensical. 99% of Muslims condemn these attacks. Let's

be honest, even if there is an Islamic link, they also say they are

doing it for foreign policy purposes. Even if they are, that

doesn't justify all sorts of scaremongering headlines. Douglas

says it is every community. No, this is particular targeting of Muslims.

Studies of the media can be pulled out of a hat. They are not

convenient for your argument? important to go back to the central

point. If a community, small or large, a certain number of people,

who commit acts of violence that are very, very prominent and cause a lot

of upset, death and horror, there is going to be a response to that. I

agree with the idea that there is a response to it and that it should

include criticism, where criticism is legitimate. It should include, as

we have already seen in this country, the usual force of the law.

That is what has happened in this monster these attacks. A Ukrainian

man has been arrested for these attacks. A Somalian man attacked the

mosque in Birmingham. We have got to remember that there is a legitimate

response to what people will feel. Then there will be completely wrong

things. But he makes a very important point. There is a risk at

the moment that there are people who think that all muslins think in a

particular way, they all have the same agenda. The only other people

that do think that Adi Islamist political parties, some of whom do

have prominent representatives and spokesman in is countries, who think

that all Muslims should follow their version of Islam. Both sides are

equally wrong. Joining us on webcam is a director of an organisation

that logs alleged Islamophobic attacks. A lot of the incidence you

get reported to you, I understand, are online. There is a lot of

extreme talk online. One wonders if there is an exaggeration of the

scale of the problem? Well, there is not an exaggeration, because the

type of material you see online include not only threats to kill,

they include consistent harassment of individuals. We are talking about

people who make an account, take down an account, target the

individual with a separate account. Death threats online, which the West

Midlands Police then made arrests from. We are not talking here about

some soft words that are said, words that people find distasteful. We are

talking about real threats to individuals, and impacts on their

lives. Let's talk about the impact. When you have e-mails, when you have

a tweet sent to you from somebody you don't know with threats to kill,

they are extremely frightening. Compare that with a street -based

account, you do not know who is targeting you. Let's not hear the

voices of the people that say, well, they are online, they should be

taken into account. Douglas talks about the issue around Islam and

Muslims. Douglas was on record as saying, in 2006, conditions for

Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board, Europe must

have a less attractive proposition. He even suggested the demolishing of

mosques in some circumstances. Douglas does not realise the scale

and intensity of the problem. He is one that goes on record to say that

anyone who monitored Islamophobic incidence is part of an Islamic

conspiracy. There are easier jobs I could do for a living rather than

having personal threats and threats against staff. Sunni Tell Mama is

subject to eight pretty devastating analysis by Andrew Gullikson --

has said, he said many years ago, I never said anything should be done

with Islam. I said that if mosques preach violence, they should be shut

down. As he well knows, I don't stand by the other comments, made in

a very angry time after the 7/7 bombings, after the murder of Theo

van Gogh, when several of my friends had been chased into hiding and

threatened with being killed because of their criticism of Islam. We'll

get things wrong, I don't have any pride in that. This thing about

threats has to be tackled. I disagree with the Respect party, I

don't think that Selma Yacoub or anybody else should be subjected to

threats against their person. Including people like myself.

to bring Anne in. In a sense, Douglas is talking about saying

stuff in the heat of the moment in the aftermath of a violent incident?

Last week, that brave woman who has called for women on our currency,

she had her most horrific threats against her. This does happen to us

all. I don't know what happens to people when they go online, a lot of

people lose their senses. Something I want to say on a different issue,

I think a lot of reasonable people are worried about that in this

country we rejoice that we have freedom of speech, we can criticise

each other robustly, we can laugh at each other. This is very much part

of our culture, something we are very proud of. I think a lot of very

reasonable people are worried that Islam has this kind of firewall

around it that you must not laugh at it. I know what you mean, I think

Muslims should have more fun, there are a lot of Muslim comedians.

they must accept criticism. I just want to bring in someone while we

have time, and prior is a former MP for Keighley. She has spoken out

about things like the status of women in a Muslim constituency. What

is your perspective on this issue? Unfortunately, I am a well-meaning

Guardian reader and I don't read rubbish like the Daily Mail and

other newspapers, what they are palling out. I'm not really aware of

what has been said. But if they are demonising Muslims, if they are

engaging in Islamophobia, I am very concerned. But can I also say that,

over 13 years, I thought for the rights of Muslim women, in my

constituency, to choose their own partners and own husbands. If

somebody is going to say to me, this is Islamophobic, well, I can't agree

with him. I was entitled during those 13 years to engage in

conversation against forced marriages from a certain point in my

period of office. I also engaged in arguments about gangs, grooming and

sexually abusing young girls. Should I not have done that? I'm sorry, the

phone line has terrible problems. For those that did not hear, she

raises the issue that when she tries to criticise real problems, going on

in a Muslim community, you are labelled Islamophobic. And this has

been going on for years? If you say that forced marriages are about

Islam, that is Islamophobic. Islam does not allow forced marriages and

Muslim women are campaigning against them alongside Anne. It is about how

you approach the problem without stereotyping communities. There is

an online phenomenon but also a mainstream phenomenon. We agree that

terrorism is a blight and we need to discuss it. If you look at some of

the newspaper stuff, did a council ban Christmas to avoid offending

Muslims? Did NatWest bank piggy banks? Did a bus driver order

passengers off a bus so he could pray? Where Muslims involved in the

kidnapping of Madeleine McCann? No. That's the Daily Star. Is Islam

responsible for the grooming of children? This is the rubbish

delivered by the Daily Mail, The Express, even The Times. What do you

expect, genuine good people having fears about Islam? Of course, false

fabrications. There is that fear of offending. Well, I'm offended when

people lie about my faith and front pages. There are legitimate and

illegitimate criticisms. Most of the legitimate criticisms still get

people into trouble. A legitimate criticisms still get people into

trouble. Illegitimate criticisms, we can separate out. But they are not

wrong when a look at certain Muslim leaders in this country, including

some that have been spoken about today, including some of this stuff

online, there are lots of things being said by prominent Muslims in

this country that people are worried about, concerned about. I think it

is legitimate... I have certainly not defended the ADL online. --

our poll question. Mehdi thank you, with passion in the studio. Our

Muslims being demonised? You can entered the banking business, sort

of. Or it at least threw open its doors to it. The watch Bishop of

Canterbury said he wants to put payday lenders like banker out of

business. Instead, he plans to encourage the expansion of credit

unions. Subsequently, Justin Welby discovered that the church had

indirectly helped to bankroll banker in the past. It comes in the same

week as he described the naming and shaming of individual bankers as

akin to a lynch mob. Archbishop Justin Welby believes the

church can offer credit unions use of many of its buildings in areas of

need. We need to provide good alternatives to people, which must

-- are much less expensive, to help economic regeneration. Credit unions

offer lower interest rates than companies like Wonga, but they do

not have such a sophisticated infrastructure or marketing clout.

If there is one thing we have learned Wonga, it is how to quickly.

Wonga says it's welcoming greater consumer choice. The Office of Fair

Trading has referred the payday lending industry to the competition

commission because of concerns about customers being able to identify or

compared the full cost of loans. Archbishop Welby's campaign hit an

early snag when it was revealed that the Church of England itself,

through its pension fund, had invested in an equity company that

helped Wonga launch. It made for some awkward media moments. You must

be, at the very least, embarrassed this morning? Yes, I am.On a scale

of one - ten? About eight. Archbishop, a former oil et tip, has

been critical of mainstream banking as well. -- oil executive. On a

radio programme, he said he was against individual bankers being

hounded. In some companies, there was a clear policy of not telling

the top people, they made sure they did not know things so they could

plead ignorance. That is unacceptable. This business of

saying that one individual somehow bears the whole blame, as opposed to

simply be accountability, it feels like a lynch mob. Others believe

that the bankers have not learned their lesson and should have been

brought to book more severely. Is banking morally deficit? Or should

those in the money business have freedom to operate in the

marketplace as long as they stay of the church. Should it be in the

business of lending? The Strand underlying this is ethical. Does the

banking business overall need more morality? You can join in the debate

online. Is Justin Welby doing the right thing by trying to get people

better deals on loans? Archbishop that can get the better

of John Humphrys, or anybody who can, has my vote for the rest of

their life. He can't do any wrong from now on as far as I am

concerned. I think he understands money. We all know that he was in

that business before he was in the church. So, yes, he does know what

he is talking about. Something that I find slightly irritating, being

married to a clergyman, is... Can I think of a polite word? The garbage

that is talked by others about Church of England investments.

Somebody on the today programme was saying that the Church of England

tries to limit harm in the ways invest is, why is it not more

proactive? The idea of bringing lending into something that they do?

I just want to finish this point. The Church of England is not in the

business of giving cheap loans. That is not what it is for. It's in the

business of preaching the gospel. In order to preach the gospel, it has

certain investments that it needs to maximise for what it is doing. We

have this figure, 5.2 billion or whatever it is, we forget that the

Church of England is incomplete church making a moral stance on

them. They are right to get involved. They are absolutely right

to get involved. This is a point of discussion. You need leaders to put

ideas out there and to argue for them, and if people wish to accept

their ideas, they will. It is the sort of thing the Archbishop of

Canterbury should be involved in. A lot of people in this country are

taking advantage of by these companies. It is right that the

Archbishop steps in. Finally, Douglas and I are in agreement. This

is where I would go further. It is right to step in. Wonga 's interest

is absurd. We should mention that Wonga is only one company.

phrase was, I am going to compete you out of existence. I worried that

is too limited a response. As the Office of Fair Trading has pointed

out, it is not a fair industry, there is not free competition. There

needs to be better regulation. We need a cap on the interest rates.

I'm not sure why the government isn't doing it. A lot of American

States and European countries have a cap. It is not the reputable

companies like Wonga latte blame, is it? -- who are to blame. They have

loaned to people who are drunk, people who are under 18. They are

not a scrupulous industry. I want to bring in Mark Littlewood. You have

heard and will have seen reporting about much unethical lending.

I think that these payday lenders are providing a needed are required

and desired service. It is right to point out that errors are made.

Those should be properly dealt with. If necessary, they should be

prosecuted through the correct processes. What Wonga and the payday

lenders are doing is providing an alternative to thuggish loan

sharks. That is to be commended. response to that? The fact is, they

are legalised loan sharks. They have an extortionate rate. They make a

lot of money from pressuring vulnerable customers who can't

afford this stuff. Citizens advice ran a whole report pointing out that

there is no transparency on these rates. They are asking for a clear

payback amount to be stated at the start, which isn't provided. At the

end of the day, they are the symptoms, and we have to ask why so

many people are having to go to these payday lenders. A lot of

people might say what you are doing is perfectly legal. But it doesn't

seem moral. But you don't seem to care about the effect it is having.

I rather agree with what Mehdi has just said. They are providing

something that people need. Why people need this, that is a wider

societal problem. It is not the fault of any lender. It shows how

much people really are living on the edge. But they are exploiting those

people. We also have a guest from a campaign. Tell us what you think of

this idea, that these loan companies are not the problem but part of the

solution. There is no bigger example of banks ripping off the public and

the investment banking community. It led to the list crisis of a

generation. It is the public who are still paying for their mistakes now.

This is about getting the financial sector, particularly the investment

banking community, back onside. Just like with any other addict, you

cannot leave it to the addict to wean themselves off. It is the same

with the banking sector. The government needs to help the sector

get over it addiction to fast money. The Robin Hood tax would curb

the excesses and raise billions. We can plough it back into the economy

and public services. We need the government to step in to the vacuum

we often see in the banking sector to get it working once again in the

interest of society rather than against it. Douglas.

It is difficult. A lot of businesses made in the border regions, shall we

say. It relies on people having an ethical value system of their own to

bring to it. That is different from illegality. One of these confusions

has been that the public, I think rightly, have the perception... We

have nobody in the industry who misled people, who sold products

that didn't exist. If anybody else sold a product that didn't exist and

took the money for it and ran, that person would be in jail. That hasn't

happened in the financial services industry. The Archbishop is talking

about scapegoating individual bankers. People are right to pick up

on that. There is a risk of this going at bankers as a whole. There

is a risk of generalising. There is an anti-banker sends in the country.

I agree, there is an unthinking sense of let's blame the bankers.

The whole of society is to blame for this. It has to be said that most of

the bankers are not the people who are going to find themselves without

homes, or be pursued. I just wonder if we need to ask more radical

questions about the nature of capitalism. If you go back to the

old Testament, the rules that God enshrined would have made capitalism

impossible. They also make raging wealth and poverty, in theory,

impossible. I wonder whether we should be asking ourselves if we are

all to blame here in this. We have got capitalism taken to an extreme.

I agree there are extremes. To take Douglas' points, I would argue it is

about fringes. Within the industry, bankers are not a minority. Bob

Diamond, he was not some small bank manager. He had one of the ageist

banks. The head of HSBC went to serve in government. There is

anti-banker sentiment, but no practical action. We will put

somebody in jail who stole a bottle of water in the riots, but not a

single banker. We have got a former trader joining us. There was a

time, Barbara, when banks and bankers were considered beacons of

civic responsibility. Perhaps there's a case for saying that

bankers should be trying to recapture some of that. They could

have a moral role in society again. They could. Unfortunately, it is not

bankers' job to pursue a spiritual high ground. It is their job to make

money. That is where the profession differs from others, like a police

officer or teacher, who have an air of civic responsibility. So it is an

industry about greed. Is there no moral imperative on bankers as human

beings to think about what they are doing? It is important to understand

that nobody is breaking any laws here. They are operating within the

rules of the current system. The credit crunch didn't occur because

bankers were acting illegally. There were a series of ethical breaches

whereby an bankers may have known what they were doing. I think that

is disputed. I would dispute that. As we have seen from the right

reading scandal, they were not. -- rate fixing scandal. There are

unique circumstances where the law was broken, but mainly it is ethical

breaches. Just a couple of thoughts from viewers. Janet says that the

Archbishop should concentrate on raising average incomes. Here, here.

That is an interesting point. Mark raised it, too. I had the focus

should be on why people are turning to these companies. -- perhaps the

focus. I don't think it is the job of the Archbishop to raise the

minimum wage! It is the job of the Church to challenge, to change

society. I suspect there was a huge cultural shift in the 1980s, where a

lot of these things, before then, were restrained by self-imposed

morality, by Christian values. It wasn't just banking, but in all

sorts of professions, people had a sense of honour, a sense that you

don't lie to the taxman. The City of London was always based on my word

is my bond. Those are the things that were done away with when greed

became respectable, the only thing that mattered. And shame

disappeared. Thank you all very much indeed. You have all been voting at

home on whether Muslims are being demonised. The poll is closing, so

please don't text in. We will show the results at the end of the show.

Later today the Pope will lead a mass to celebrate world youth day in

Brazil after a week of coverage involving 2 million young people. He

has called on the young drivel to become a living stones to build the

church. Next week, a BBC programme will follow a festival for millions

of Hindus. In an age of fast travel and luxury hotels, is pilgrimage

still relevant? First, a look at some of the world's most important

pilgrimage. This week, the Pope has been greeted

by more than 1 million pilgrims in Brazil to mark world youth Day, an

international festival attended I young Catholics from more than 190

countries. He is incredible. He was so close to me. It was amazing. I

yelled. It was terrific. He is so energised. He is extremely

charismatic. He was waving. This year, the Vatican said those

Catholics following the pilgrimage live on television, radio and social

media may qualify for indulgences, the remission of punishment for sin.

Journeying to a place of special significance has long been a central

act of religious devotion. Each year, more than 3 million Muslims go

on a pilgrimage to Mecca. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. In

terms of numbers, though, no pilgrimage compares to the kohl

mela. This festival attracted 100 million pilgrims in India. Hindus

bathe in the sacred rivers in order to emerge purified and renewed. For

this lady and her niece, who made the journey from London, it was a

special moment. Amazing. And to be part of something. Matter it is vast

but it is about everybody coming together. You could never put this

into words. No better place to pray than the Ganges.

In times gone by, people would have had to walk for days, if not weeks,

and risk the perils of the road to take part in pilgrimages. Now, with

air flight and comfortable hotels, the very nature of some pilgrimages

has changed. But does the fact that modern luxuries can be enjoyed at

the same time make the experience any less spiritual? The spectacle is

still there, and many people's reasons for going is still sincere.

It has the true purpose be lost and is pilgrimage still relevant? What

meaning? Very much so. You saw from the film, even the people living in

the West, away from major religious sites, people from Britain

travelling abroad, I am very fortunate in that I have been able

to go on pilgrimage. Alongside the birth of my two daughters, it is

probably the greatest experience of my life and I am not a very

spiritual person. It is a growing thing, more and more Muslims do it?

It's deeply overcrowded. A growing Muslim middle class want to go two

or three times. You mentioned about technology, thank God I went on Hajj

before I got on Twitter. I don't know what I would have been like

now. It's a good way to cut yourself off from the daily rat race, focus

on what really matters. It's also got social meaning. For Muslims, the

Hajj is a place, as the Hindu in your film mentioned, everybody gets

together, there is no black or white, rich and poor, male or

female, everybody together. Marco Max? -- Tell MamaMalcom X --

Malcom X? Do you see that in the modern world? Cutting yourself off

from the rat race, focusing on something deeper, it's an important

thing. There are too few opportunities in the modern world to

do that. I don't think it has to be a religious thing. I think

nonreligious people, including atheists, can have equivalents.

as? Well, travel to a place of particular meaning to you. It can be

something of personal significance, the family, it could be travelling

to see a great work of art you have always wanted to see. That just

sounds like a holiday, doesn't it? It's not quite as organised.

does it differ from a spa break, potentially? The important thing is

that it's part Lee a delay of gratification. We do live in a

society of instant gratification. We can get on a flight and get

somewhere, we can order what we want at any time. Something about the

build-up of the event that makes you focus on it is an important thing.

People might think, what is the difference between pilgrimage and

religious terrorism, with the gift shops and the package tours? It has

always have that element, the fine line between tourism and

pilgrimages. In the Middle Ages, people used to go and collect all of

the tokens. It's very easy for us to say that we are in favour of

pilgrimage and apple pie. I'm interested in the criticism of

pilgrimage, right from the beginning. As early as the fourth

century, Jerome said that the kingdom of God is within yourself.

August Ian said that faith brings God to you, you don't you to go on

pilgrimage. People were criticised in to the church of Rome. The first

person to criticise pilgrimage was Jesus himself. The Samaritan woman

said, should we worship God here, where the Jews say, or where the

Samaritans say? He said, the time is coming where you will not worship in

any particular place because God will be in our hearts. Luther said

all pilgrimage should be stopped. I speak as a Christian and we are all

on pilgrimage. We are all pilgrims. Pilgrim means travelling through the

air. The Christian understanding is that we are simply travellers.

agree, I think you should... I'm not saying pilgrimage is wrong, I'm

saying there's another side that I find interesting. There is a sense

that, I'll go on pilgrimage, that will make me wholly. If you don't

take God with you, you will not find God when you get there. I want to

bring in a cell -- secular point of view. It's clear that millions of

people around the world say they get a real spiritual value from

pilgrimage. What do you say? suppose one way of saying it is that

you get the ritual value if you think you get spiritual value, but

you don't necessarily get it. I accept the argument that pilgrimage

is a special time, if you travel with the idea you will find

something special, fine. If somebody wants to tell you that, as you said

in the clip, the Ganges, the waters of the Ganges are more spiritually

charged than the waters of any other body of water, I would start to

question it. What specifically would you say to people that really

believe that going to this place is wholly and it will give me spiritual

benefit? It's a matter of choice. I suppose if you feel there will be

benefits, there is a fine line. There are faith healers who say, if

you believe, I can't hear your disease. At that point, you will

want to say, you might want to see your doctor. You think there is a

scam element? The benefits of the events are clearly spurious and need

to be questioned. In a larger sense, the idea that you want to go on a

journey to something that matters to you, we are talking about the grand

Canyon, Notre Dame, in that kind of sense... I want to bring in somebody

who is on pilgrimage in Kent, able to communicate with the world

outside. What do you make that argument? There will be people who

say they feel there is something wrong about the idea of a mass

pilgrimage. All of these people acting, not as individuals, but in a

herd? I suppose the first thing to say is, for somebody of any faith,

we are all on a mass pilgrimage the whole of our existence. We are all

destined for something greater. We live our life a day at a time, that

is a pilgrimage. What is interesting to me is that many people don't make

pilgrimage and they will look at the headline stuff. The miracles, all of

those other things that are associated with many pilgrimages.

They will miss the point. That is that, if you don't take God with

you, you are not going to find him when you get there on pilgrimage. A

pilgrimage is time out. It is a chance to look for dipping counters

with God. Briefly, Paul, I'm interested that the Pope is saying

that you can follow his pilgrimage on television and social media and

get spiritual indulgence. Is there any pilgrimage without sacrificing

some way? It's an interesting question. I think we need to make

some sacrifice at some point. I think pilgrimages time out from the

consumerism. It is a countercultural thing to do. Probably more relevant

than ever. But I am here with 700 young people that could not get

there. We are following the Pope, we have big screens, Twitter and

everything and we are having a good time. You could argue that the

church is having it both ways. Maximise potential audience, also

encourage the physical pilgrimage? It's an extension of the debate

alluded to about the hucksters on the fringes. Pilgrimage, going back

to the beginning, has taken that in. The Canterbury tales is infused

with it. Are you infused by the idea that you can have this multimedia

experience? The last of the four quartets, it's an extraordinary

passage. He says, whichever way you have come, however you found your

way to this place, I badly quote, but he says that you are not here to

carry report. You are here to kneel where prayer has been valued. It

does not matter how you got here. Can social media do the same thing?

No, it can't. Something we have not touched on is that pilgrimage is not

just going to meet God. It's also a meeting with God's people. It is

like the church, but many times. Why do you go to church? You don't go to

church to meet God, because you can meet God in the bedroom. It is

social? A very important social aspect of being with God 's Micra

family. People talk about the equality of pilgrimage. A bishop's

blisters are the same as a tramps. The people who thing going on

pilgrimage is the same as going to the Grand Canyon don't have a clue,

with respect. On the social media side, I don't want to be a Luddite,

but having not gone on the Hajj with my iPhone, with Twitter, I would

hope that if I went now it would enhance it. I would love The To be

Hajj and enjoyed it like that. have to ended there. And you can see

Kumbh Mela: The Greatest Show on Earth, on Tuesday, BBC Two. The poll

results are in. We asked if Muslims were being demonised. 22% said yes,

they are. 78% said no. So, about a quarter of people, of those that

have decided to contact us. Just to read a flavour of comments, an

anonymous one, terrorism is a threat from small minorities of Muslims.

The threat is the chauvinistic, homophobic culture that runs against

British values of tolerance. Dylan says that Muslims are being

demonised. The actions of a minority should not reflect on the rest of

the Muslim population. Jessica says, I don't think any religion is beyond

criticism, but let's not confuse that with the demonisation that is

occurring. Terry says it is time the Muslim faith Britain takes a long,

hard look at itself. Its isolation from mainstream British society is

all too obvious. I think that last point is a good want to start on.

Mehdi, your view? The Muslim community is isolated because it

feels besieged. The best way of making them out of the public

square, it is to make them feel that they don't belong. The result does

not surprise me. First, it's quite a heavy duty question. Are Muslims

being demonised? The majority of people in this country do not hold

anti-Muslim views. I'm not surprised they responded in that manner. It's

about sections of the population. As I said earlier, if you are fed a

diet of misinformation and hysteria about a minority community, that has

repercussions on consequences. is this feeling that there are these

issues like Sharia law courts, the status of women, that don't go

away. Is that legitimately part of the discussion or part of the

demonisation? I find the result of that poll deeply depressing. I do

believe that Islam is being demonised. I believe that, it is

something I'm very proud of in this country, our tolerance and our

willingness to embrace different faiths and cultures. I don't think

we are embracing it. Have you changed your views? I haven't. I

think there are two sides to the question. I do see Muslims being

demonised. Maybe not by a majority, but it's definitely happening. I

think it is awful, if we can't see that. That vote to suggest three

cannot see what is happening under our own noses. That we are not being

fed to a particular minority. I think Christians are demonised as

well. I got into my hotel room last night, turned on the television and

there was a popular game show that I will not mention, saying the most

unbelievable stuff about the Pope, the Catholic Church, about how

basically all Catholics were basically paedophiles. That kind of

generalisation and unpleasant this can happen in any direction. The

thing is, when it comes to Islam, specifically to religious aspects of

Islam, there is a lack of willingness to challenge it. It is a

legitimate fear. The very first point I came to is this, of course

it is wrong to tar everybody from any community with the brush of

extremism because of some individuals. But I think there is a

popular public reaction, that is legitimate, that says there is a

problem we see, we are not sure how to deal with it but we observe a

problem. Thank you so much to everybody that has taken part,

particular duty Click to my guests in the studio. Do not taxed or call

the phone lines any more. You can follow the links on the website to

continue the conversation online. Thank you very much for watching and