Episode 15 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: The threat from Islamism.

And the fast road to sainthood. APPLAUSE Good morning.

I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions. Today, we're live

from Manor Church of England Academy, in York. Welcome, everyone,

to The Big Questions. On Wednesday, Tony Blair, the former

Prime Minister, now Middle East peace envoy, and multi-millionaire

consultant, delivered a portentous speech warning that Islamist

ideology poses a real threat which is destabilising communities and

nations, and undermining peaceful co-existence in an era of

globalisation. In the face of this growing threat, which Tony Blair

warned is "spreading across the world", he said: "We seem curiously

reluctant to acknowledge it, and powerless to counter it

effectively." Is he right? Is Islamism the biggest threat to

the modern world? Anne-Marie Waters, is he right?

He is right, but not because he is Tony Blair. It is important we do

not fixate on the messenger. The evidence is there is a global,

Islamist, political movement. It does rule countries and destabilise

countries. As the Arab Spring showed us, it is powerful and organised and

waiting to take over even more countries it is already rolling. Not

only in the Middle East and North Africa, but in Britain, across the

West. We are reluctant to confront it. The fact we are having this

debate shows that. The evidence for it is around us. We have Islamist

Livio Loi in this country openly calling for brutal punishments, they

are running a family court system, calling for Shari -- Sharia.

If I can focus, Tony Blair, cosying up to one of the dictators, in this

speech, lamely decrying the death sentence for 500 members of the

Muslim Brotherhood. Calling for the enemies of Islamism to be bolstered

wherever they are. With Saddam Hussein, at the time of the Koran -a

war. -- Iran-Iraq. Has he not learned any lessons?

It does not detract from the message. Some of it is rich coming

from Tony Blair. The question is, is Islamism a threat to the modern

world? It is. We have two separate that question from Tony Blair and

what he may have done or said. There is a threat, is there?

It is an exaggerated threat. Tony Blair is responsible for this

threat. I will give you examples. He invaded Iraq and gave a safe haven

for Al-Qaeda. He invaded also Afghanistan. He created another

base. They have created a failed state and a vacuum filled by

Islamist extremists. Most of the regime changes took place in secular

Arab countries. Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, they are not Islamist. Look

at what is happening. I am not defending them. I am just exposing

the contradictions. The worst time -- type of phobia. Now he is siding

with Egypt. There is a campaign now against Islam and the Muslim

Brotherhood. He is trying to be part of this campaign. The Muslim

brotherhood does not exist in Egypt. In Syria, they are struggling. What

about the kidnap of schoolgirls we have heard from extremist groups to

knock 4000 dead over four years. Tony Blair killed 1 million people

in the rock. -- Iraq.

Somehow, everything is the fault of the West, as if countries, people,

cannot act on their own initiative. Let her answer. Someone said the

Americans are responsible for the Taliban. They are not responsible

for what the Taliban does when it is in power. For imprisoning women,

stoning people to death. That is their own fault. They do that of

their own volition. Who brought the Taliban to power?

The Americans. They gave their support. This idea everything is

somehow connected back to the all-powerful West is absurd. People

are responsible for their own actions, and the people responsible

for the Harrah -- the horror of the Taliban, is the Taliban themselves.

Some people said about this speech, he has undermined himself. Did you

not think this is a man who waged what many believe to be an illegal

war, which led to, maybe, 1 million deaths, created, creating many

extremists across the world. And he is lecturing the world about peace.

One can differentiate between Tony Blair the man, and Tony Blair with

his message. I agree with the message. The media has been guilty

of ignoring the central theme of the message, and pointing to suggestions

he wants to keep Assad in power. None of this was said in the speech.

Tony Blair is saying there was a greater evil we should focus on. Of

course there is a campaign against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a

global organisation seeking to impose an absolute form of Islam.

The former head of MI6 called it, at heart, a terrorist organisation.

Abdel Bari Atwan, you famously said... This is not true. When we

talk about the speech... You need to make that clear it is not true, you

never said that. It was out of context. On a programme, it was a

few seconds from a programme. So is bombing the Arabs? The Israelis. I

will come back to you. Extremism is a threat but certainly not the

biggest threat. Capitalism. Climate change. Religion and politics

without Essex -- ethics. In every region, you have crazy

fundamentalism, right wing Jewish in Israel causing havoc, Hindu

extremists in India causing problems. Buddhist extremists now

causing persecution and genocide in Burma. Religious extremism affects

every religion. This Islamist extremism is a problem. Muslims have

to look in the mirror and address these issues as common human

issues. It is Arabs killing each other, in Syria. Injuries lump,

there is a display cabinet in the mosque showing CS gas canisters

which Israelis fired into the mosque over the last 40 years. Palestinians

say, we are killing each other in Syria, how can we blame the Jews? It

is more complex. I agree that arise -- there is

extremism everywhere. But you can confuse Islam with Islamism. I don't

think they said that. It should never be confused with extremism and

violence, Islam does not subscribe to any of that. The problem is, does

Islam have political framework within it, does it propose an

economic, social and ethical framework. As soon as it proposes a

political framework, it becomes a public one. To save the Muslim

Brotherhood is at its heart a terrorist organisation, that

completely misunderstand the organisation. I have read the

literature. I don't think it is like that. But the current climate in the

world would lead moderate groups like that to become radicalised

because of the lunatic ideas. We have turned a blind eye to the

Middle East. 60% of Egyptians want the Muslim Brotherhood to be in

government. But this democratic movement is being undermined. We

would like the right guy we like to become the president or prime

minister. Tony Blair is one of the private advisers to the dictator of

Kazakhstan. He went running to the South Sudanese government to become

their adviser. He embraced Gaddafi. I can never forget those atrocities

perpetrated by Tony Blair's policies. Simply Tony Blair saying

this is wrong. I saw you wincing, why is that when

he was speaking? Talking about the ideology and belief.

The idea Islamism can be completely separated from Islam is

problematic. Why is that? If an Islamist government takes over a

country... Define that? And installs death by stoning, they can find

justification for that in Scripture. Wait, wait! Let her finish. You have

violence against women justified as it often is by Islamist

governments... I will tell you what we will do. Wait. Usama Hasan is an

imam, maybe you can explain why you believe that not to be the case?

There is a debate going on within Islam. The issue of a politically

interpretation of Islam. Groups do not speak for all Muslims. There are

many of devout Muslims who oppose the hijacking of religion for

political purposes. It is true to say that the Western foreign policy

for the last 60 years has been problematic, supporting dictators

for stability, like a sad, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and others. Hartley

needing to the increase of Islamism. The Muslim Brotherhood has a wide

spectrum. In Tunisia, Islamists have proposed a purely civil

constitution. I want to explore this point. It is key. This whole bit

about the confusion between Islam and Islamism which must not be made.

You say there are cross overs. Tony Blair in his speech and said it is a

warped interpretation of Islam. Others have said it is plausible.

Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood is a broad spectrum. Everyone has

the right to have politics informed by faith. All kinds of people, all

around the world, leaders and millions of people whose politics is

informed on religious values of truth, honesty, justice and working

for others. Is it a plausible reading of the Koran? Certain forms

of it but there are extremist interpretations which are causing

havoc around the world. This points to a far larger discussion, to which

you are already alluded about fundamentalists, radicalised

religion and moderate progressive religion. In a way, this entire

discussion is a red herring. There are much wider issues to content

with. We have a million Brits needing food bikes. There is

poverty, environmental degradation, slavery in today's world. I do not

see Tony Blair giving a keynote speech about those things. It is

important to draw the discussion back to be human level. As a rabbi,

I am interested in building bridges between faith communities. I work

for the British community. It is important to realise that the large

majority of people want peace, progressive religion can give people

meaning in their lives. I often hear people saying Islam is inherently

evil. Church leaders say it is inherently peaceful. How do you know

what it means? Surely we should deal with realities. Regardless of the

hypocrisies of Tony Blair and his statements, we should deal with

reality. Islamist presents a global threat to many people. This is the

most important point. Let him finish. When people accuse

anti-Islamist 's of being anti-Islam, it is a betrayal of

moderate Muslims everywhere. An unintended consequence? It is about

bigotry. Is Sam killed -- all this killing is supported by the

Americans. How do you say that Islam is a threat? Tell me one example

that Islam is a threat? Do we have bombs like you? Do we have missiles?

I am not saying organisations like Al-Qaeda represent Islam, you are.

Give me one example where the Muslim Brotherhood has invaded a country.

Who used phosphoric bombs in Gaza? In eejit, the Muslim Brotherhood

takes over institutions and murders people. -- Egypt. Anne-Marie said at

the outset, they are here in this country. There are people with some

ghastly and appalling views. Tony Blair called them incompatible with

the modern world. Do you agree? I would include Sam to be an extremist

in his views. He wrote an article calling me an extremist. I have

received death threats for talking against extremism. For him to make

silly statement in an article, there are problems with the definitions.

This is so important. We are talking about laying bombs and killing

fellow citizens on the street. It is wrong in any civilised world. Let's

answer the question we have already asked about Syria. Did the Syrians,

did the ordinary Syrians, aid and the bet and give alms to President

Assad or are we doing that through China and other countries? They want

freedom. The people of Saudi Arabia want freedom. Because we constantly

interfere and supply them with weapons and intelligence, they keep

those people seeking freedom under constant repression. If you allow

Muslims across the globe the freedom to choose, they will choose the

party they feel very happy with. Ultimately, the problem that

Anne-Marie was highlighting is to do with sharia. We chose not to

intervene in Syria. They said, do not come into our country, give us

the arms to top the dictator. Some people dead and some did not. Our

underlining the objective is to deliver justice to the world,

fairness and equality. It is about establishing peace and fairness and

justice. If people cannot find space to express it freely, and they are

being constantly repressed, and the by-product of which we see as

Manufacturing in extremism, we cannot find a point in it. Why do

you think he is an extremist? Iraq are quite a few examples. -- there

are quite a few examples. You have said the Mumbai attacks are the work

of the American intelligence agencies. I never said that. What

are you claiming he said? He claims in a Facebook post but the American

security forces somehow orchestrated the Mumbai attacks. He also claims

shadowy forces were at work in the Westgate shopping massacre. Who is

responsible for? That is the topic you have missed. I did not say

someone was responsible. I was blogging in my page, asking

questions. You have said I support the Muslim Brotherhood. In my entire

life, I have never been supported of those organisations. I am very

British. I even stood in the Parliamentary elections as a Liberal

Democrat. It shows your shallow understanding. Sam, respond. You

also described the Hamas leader as an honest and great man. Sky he is

an honest and great man as opposed to Binyamin Netanyahu, any time.

What would you like to say? How -- Hamas in their charter, they blamed

the Jews for everything going back to the French Revolution. They want

to obliterate Israel. It is uncompromising. It reads like

something which is likely to come out of Nazi Germany. Even Hamas is

not an Islamic ideology. What is it? It is a group that is supporting

their own religion, their own country. This has been going on for

many years. We should not mix this with Islam. I am hearing here, we're

in the United Kingdom, in York, in North Yorkshire, and we are hearing

voices calling Muslims evil. Who said that? He said evil. He cannot

even come up with a definition. It has not been agreed on. Why is it

not agreed upon? The Government labels as anyway they want. They

call us terrorists one day, is limbs -- Islamist 's one-day. In this

country, who is funding you to pay for this? That is simple. Let her

respond. Islamist obeah, what do you make of that? What sort of sharia

are we watching? I disagree with your definition of extremism. You do

not have to plant a bomb to be an extremist. If you want to deny women

any right to get out a violent marriage or child custody, that is

quite extreme. They call it sharia, therefore I am calling it sharia.

What about Islamist phobia? -- Islamophobia? Hamas is the outcome

of decades of Israelis and ethnic cleansing, which started in 1948

when they destroyed 532 villages and towns. We are only 18 days from the

66th anniversary. The world has turned a blind eye to it. Hamas is

an outcome to an action by Israel, supported by the West. It is part of

the policy. You cannot deny that Hamas is a big part of the social

fibre. It is cause and effect? We are talking about aggression and

radicalism. I would add my voice to 22% of the British public who last

year, in 2013, according to the Daily Express survey, want Tony

Blair to be tried for war crimes committed against their people. I

would add my voice to the rising voice of those. Some Israeli leaders

have asked for this, for him to be charged with war crimes against the

Palestinians. We need to get a response to that. The killing of

farmers and fishermen. Can I get a response? Do not talk to me about

radicalism... It is Zionism. It is big powers... You have made your

point very, very strongly and we need to get a response. Who wants to

respond to it? I have not mentioned any of that. I need a response. You

will get a response but let's get a response from the other side. I

think the rabbi wants to respond. There were a lot of accusations

about Israel. Do you want to counter that? Sign he cannot deny it. If he

denies it and he will be lying through his teeth. Sam Westrop...

Can you let him respond, please? Can you let him respond? 150,000 killed

in Syria, wasting time talking that the only free democracy in the

Middle East. A smoke screen to hide from the real facts. In terms of

casualties number since the Second World War, the Arab -Israeli

conflict is the 50th most deadly. It is something to be horribly

concerned about. What about the illegal settlements? And 150,000

killed in Syria. This is precisely what Tony Blair was talking about.

There are many other issues that need discussion will stop peace

processes need resolving and complex that need stuffing. There is terror

abroad and extremism in the UK. I will attempt to come back to you

later on. Anyone in the audience want to make a point? Good morning.

A quick point. We have got to go back to basics. Islam or Islamist,

as I understand it, seeks to impose where it can, imposing Islam all

over the world. Letting Alaa -- Allah rule the world. There are

people who do not believe in Allah. I come from Nigeria. There is Boca

around there. Politicians use them... It is politically motivated.

They have said they want to impose jihad. Sorry, I mean, sharia, all

over Nigeria. This is a key point. Is it about religion or is it about

people using religion as a tool for power?

This was an extremist idea in early Islam. A small group wanting to

impose its thoughts on everybody. Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood

fall into that wrong thinking and it has to be challenged. Muslims are

fed up of the politicisation and enforcing narrow and violent

interpretations. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it

feeds so much hatred and division around the world and radicalism. I

have spent years as a committed Muslim. I know about these topics.

We need a proper peace process. The Israelis are far stronger. It is

unequalled. We need the international community to do far

more. Tony Blair, the peace convoy, these two do far more to seek a just

and lasting peace. We need to build. We need to build bridges. I

am a patron and trustee of three different trusts -- charities

building bridges. When you have decades of conflict and murder on

both sides, hatred and grievances, it takes... Who is being the

victim? I am not here to score points. But

for the truth. Rabbi, you have been waiting very patiently and I know

you have something to say. We want to hear.

I think we always have to be careful to take it back to the individual

human level. That is my interest as a rabbi, as someone who serves God

and serves people and tries to hold God and people in the same thought.

Every religion struggles with its interpretive tradition, has shadow

sides and light sides, that is an interpretive process communities had

to engage in. The more you create hostility, the harder this

interpretive tradition will be. Everyone has a narrative, a story of

pain, grief, anger. Of being evicted. I am not here today to cast

judgement -- of being a victim. I stand here as a woman of progressive

faith to demonstrate religion can be a force for good in the world. The

louder the extremists shout, the more our voices are drowned out. It

is time for people of peace and tolerance to stand up and raise

their voice. Wait, wait. You talk about people in the shadows who are

extremists, you don't want to be judgemental. Shouldn't you be

judgemental about those people who are hijacking your religion,

Christianity, Islam? Fundamentalist religions... I prefer to live by

example. What is the point of shouting when you can build bridges.

I work with Muslims, Christians, Jews, in real conversation, real

social action. How do you stop them killing? At my level, by building a

stronger civil society in which we can talk to each other and learn a

civil discourse. It is all very nice what you're saying but the problem

is the other people had to agree with you. You can't sit down and

talk to people if they want to kill you, no matter what. They have to

feel the same wafer that dialogue to work and some people do not want

dialogue, want force. There are violent people who do want

dialogue. You cannot ignore the violence. I am not ignoring it.

There is a question of proportionality and what I can

actually do. I am a rabbi, I worked with people of good faith, to

alleviate real, pressuring issues in England -- pressing. What other

struggles here in England, and in the world? Terroir 150 million

children in child labour in the world. One last word?

I am all in favour of dialogue. Are you? Not with that language.

I can use whatever language I like. By the way, I am merely quoting

other... Let her speak. She has spoken for a long time. We have to

acknowledge. This is going to be a quick, last word, as I strive for

balance. It is quick, last word, as I strive for

impossible on this one. You are worried people call it, you say it

is inevitably political, Islam. When you look at another illusion,

evangelical Christianity, for example, elements within the

Republican party, which has influence on foreign policy. Are you

not as uncomfortable about that as others are about politicisation of

Islam? Whether they are Muslim, Christian,

Hindu, it makes no difference. No religion would want you to preach

hatred or practice in justice, no religion would want you to kill one

another. If anybody says they are, they have misunderstood God. I want

that to be separated. Religion is a great framework to creating a good

society. Individuals who go wrong, we need to stop them with dialogue.

Thank you, all. Can I add to that?

We are out of time. We have to talk about the Saints,

Saints preserve us. You can have your say about all this

morning's debates, by logging on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, and

following the link to the online discussion. Or you can tweet using

the hashtag #bbctbq. Tell us what you think about our last Big

Question too. Does Pope John Paul II deserve

sainthood? And, if you would like to be in the

audience at a future show, you can email [email protected].

Next Sunday's show is a special on atheism, recorded here in York. But

we are recruiting audiences for London on May 11th, Walsall on May

25th, and Brighton on June 15th. This morning, millions of Catholics

have watched on television and in cinemas around the world as Pope

Francis canonised two of his predecessors, the liberal Pope John

XXIII, and the more conservative Pope John Paul II. According to

protocol, the usually lengthy process of beatification and

canonisation should not start until five years after a candidate for

sainthood's death. But, in John Paul's case, his great friend and

successor, Pope Benedict, set the ball rolling within a month. This

haste, together with the huge concern there has been across the

world over the Church's handling of the child abuse scandal during John

Paul II's papacy, have led many prominent and devout Catholics to

question its wisdom. Does Pope John Paul II deserve sainthood?

Sarah, I think you are going to say, yes, he does. What does it

mean, becoming a saint? Is it an executive Clubcard! You cannot make

a saint but you can declare a saint. The church recognises someone is a

saint and the people of God are part of that. Said Anthony was made a

saint within a year because it was so wouldn't he was a person who was

extremely holy -- so evident. You are right, Pope Benedict did waive

the five years. The Pope, it is said, only effected by miracle, when

he placed a photo on the stomach of a woman and cured her illness.

Before the 13th century, people were declared saint straightaway. They

have put processes in place. That is useful. The important thing is, for

instance, listening to this fascinating discussion about Islam,

what did John Paul II do about this great tension between the religions?

He called together in RCC -- Assissi...

But bringing together people for discussion, that includes Russell

Brand! To be a saint, you have to be dead.

And a Catholic. God bless Russell Brand, he is still with us. You have

to be a Catholic, in full communion of the church, to live a holy life

as recognised by the church. There are many Saints, many we do not

declare. Lots of people are in heaven interceding with us and

praying for us. The church will name a saint because they have said

something within the church which is important which we need to hear, and

they are an antidote to the problems. John Paul II called people

together of all religions to pray together, in Assissi. That was

meaningful. We must ask this question. Why should someone who, in

the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, consigned millions to die

needlessly from AIDS. And believed, sexuality was intrinsically

disordered and an ideology of evil. Why should someone like that deserve

sainthood? John Paul II did not consign people

to die of aids, even secular observers of serve where abstinence

is preached, that is where AIDS goes down. Secular observers with

excellent statistics observed it is not condom is that prevent AIDS. He

preached people are infinitely loved by God and each individual is

infinitely valuable. That idea went across his entire Pontificate. He

welcomed Christ into economic structures, every area of life,

because he had to show us that every single person, whether you disagree

or not, is infinitely loved by God. That is a radical always. So,

objectively disordered. , sexuality was seen to leading to an intrinsic,

moral evil. --, sexuality -- homosexuality.

It set back progress before Pope John Paul II. The truth is, it has

made a negative impact on many Catholics, gay Catholics, their

friends and families, if you look at questionnaires from the Synod of

Bishops, most Catholics in Europe deplore that language and the

message that sends out. Funny, as a Catholic, who happens to be gay,

detracts from the Christian message of love and compassion -- For me.

John Paul II reflected Internet love and tenderness in his teachings. I

do not sexual ethics can be laid at the door of his teaching. There are

other people want to bring in. He to respond?

The issue of sexual ethics, the fact is many gay people felt they were

being singled out. No one will tell a married Catholic using

contraception that you will go to hell. But I have said -- I have had

that said to me. The tone Pope John Paul II used, gave gay people

grounds for discrimination. Some people interpreted it that way. That

came from the Pope. We want to see him leading by example.

There is the issue of children who were raped and tortured. Is there a

stain on his reputation? There certainly is. To claim John Paul a

saint less than two years after he died, is a scandal. He was in charge

of an institution that covered it up, that failed to confront it and

is still doing so. It still has two big dragged out of them. He was an

extraordinary man, a great evangelist. He revolutionised the

office of Pope. I wrote a book about him because he is an interesting

man. In terms of his management of the Vatican, and particularly the

child abuse scandal, I think it is unseemly, to put it mildly, he has

been made a sensor quickly. Father... The first and last words

out of any Catholic priest 's mouth about the child abuse scandal is, I

am sorry and I am ashamed. Pretty much that is all I can say, apart

from, I am not like that. However fast we, the higher article

institution of the Church, acts, I do not think it will ever be enough.

Is it a slur on his record? I would hope he has been made a saint today

because of the man and not the office. I hope I do not create a

false distinction when I talk about something which is really important.

The key thing that, apart from having to be dead to be a saint, the

key thing that most saints are is really flawed characters. Right from

Saint Peter. I do not think there a single saint who was not a flawed

character. You said earlier on that you think your granny is a saint. I

am sure she is. I learned at school a saint was an ordinary person who

did extraordinary things extraordinarily well. My grounded

back. She is a saint for me. As Lord as she was, she pointed me in the

right direction. I would like to think, she is dead and in heaven and

I have a friend. I think that is what we get from all the saints. It

is certainly true that all saint of flawed. Most of them had humility in

common as virtue. The problem with John Paul was that when he felt

strongly about something, which was most of the time, he was very

uninterested in these views. He was quite an autocratic Pope. With the

AIDS and condom issue in the developing world in the 1980s, he

was not interested in the opposing arguments. Likewise, when the issue

of women priests came up after the Anglican church voted in favour, not

only did he disagreed but he stamped it out. He threatened many

theologians with excommunication. He was autocratic. I have been thinking

long and hard about what it means. We concentrate on John Paul II today

because we remember him. He remembered the Iron Curtain coming

down. Here is the thing. I have been trying to work out, one of the

things they did in the church, at the same time, both people moved the

Church into a position where it engaged with the world at large

rather than stood against it. John Paul II started the second Vatican

Council. They thought it would buy loot the power. When one of his

staff asked him what he hoped to achieve, he said, maybe we will let

a little fresh air in. I do believe that is what happened with the

second Vatican Council. With John Paul II, he made the worldwide

Church a small place. He went all over the place. I do think that

means, and this is not to exonerate him, I do think that means, at the

end of his papacy, the curious certainly ruled the roost. Sign a

crowed the point about being made a saint, he has done good, a lot of

good, but he has also done things which are not good. Child abuse. You

can never get rid of child abuse but you can investigate it, once it

comes about. The other point is, to me, the person who I feel should be

a saint is to create lasting peace in the world. Who is that going to

be? Do you want to say something? There is a lot of evidence to

suggest the fact he has been made a saint is a disgrace. A disgrace? The

sexual abuse scandal, which was in the paper for 27 years and the

evidence would mount up over the years. He wilfully ignored such

evidence, as well as lack of contraception in Africa. Do you

think people died as a result of the papacy? Definitely as a result of

his policy in Africa. Sign up 1.76 billion people have died abortion.

-- 1.76 billion people have died from abortion. We cannot use people

for economic reasons or sexual reasons. We have to appreciate that

every person is important. It is about respecting people. Do you want

to respond to the figures on abortion? The concept of dying from

abortion. I thought you might want to respond to that. Generally about

the sainthood, it is alien for Muslims. Do you respect John Paul II

as a religious bigot? For what he has done, I have to object. If there

are problems with what he has done, I have a problem with sainthood as a

whole. There is no hierarchy. The moment you create summary as a saint

can you create someone as hierarchical. To find God, do we

need different tiers within our lifestyle? Should we not all have

direct access to God? I am thinking, it does not sit very well with me.

In heaven, is he at the top table? Definitely not the hierarchy. No

backstage pass and all of that. I hope not. My Gran is at the

communion of the saints. It will not do anyone else any good but I know.

It is a level playing field. We are the way that somebody lived their

lives. What we want from all people of faith, ultimately, is that their

life somehow points towards God. Not in a perfect way. That guy or that

lady, they pointed me towards God in some way? We want a quick way of

understanding. Imagine your favourite film star and you are

invited to a party and you get to meet them. You are a bit nervous and

he had been a fan of those ages and you are going to meet them. They

will be late in the party. At the party, there are lots of other film

stars that you know you think, that actor was in that film and that

actress. You up the courage and to find out... The point is, they tell

you a story. With the Prophet Mohammed V made a saint? You have to

be a Catholic, says Sarah. I will be with you in a minute. What do you

make of this as a Muslim theologian? There is a phrase, the friends of

God, and they are basically people who do good. An early theological

text said all believers are Friends of God. I would include that to

people of all religions and faiths who are good. Also, to humanists and

others, who do not have a formal faith if you like but too good. Only

God knows in the end who does good. The second issue about all of this

is the issue of miracles. That is very interesting. The Catholic

Church insists the three miracles or something. Our miracles within the

laws of nature or do they break the laws of nature? Does God break the

laws of nature? That is an interesting question. I do not want

to be relativist. It is only Catholics who can become saints.

There are lots of other people in heaven. We do believe that. That is

a two tiered heaven, isn't it? Within the communion of saints,

there are people... We are talking about saints and miracles. We honour

our saints. It is part of our tradition, part of our faith. What

is really interesting, when Pope Francis Kane, sorry, when Pope

Benedict came in 2010, he spoke to the young people in this country and

said, God wants you all to be saints. Hopefully I am speaking to

some saints now. You have lots to say in the last debate. The missing

picture from the legacy of John Paul is the political stance. That is

something that was very unpopular with people over the world. He sided

with the Reagan administration for a long period. That reflected in the

negative policies in Latin America and the Middle East. That picture

must be mentioned when talking about him. He sided with the Reagan

administration. It was at the time of the Cold War. If you listen to

the speech is by John Paul, he saw the horrors that were going on. When

he spoke to them, he shook them up. He said, you the powerful, you allow

these wicked conditions to carry on. It is not just, it is not human. He

was no great fan of the liberation theology is. Many were radical. He

empathised with the suffering. He went to 104 countries to be close to

the suffering. Although he sided with the Reagan administration,

particularly with the fall of communism, he condemned the first

Iraq War and was generally quite anti-war. He was not really corkage

on the Middle East. He was in the war against communism, which he

helped with. He did very little for the Middle East and Latin America.

He took sides. I do not think it is fair to say that about Reagan. In

the Jewish tradition, we teach that anyone who is a good person, whether

Jewish or not Jewish, can get to heaven, and we are judged by our

deeds. The important part of this discussion, I'm not going to go into

the details of religious policy, but the important aspect of this

discussion is, what is the role of religion in a modern world?

Progressive Jews read our texts, our biblical texts, in such a way as

they should be liberating. That includes taking a public stance

towards gender equality. The Scriptures and the Bible, it says

very clearly, not by mites, not by power but through my spirit. That

could be a continual impulse of religion. We only have maybe 20

seconds. What would you like to say on this auspicious day? He gave us

hope. He said everyone is valuable. He said two women, your hour has

come. You are called to humanise the world as women. Not by being men but

women because you are absolutely special. Priests had a spiritual

fatherhood and each of you is a spiritual mother, whether you are

single or married. He said that God is alive in all of us. God is alive

in all of us. She is more bored than you. The debate will continue

online. We'll be back from York next week. Thank you for watching.