BBC’s Nicky Campbell: Christians feel persecuted by human rights law and councils - Telegraph

BBC’s Nicky Campbell: Christians feel persecuted by human rights law and councils

Christians in Britain are feeling persecuted because of “paradoxical” human rights laws and the ignorance of local councils, according to a major BBC documentary to be broadcast on Easter Sunday.

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent

Nicky Campbell: Nicky Campbell shocks Radio 5 Live listeners by swearing
Nicky Campbel Photo: BBC

Nicky Campbell, the presenter of the corporation’s flagship programme for Holy Week, argues that Labour’s anti-discrimination legislation has led to clashes between religious conscience and equality for homosexuals.

He blames local authorities for rebranding Christmas celebrations as winter festivals because of a misguided belief that they are standing up for minority faiths.

Campbell, the Radio 5 Live presenter, also highlights the French and Russian revolutions as examples of what can happen when religion is pushed out of public life.

He concludes that although Christians do not face violence and suppression in Britain as they do abroad, their treatment can seem unfair in a modern democracy.

Campbell says: “So, are Christians being persecuted? No they’re not being tortured or killed like Christians in Pakistan and the Sudan.

“But a minority believes they are being sidelined and victimised. By the standards of a liberal society that can feel like persecution.”

However he adds that this may be a “source of strength” for churchgoers, who thrived in ancient Rome in the face of persecution.

The hour-long programme, called Are Christians Being Persecuted?, looks into widespread claims that the faith is being driven out of public life in Britain while its followers are being treated less fairly than minority groups.

After watching this programme last night, I could only conclude that Christians in the UK are not persecuted. Persecution is what happens in places like Iran, where Baha'is (and Christians too, no doubt) are in fear of their lives, are chucked out of jobs and universities and schools because of their faith; where the faith's leadership is held in prison for prolonged periods on spurious charges and face trial in a court that does not follow anything like due process; where Baha'is are legally defined as "unprotected infidels" and can be murdered with impunity.

That's persecution.

Some Christians in the UK do appear to be facing forms of discrimination. Some of this may arise because of one-sided and over-zealous application of equalities legislation in such a way that the human right of "Freedom of conscience, thought and religion" is played down in favour of other human rights.

Describing the anti-discrimination laws brought in “to make Britain a more tolerant society” by protecting religious believers as well as homosexuals, the presenter claims: “The paradox is that these same laws that have left some Christians feeling like a persecuted minority.

“The problem is the legislation never made clear what would happen in the event of a clash. Whose human right would take priority over the other?”

Campbell cites the terror and totalitarianism that sprung up in France and Russia after their revolutions abolished religion and says: “The guiding principle of ‘liberalism’ - a commitment to tolerance ... to live and let live, has an inherent flaw.

“It’s less inclined to argue against strong competing ideologies – religious or otherwise.”

New Statesman chart of the religions & belief systems

This chart listing the world's great religious traditions and one non-religious belief system, Humanism, appeared in New Statesman (5-18 April 2010 edition).

It is good to see the Bahá’í Faith included, with some reasonably accurate comments.

New Statesman's leader article commented:

Leader: Methodism, not Marxism

Published 01 April 2010

This magazine has been resolutely secular since its first issue in 1913. Yet our annual "God" issue often proves to be our most popular. Proof, perhaps, that as Harold Wilson recognised, social democracy in Britain always owed more to Methodism than it did to Marx.

For us, secularism has always meant a secular state, not a secular society. A belief in a state that does not act on the basis of religious considerations is perfectly compatible with a recognition that faith has an important role to play in the public sphere. However, acknowledging that doesn't mean we are indifferent to the depredations of organised religion - far from it, as is shown by John Cornwell's report (see page 22) on the crisis engulfing the Roman Catholic Church.

Religious observance in Britain is, with a few exceptions, in steep decline, but interest in science, metaphysics and epistemology has perhaps never been stronger. David Lewis-Williams (see page 53) is right when he says that the human appetite for belief is hard-wired. We hope this issue goes some way to sating your hunger.

 

NewStatesman 100401aNewStatesman 100401b

Copenhagen - a statement of faith from ARC

Click here to download:
09-12-01_ARC_Copenhagen_statement.pdf (92 KB)
(download)

The Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) have issued a Statement of Faith for the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit on behalf of nine of the world's major religions, which together reach out to 85 per cent of the world's population.

The eyes of the world are on Copenhagen this week as representatives of the world’s governments gather to negotiate a new climate treaty. The urgency of a comprehensive, fair and effective treaty to protect the living planet has never been greater.

The world's major faiths have already created their own 'climate treaty' which they presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the Windsor Celebration three weeks ago in the shape of long-term action plans on the environment.

On behalf of the nine major faiths - Baha'ism, Buddhism, Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism and Sikhism - ARC invites the governments of the worlds to reflect on what the faiths are saying on the environment and invites them to join the faiths on the journey towards a more sustainable and just future.

Responding to the religions' commitment, Mr Ban said faith communities had a major role to play in mobilising people for change: "You can - and do - inspire people for change."

And UN Assistant Secretary-General Olav Kjorven said, joined together, the world's faiths could become the planet's largest civil society movement for change and "the decisive force that helps tip the scales in favour of a world of climate safety and justice for future generations".

Please see attached for more details of the faith commitments. And for further information, please call Victoria Finlay, ARC communications director, on 01225 758004, or Susie Weldon, ARC media team, on 01225 758004; 0797 0466 830.

--
Susie Weldon
01225 758004; 0797 0466 830
Media team, Alliance of Religions and Conservation
www.arcworld.org
www.windsor2009.org


 













Do faith schools really promote community cohesion better than non-faith schools?

Questions raised over C of E report on church schools and community cohesion

By staff writers
27 Nov 2009

A report commissioned by the Church of England claims that faith schools are better at building relationships with their local communities than non-religious schools.

But critics say that the report does not demonstrate this, and instead gives church schools credit for the extra work they have to do as a result of their religiously restrictive admissions policies.

The study by Professor David Jesson at York University, analysed ratings given to 700 primary schools and 400 secondary schools by Ofsted inspectors for promoting community cohesion.

The researchers gave schools a score of one if they were rated "outstanding", through to four if they were given an "inadequate" judgment. The findings showed both faith primary schools and non-religious primaries scored an average of 2.2 overall. But at secondary level, the faith schools scored an average of 1.86, compared to 2.31 for non-religious secondaries.

Of the 74 secondary faith schools surveyed, almost a third (32 per cent) were rated "outstanding" at community relations, while around one in seven (14 per cent) of the 271 non-religious secondaries were given the same grade.

The report assesses the meeting of the legal duty that all maintained schools in England now have to promote community cohesion. This duty was introduced by the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and came into effect on 1 September 2007. Schools’ compliance with the duty is inspected by Ofsted.

Professor Jenson and the Church of England are claiming their survey as "clear evidence" that faith schools are awarded "substantially higher" grades for community cohesion than other schools.

However, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chair of the Accord Coalition, which campaigns for inclusive education and community schooling, warned that the Ofted criteria for cohesion are not robust enough.

Church of England schools are only satisfying a benchmark that fails to consider admissions policies or the religious curriculum of faith schools, he pointed out this morning.

“Building community cohesion is vitally important and we congratulate all those schools that have been working hard to meet the duty', Dr Romain declared.

"But the most pressing issue is whether the criteria used by Ofsted are sufficient."

While school linking projects and classroom discussions of diversity are commendable, inspectors should also consider the impact of discriminatory admissions and the limited teaching of RE on cohesion, Romain added.

"Meetings with other groups have little merit if the children move in closeted circles most of the time and do not receive a broad education in class," he said.

Faith in cohesion

All "maintained" (government-funded) schools in England have a legal duty to promote community cohesion.

Professor David Jesson's Church of England commissioned report claims that faith schools (notably, one supposes, Church of England schools) do a better job of this than state schools.

However, the Accord Coalition and the British Humanist Association counter that faith schools whose admissions policies discriminate in favour of their own faith members actually have more to do to promote community cohesion than do state community schools, where children from diverse religions or non-religious belief groups are educated together.

Independent research shows that religious segregation in schools tends to reinforce the social isolation of different sections of the population and the living of "parallel lives" referred to by Ted Cantle referred in his 2001 report following inter-communal disturbances in cities in the north of England.

Faith schools open to all

What this doesn't address, though, is the question of faith-based schools that are open to children of any faith or none. How good would such schools (if they exist) be at promoting community cohesion?

Actually, can we set the term "community cohesion" aside for a moment? It's too bureaucratic for my taste. Instead I'm thinking in terms of human oneness and solidarity. I'm thinking about how people embrace and live by the knowledge that all human beings are part of a single family and that each of us is responsible for the welfare of all.

It isn't enough for this to be theoretical knowledge or a good thing "in principle". It has to be real lived experience.

Yes, we need the foundation of the principle of oneness (sometimes referred to as "unity in diversity"), but there is no substitute for the day-to-day experience of living with people of different faiths and cultures.

And that suggests that schools that include children from different backgrounds are likely to be better at promoting human solidarity - oh, all right, community cohesion, if you insist.

But only if they have a culture that strongly nurtures integration - aka fellowship - between children of different faiths and cultures.

Climate change debate spurs warm feelings amongst religious leaders

china-climate

It is rare that religion and science find agreement, but that is what happened when Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks spoke at a meeting on saving the earth from climate change.

“The great Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson published a book in 2007 called “Creation”, subtitled An Appeal to Save Life on Earth,” Sacks told leaders of all the major faiths meeting at Lambeth Palace in London on Thursday.

(Photo: A partially dried reservoir in Yingtan, Jiangxi province, China, 29 Oct 2009/stringer)

“I thought that was a very good book. E.O. Wilson is known not to be religious, but what this book was was a call to religious people and scientists to call off the war between religion and science and work together for the sake of the future of life on earth.

“And I felt that was a very generous and appropriate call by a non-religious scientist.”

He said “that science and religion despite their apparent friction actually converge on a profoundly scientific and at the same time religious idea that there is a kinship of life and hence a covenant of life”.

Not only did such a high-profile religious figure agree with the scientific world, but faith leaders found harmony among themselves at the same meeting.

Sitting next to Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the Anglican Church, was the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, who only days earlier had delivered the Pope’s offer to disaffected Anglicans the chance to convert to Rome.

sacks

Also attending were faith and community organisation leaders including Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Baha’i, Jain and Zoroastrian.

(Photo: Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, 23 July 2006/Paul Hackett)

Organised by Williams, the leaders issued a joint statement in which they “recognised unequivocally that there is a moral imperative” to tackle the causes of global warming.

They agreed to work together to raise awareness about the effects of “catastrophic climate change”, saying it was the poor and vulnerable who most suffered from the ensuing droughts, floods, water shortages and rising sea levels.

Quoting from the book of Genesis, Sacks said man was placed on earth to serve it and protect it. “Man was a guardian, not the owner using and abusing the good things on earth,” he said.

“We are taken from the earth and therefore owe it a sense of kinship and responsibility. We believe our very existence as human beings come wrapped up in environmental imperatives and ecological responsibility.”

Drawing on the story of Noah’s Ark where all animals, including the lion and the lamb, had to survive side by side, he said we would all drown if we failed to work together.

Of course, if everybody kept the Sabbath, when nobody drove cars, flew by plane, or switched on any electrical appliances, the environmental problem would be solved, he said.

But more realistically, a new set of rituals would have to be devised that recognise the importance of the environment.

“What religion allows us to do is take the big ideas and translate them into daily rituals,” he said.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

What difference does this make?

The role of faith communities in mitigating the effects of climate change is very much flavour of the moment. I have already attended part of one conference on the subject. Next week I shall be at the big event being mountd by the Alliance of Religion and Conservation and the UN Development Programme at Windsor.

There are questions: will any of this make any difference? And if so, to what, to whom and by when?

Grassroots transformation

Whatever is actually happening to the world's climate and whom or whatever is responsible for the changes that are clearly going on, the essential truth in all of this is that we all bear responsibility for the planet and its peoples. At the moment, "we all" tends to mean "nobody" or "what's in my best interest", but the Baha'i teachings propose a long-term, sustainable transformation in villages, towns, streets, neighbourhoods that motivates individuals, families, communities to embrace human oneness and to accept their moral responsibility to care for each other and for the planet.

Idealistic? I don't think so. It's a long haul and challenging. And it starts with what Baha'i literature refers to as "stirrings at the grassroots" - changes of consciousness by people in villages, streets, etc about what's needed and what's possible.

Human rights, religious freedom and Iran's nuclear crisis

One issue that should be put on the table was displayed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week in New York: Iran's religious minorities.

Iran's deplorable record on human rights is often treated as separate from the nuclear issue. It's not. If Iran's government can't be trusted to treat its own citizens with basic dignity, how can it be trusted with nuclear technology?

Mr. Ahmadinejad's theatrics involved including five religious minority parliamentarians in his entourage to the UN General Assembly, this week. This act shows how eager Tehran is to be accepted back into the community of nations. Thus, the human rights card could be considerable leverage for Western powers in coming weeks.

When he addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23, Ahmadinejad professed concern for "justice, freedom, and human rights." He apparently thought his five props would help him project a tolerant, peace-loving face. It was a stiff performance.

...

Apart from the four heritage religious minorities (Jews, Armenian Christians, Assyrian-Chaldean Christians, and Zoroastrians) that are allotted parliamentary seats, there are other groups who have even fewer rights. Bahais, treated as heretics from Islam, have no constitutional protections. They can be robbed and murdered with impunity since Iranian law declares that their blood is mobah or can be spilt. Major Bahai shrines have been demolished and the people can assemble only in secrecy.

...

If Ahmadinejad's regime meets obligations to its fellow Iranians, then it is more likely to fulfill agreements with the international community. Transparency and well-being, rather than secrecy and aggression – as reflected yet again by the recently revealed nuclear facility – are necessary in Iran's national and international affairs.

Ultimately, when free to express their beliefs and ideas, Iran's people will be the best guarantors of their nation's fidelity in world affairs.

In this article, Jamsheed K Chosky and Nina Shea neatly highlight the hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad's public performance in New York. It also highlights the confusion amongst Western governments about how to deal with the challenges that Iran poses.

Naturally everyone is concerned about the possibility that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, but, as Chosky and Shea point out, this cannot be regarded as somehow separate from Iran's appalling human rights record and its egregious treatment of religious and other minorities, including the Baha'is.

The 64th session of the UN General Assembly offers the world's governments the opportunity to voice their condemnation of Iran's calculated disregard for international human rights covenants to which it is a party and which it has never repudiated.

This is a matter of principle. I know that "realpolitik" and principle are not comfortable bedfellows, but if the international community remains silent on Iran's truly appalling treatment of the Baha'is and other minorities, who are, after all, Iranian citizens, this will be tantamount to complicity with these abuses.

Do read the rest of the Christian Science Monitor article.

Atheist scientist debases religion and science in the cause of environmentalism

Frank Furedi

Getting God to do their dirty work


In seeking to use religion to force people to change their eco-unfriendly behaviour, greens are debasing both religious belief and scientific truth.

Printer-friendly version Email-a-friend Respond

We live in world where the cynical manipulation of people’s fears and anxieties often overrides informed public debate. Principles and beliefs seem to have become negotiable commodities, and all too often the search for truth gives way to doing ‘whatever works’. In recent decades religious figures have, at various times, embraced the authority of science, therapy and the environment as a way of communicating their messages. Indeed, the old statement ‘our faith demands…’ has increasingly given way to the claim that ‘the research shows…’. If Christian fundamentalists can reinvent their dogma in the language of ‘creationist science’, how long before atheist scientists seek to justify their moral crusade in the language of religion?

Well, Lord May, president of the British Science Association, has risen to the occasion with his call last week to mobilise religion as part of the crusade against global warming. May said that mainstream religions should play a key role in convincing people to become more aware of environmental issues and to change their behaviour in order to ‘save the planet’. By making this opportunist demand for the effective rehabilitation of God, an atheist moral entrepreneur has shown that it is possible to debase both religion and science at the same time.

Was Michael Crichton right to characterise environmentalism as the religion of choice for urban atheists?

And is Frank Furedi right in his claim that Lord May is debasing both religion and scientist simultaneously in his call to mobilize religion as part of the crusade against global warming?

I think one can make the argument that both Crichton and Furedi are right. If so, people like May are idolaters. They have elevated their own understanding to the position that God occupies in monotheistic religions and they are trying to coopt a simplified "God" to take part in a kind of moral blackmail to push people to adopt their version of "environmentalism"

Another example of this kind of mindset is the increasing tendency by the government in the UK to see religion as a tool of policy. God wants you to adhere to this or that government agenda is the message.

But religion is sui generis. The Baha'i understanding is that God's will is expressed through the Revelation brought by the Manifestation of God, "the All-Knowing Physician", for the age in which we live.

Baha'u'llah says, "Every age hath its own problem... The remedy the world needeth in its present day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in..."

One of those needs may be to find ways of mitigating the effects of climate change (whether human-caused or not), but it is not for "moral entrepreneurs" like Lord May to abandon their atheist principles and to try to use religion to serve their particular ends.

Science: Islam's forgotten geniuses

Jim Al-Khalili
Published: 12:01AM GMT 29 Jan 2008

The front page from Avicenna's Canon of Medicine.
For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic

The untold story of Arabic brilliance should be a timely reminder of a proud heritage, says Jim Al-Khalili

Next year, we will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th of the publication of his On The Origin of Species, which revolutionised our understanding of biology.

But what if Darwin was beaten to the punch? Approximately 1,000 years before the British naturalist published his theory of evolution, a scientist working in Baghdad was thinking along similar lines.

In the Book of Animals, abu Uthman al-Jahith (781-869), an intellectual of East African descent, was the first to speculate on the influence of the environment on species. He wrote: "Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

There is no doubt that it qualifies as a theory of natural selection - even though the Book of Animals appears to have been based to a large extent on folklore rather than on zoological fact.

Despite the strong feelings Darwin provokes among many Muslims - many Islamic scholars see the Koran as creationist, and so at odds with evolution - it seems astounding that al-Jahith's quote has been largely ignored.

In fact, although popular accounts of the history of science typically show no major advances taking place between the Romans and the Renaissance, al-Jahith's work was part of an astonishing flowering of invention and innovation that took place in the Muslim world, and in Iraq in particular, in the Middle Ages.

This world view, based on a mixture of theology and rational thinking, produced wonderful advances in philosophy, astronomy, medicine and mathematics, in particular the emergence of algebra and trigonometry.

Although the Muslim world is often now seen as ill-equipped for scientific discovery, we can look back to Baghdad and see the origins of the modern scientific method, the world's first physicist and the world's first chemist; advances in surgery and anatomy, the birth of geology and anthropology; not to mention remarkable feats of engineering.

For 700 years, the international language of science was Arabic; and Baghdad, the capital of the mighty Abbasid Empire, was the centre of the intellectual world. The story starts around 813, when the caliph of Baghdad, al-Ma'mun, is said to have had a vivid and life-changing dream. In it, he met the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who instructed him to "seek knowledge and enlightenment".

This was the starting point for a lifelong obsession with science and philosophy. Al-Ma'mun created the famous House of Wisdom, a library, translation house and scientific academy unmatched since the glory days of Alexandria.

The caliph would then recruit some of the greatest names in Arabic science, such as the mathematician al-Khwarizmi and the philosopher al-Kindi. Although many of these thinkers were not Arabs themselves, they conducted their science and wrote their books in Arabic.

In the West, though, they were better known by their Latin names, such as Alkindus, Alhazen, Averroes and Avicenna. The most famous of all was Avicenna (or ibn Sina, to give him his correct name).

Born in Persia in 980, he was a child prodigy who grew up to become one of the world's greatest philosophers and physicians. His great work, the Canon of Medicine, was to remain the standard medical text both in the Islamic and Christian worlds until well into the 17th century.

He is credited with the discovery and explanation of contagious diseases and the first correct description of the anatomy of the human eye. As a philosopher, Avicenna is referred to as the Aristotle of Islam; as a physician, he is its Galen.

Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to refer to Aristotle and Galen as the Avicennas of the Greeks. My favourite of all the Abbasid scientists, however, is another Persian scholar by the name of al-Biruni.

Here was a polymath with a free-ranging and formidable intellect: not only did he make significant breakthroughs as a philosopher, mathematician and astronomer, but he also left his mark as a theologian, encyclopaedist, linguist, historian, geographer, pharmacist and physician.

Famously, having developed the mathematics of trigonometry, he was able to measure the circumference of the Earth to within a few miles. The only other figure in history whose legacy rivals the scope of al-Biruni's scholarship would be Leonardo da Vinci. So what went wrong?

What brought to an end this golden age of Abassid and Arabic science? The standard answer is that the ending came suddenly, in 1258, when the Mongols ransacked Baghdad. During the occupation, a large number of the books in the House of Wisdom were destroyed.

But Baghdad was by this time far from the only centre of scholarship in the Arabic speaking world - and wonderful advances continued to be made in Cairo and Cordoba right up to the European Renaissance in the 15th century.

There is also an argument that the decline was due to a change in attitude of the Islamic world towards science. This was primarily a consequence of the work of the 11th-century scholar and theologian al-Ghazali, who famously criticised Muslim scientists for their over-reliance on the philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

Yet this, too, cannot be the whole story. Al-Ghazali was primarily attacking a theological viewpoint that relied on ideas he deemed anti-Islamic. Hard science should not have been so affected by this more metaphysical dispute.

The real decline had much more to do with a weakening of the power of the caliphate as a whole, of which the Mongol invasion was merely one symptom.

By the end of the 11th century, Baghdad had lost control over much of its empire, and weaker caliphs were simply less inclined to encourage and finance scientific scholarship. But, just as the golden age of Arabic science began with the translation of the great Greek texts of Aristotle, Euclid and Ptolemy, so was the work of the Arabic scholars transferred to Europe

. For example, al-Jahith's Book of Animals was a major influence on Arab scholars of the 11th to 14th centuries, and the Latin translations of their work in turn became known to Charles Darwin's predecessors, Linnaeus, Buffon and Lamarck.

By the 16th century, while scientific and technological progress continued to be made at a gentler pace in the Muslim world under Persian and Ottoman rule, the European Renaissance was well under way.

The mystery is why the debt the West owed to Muslim scholars was then overlooked: acknowledged at all, the Abbasids are normally credited with nothing more than acting as the guardians of Greek science.

In a world of increasing religious tension, the untold story of Arabic science is a timely reminder of the debt the West owes to the Muslim world – and, perhaps more importantly, of the proud heritage today's Muslims should acknowledge.

  •  Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and public engagement in science at the University of Surrey. Tomorrow night, he delivers the Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize lecture, which will be webcast live at 5.30pm at royalsociety.org/live, and will then address the invite-only Telegraph/Novartis Scientists Meet The Media reception at the Royal Society in London.

ISLAM'S FORGOTTEN GENIUSES

Ibn al-Natis, a Syrian from the late 13th century, is credited with giving the first correct description of blood circulation in the body, 400 years before the work of Thomas Harvey.

• The Polish astronomer Copernicus (1473-1543) has Arabic astronomers to thank for his calculations: indeed, there are diagrams in his books that appear to have been lifted exactly from the work of the Arab astronomer Ibn Shatir 100 years earlier.

• The modern scientific method, based on observation and measurement, is often said to have been established in the 17th century by Francis Bacon and René Descartes. But the Iraqi-born physicist Ibn al-Haythem (Alhazen), had the same idea in the 10th century.

• The word "alchemy" derives from the Arabic "alkimya", which means "chemistry". The world's first true chemist was a Yemeni Arab by the name of Jabir ibn Hayyan, born in 721.

Al-Razi (Rhazes) was the greatest clinician of the Middle Ages. Born near Teheran in 865, he ran a psychiatric ward in Baghdad at a time when, in the Christian world, the mentally ill would have been regarded as being possessed by the devil.

• The word "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr", and was made famous by the great ninth-century mathematician al-Khwarizmi. But contrary to popular myth, algebra was not an Islamic invention - its rules actually go back to the Greek mathematician Diophantus.

Why forgotten?

This fascinating article by Jim Al-Khalili about the scientists, philosophers and thinkers of the Islamic world, particularly from the time of the Abbasid caliphs, who led the world in the development of science, should prompt us to ask why the contributions of these Muslim intellectuals have either been forgotten or relegated to a footnote of Western history. Is this an example of how history becomes the handmaid of power politics and of narratives about the primacy of Western civilization?

Many years ago at a Baha'i summer school I listened to a wonderful historian, Firuz Kazemzadeh, a professor at Yale, discourse about the challenges of writing and teaching history. History, he said, is all too often used to by the victors to claim their superiority. We tend to have an emotional investment in "our" history and we often resist other perspectives on the events that have shaped our lives, our countries, our nations, our religions, our ethnic groups.

The British get exasperated by Hollywood films that rewrite recent history to make what were well-documented British achievements into American achievements. (I'm thinking of U-571.) So how exasperated must others become when their contributions to literature, medicine, astronomy, mathematics be downplayed, misrepresented or even ignored?

Perhaps it is time to nurture a historiography that more faithfully reflects the contributions of the whole human race to the development of civilization. This would seem to be a matter of fairness, justice, equity - and could be one of the great human accomplishments as we move towards a new global civilization. No doubt it will be an intellectual and spiritual challenge. We can do it only if we embrace the oneness of humanity, if we commit ourselves to solidarity with all humans, if we each accept our responsibility for the welfare of all others - and that includes ensuring that the unheard and oppressed can add their stories to the wealth of human history.

Perhaps historians are already doing this. I love to read history, but I'm not a historian. It would be good to hear of research projects that are setting out to develop such a new historiography.