Islam Under The Spotlight In The UK

I said perhaps the tide had turned this week in a previous posting "Hoorah for the Archbishop" and that he had let the genie out of the bottle. Every news broadcast has led on the issue since then and there have been debates broadcast solely on this issue.

This has made the people think about this and other Muslim issues and there is no doubt that sharia law could not now be called for by the Muslims without a huge backlash. It is my optimistic view that there will be fewer cave-ins to Muslim demands than we have seen in recent months.

Pastorious has used the word traitor in regard to the Archdhimmi Bishop's utterance on sharia law. Was he right in that? Some might have thought it a little over the top but in the Times today columnist Minette Marrin says "Archbishop you've committed treason". Pastorious vindicated then:

Williams’s behaviour looks like vainglorious attention-seeking, but it is also something much worse. To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason.

It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?

The call for the resignation of Rowan Williams is growing as church members face up to where the church is heading and maybe, if the man has any decency he will oblige. That would be the best news yet. The man doesn't have to retire until he is 70, so thirteen more years to go and he cannot be dismissed.

I heard on TV that an archbishop hasn't been dismissed since the 11th century but Queen Mary I - daughter of Henry VIIIth - dismissed Archbishop Cranmer. In fact she did more than that she had him executed on 21 March 1556. In fact he was burned at the stake, so yes Pastorious there is a precedent for your excellent suggestion.

That good ole boy Bish Nazir-Ali has waded in as he would:

English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition.

In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition such as sharia into this Corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity.

The sharia is not a generalised collection of dispositions. It is articulated in highly concrete codes called figh. One or the other or all of these would have to be recognised.

All of these schools would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions such as monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy.

So why haven't we got this excellent Englishman as our Archbishop of Canterbury?

And in another report in the Times today we learn that there is a problem with Muslims inbreeding:

A government minister has warned that inbreeding among immigrants is causing a surge in birth defects - comments likely to spark a new row over the place of Muslims in British society.

Phil Woolas, an environment minister, said the culture of arranged marriages between first cousins was the “elephant in the room”. Woolas, a former race relations minister, said: “If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there’ll be a genetic problem.”

The minister, whose views were supported by medical experts this weekend, said: “The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children].”

Ahh ..... so that explains everything then

Oh, and to "top" it all off in a posting entitled "Is This The Aliens From The Planet Islam" I speculated that a headless corpse found on Wednesday last was no doubt decapitated by a Muslim as that is the favourite, abhorrent way they like to kill people and that only Muslims could do this dreadful thing in the 21st century. Well I was right, anyone called Mohamed will be a Muslim.

We will have to wait many months to learn the details of this case before it comes to trial. The question is was he killed by decapitation or was he killed in some other way and then decapitated? Here's the story so far:

Detectives investigating the death of a man whose decapitated body was found behind a row of shops in north London have charged a man with murder.

The victim was found wrapped in a blood-stained duvet in a supermarket goods cage in Kilburn.

Mohamed Boudjenane, 45, of Kingsgate Road, Kilburn, is due to appear in court on Monday charged with murder.

A man and a woman arrested in Alvaston, Derby, are being questioned on suspicion of assisting an offender.

Post-mortem tests on the body have so far proved inconclusive and detectives are still searching for the victim's head.

Police have not yet named the dead man, whose body was discovered by a member of the public on Wednesday.

The police caught the man so quickly I can only think he wasn't very bright. Perhaps he was one of those inbred Muslims, there must be lots of them out there.

(cross posted with CommonSense)