Interfaithing Equals Dhimmitude

Ongoing since 2002, the year after 9/11:


This week, at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C.:

From May 25-27, 2010, Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia will host Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and his 9th Annual Building Bridges Seminar. Since 2002, the Archbishop of Canterbury has chaired an annual seminar bringing together leading Muslim and Christian scholars from around the world to explore issues at the heart of the two traditions. Georgetown University has become a partner in this significant dialogue process and hosted the seminar in 2004 and 2006.

Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi is, no doubt, gratified by the dhimmitude of a Jesuit university as he watches mainstream Christianity submit to Islam via his "educational charities", which finance centers of Islamic study at Western universities.

According to Campus Watch:

Perhaps Alwaleed's animus toward the instruments of "Jewish pressure" explains some of his less-advertised investments -- among them, a $27 million contribution to a Saudi government telethon that raised more than $100 million for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Both the Middle East Media Research Institute's Steven Stalinsky and columnist Diana West have called attention to the prince's co-ownership of the Saudi ART TV network that, under Alwaleed's watch, aired not only the aforementioned telethon but also the fundraiser "Jihad in Palestine," which encouraged Muslims to triumph over the West through suicide bombings and "slitting of throats and shattering skulls."

Pat Condell: The Shari’ah Fiasco

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

We Don't Need To Speculate On What Sharia Courts Would Look Like - They Already Exist

The London Independent says the recent controversy with the Archbishop proves that multiculturalism must be abandoned:


For five days now, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been chorusing: how do you solve a problem like Sharia? Ever since he suggested it is "unavoidable" – and desirable – for Britain to have Islamic courts ruling on Muslim family affairs, bashing the bishop has become a national sport. But this row shouldn't be just about the pitiful contortions of the head of a dying Church. Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned.

If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of "cultures" that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools.

We don't need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.

If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, "I divorce you" three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved "unreasonably" – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.

Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women's refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more "last chances" for him to abuse her.)

Then we meet Nasirin Iqbal, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman who was shipped to Britain five years ago to marry. Her husband, Imran, has kept her isolated, and she does not speak a word of English. "I came here thinking he'd treat me well," she says. "But he keeps hurting me. He brought me here to use me. I'm not an object.... Do I not have a heart?... He tells me I'm stuck with him, and under Islam he can treat me however he wants. 'I am a man, I can treat you how I want'."

We see how Imran torments her, announcing, "You are a reject. I didn't want to marry you." He takes a second wife in Pakistan, and texts her all day in front of Nasirin declaring his love. The sharia court issues a fatwa saying the marriage stands. She doesn't seem to know this isn't a court of law. "I can't ignore what they say," she cries. "You have to go with what they say."

These are the courts that Rowan Williams would give the stamp of British law.

In his lecture, he worries that this could harm women – before serving up a theological gloop, saying that sharia could be reinterpreted in a way compatible with the rights of women. But if that happens, why would you need different courts? What would be the point?

The argument that women will only have to enter these courts if they freely choose to shows a near-total disconnection from the reality of Muslim women's lives. Most of the women who will be drawn into "consenting" are, like Nasirin, recent immigrants with little idea of their legal options. Then there are the threats of excommunication – or violence – from some families. As the Muslim feminist Irshad Manji puts it: "When it comes to contemporary sharia, choice is theory; intimidation is the reality."

These courts highlight in their purest form the problem with multiculturalism. It has become a feel-good doctrine mindlessly celebrating "difference", without looking at what that difference actually means.

Yet many people feel instinctively uncomfortable when we talk about ditching multiculturalism – for a good reason. The only alternative they are aware of is the old whiter-than-white monoculturalism. This view, voiced most clearly by Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbit, believes that if people are going to live together, they need to look and feel similar, and have a tightly prescribed shared identity. They argue that the number of newcomers should be small, and need to be pressured to assimilate to the 1950s norm of a suburban white family, fast.

Multiculturalism was formed with good intentions as a counter-reaction. But it has become a mirror-image of this old racism, treating Muslim women – and others – as so different that they do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us. As the European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi puts it: "By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it."

When people talk about defending Muslim culture, ask them – which culture? The culture of Irum and Nasireen, or the culture of their abusive husbands? Multiculturalism patronisingly treats immigrants as homogenous blocks – when in fact they are as diffuse and dissenting as the rest of us. Would anybody lump me in with Richard Littlejohn and Nick Griffin as part of a "white community"?

There is a better way for the state to understand and regulate human differences, beyond the old oppositions of Tebbittry and multiculturalism. It is called liberalism. A liberal society allows an individual to do whatever he or she wants, provided it doesn't harm other people. You can choose to wear PVC hotpants or a veil. You can choose to spend all day praying, or all day mocking people who pray.

Where a multiculturalist prizes the rights of religious groups, a liberal favours the rights of the individual. So if you want to preach that the Archangel Gabriel revealed the word of God to an illiterate nomad two millennia ago, you can do it as much as you like. You can write books and hold rallies and make your case. What you cannot do is argue that since this angel supposedly said women are worth half of a man when it comes to inheritance, and that gay people should be killed, you can ditch the rules of liberalism and act on it.

The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote "difference" for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual – whether they are white men or Muslim women. It has one liberal culture, with freedoms used differently by different people.

So as well as scorning the Archbishop, we should thank him. He has helped to deliver the funeral rites for multiculturalism. With his matted beard and tortured hand-wringing to a desert-God, the Archbishop has unwittingly pointed us towards a vision of a better Britain – one that chooses proudly to be liberal.


I like this article, though I don't agree with it in total.

I would argue that, while "The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens," it is necessary that we stamp the idea of "liberalism" into the minds of those who would want to live in Britain.

The writer of this Independent article, Johann Hari, seems to believe that we can invite Sharia-loving Muslims into Western countries endlessly, and as long as liberal law arbitrates, there will be no effect on liberality in general.

This is simply not true. There is already an effect on liberality. In fact, he stated as much in the opening paragraphs of his article. Sharia courts already exist in the UK. They were not licensed by the UK. They are operating outside the law, and yet nothing is being done about them, and nothing will be done about them until the outcry grows to a deafening volume.

That is exactly the kind of situation we are inviting when we allow for endless Muslim immigration.

Johann Hari's article contain logical loops which remind me of an Escher painting. His ideas look as if they would work on the written page, but try to build such a stairway and you will find it leads nowhere.

Archbishop or Archdhimmi?

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

Hoorah For The Archbishop

Having just watched the BBC 10'0 Clock News it is now obvious that Rowan Williams has done England a favour. The shock and outrage at his speech on sharia law has spread far and wide. From Archbishops and parish priests to ordinary church goers they are all appalled and disgusted and are now also looking at the wider issues of the Islamification of Britain.

Middle England has woken up, he has let the genie out of the bottle and it cannot be put back. This is the wake up call that was needed. This week has been a good week. Instead of the Islamists winning at every turn they are on losing ground. Firstly, al-Qaradawi, the “eminent scholar" has been refused a visa to visit the UK, secondly Abu Hamza is to be extradited to the US, and thirdly the "Sharia Shindig" put a very negative spotlight on Islam.

It's not often we can report victories for the cause, small though they may appear to be, perhaps the tide is turning. From the BBC:

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church.

All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.

The Muslims are dismayed, that can't be bad.

The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.

BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says both traditionalists and liberals in the Church have their own reasons for criticising Dr Williams.

Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK.

Liberal Anglicans believe giving Sharia legal status would be to the detriment of women and gay people.

Among those critical of the archbishop is the chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, the Reverend Rod Thomas.

"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.

"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."

Looks like he's pleased no one. Except me.

Is There No End to This Nonsense?

Only a matter of some days ago, we learnt that the United Kingdom is to recognize polygamous marriages. This, of course, is to accommodate the Muslims. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. It will hasten the Islamization of our once great country, since more and more children will be born, at taxpayers' expense, to Muslim families.



Now, today, we get this nonsense from the Archbishop of Canterbury! One could be forgiven for believing that the political élite are involved in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the system!


As the Archbishop of Canterbury, and being the leader of the Anglican Communion worldwide, this man should be upholding Christian values, not Islamic ones. If the leader of the Anglican Communion doesn't defend Christian values, then who can we expect to do it?



But instead of that, this weak, cowardly, fawning man chooses to side with the very religion which is engaged in a war against the West, against Judeo-Christian civilization, against all that Christianity stands for. This is really quite, quite unbelievable!



The churches are emptying more with each passing day; yet all this man can think of doing is standing up for Muslims, the Christian Church's traditional archenemy.



What this man should be doing is preaching that there is no salvation other than through the Lord Jesus Christ, for that is what a true Christian is supposed to believe. He therefore should be spending his time trying to figure out how to fill the empty churches again. After all is said and done, isn't that the raison d'être of an archbishop in the first place? To fill churches.



Muslims need no help to establish Shariah law in the UK; indeed, it is already operating in many no-go areas throughout Europe, including the UK. Moreover, there is no doubt about it that it will spread, because there is nobody in power strong enough, or determined enough, to stop Islam and Shariah taking root.



Does the Archbishop of Canterbury not realize that each and every country which Islam has ever entered, and has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually taken over? Each and every single one of them! There is only one exception to this rule, and that was Moorish Spain. But it took the Spaniards over five hundred years to reclaim their land for themselves, and there was much bloodshed in the process, much bloodshed in the 'Reconquista'.



Is this what we want for our country? Is this the legacy we wish to bequeath to our children?



It seems to me that the best thing that this Archbishop can do is hang his head in shame, and resign. The already weakened Church can do without his sort. Moreover, he must surely realize that Muslims deny the Christ, they deny the crucifixion, they deny Jesus as the Son of God. So they would do him out of a job straightaway. Muslims are not in the habit of compromising; it's their way or no way.

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved