MORE DHIMMITUDE FROM THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY - WHILE IN EGYPT!

From Reliapundit at the Astute Bloggers:

TELEGRAPH: Archbishop of Canterbury: Society is coming round to my views on sharia

The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his controversial comments about the introduction of Islamic law to Britain and claimed that public opinion is now behind him.

On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it "seems inevitable" that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country's legal code, he claimed "a number of fairly senior people" now take the same view.

He added that there is a "drift of understanding" towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments.

However critics insist that family disputes must be dealt with by civil law rather than according to religious principles, and claim the Archbishop's comments have only helped the case of extremists while making Muslim women worse off, because they do not have equal rights under Islamic law.

The Archbishop, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, faced calls to resign last February when he said it was likely that elements of the religious principles based on the Koran, concerning marriage, finance and conflict resolution, would be enshrined in British legislation one day.

But in July he was supported by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, while it later emerged that five sharia courts are already operating mediation systems under the Arbitration Act, and that the Government allows Islamic tribunals to settle the custody and financial affairs of divorcing couples and send their judgements to civil courts for approval.

When asked at a recent conference of Anglican leaders in Egypt whether he feels he has been vindicated, Dr Williams replied: "It's been quite interesting to see how a number of fairly senior people have observed that certain kinds of limited aspects of Muslim law are imaginable within a British legal framework, without upsetting the apple cart of undermining human rights.

"People are maybe beginning to distinguish the general question of Muslim law, and the extremes of appalling practice which disfigure it in so many parts of the world or the extremes of trying to push Sharia law upon an entire society.

"So I think there is a drift of understanding of what I was trying to say, perhaps I like to think so."

But Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain.

"It was a wicked move because it undermines the progressives and gives succour to the extremists.

"How does the Archbishop of Canterbury know, sitting in Lambeth Palace, that a woman in Bolton has volunteered to give up half her inheritance to her brother?"

WILL NO ONE RID US OF THIS TROUBLESOME PRIEST?

Pat Condell: The Shari’ah Fiasco

Mark Alexander (Paperback)
Mark Alexander (Hardback)

ABC by Peter Hitchens

A thoughtful blogging from Peter Hitchens on the Archbish. It's long and rambling but I picked out the best bit:

. . . that's why I care about Rowan Williams, and his excursion into the subject of Sharia law. I may generally ignore Archbishop Rowan, as I have little time for his prose style, designed to conceal rather than reveal, in my view. And he seems to me to be a nitwit in worldly matters, having been a dupe of the disarmers back in 1985 - which rather devalues his later opposition to the Iraq war. My Church-of-England-in-exile continues to exist without him, and in spite of him and those like him.

But I am not sure it can survive indefinitely under such leadership. If parsons and bishops wish to rage against each other in factions, Catholic versus Evangelical, then that is a pity and I wish they would stop. There are better things for them to do. But if the man appointed to head the Christian Church in England declares that the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law "seems unavoidable" in this country; if he muses publicly about the possible recognition of Sharia courts in marital law, financial transactions and mediation (and he undeniably did both these things) then he is toying with something far bigger - the future of England (and Britain) as a Christian society.

For me, the main problem is not what he said, but that it was he who said it. A Muslim cleric, a Guardian leader-writer or a leading academic (perhaps Professor Howard Kirk, as he no doubt now is, Vice Chancellor of the University of Watermouth) might have mouthed this stuff ( and, yes, I have trudged and hacked my way through the whole verbal jungle) and that would have been that.

But for the Archbishop of Canterbury to do this is a clean different thing. Who else, in our ruling elite, is going to argue that we are and must remain a Christian nation, our laws based (as they are) on Christian precept? Crudely, Dr Williams is paid to defend the Christian faith. To say that something is 'unavoidable' is almost always to say that you aren't prepared to do anything to avoid it, or - worse - that you may actually favour it but daren't say so. Supporters of the European Single Currency would often claim that it, too, was 'inevitable, a very effective way of demoralising people who knew no better and didn't understand its importance. Most things are avoidable if you have the determination to fight them. Sharia law in Britain certainly is.

I also didn't like his attempt to say that only Muslim 'primitivists' held to the most worrying tenets of Sharia, or that worries about such things were 'dramatic fears'. This isn't so. Look how difficult it is to get Muslim spokesmen to denounce such things as the stoning of adulterous women, or Sharia's penalties for homosexuals. My discussion with Islamic scholars at Deoband a couple of years ago ( all calm, soft-spoken bearded scholars much like Dr Williams) left me pretty sure that they would never budge on things like the lesser position of women, or the death penalty for those who desert Islam. It couldn't be changed, they insisted.

So what is Dr Williams talking about when he speaks of "the free decision to be and continue a member of the umma" (umma being the Arabic name for the body of the Muslim faithful)?

Islam has many doors, but no exits. You cannot leave. This is regarded as non-negotiable by every Muslim cleric I have talked to. So what's this free decision to continue, that Dr Williams talks about?

There's nothing to be gained in calls for Dr Williams to resign. He's not the Home Secretary, and he serves under different rules from those that govern politicians. In any case, it would do no good unless he were replaced by someone better. That can only happen if the people of England decide to take back possession of their national church, and the church, revived, begins to find a new leadership less interested in faction and modernisation, and more interested in the reconversion of England to Christianity.

But, as I've warned before, if the Christian church doesn't take advantage of the approaching religious revival, which I think cannot be long delayed, someone else will. And that someone will argue much more powerfully for Sharia law than Rowan Williams ever did. And I can't see the Muslims, if they become a great force in Britain, paying much attention to the maintenance of a separate Christian law. They are serious and determined people, who believe staunchly in their religion and hope for its ultimate triumph. So, no, I don't think the Church of England should be allowed to die. We need it more than we ever have.

Read it All

(cross posted with CommonSense)

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 blames himself and the media for misunderstanding

The Archbishop of Canterbury admits his choice of words were clumsily expressed. The bonus is that he has brought the subject of sharia and Islamification sharply into the public focus.
Another CommonSense Video.

Pat Condell Savages The Bish

In another hard hitting to the point video Pat Condell takes the Bish apart and for good measure other aspects of Islam. Heavily criticised with a "Condell" classic are the "English Middle Class Bedwetters". I love this guy, he rocks as they say.

No More Archbish Unless He Resigns

I didn't want to post anymore about the ArchBish because it's been bashed and thrashed enough, so unless there was good news about his resignation I was going to leave it.

Leo McInstry of the Daily Express has come up with such an excellent article that I just have to post it with "my bolding":

IT IS bitterly ironic that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who should be leading the fight to defend our Christian heritage and democratic liberties, has called for the British legal system to incorporate Muslim sharia law.

This is a religious code synonymous with barbarity, the oppression of women and contempt for basic human rights. All-embracing in its scope, often vicious in its sanctions, sharia is the very antithesis of the humane essence of Christianity, the faith that Dr Rowan Williams is supposed to be upholding.

I have made it short in case boredom has set in. Believe me, this is one of the best articles on the subject so read the rest if you are not bored.More>>

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)

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.

Not An Inch

This is not new but I thought it useful to remind us why we should not give an inch to the "Aliens from The Planet Islam" on sharia law or any other damned thing. There is a glimpse of blue sky however, the Sharia law controversy foolishly raised by Rowan Williams - Archbishop of Canterbury - brought a sharp rebuttal from Gordon Brown and many other politicians and the all the mainstream media.

The "proverbial" has well and truly hit the fan and the Archbishop is in it up to his neck. On the other hand we could say that the subject of "Sharia" has been brought into the open and well and truly thrashed.

It could be a long time before the Muslims bring the subject up again. Was the Archbishop being incredibly stupid or was he being extremely devious, with the end result being what he intended all along? Somehow though I don't think he is that clever or is he?



(cross posted with CommonSense)

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