Hi Robert

Click on this URL
http://forums.delphiforums.com/western1

Posted by: Voltaire at July 26, 2004 7:43 AM

The Archbishop of canterbury is truly disgusting. a self-hating liberal of the worst kind. He should try going to Mecca wearing a crucifix and preaching to the Saudi's that Christianity and Islam are equal. With scum like this leading the Church Of England the battle against Islam is going to take a lot longer than it should. Does anyone out there have this a-hole's official address so we can politely inform him of our unhappiness at his pro-Islamic grovelling ?

Posted by: Son Of Albion at July 26, 2004 1:25 PM

This is indeed good news for peace-loving people of good will in Great Britain. The Archbishop of Canterbury has shown that he has the good sense to accept reality and acknowledge the triumphal march of Islam in the West. Already, more people attend Friday prayers in the mosques of England than attend Sunday Christian church services. Huge numbers of Britons, including many from the upper classes, have already embraced Islam. In fact, it is realiably reported that Prince Charles himself has reverted to Islam. Because the British Monarch is the titular head of the Church of England, when Charles ascends to the throne, all Anglicans automatically will become Muslim and Islam will become the state religion of Great Britain.

Now is the time to submit to the will of Almighty Allah (swt). Soon the glorious Islamic Caliphate will encompass the Earth and all corrupt, unjust, man-made systems of law and governance will be swept into the dustbin of history, never to emerge again. Islamic law (Sharia) will govern everywhere and peace and truth will reign forever. Embrace Islam now and be part of the bright, shining future rather than part of the dark, dying past.

Your grandchildren will be Muslim.

Allahu akbar

Posted by: Reza at July 26, 2004 3:24 PM

Albion: Dhimmi Rowan bin Williams doesn't seem to have a personnel email address, but you can try one of these:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/feedback/index.html

Good luck!

Reza; Eat shit and die, there's a good fellow.

Posted by: Suzan at July 26, 2004 3:26 PM

Oh wait, Dhimmi Boy of Canterbury does have his own personal website. Couldn't find an email address, but there's a phone number and snail mail address:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/site/index.html#credits

Go to it Albion! Give the blighter an earful from all of us!

Posted by: Suzan at July 26, 2004 3:30 PM

If this is true, and nothing is too incredible, what in god's name will this Anglican panjandrum, a walking repository of received ideas and fashionable attitudes, actually say in Cairo? I mean, aside from the usual misleading and even meaningless phrases about the "three great abrahamic faiths" and other karenarmstrongian sentiments that prove so useful in Muslim apologetics and propaganda? One might as well have gone to Berlin to praise Hitler because, like us, “National Socialism shares our deep hatred of Bolshevism” or gone to Moscow to praise Stalin because “Communists share the Western hatred of the Nazis.” What if the Muslims claim Abraham as a Muslim (and they do), what if they respect Jesus and Moses (and they do)—Jesus to them is the Muslim Jesus, not divine, never crucified; ditto Moses, Noah, and many other figures, including Abraham, simply taken over, lock-stock,-and-barrel, and claimed for Islam. Why is this something which Christians and Jews should see as something wonderful – that to Muslims we are imperfect and ungrateful versions of themselves, and deserve harsh treatment, or even death, as a result, “shared abrahamic faith” or not.

And what will he say, this ruddy man who seems to have forgotten his Runnymede, and the slow development of human rights in the Western world. What is it about Islam that he will praise it? Will it be the treatment of women under Islam – oh, is he one of those who thinks all those bad things “have nothing to do with Islam, and are just ‘cultural’ in nature”? Will it be solicitude for the black African Christians, many of them Anglicans, in southern Nigeria? What is it about the Arab Muslim campaign of genocide, that has been going on non-stop for 20 years, in the Sudan, that he finds attractive? Or is it the silence of the Arab League about this and similar matters that he finds eloquent in its taciturnity? What does he admire about the Muslim behavior In Kenya and Tanzania, now so worrisome to the Christian governments in both countries, or in South Africa, where Muslims set off bombs to show their fury at easygoing non-Muslim ways? Did he find admirable the Muslim bribes that caused Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa and Omar Bongo, however temporarily, to “revert” to Islam?

Or will he, at Al Azhar, devote his time to praising the behavior of Egyptian Muslims themselves, whom he may think represent “decent and moderate” Islam – unlike, well, the other kind. Will he stop to praise the Egyptians themselves, for the way Christian Copts have been treated over the centuries in Egypt? The way Pope Shenouda III was held under house arrest by Sadat? The way Coptic churches are often allowed to fall into ruin because the Muslim government will not grant permission for repairs? The way Coptic girls are kidnapped by Muslims, never to be given back to their families? The way a Coptic school for handicapped children was attacked just this past year, at least one of its defenders murdered by the Egyptian soldiers who took part? Will he stop to praise the more recent murder of a Coptic priest, whose car was deliberately pushed into a water-filled ditch, so that he drowned? Will he praise the anti-Copt film that is being shown all over Cairo? Will he praise Tantawi, the Rector of Al-Azhar, for his denuncia-- oh, sorry, there was no denunciation by Tantawi of suicide bombing, was there? Or was it, and then it wasn’t, and then it was. What is it he admires about Egypt – the way a ruthless regime steals much of the foreign aid lavished upon the country, or is the swift dispatch of 68 Swiss tourists at Luxor, killed so swiftly they hardly must have felt a thing?

And which Muslim action, does the Archbishop think worthy of praise beyond the Middle East? Does he approve of the assaults, and the murder of a Christian Pakistani in his hospital bed by the Muslim policeman who was suppoed to be protecting him? Does he admire the attacks on churches and the bombing of Christian schools? What does he think about the 200,000 East Timorese Christians who were murdered by Muslim Indonesians – until the Australian Army rescued the rest. What does the Archbishop of Canterbury think about the reports of the Barnabas Fund, right there in his own country, on the continued killing of Christians in the Moluccas, and the destruction of 2300 churches in Indonesia, in 2003 alone?

Since I am sure the Archbishop does not confine himself to the wellbeing of Christians only, what does he think about the pictures, which he can easily find online at a Hindi website, of the beating to death of a Hindu in Dacca (Bangladesh) who made the mistake of walking by a mosque as the excited worshippers were leaving Friday Prayers? What does he think of the millions of Hindus whohave had to flee Bangladesh, or the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits who were driven out of their land? What does he think of the Taliban forcing Hindus in Afghanistan to wear identifying marks on their dress, supposedly "for their own safety" – and does he know where Hitler’s yellow star for the Jews was first employed, or when Christians had to wear an identifying mark on their clothing and on their houses? What does he think about the persecution of the Zoroastrians, including the torture of their dogs (greatly respected in Zoroastrianism) by Muslim children, as described by the Englishwoman Mary Boyce, the Western world’s greatest expert on Zoroastrianism? What does he think about the 60-70 million Hindus murdered by the Muslim invaders, or what does he think of Aurangzeb? Or does he know anything about the Muslim rulers of India at all – I mean, other than the Taj Mahal?

And what does he think of all the Muslim websites, and their Qur’anic quotes, and quotes from the hadith, full of hate for Infidels? What does he think of the use of videotaped decapitations of Infidels, proudly put on the web as a recruiting tool? What does he think about the complete silence of the Arab (Muslim) League when the Christian Maronites were massacred by “Palestinians” at Damur and a half-dozen other Lebanese cities? What does he think about the killing of missionaries in Lebanon and Iraq, and the murder of French and Italian monks, not missionaries, who were offering medical care to poor Muslims in Algeria -- until their throats were slit? What does he think about the murders of 300 Thai Buddhists, or the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, or indeed about the centuries of deliberate destruction of Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish artifacts and houses of worship? Does he think anything? What is it, exactly, that he is going to say, other than that these are the "three great abrahamic faiths" and Why Can’t We All Get Along? Could he possibly dare to even hint at a hint of the truth?

The current Archbishop of Canterbury exhibits a penchant for wishful thinking and pieties and all the Family-of-Man platitudes that prevent us from seeing evil when it is there. A belief-system that is manichaen in its essence, that has caused many people, over many centuries, to behave with great hostility, and often murderously, to all those who do not share that belief –system, has earned the right to be studied, but not to be praised out of willful ignorance. One suspects that the Archbishop does not understand the origins of Islam, a belief-system concocted to justify, and promote, the Arab conquest of far more advanced, wealthy, and settled populations of Christians and Jews (and then Zoroastrians). He shows no signs of having studied Islam in a serious way, but rather is relying on his “sense of how things should be” or what he would have things be. He may allow himself to believe – he would hardly be alone – that Muslim attitudes are not derived from Muslim teachings, from the texts themselves, but from those insults and injuries which Muslims, presumably, have suffered at the hands of, inter alia, America and Israel.

As to the first, it is the Americans who rescued Muslims in Kosovo and Albania. It is Americans who freed Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and protected Saudi Arabia from him. It is America that removed Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had been torturing and killing both Arabs and Kurds in Iraq for 35 years, and seemed fully prepared to continue for another 35. It was America that continues to shower money on Egypt, on Jordan – countries whose populations are full of loathing for that same United States.

And as to Israel, that country has been under a relentless Jihad, disguised since the 1967 war as a “struggle between two peoples” and full of phrases like “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people” (a “Palestinian people” fabricated after the Six Day War, precisely – as even many “Palestinians” have admitted, as a political weapon against Israel) and “nationalist aspirations” which have nothing to do with the real impulse, that cannot be assuaged by any further territorial concessions, for it is the Infidel state itself which must be removed from the midst of dar al-Islam. Pushing it back, rendering it more vulnerable, only whets, and does not sate, the Muslim appetite. And of course, the uncomrpomsiing requirement that Muslims participate in the Jihad to spread Islam until it covers the globe – a requirement that even the supposedly outstanding intellectual figures of Islamic history, Averroes and Ibn Khaldun and al-Ghazali, all strongly supported.

But the Archbishop will have none of this. This view of Islam, while all the evidence supports it, does not accord, it does not comport, it does not compute, it does not….well, it just doesn’t fit with what he is quite certain he wants to believe. Credo quia absurdum may fit in some places. Here on earth, where real lives are at stake, the requirement is the reverse: Credo quia absurdum not est. Perhaps the Archbishop shares the motivation of the well-known apologist-scholar of Islam W. Montgomery Watt, who in much of his unreliable scholarship demonstrated a desire to protect Islam, to pass quickly over its attitude toward non-Muslims, and generally to act as an apologist because, as the acute Ibn Warraq has noted, as a clergyman Watt feared irreligion above all, and if he exhibited or aroused in others misgivings about Islam this could harm “religion” – and “religion” for Watt as for the Archbishop, is a Good Thing.

One suspects that the Archbishop can not allow himself to believe that there really is a attitude, and belief-system under the name “Islam” quite different, in its central teachings, in its 1350-year history of inculcated hostility and aggression directed at non-Muslims. Christianity, he may tell himself, is also a “religion” with universalit claims – and what’s wrong with that? After all, if you think you possess the truth, you should want others to share it. But he fails to understand that Christianity, while it has certainly has much to answer for vis-à-vis the behavior of many European Christians toward the Jews of Europe, is not at all like Islam. It is interested most in the salvation of individual souls. The Muslims convert others, or cause them to “revert,” in a spirit of military recruiters, trying to sign up new recruits and not yet revealing to them all that they have signed up for. It is very much a case of expanding the numbers, and the most perfunctory expression of acceptance of Islam – recital of the Shehada – will be enough to make one a member of the umma al-islamiyya, the Muslim Community, and a soldier in the army of Islam – ready to help all fellow Muslims (not all people, just Muslims), and ready to fight, with any instruments available, the power of Infidels to withstand subjugation by Muslims and the spread of Islam until it covers the globe.. If only the Archbishop could be persuaded to examine the evidence, and to begin to refer to Islam as a “belief-system” in order to overcome his natural reluctance to criticize “one of the world’s great religions.” He has a duty to instruct his flock; if the shepherd is lazy, or negligent, or dangerously dewy-eyed, that flock can be lead right to disaster.

“The Vicar of Dibley” is a BBC show of recent years; it stars the talented Dawn French as Geraldine, a plump female vicar. The vicar has been assigned to the picture-perfect village of Dibley, where reside a cast of Dickensian “flat characters” who can be predictably expected to behave as – well, as each of them always has behaved, from the local lord and his son Hugo, all the way down to a local farmer with roughhewn or hempen homespun ways. Each episode is wonderful, but still more wonderful is the final scene, shown after the end of each episode. It is always the same. The vicar, Geraldine, and her hopelessly dimwitted friend, the blonde Alice, are sitting at a table. Geraldine proceeds to tell a very obvious joke. Alice never gets it. Geraldine then proceeds to laboriously explain the joke to Alice who, it is clear from her reply, still doesn’t get it. The joke lies in Alice’s utter failure to get the joke.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury, it seems, shares the wearing of a clerical collar with Geraldine. But in his continuous refusal – and that of many other clergymen in the Western world -- to understand the obvious, in his imperviousness to common sense, in his failure to even try to overcome his breathtaking and yet self-assured incomprehension of almost everything that now matters, the current Archbishop resembles far more closely, I’m afraid, not the delightful Geraldine, the Vicar of Dibley, but the hopelessly thick Alice.

What Alice fails, week after week, to understand, is just a joke. What the Archbishop of Canterbury fails to understand is not a joke. Far from it.

Posted by: Hugh at July 26, 2004 3:50 PM

Thanks to King Henry VIII, the head of the Church of England is the monarch. Since there is no Caliph, having been flushed down the toilet of failed ideologies by the Turkish Grand National Assembly in 1924, it would be right and proper for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to assume the title and role of Commander of the Faithful on behalf of her leaderless muslim subjects. That should put things right, wot?

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at July 26, 2004 3:59 PM

GOOD SUGGESTION HULEQU KHAN
What a silly Billy this Archbishop is and one wonders where Anglican Church gets these twits from!! Talk about Bats in the Belfry...Much prefer
Vicar of Dibley,myself.

Posted by: Morgane at July 26, 2004 10:09 PM

Seems Muslims won't turn away from a chance to Bash Jews and Christians,CAIR USA posted a story about a fire-bombing at a Mosque in Pickering Ontario Canada. There was a fire,and there was damage,but it happened at about 3am
in a fairly unpopulated neighbourhood and the Mosque was a old one-storey cement block business
unit that had no overt sgns of Islamic traits.
To date,no one has been arrested and the only witness was the custodian living there that reported the fire to 911. Several religious leaders attended a support rally to show that hate crimes are not welcomed in Canada,the Liberal member of Parliament(Dan McTague) was there and after a few orations by non-Muslims the Imam's put on their show. The video coverage never made it to the nightly news and here's why. Because "Jesus" had been painted on a wall near the fire damage,the Clerics went on their diatribes about how Jesus wasn't the Messiah and Mohammed was the last prophet from Allah. Forget that a Jewish cleric was there and they also mocked the Torah,all the Christians forced to sit on the floor without shoes,now had to stay mute while their Lord was mocked for about 15 minutes of Koranic tripe. How pathetic that Canada is ripe for Muslims to force Islam on NorthAmerica
by starting here and moving South.
I would never tolerate my temple inviting religious guest to a service or sermon and sit idle while the leader mocked the guest tenets or
version of their God. Only in a Mosque will intolerant Muslims try to preach on tolerance while debasing Jews and Christians.
Muslims tout the liberties in Canada to visit Churches and speak about Islam,but don't you dare expect a Mosque to let a Jew or Christian cleric explain their faith to Muslims,non-Muslims are the infidels Allah wants smited into submission or death. Since 9/11/01 I researched the Koran on middle east sites and NorthAmerican sites,we are being hoodwinked and the beheadings will increase to the point where the scam will be uncovered. Islam was created in the mind of a pedophile that hated Jews and Christians and Females. Even before I accepted my current faith I never would have painted God as a revengeful sadist waiting for the day to punish you,nor did I expect all those rules for females while men could screw several wives at the same time and even children as Mohammed did.Just watch how Muslim leaders squirm as they try not to answer tough question on violence in the Koran,or resort to blaming the Jews for povrty in Islam.

I've seen the light,those that don't like profiling can blame the terrorists within Islam for this mess,tell Allah to smite them if he is the real God.

Posted by: ala-sux at July 27, 2004 2:26 AM

What the--?:

THE head of the worldwide Anglican Church, the archbishop of Canterbury, will reportedly mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks by praising Islam in an address from the pulpit of an Egyptian mosque.

Yes and while we're at it why not celebrate the next anniversary of the end of WWII, by decking the streets of England with Swastika garlands and hugh posters of Adolph Hitler.
Is this fucking moron out of his mind?

He must have let all those child porn sites, he visits , cloud his judgement.

Posted by: Rikki at July 27, 2004 9:31 AM

reza has this wrong!!

The Christian speaking in the mosque? Yes Honey for the Flys!!! Real peace not a rapist?

About Charles I hear that they killed Dinna because she was sleepping with an arab so he could not be a mulsum!!!

reza can't have it both ways although we know that you like that [both ways] only problem for you is you can't get a woman!!

UBL Is YELLOW!!!

Arafat is YELLOW and all who follow or contrubute to them are cursed!!!!

Yes reza this is you!!!

reza are you sitting in your little room with a bag on your head and playing with your self typing away? HOW SAD???

Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Wisdom,Strength and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen

Posted by: Catherine at July 27, 2004 9:31 AM

Reza posts:

This is indeed good news for peace-loving people of good will in Great Britain. The Archbishop of Canterbury has shown that he has the good sense to accept reality and acknowledge the triumphal march of Islam in the West. Already, more people attend Friday prayers in the mosques of England than attend Sunday Christian church services. Huge numbers of Britons, including many from the upper classes, have already embraced Islam. In fact, it is realiably reported that Prince Charles himself has reverted to Islam. Because the British Monarch is the titular head of the Church of England, when Charles ascends to the throne, all Anglicans automatically will become Muslim and Islam will become the state religion of Great Britain.

Why you're absolutely right Reza: more and more people attend friday prayers each week, perhaps no coincidence that this is parrallel with the number of asylum-seeking rats that infest the harbours of Dover every morning. I'd say you're totally insane though if you think that every single english cristian and irish catholic in our country has suddenly thought:"Hmmmmm!!!Despite the fact that I'm sick to the back teeth of illegal immigrants piling over here milking the benefits system, taking up housing when there are true british kids on the streets, and even though these same disease ridden insects are preaching hate for my people and my religion...Fuck it.... sounds like a larf.... I think I become a muslim denouncing a thousand years of ancestry in my family tree.
You may be right that there are less christians than ever here, thats because with the natural evolution of the human race , A phenomenon that has completely eluded the pig-loving slaves of satanallah (muslims that is ), religion has taken a back seat to much more rational beliefs such as science , which christians and most other religions accept. Muslims do maybe too, although they really are struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Sun doesn't dissappear into a pool of mud.I'm surprised you don't believe the moon is made of cheese.

Your comment on this thread is indeed a historic one because you have actually professed respect an infidel anglican bishop. Why is this Reza is it that you can identify with a man who is both a spouter of religious verbal diahorea and a child molesting pervert just like your "great" prophet mohammed? Maybe he's mo' reincarnated, but he's come back this time as a christian because he realised what a horde of hopeless,inferior, moronic, barbarians (with a taste for suicide and chauvenism) he'd created with his last failure religion.

Posted by: Rikki at July 27, 2004 9:56 AM

Reza,

PS- Question 1 -What do you call a muslim with a pig on his head ?

Answer- Ahmed (ham-head)

Question 2- What do you call another muslim with 2 pigs on his head?

Answer- Mo'ham'ed (more ham'ed)

Posted by: Rikki at July 27, 2004 9:59 AM

Hey Brits:

Why don't you e-mail Reza's comment to the Archbishop?

Posted by: CGW at July 27, 2004 10:05 AM

Raisin, you have got to be the most comical Christian on this site......This has to all be a joke, because no one would make such ridiculous remarks, unless they were joking.

You should join the Christian Comedy Club Tour. So, Raisin, are you a Catholic?, Protestant?, Baptist? Which Christian discipline do you follow?

Funny little alter boy.....

Posted by: DCWatson at July 27, 2004 11:09 AM

Mommy says "Stupid is as stupid does"

Posted by: Bar at July 28, 2004 3:34 AM