| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"You can't expect British society to be reconfigured around you." That, of course, is precisely what jihadists not only expect, but demand. From AFP:
LONDON: The second-highest figure in the Church of England waded into the row over Muslim veils, saying they did not conform to “norms of decency” in Britain, in a newspaper interview published on Monday. Doctor John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, questioned whether Muslim women should expect public acceptance for wearing the veil in Britain. He told the Daily Mail, “Muslim scholars would say three things. First, does it conform to norms of decency? Secondly, does it render you more secure? And thirdly, what kind of Islam are you projecting by wearing it? I think – in the British context – it renders you less secure because you stick out and it brings unwelcome attention. On the first question (of whether the veil conforms to norms of decency) I don’t think it does conform.”
The Ugandan-born 57-year-old archbishop said he removed his cross when visiting a mosque or a synagogue and covered his head in Sikh temples “because I am going into someone else’s home”. “I can’t simply say: ’Take me as I am, whether you like it or not’. I think the thing is in British society you can wear what you want, but you can’t expect British society to be reconfigured around you. No minority can expect to impose this on the public or civic life.”
Posted by Marisol at November 15, 2006 12:00 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It's great to see someone dare NOT to be politically correct. More people need to do the same.
Posted by: Eenieone![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 15, 2006 12:23 AM
Kudos to archbishop of York~! If the Islamists can't conform to the norms of decency in Britain, get lost~!
Posted by: FreedomSeeker33 at November 15, 2006 12:41 AM
islam is notjust a faith its a facish politacil system that teaches muslims are subject only to sharaia law and that infidel law does not apply . just look how willing they were to break the law on guide dogs because dogs are unclean and they felt that islam put them above the law the same thing with viels
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 15, 2006 1:39 AM
Could it be that this is an American "honor" killing? Hope this link works. I realize that it is usually the men of the muslim families who do this sort of thing, but maybe not always.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou061110_mh_gustinemomcharged.23c2b87d.html
at November 15, 2006 1:41 AM
See, only black people have the balls to say it like it is. Well it's good to see a Christian have some courage at least.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 15, 2006 2:14 AM
Unless it interferes with a function, such as driving a car or performing surgery, I don't have any particular problem with the niqab.
I DO have a problem with those who assert, again and again, that it is worn in accordance with Islamic belief or law.
The archbishop could achieve lasting fame if he were to demand proof of that claim.
If it can't be proven, end of subject.
The world can then start debunking other Islamic myths; like how Islam has been hijacked by a few extremists.
Posted by: PRCS at November 15, 2006 2:15 AM
Homophonically, "veil breaches" conjures something slightly risque, n'est pas? But we all know the Muslims are notorious homophonophobes.
Posted by: jsla at November 15, 2006 2:58 AM
See, only black people have the balls to say it like it is. Well it's good to see a Christian have some courage at least.
Posted by: EliasAlucard
Maybe that's because nobody ever calls black people racist...
Posted by: I predict a riot at November 15, 2006 3:01 AM
You make a good point, riot. Maybe we are emasculated..
Posted by: payingattention at November 15, 2006 4:23 AM
"Maybe that's because nobody ever calls black people racist..."
Posted by: I predict a riot
--------
Exactly. Remember folks: only white Christian people can be racist....
/irony off
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 15, 2006 4:24 AM
The key excerpt from the article is:
"[W]hat kind of Islam are you projecting by wearing [the Muslim veil]?"
I am opposed to religious bigotry; for example, Jewish women are, according to Jewish tradition, supposed to dress modestly. The Britney Spears fashion innovation of exposing navels, and g-string underwear, is, when on girls and women lacking Spears' physical gifts, just plain ugly.
The problem, as stated in the herein-above excerpt from the article, is that "the Muslim veil" has nothing to do with religious modesty.
"The Muslim veil" is a symbol of the global jihad.
When I see "the Muslim veil" I feel threatened; and that is precisely the motivation for its appearance in North American cities.
"The Muslim veil" is an violent assertion: We "Muslim veil" wearers are allah's soldiers: This is the dar al harb: This is jihad against the infidel.
Ban "the Muslim veil"!
Posted by: Lance at November 15, 2006 4:34 AM
At the moment, ethnic Christian leaders are doing a sterling job. We need more of them.
It also undermines the lie on both sides that the battle against Jihad is about a clash of races.
The interesting thing to watch out for will be the Liberal Leftist Elite's reaction to this. Twice now they have been warned by different non-white Christian leaders about the dangers of Islam.
I am willing to bet that where before they welcomed the promotion of non-whites in the English Church, they will now start to find problems with these Archbishops and bishops by dint of their being Christian.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 15, 2006 6:05 AM
IngSoc (Labour) on the march alert
I just caught a glimpse of the Queen's Speech (which is written by Blair). The government are going to pursue Identity Cards for British Subjects.
This scheme is criticized because it will be innefective at stopping terrorism, and it will cost us too much in taxes and to actually pay for the pleasure of owning one.
And the Identity Card scheme is nothing to do with anti-terrorism because all the home grown Jihadists that are being watched, have been arrested or have committed an atrocity would have had one.
What is more, IngSoc are determined not to identify Islamic Jihad as the culprit at the heart of this struggle. So what is the point of taking any anti-terror measures at all?
Of course, I think that IngSoc are trying to live up to name we in our house have given them.
Britain already has the most CCTV in the world. We are the world's most closely monitored country.
The Police do not physical fight crime against the person or property any more, they enforce Political Correctness (i.e. thought crime)
Our justice system has going the way of the Old Soviet Union thanks to the New Soviet Union (the EU) with the biggest blessing of all from IngSoc.
They have done away with Double Jeopordy. They want to do away with trial by jury. And habeus corpus will go when we get in line with the EU.
Consistently there is low sentancing, and a system of excusing criminality on the grounds of poverty.
IngSoc waste our common wealth, our tax dollar, by pumping it into an ever expanding, overweight and inefficient wealth fare state that encourages Human degeneration.
They have attacked our institutions,
most notably The House of Lords:
IngSoc does not agree with being born to rule. I say being born to rule also means having the possibility to cross the class borders by meritous deeds. In this way Men will always rule, and Pigs will lord the s**t. IngSoc does not believe in rise by meritocracy. See below.
Read Bulgakov's Heart of the Dog.
IngSoc does not like Christianity because Christianity holds hope for the poor without resorting to criminality. IngSoc expect the poor to become criminals - which is just as well, the police are here to make sure we tow the party line.
IngSoc does not belive in meritocracy. That is why they teach all children the same pap at school. IngSoc believes in a false equality which actually keeps us at the lowest possible denominator. In this way, the masses never challenge IngSoc's rule.
The introduction of Identity Cards is just par for the course for our totalitarian government. Chairman Brown, while the rest of us our being mugged and burgled, is in his Ministry Appartment sipping champagne. And he thinks that he has the power to change the laws arbitrarily because he doesn't like certain portions of the population. Well, IngSoc did it before when they displayed their hatred of class and rural ilk when they persecuted those who like to jump horse over fences in pursuit of dogs in pursuit of a fox, and in doing so they persecuted swathes of rural community whatever their background. They'll do it again.
Folks, they have to go.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 15, 2006 7:16 AM
If wearing a veil, burka or whatever is truly a mark of piety, then Muslim men (other than terrorists on a mission or trying to avoid capture) would wear them too. The cultural relativists say it is a matter of freedom of religious expression, but even some Muslim women in Saudi Arabia beg to differ.
From MEMRI,
Saudi Columnist: 'How Did Men Succeed in Convincing Women to Transform the Free Personality That Allah Endowed Them With Into Enslaved Characters Wearing an Abaya?'
[...]
"As elucidation, I will use an example from real life. Because of her sympathy for Arabs and Muslims, Donna, an American woman, decided to wear an abaya in an attempt to see how it felt and how it influenced her behavior. She wanted to show sympathy to women wearing abayas, especially after various incidents against Muslims in the post-9/11 world. She wore an abaya and walked along one of the busiest streets in a major American city. She tried to be as normal as possible, talking to people, laughing and behaving as usual. She said that she never felt the abaya was restricting her or limiting her movements or her freedom.
"Among those who observed Donna, however, were some Muslims, Arabs, and even some Saudis. The Saudis were upset by what they saw and told Donna so. When she asked why, they explained that she was using the abaya in an invalid way. She then became curious to find out what they considered a valid way to use it. They explained to her that she must walk slowly, must look down when walking and keep her eyes more or less in front of her - no glancing from side to side, in other words. She must not talk to anyone or laugh loudly and certainly must not address any remarks to anyone lest they misunderstand her purpose in doing so.
"To say the least, Donna was astounded by their remarks and realized that they were not simply talking about a garment to be worn but about their perceptions of what an abaya symbolized. They seemed determined to deny that a normal human being was under the black material. The truth is that those Saudi men articulated something that the Saudi lifestyle and customs have created. The abaya indeed covers a typically weak and frightened character (a woman of course), who views herself as a sexual entity confined in a well-defined space she can never escape from. This is why the whole culture of the abaya imposes so many restraints upon women. One of the restraints is that she must walk as if her feet were hobbled and she was unable to move easily and normally. Nor is she allowed to look around and observe the surrounding world comfortably, as slowly or quickly as she might like. The abaya has also contributed directly to preventing certain basic movements; for example, she can no longer move her hands normally. Aside from that, ordinary free conversation is forbidden and is replaced with low and often unclear speech that makes little sense."
"The Abaya Makes Women Appear Humiliated, Submissive, and Blindly Obedient to Men"
"The question that comes to mind is whether our grandmothers had to deal with all these things or with the mindset that has produced them. The answer - negative of course - can be explained by saying that male culture has forced the abaya on women, colored it with certain attitudes and used religion to buttress and support their ideas of what an abaya is and how it should be worn and used. It all depends upon selected religious interpretations, with the necessity of ignoring others which fail to support or do not go along with the basic premise. The abaya makes women appear humiliated, submissive, and blindly obedient to men; and for men, it represents their sexual thoughts and desires for women.
"But how did men succeed in convincing women to transform the free personality that Allah endowed them with into enslaved characters wearing an abaya? The process was not simply a mental one. It was a combination of emotional factors which were cleverly exploited. Men used women’s weaknesses to make women believe that an important part of the male-female relationship was the man loving the weak and submissive elements of a woman’s nature. He then named these elements respect, honor and correct behavior. These do not exist objectively but can only be explained according to the individual man’s desire and will - in other words, a totally subjective conception.
at November 15, 2006 7:52 AM
Folks, they have to go.
While I appreciate your sentiments - with whom would you replace them? The only contenders, David 'Windmill' Cameron's new model tories are, if anything, far more frightening a prospect, since they have ditched absolutely all beliefs in pursuit of the very worst sort of soundbite politics.
Posted by: thomas ato at November 15, 2006 7:53 AM
Could it be that this is an American "honor" killing? Hope this link works.
Philr07
The link works. As if we don't have enough of our own criminals now we can import them from places like war torn Afghanistan.
I like this Archbishop. He makes sense.
Posted by: pigtails not veils at November 15, 2006 8:19 AM
Give it enougfh time and dont do anything to stem the tide of immigrents and it will be the norm.
The UK is dead I hate when a corpse wont shut up.
at November 15, 2006 8:24 AM
"The problem, as stated above in the herein-above excerpt from the article, is that 'the Muslim veil' has nothing to do with religious modesty.
'The Muslim veil' is a symbol of the global jihad."
BINGO!!
Lance, you hit the nail on the head. That's why we are repulsed by it and that's why I don't want to see any chick in a Hefty bag walking down my street. Because when I see that there is instant enmity; from the Muslima towards me, because I know as a practicing Muslim what here views are on me as an infidel, and from me to her, because I resent like hell that she is contributing to the cause of overthrowing my country.
Philr07,
Very interesting link. I like how the mother tries to explain that she doesn't know how her daughter died, that she just woke up and found her that way. Can a person commit suicide with a sledge hammer?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 15, 2006 8:32 AM
pigtails not veils wrote "As if we don't have enough of our own criminals now we can import them from places like war torn Afghanistan"
Let me clarfy a few things about these muslim immigrants pigtail, these aren't criminals but ordinary muslims. They didn't come over to the usa with the thoughts of murdering their offsprings. no, the problem as usual is with their Koran, that demands that their offsprings behave in the approved honorable ways. killing one's offspring to make things right with allah is a small price to pay in order to achieve paradise. That is islamic thinking not criminal thinking.
Posted by: desidude at November 15, 2006 8:48 AM
The welcome wagon ladies forgot to tell these people that, honor killing is illegal in the U.S. How are these people getting in without people setting them straight on right and wrong? Sure the koran is a criminal handbook, and the people letting them in should realize this. If they want a better life here, they need to act like it. Leave your garbage at your old home, don't bring it here.
I'm sure the victim saw a better way of life, no burkas, no hijabs, and she could actually mingle with the menfolk. She could even get an education. So sad, she was cut down at a young age...and especially by her "baby carrier". (the woman isn't fit to be called a mother)
Posted by: freewoman at November 15, 2006 9:00 AM
Bravo to the archbishop! The man has too much common sense so he'll probably be receiving death threats any day now.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 15, 2006 9:29 AM
Too bad we just don't have an influx of Westerners moving into these Islamic countries and behaving anyway they like. If enough of them moved there they could try to get rid of sharia and subvert these countries on all levels. Let's see how'd they like it.
Of course that won't happen. Heads would literally be rolling in cesspoolia. Besides, no sane person would want to live in any of those basket case dung heaps.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 15, 2006 9:46 AM
ISLAMSFORLOSERS,
Now that you mention it, instead of South Africa, white Europeans should've gone to the middle east instead.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at November 15, 2006 9:57 AM
I wonder if we can expect to see this vicious racist Archbishop to be tried under the UK's racism laws like Nick Griffin. I'm glad that I don't live in the UK, because right now I am trying to work through a serious racism problem myself, and I wouldn't want to be prosecuted for it. You see, I am racist against Mondays. I much prefer Fridays because they mark the beginning of the weekend. Deep down, I know that all days are equal, but I just can't seem to get passed that feeling of revulsion when the alarm clock rings at 7:00 AM. Incidentally, I am also racist against cabbage.
Posted by: Abu Allah at November 15, 2006 10:32 AM
You make a good point, riot. Maybe we are emasculated...
Posted by: payingattention
That would explain the Metrosexual fad.
Posted by: JadeDragoness at November 15, 2006 11:18 AM
It can not be "racist" to make critical remarks about Islam, because Islam is not a race, but a religion.
Posted by: MP at November 15, 2006 12:45 PM
It can not be "racist" to make critical remarks about Islam, because Islam is not a race, but a religion.
Posted by: MP at November 15, 2006 12:45 PM
Sure Islam is a race. Don't you know-it's the master race! At least that's what its members think, since they believe Allah gave the whole world to them and we're inherently inferior.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 15, 2006 1:16 PM
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS
Bravo to the archbishop! The man has too much common sense so he'll probably be receiving death threats any day now.
Sorry but I cannot share you enthusiasm
Archbishop hits out at Bush warning
Aug 11 2006
THE Archbishop of York today hit out at US President George Bush over his warning that the West was at war with "Islamic fascists".
Dr John Sentamu said that such comments - made by Mr Bush following the disclosure of the airline bomb plot - were not helpful.
"I actually want to see this society becoming a good neighbourly place and you are not going to do it by that kind of language on the ranch in Texas," he told BBC Radio 4's today programme.
"It doesn't really work because in the long run you are going to end up with people who may by absolutely innocent being branded as extremists and enemies."
Dr Sentamu said that he did not believe that Islam was the real cause of the terrorist attacks carried out by militants.
"I do not think the people who are doing this are doing it because of Islam," he said.
"Most of them are doing it because they are alienated, because they have been given a vision which is so imaginatively wicked that they believe we can build a better world than actually exists."
The Archbishop, who is giving up holiday to fast and lead prayers for seven days in a show of support for people caught up in the Lebanon conflict, also criticised Tony Blair for refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.
"I am one of those who believe that the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan - as soon as he said there should be an immediate ceasefire, the rest of the world should have done the same," he said.
at November 15, 2006 1:44 PM
shiva-
I see what you mean. I guess we have to take his view on veils as a tiny victory. Nowadays, any victory is eagerly accepted.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 15, 2006 7:54 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)