| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The joy of dhimmitude
"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger," says Rowan Williams. Rowan Williams has utterly forgotten, if he ever knew, that the idea of "one law for everybody" was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization, and is rooted in the idea of the dignity of all human beings as created in the image of God. Once you discard the principle of "one law for everybody," you create protected classes, privileged classes, and end up inevitably with a tyranny in which some groups are denied basic rights. And so we have in this case: I wonder if Rowan Williams is aware that if Muslims ever came to power in Britain, they themselves would enforce one law for everybody -- a law that would reduce him to dhimmitude. Of course, by that time he may have converted.
"Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable,'" from the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable".Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Posted by Robert at February 7, 2008 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
"Equality under the law" is now discrimination.
This is George Orwell's birthplace, afterall.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 7, 2008 9:23 AM
I think the chances this man has taken a secret shahada are about 100% — and somebody in authority over there ought to go ahead and ASK him about that.
And why doesn't the Prince of Wales, who is head of the Church of England (right, Brits???), either hose this idiot down or get rid of him altogether?
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 7, 2008 9:23 AM
Damn, it's just February and we already found the Dhimmi of the Year?
at February 7, 2008 9:29 AM
Most dangerous man in Britain?
Jimmy puts it well: equality = discrimination.
Utter insanity.
Posted by: kutabeach at February 7, 2008 9:33 AM
"And why doesn't the Prince of Wales, who is head of the Church of England (right, Brits???), either hose this idiot down or get rid of him altogether?" --posted above
It's well-known that Charles loves Mohammedans.
at February 7, 2008 9:34 AM
'Marital disputes' settled by sharia?
Be sure to a bag limit on women and children now that it's open season.
Posted by: Beagle at February 7, 2008 9:37 AM
Every Country has people like the The Archcook of Canterbury in it, they live in la la land until they have to one day face the reality of their undoing.
The following was actually directed to the article below but this article will do.
Unfortunately it is long way overdue for western countries to start telling Muslims inside, or outside our countries to just get out and never come back if you cannot respect the laws and the rights of our lands.--Please! stop playing paddy cake with these people who are determined to undermine our free societies in anyway that they possibly can!
Maybe we should take a lesson from former Prime Minister John Howard of Australia who said: If you are a Muslim in our country and you want to live under sharia law, then get out of Australia because you not wanted here if you cannot abide by this counties laws. Howard even told them he supported spy agencies to monitor the nations mosques.
Howard in his own words,Quote:.
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.
Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom."
"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.''
"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."
"'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Posted by: Mackie at February 7, 2008 9:37 AM
Oh, excuse me, for those who read my comment on the "Wiki Mohammed" article, I meant Charles loves Adnanians! lol
Posted by: darcy at February 7, 2008 9:37 AM
I heart Prime Minister John Howard of Australia!
Posted by: darcy at February 7, 2008 9:40 AM
"Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to 'face up to the fact' that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between 'the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.'
He is insane.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 9:51 AM
I still think the world in general, but especially the UK right now, is living Ionesco's Rhinoceros. Rowan Williams, the Archdhimmi of Cant, just grew a giant horn out of his head.
Posted by: Beagle at February 7, 2008 9:52 AM
Dr. Rowan Williams just (*^&^^(*& every Muslim woman in England.
at February 7, 2008 9:53 AM
Is there something in the water in the UK?
Posted by: Sounder at February 7, 2008 9:55 AM
This is the same head of the Dr. Williams who became a druid but then scolded the press for misinterpreting his initiation into the society of Druids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2172918.stm
He is an arrogant hypocrite.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 7, 2008 9:56 AM
Rowan Williams ...
The Neville Chamberlain of English religion. Can no one not rid us of this ...
Oops, no, that's not what a mean ...
Can nobody not fire this preening demagogue in his priestly robes who pretends he is a peacemaker, and will sell out every Muslim woman in Great Britain to SUCK UP TO MUSLIM MEN??????
Furiouser and furiouser ...
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 7, 2008 9:56 AM
The picture shown above was taken at the 'Canterbury Christmas Party'. A slightly tipsy Archbishop was delighted with his Christmas cracker hat!!!
Posted by: Sencit at February 7, 2008 9:57 AM
In the Orwellian context, Newspeak should be replaced by Dhimmispeak.
Posted by: Annar at February 7, 2008 9:58 AM
Once upon a time there was a place called Britain.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at February 7, 2008 9:59 AM
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
***
Okay, is Islam a culture or a religion? I'm so confused these days. It seems like the answer is decided on a case-by-case basis, depending upon whatever gives the Muslim the most benefit. I mean, if it's a culture, not a religion, then in the US at least, it will not fall under First Amendment protections.
Posted by: CJ at February 7, 2008 10:01 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
Allah T'allah certainly works in strange ways.
Today the Archbishop, tomorrow the primeminister and the day after Parliament and then the general peoples.
These are the home truths that the British have to face. This great nation ...the inventor of democracy, the railways and controlled world domination.
It is true that Britain is a Proud nation of Firsts....
what I love about them is their sense of fair play ...when they are "nicked" then it's a "fair cop govener"...only this will change to
"it's a fair imam".
and so It will also be the 1st Western nation to Sharia...ably led by the archbishop and Ken Livingstone (hand in hand).
I am Wholly impressed with the speed of conversions and submission to Allah SWT
Thank you Archbishop ...May you find the peace that you so seek in Islam.
at February 7, 2008 10:02 AM
But isn't he correct?
On current trends, sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Dane at February 7, 2008 10:14 AM
"there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger"
This is insanity. Of course there's one law for everybody...relativism is a sure path to anarchy.
Where is the defender of the faith? She should be flushing this guy down the bog right about now.
Posted by: Greek Fire at February 7, 2008 10:24 AM
Buh-bye, Britain.
Posted by: Shy Guy at February 7, 2008 10:31 AM
CJ, islam is a culture, a religion and a legal system (state of the ummah). It is a complete way of life with rules for personal, social and spiritual behavior. The first muslim brotherhood 'brother' I met told me this and after I researched his declaration, I found he was right.
In order to practice islam, one must know the complete doctrine found in the foundational texts, the koran, the hadith of Bukhari and Muslim, and the Sira (biography) of Ibn Ishaq.
The politics of islam are tribal and go no higher than a master/slave relationship. Islam must be in the superior position (master)as allah said so. It is not the religion of islam that bothers me, it is its politics and the relegation of kafirs to a subservient role and an inferior position on the evolutionary scale.
Posted by: the poetess at February 7, 2008 10:32 AM
The archbishop is a dangerously ignorant man.
Posted by: the poetess at February 7, 2008 10:35 AM
"He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"."
Im at the point where I think Britians demise is intentional and by design.
at February 7, 2008 10:39 AM
"Judeo_christian law?" THese is no such animal. Judaic Law is NOT a law for everyone, it was biased against the "outsider," the non_Jews. It's only a story which the church and state has given to us, the public for decades. Jewish law cannot be coupled with xtian law - Jews worship Jehovah. While Jesus broke from Judaic Law. Remember?.....It's the English Common Law you talk about...English Common Law..is taken from the Briton and Saxon Tribal Law of equality between the warriors and the chiftains (elected, NOT hereditary.) The NOrmans (William, that Bastard, and John) tried to break it, but Common Law prevailed.
Posted by: allat at February 7, 2008 10:43 AM
A "citizen" who does not "relate to your legal system" is called a criminal.
Posted by: MontJoie at February 7, 2008 10:44 AM
We are being demographically conquered by an insidious and idiotic belief system from the dark ages. Our culture is endangered. Like France we will eventually become part of the Muslim empire. The forecast for France's Islamification is fifty years. We are not far behind.
Posted by: PROSPERO at February 7, 2008 10:46 AM
This guy isn't only clueless when it comes to Christianity. He is also clueless to all that makes his own country great.
Equality under the law is one of the great aspects of the English and American justice system.
Unbelievable. Beyond words. Beyond belief.
I say strip him of his frock and deport him to Iran where it seems he would feel more at home.
Posted by: Monkeywho at February 7, 2008 10:50 AM
if muslims want to immigrate to th west they need to understand that muslim laws and customs are not the law of the land in there new home land
Posted by: sheepdog at February 7, 2008 10:52 AM
Most of the comments in the original article reflect what's being said here- but there is one difference.
There are more than a few comments that declare all religion should be banned or eliminated in the U.K.
Personally, I can't see the concept of religion being banned entirely even considered in the U.S. I suppose that's one of the "cultural differences" we have between our nations.
Posted by: s at February 7, 2008 10:58 AM
"if muslims want to immigrate to th west they need to understand that muslim laws and customs are not the law of the land in there new home land"
They understand that its Islamic to conquer dar-al-haub by any means possible. They arent there to assimilate but to conquer. Why would they adhere to their host countries laws when Allah's law is supreme?
Posted by: Elric66 at February 7, 2008 11:01 AM
"Judeo_christian law?" THese is no such animal. Judaic Law is NOT a law for everyone, it was biased against the "outsider," the non_Jews. It's only a story which the church and state has given to us, the public for decades. Jewish law cannot be coupled with xtian law - Jews worship Jehovah. While Jesus broke from Judaic Law. Remember?Posted by: allat at February 7, 2008 10:43 AM
at February 7, 2008 11:05 AM
The Archbishop has only “come out” with something the political establishment has been working towards for years. People should understand that traditionally the Archbishop is a full member of that establishment and knows what they are thinking – and planning. Like ALL Church of England bishops his appointment is sanctioned by the government of the time he is as close to the top as any Minister. None of them have the guts to stop the spread of sharia so they go with, pretend it’s a good thing and hope everything will turn out OK. Some hope.
It is incredible to think that muslims were only brought to Britain barely 50 years ago to do the night shifts in textile factories that the British would not do. Now we have no textile industry and the same people a Pakistani writer described as “illiterate farmers” are not only still coming, but are able to overturn a 1000 years of Common Law. The great principle of English Common Law is that it is common to all and there are no exceptions - or were no exceptions.
For years liberal multiculturalists have been screaming at us that we are nothing but paranoid racists because they are only 3% of the population and can never affect our way of life - so what happens when they are 6%?
PS; Maybe Naseem will send the Archbishop a celebratory goat so he can pleasure himself in the manner prescribed by islam?
at February 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Re: Morgaan's first comment: Actually, Queen Elizabeth, not Charles, is the head of the Church of England.
I'm sure, though, that when it comes Charles' time to assume the throne, he'll replace the Church with Islam.
Posted by: kaffirchick at February 7, 2008 11:11 AM
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Ah, the slippery slope to sharia.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at February 7, 2008 11:13 AM
Kaffirchick ...
Thanks for the correction. So it's the QUEEN that's the head of the Church of England ...
Well, somebody drag her out of the stables and pull her head out of the dog-breeding books and see if she can do something about this taqqiyah Muslim cretin.
Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 7, 2008 11:16 AM
This guy looks like a character from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Time to go then.
at February 7, 2008 11:30 AM
Assalamau Laikum Fred,
You say "PS; Maybe Naseem will send the Archbishop a celebratory goat so he can pleasure himself in the manner prescribed by islam?"
Fred, I don't need to...ken Livingstone is 1st in line for that.
at February 7, 2008 11:30 AM
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
It's official, the man is nuts.
Funny how there wasn't a problem having "one law for everybody" before PC. The only people that have problems with a common set of rules and laws - applied equally among the people - are the criminals who feel they are somehow above such rules and laws.
Now, I guess the monkeys are running the zoo.
I feel pity for you all, UK citizens. Either for being under the corrupt and criminal Shari'a Law voluntarily, or through the actions (or inactions) of people like the Archdhimmi of Canterbury.
Posted by: Lori B. at February 7, 2008 11:33 AM
At her coronation, the Queen swore an oath to uphold the "Protestant reformed religion by law established". It's not clear to what extent she has fulfilled that promise, but she was always very friendly with the late King Hussein.
As for Prince Charles, he stated some years ago that he doesn't want to be "Defender of the Faith" when (never, I hope) he becomes king. He would prefer to be "defender of faith" instead. He has often spoken of his deep affection for Islam, and has many Muslim princes among his closest friends. He is known to be a good friend of Rowan Williams. THose two really do deserve each other.
Posted by: The Heresiarch at February 7, 2008 11:33 AM
Naseem....;)
You are David aren't you? Heh
at February 7, 2008 11:34 AM
The Queen is absolutely useless, she should cause a constitutional crisis over the EU Constitution by refusing to sign it, but she won't and that is the end of it all, she certainly won't get rid of this complete idiot.
But I am actually glad he said it, because it can also be a wake up call to some. You can also say that he takes his multi-faith dialogue more seriously then his own faith!
at February 7, 2008 11:36 AM
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Rowan Williams must "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to pompous dimwits like him.
Posted by: watling at February 7, 2008 11:41 AM
How can a man who does not hold his own faith up as the truth possibly be a bishop of the Church? Curiouser and curiouser.
"Not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
at February 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Men in silly hats should shut up.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 7, 2008 11:44 AM
"... some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system"
I am sure that rapists, murderers and pedophiles also dont relate to the British (or any) legal system. So maybe they should have their own court systems.
Oh, that's right, Mohammed (the "perfect model" for Moslems) was a rapist, a murderer, and a pedophile.
As Emily Littela used to say ... "Never Mind!"
;o)
Posted by: StephenDvd at February 7, 2008 11:45 AM
Elric66
"I'm at the point where I think Britain's demise is intentional and by design".
Sadly, I think you are right! I have felt this to be the case for some time!
Posted by: Sencit at February 7, 2008 11:49 AM
People should understand that the Queen is only titular head of the Church of England as in everything else it is the government that calls the shots. Over 150 years ago the classic work on the English constitution set out her position as follows; If parliament passed a law sentencing the King or Queen to death the Monarch has just two options – sign it or abdicate.
theheresiarch
Correct. The title “Defender of the Faith” was awarded by the Pope 400 years ago. He wants the title “Defender of all Faiths” perhaps the Ayatollas and mullahs will oblige but I am not sure about the Pope.
Hi Naseem Out of touch as usual, Ken Livingstone prefers pet newts, he would probably only eat the goat, which provided it has not been interfered with is fair enough.
at February 7, 2008 11:53 AM
May I suggest that we sholud contact him and show him that we think he is in error?
His web site, with a contact address is:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1
I sent this by email and it shall be followed up by Snail Mail:
Regarding your assertions that Sharia Law is unavoidable in this country Dr Williams, I despair! I keep coming round to the idea of rejoining the Church of my Baptism but I lose faith when I realise you are all such weaklings in the face of Islamisation of this Nation!
As to your quoted assertion on the BBC that "An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" - that's beyond belief!
Dr Williams, we cannot cherry-pick which areas of law we feel comfortable with, or choose to obey, or should like to ignore...That's why it is called the Law - not some fuzzy-thinking guidance note! If we all thought that's all it was - some ideology that we could choose to accept or ignore - ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOSE.
Just as once implemented we would be unable to pick and choose the bits of Sharia Law we wanted or agreed with...soon we would have yet more women hanged, beaten, raped, circumcised and otherwise abused by a system that sees things very differently to our dearly-held beliefs - which have in turn been legislated by an elected parliament - not some unelectable Imam from a medieval culture.
Posted by: Blonde at February 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Assalamau Laikum all,
According to a prophetic saying everyone is born on the fitra or nature of islam, some are fortunate to recognise this, others are still searching for it.
We can all become true British Wuslims when we live by the example of the teacher of mankind prophet Muhd SAW.
What I cannot get over is how well and easily the British understood this most important lesson from Allah SWT.
Posted by: Naseem at February 7, 2008 12:05 PM
Is that cunning hat just a little too tight?
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 7, 2008 12:18 PM
Williams demonstrates that most English of abilities when facing Moslems: that one in fact can be on one's knees and bend over at the same time.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 7, 2008 12:20 PM
What a @#$% idiot. Come on!
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 7, 2008 12:36 PM
"For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
so says the A/B of C
Well, Mr. A/B, I'm a devotee of the Holy Trinity of Larry, Shemp, and Moe. And I would like to have my financial matters dealt with by Stoogian law, which says (among other things) that I owe no taxes to a non-Stoogian government. Also I only have to pay 1/2 the sticker price for all goods and services purchased at infidel (i.e. non-Stooge) establishments.
And I'm sure the A/B will support separate law codes and courts for: Baptists, Sikhs, Jews, Wiccans, Scientologists, Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, 7th-day Adventists, et al.
The main role for H.M. judges would be to decide which law code and court-system would apply in a case where the disputants adhered to different legal systems; in such cases the decision would be completely impartial -- the judge would flip a coin. Thus: Mr. Khan, a Moslem, is suing Ms. Wilson, a Scientologist, for unpaid back rent; the judge flips the coin; heads, the case goes to a Sharia court; or tails, it goes to a Scient-court.
An interesting twist to the matter would be that both sides would be able to choose their court-system at the time of the coin flip, without regard to any actual membership in that court's "congregation". Each would then choose the legal system most sympathetic to his side. In this case, Mr. Khan might prefer another court to a Sharia one, one in which he might expect a heavy punative fine in addition to the back rent. And Ms. Wilson might prefer a legal code which recognizes rent as a strictly voluntary payment. The coin flip would decide which system would handle the case.
But let's go back to the initial matter -- the establishment of Sharia courts. Who's going to enforce their decisions? Imagine that Mr. and Mrs. Khan are getting divorced; and the Sharia court gives custody of the children to Mr. Khan. But Mrs. K. says "to H... with that" and takes it on the lam with the kids. Is it then up to H.M. police to track her down and seize the kids and take them back to Mr. K? Or will the Sharia court have its own coppers?
at February 7, 2008 12:42 PM
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
"Dr" Williams, do you mean the way it maintains "social cohesion" in the Middle East? Do you think we should we start with honor killing? Let's just go ahead and take that to it's logical conclusion: you're expendable. Shit happens.
Where did you get your degrees, Bob's Massage Parlor and Divinity School?
Williams, you're the definition of a quisling; a dangerous, gutless, quisling. Most importantly, you're totally devoid of honor.
How's that for cohesion?
at February 7, 2008 12:51 PM
Rowan isn't a Christian, you can't be and take a initiation as a Druid. Then there is his support of shariah law and he has sided with Muslims over one his own Bishop over "no go areas" really shows whose side he is on and its not Christians or Britain.
IMO he may be a secret convert to Islam.
at February 7, 2008 12:54 PM
'Correct. The title “Defender of the Faith” was awarded by the Pope 400 years ago.'
Posted by: Fred
Closer to 500 years ago, and note that the faith being defended was Roman Catholicism. Pope Leo X awarded the title to Henry VIII in 1521 after the king wrote a tract criticizing Martin Luther's writings. Only 13 years later, Henry broke with the Roman Church, and established the Church of England. He kept the title, though.
at February 7, 2008 12:59 PM
This guy is absolutely nuts! Or rather, he sounds nuts to us because our minds are not clouded nor our hearts hardened the way this advocate of one world religion is.
A quick jump over to the link that leonthepigfarmer provided above is insightful.
Thank God our founders were wise enough to reject both the Anglican church and Anglican archbishops.
There are more comments by this dhimmi, as well as conditional approval by the director of the ramadan foundation at this link:
So much here to be outraged about, I hardly know where to start.
Of course, '"sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.'
So maybe we're all just wrong. Perhaps after we adopt Sharia law, since really it's just misunderstood, we may all understand, as the archbishop explains:
Sharia law was originally more enlightened in its attitude to women than other legal systems, he pointed out, but did now have to be brought up to date.
"But you have to translate that into a setting where that whole area of the rights and liberties of women has moved on.
"The principle and the vision which animates the whole Islamic legal provision needs broadening because of that."
Yeah, that should work.
at February 7, 2008 1:01 PM
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
Social de-evolution right before our eyes. This fool would have us return to pre-Hammurabi society. He's more than 'a bit of a danger'.
On the other hand, if he wants to insist anything goes, I guess I can declare him in violation of my No Stupid Statements From Funny Hats With Clueless Grins law; a grave affront against the Wizard of Oz, and discipline him appropriately.
at February 7, 2008 1:21 PM
Naseem states: "May you find the peace that you so seek in Islam."
Pushing your phony "peace in Islam" project again?
Naseem, no one is buying what you're selling, so save the smoke and mirrors for anyone weak-minded enough to fall for your lies.
Islam does not offer or symbolize PEACE. Islam does nothing but propogate murder & mayhem by using lies and deceit and saps like you to promote it. Just because you are in denial about the Truth doesn't mean that the rest of us choose to be.
Islam is PEACE like I'm the Queen of England.
Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 1:27 PM
JW/DW fans should look at the reaction to this in the UK because he may actually have done some good. Even the Burka Broadcasting Corporation admit the reaction on their site has been “Overwhelmingly hostile” which is BBC speak for “The s*** really has hit the fan” I have not read such encouraging comments in the MSM for years. Coming from an outfit that has been softly, softly pushing for polygamy etc. it has really cheered me up.
Naseem – Take a look, because apart from one or two of your whingeing wuslims saying we do not know what we are missing - but believe me we do - the whole country is telling him to shove it.
(Shove it – kuffer term look it up)
at February 7, 2008 1:38 PM
Naseem,
I think you've hit on something. Islam is very much a state of nature in the Hobbesian sense.
Posted by: Beagle at February 7, 2008 1:39 PM
This Rowan Williams buffoon needs to be sacked immediately.
Posted by: Ernest T Bass at February 7, 2008 1:41 PM
He's gone mad.
The idea that enabling strict separation--even to the point of autonomous legal systems--will help social cohesion is so utterly fatuous and incoherent that it is difficult even to comment.
Cohesion REQUIRES that you choose between loyalties. That is what it means. There are all kinds of things I don't like about American laws--I think marijuana should be legal and abortion illegal, to name just two--but I don't expect that a separate law should apply to people like me. I have to choose to be loyal to the United States and its constitution even when the outcome displeases me.
That is the meaning of social cohesion.
Posted by: mountainecho at February 7, 2008 1:44 PM
Hey, anybody know how Naseem's non-Muslim, UK daughter-in-law-to-be is doing? The last time she mentioned it I could tell Naseem was wringing her hands in frustration because her son fell in love with a kuffir who doesn't want to live in Lahole. Think of all the influence that girl's Christian parents will have on Naseem's grandkids.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 7, 2008 1:44 PM
He's basically turning the other cheek, loving his enemy and in sync with all those dangerously pacifistic 'virtues' of his religion. That's just the beginning of the West's problems when facing Islam's inherent aggression, if it's Jesus vs Mohammed, we're cooked. It's why our born again Christian president has not waged an aggressive war against this enemy, because his favorite philosophy wouldn't sanction it.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 7, 2008 1:54 PM
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.He says Muslims should not have to choose between 'the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.'
He is insane.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 9:51 AM
If he really were insane, he would be less dangerous; as he is, he is lethal and not alone in his views.
The British had better wake up and smell the tea brewing.
Once you go shariah, you don't come back.
The British are on a one way trip to their own destruction and have managed what Hitler only dreamed about some 60 years ago.
Posted by: witness at February 7, 2008 2:05 PM
Bosch, I don't believe that President Busch being born-again has nothing to do with not waging an aggressive war. Rather it has to do with his "let's all get along" attitude..similar to his attitude with dealing with the Democrats in Congress.
As to the archbishop: the immigrants most assuredly need to "between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at February 7, 2008 2:09 PM
The barbarians are at the gates!
No, wait.... they're INSIDE the gates!
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 2:10 PM
He looks wild
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at February 7, 2008 2:12 PM
Isabellathecrusader - good question. The last time Nazeem mentioned her daughter-in-law I responded by telling her that I thought she would be the "mother-in-law from hell", and she took great offense to that comment. Oops. Since then I haven't heard word one on 'said person'. Wonder why! :-)
Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 2:12 PM
I'd like to comment on this, but I can't find words. How do you people find words for this?
The Archbishop of Canterbury is a disgraceful, cowardly, treasonous, ignorant, dangerously stupid poltroon. That's about the best I can do.
Posted by: Novalis at February 7, 2008 2:13 PM
The barbarians are at the gates!No, wait.... they're INSIDE the gates!
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 2:10 PM
at February 7, 2008 2:14 PM
Bosch Fawstin,
Thats the biggest flaw in Christianity. It just isnt structured to combat Islam.
This isnt a knock on Christianity, Islam wasnt around when Christianity rose and developed. Though Jesus did warn of false prophets.
Posted by: Elric66 at February 7, 2008 2:15 PM
As an Anglican, I just started reading the Official Catachism of the Roman Catholic Church. Truth and Tolerance by Benedict is a solid read too.
Christianity has a responsibility to its Anglo roots in Britain. If Christianity is supporting the dissolution of Anglo culture in Britain then it has started functioning as a force for jihad. Islam destroys cultures and replaces most of them with an Arabic or Quasi-Arabic culture. This can not be allowed to happen out of love for people culturally British or for those non-British who non-violently wish to live amongst the British.
It is time for serious Christians to question their place in the Anglican Church, either by joining Southern Cone Anglicans or by returning to Rome. A fight is coming for the soul of British Culture, and it appears that the Liberal Anglicans have little confidence in the Gospel or have love for British culture and tradition. What an irony!
As for Sharia Law. Those who espouse it or promote it should be given 4 months to leave the country. Immigration of Muslims should be suspended immediately and anyone who supports jihadist violence (roughly 33% of current Muslims) should be given notice to leave the country. It's time to get serious with these cultural supremacists who seek to destroy any culture they come across. From the British to the Thais to the Filipinos, it is clear that Islam is incompatible with pluralism or multi-culturalism. Expulsion and rejection are the only options to maintain cultural and religious diversity for humanity.
Remember that Mohammad's first act was to destroy religious diversity in Mecca, then he established cultural dominance over the Jews and Arab Pagans. Islam is worse than the KKK. It must not be allowed into countries what honour human dignity and cultural diversity and individual rights.
Posted by: James Martel at February 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Know the saddest thing about this man?.
He, as the Archbishop of Canterbury is so anonymous and ineffectual, that I, As a British Subject, had to go scrawling back to the top of this page to remember his damned name.
Rowan Williams - thats the one!.
Heard of only in Britain, when praising Muslims,- giving ground to Muslims, - or barracking his church of England underlings, who may dare question the Islamic jaugernaught steaming ever onward, on these very shores today.
There is an old proverb that opines; "The people of a Nation get the leadership that they truly deserve".
Gordon Brown - Rowan Williams - Put us the people of "Great" Britain down next to Iran and North Korea as the most pitiful strain of humanity on this, Gods Earth!.
Posted by: Stone Rose at February 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Looking at the Archbishop's photograph, I see a face and persona that positively oozes -- nay, beams with -- open-minded Leftism and politically correct multiculturalism.
Posted by: cantor at February 7, 2008 2:21 PM
Mountain Echo, well said. It's that kind of loyalty to the constitution and the ideals that it stands on that made America great in the first place.
Bosch, he is doing no such thing. He is:
4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires
as Paul informs us in 2Timothy 3:4-6.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 2:22 PM
It is good that Naseem starts every post with "Assalamau Laikum".
It gives me an instant warning that that post can be skipped over without reading and to proceed to the next post.
His /her posts offer no content or value to be concerned with.
Posted by: pr126 at February 7, 2008 2:29 PM
eve_anne_gelical,
I think Bush's adherence to a pacifist religion has a Lot to do with his half-assed response to 9/11. Anytime his better 'instincts' took over that little whisper in his head no doubt stayed his hand.
Elric66,
Indeed, Christianity is not up to the challenge of Jihad. And Bush's devotion to his religion has hurt us badly, no matter What Christian's would like to believe. His unwillingness to confirm his wish that Islam means peace by actually studying the religion is just the beginning of our problems. As if his judgment of another religion somehow reflects on his own. That very well could be the case, that he figures is Un-Christian-like to criticize another religion, but look at where we are if that's the case.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 7, 2008 2:29 PM
Such selfish impotence. Bah. He just wants a foot in the door. To impose his OWN christian demands on the law. Soon you'll find Hindus and Zoroastrians and Buddhists and Jains fighting for equal rights of separation under the law. Or not. I live in India. And we already have a separate Muslim Personal Law Board, where they get to judge things like divorce and inheritance under sharia. There is nothing new I need explain to the readers of this website, except that I have worked with many MANY underprivileged victims of abuse, and guess which community is among the major offenders, the ones that claim their abuse is divinely sanctioned?
Goodbye England. The British Raj is finally being strangled in its sleep. By its own guests.
at February 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Does Judas now have a rival?
Posted by: Odyessus at February 7, 2008 2:37 PM
THE chickens ARE COMING HOME
For so many years in the UK the progressive left have systematically destroyed our own culture led by the Blairites, decades of propaganda have resulted in a Britain that is Ashamed of its culture and tradition,
They long to surrender to any Bestial law system that is not Brutish.
Williams is a product of this idiocy of shame and self destruction. It is Blair who should be taken out and shot for promoting such idiocy and post modernism and the surrendering to any beliefs that are not originated in Britain
at February 7, 2008 2:42 PM
Bosch Fawstin - I'm with you on this one. I grew up in the Christian church, but simply can not turn the other cheek when confronted with evil that threatens my freedom. Those Christians who will not fight back will be asked to stand aside when the shiite hits the fan.
Posted by: MP at February 7, 2008 2:47 PM
STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! Rowan is a STUPID IDIOT! In the old days he would have been called a "useful idiot."
Rowan has NO CLUE about what it means to be a leader in the Christian Church.
It wasn't that long ago that the American Anglican Church (the Episcopal Church) decided ordain an openly homosexual bishop (he left his wife and shacked up with a man). Instead of putting his foot down and prohibiting this sort of thing, he took a wishy washy approach (let's all make peace with each other).
So I'm not surprised in the least about Rowan.
The sad part is, he is an influential figure.
The Queen of England should fire Rowan for his stupidity.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 7, 2008 2:47 PM
This is the same head of the Dr. Williams who became a druid but then scolded the press for misinterpreting his initiation into the society of Druids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2172918.stm
He is an arrogant hypocrite.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 7, 2008 9:56 AM
==============================================
You are referring to Dr. ap Aneuri? (I mean Rowan Williams?
What a totally clueless, arrogant, and worthless excuse for a church leader.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 7, 2008 2:58 PM
MP,
That's right, it's a dangerous world out there and Bush's faith in Islam has crippled our war effort. That's the danger of faith, he need not base it on anything but mere wishful thinking, at the expense of all of us.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 7, 2008 3:04 PM
Rowan Williams has no clue as to what it means to be a Christian leader:
* He won't enforce Biblical moral standards (the Episcopal church ordained a homosexual bishop).
* He becomes a Druid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2172918.stm)
* He wants to include some Islam in British society, not realizing that Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity, and it is a murderous, demonic religion.
By the way, Mr. Williams, do you care at all about women's rights? Do you actually want Muslim men to have total control over their wives?
You're not even a good liberal, Mr. Williams!
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 7, 2008 3:06 PM
Rowan Williams - Poster boy for the separation of church and state.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 7, 2008 3:22 PM
"According to a prophetic saying everyone is born on the fitra or nature of islam, some are fortunate to recognise this, others are still searching for it." by Naseem
You, Naseem, can bet your camel that I am not one of the others who are searching for "it."
Posted by: Pelayo at February 7, 2008 3:35 PM
PersonOfTheBook - I believe that Jesus would go on to say that he never even knew Rowan, and then his ass to hell; and I would even go so far as to call him a false teacher, which is putting it mildly. A milestone is what this chap deserves for leading people astray.
Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 3:39 PM
Champ, I think you mean a millstone, and I disagree. I think he deserves much worse.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 3:47 PM
Perhaps this idiot should go and live in a muslim country for a year he would soon change his mind.
Is he supposed to be a christian? If he is he should be fighting this with every fibre of his being.
Posted by: Wayne at February 7, 2008 4:06 PM
This is absolutely appalling.
I didn't read it here first - I read it in our Australian Broadcasting Commission online website. I stared at the headline and wondered whether I was seeing things. I just couldn't believe it. It's awful. Speaking as an Australian Anglican, I feel betrayed. I feel dirty.
Does this man KNOW that 'sharia family law' permits talaq divorce? polygamy? forced marriage of prepubescent girls? absolute male custody of all children after a divorce? wife-beating? flogging/ stoning of 'adulterous' or 'immoral' women? WHICH parts of 'sharia' does he think Britain can permit? Because Muslims, once they get some of it, will go for ALL.
The Mothers' Union (womens' organisation within the Anglican church, with a special focus on promoting wellbeing of women and families) should be rising up as one, incandescent with fury at the very idea that ANY part of the abominable injustice and cruelty of sharia 'law' should be endorsed within Britain by the Archbishop!
Willy should have an endless procession of angry little Anglican grannies in hats, hammering on his door and telling him what's what. O Granny Weatherwaxes, Nanny Oggs of Britain, give him hell!
Speaking as a member of the Anglican Church in Australia, I can only say that I hope Abp Williams gets booted, fast. Who will rid us of this treacherous priest?
My fellow Anglicans...time to start the campaign for Michael Nazir-Ali for the next Archbishop of Canterbury! (We've even got a second candidate, equally good: Bp Patrick Sookhdeo, who has his head screwed on tight - his deconstruction of that infinitely deceitful 'letter from the Muslims to the Christians' was a joy to read. And there's also Bp Reade, who backed up Nazir-Ali on the 'no go' areas controversy).
Not ALL Anglicans are clueless (witness Fr Mark Durie in Australia who wrote an excellent little handbook setting out exactly why and how Islam's version of 'god, Jesus, holy spirit' has got nothing in common with the Biblical witness).
I sent a 'rah rah rah' letter to Bp Michael Nazir-Ali (and got a very nice email back from his secretary).
Now it's time for every last non-dhimmi Anglican and Episcopalian in the world to send an icily polite rebuke to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And for every non-dhimmi christian - indeed, every non-dhimmi, whether Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, former Muslim-now-apostate, whatever - to march on Lambeth Palace in protest.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Rowan Williams seems to be working on the principle that for different cultures to get along, there needs to be some "give and take". The complete flaw with this thinking is that Muslims never "give", they either "take" or wait, with a long term view to "taking" later. So gradually, inexorably, they get their way. Totally. I cannot think of a single instance anywhere, ever, when Muslims have genuinely compromised with non Muslims. Can anybody?
Posted by: Paul at February 7, 2008 4:11 PM
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Of course they should have to choose! Geezuz, what are you thinking about?
at February 7, 2008 4:20 PM
Ave Sharia.
Posted by: western infidel at February 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Bosch Fawstin,
We need a Crusader type that will take on jihad. This self dhimmification is quite sickening.
Posted by: Elric66 at February 7, 2008 4:26 PM
"nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
Good to hear he's really only advocating "Shari'ah lite".
Of course the Islamists will be sated with this offering, reciprocating in kind, right?
Is this clown serious, or is he merely betting on the strong horse, anticipating the inevitability of his statement based on obvious demographic trends?
at February 7, 2008 4:31 PM
Elric66,
Our leaders really just need to follow the truth to wherever it leads and act on it, with NOTHING standing in the way of that truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes them feel, no matter how many illusions it shatters. Knowing the truth and Acting on it will save the world from Islam once and for all.
Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at February 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Sheesh - did I really say "milestone"? You are right, I meant to say millstone - must be time for a coffee break :-)
Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 4:45 PM
This is the funniest thing - LOL LOL
A quiet wake up call we haven't noticed
Posted by: Charles Martel at February 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Before we consign the good Archbishop to the stake, it might be worthwhile to read what he actually said in his lecture, which was the cause for the interview and the following outcry.
This is the link:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
He raises some very interesting points - and I'd say that in fact the stuff about Sharia law is rather a headline to make people sit up and take note of what he is relly about.
Not a Dhimmi, nor a traitor to his faith.
Posted by: Calon Lan at February 7, 2008 4:52 PM
Do explain his points, Calon Lan -- from the "groundbreaking" work of Brother Tariq, to the "voluntary consent or submission of the believer" to the lovely "therefore" in the fifth paragraph ("There has therefore to be some concept of common good ") that completely obfuscates Sharia's rules regarding non-Muslims.
A nice tap-dance on apostasy as well, again referring to "a significant number of contemporary Islamic jurists and scholars " without naming any names, as opposed to "primitivists"....
Yes, a dhimmi, in a long line starting with Syrian and Alexandrian patriarchs that sold out their flock to the invaders.
at February 7, 2008 5:32 PM
Assalamau Laikum all,
I wish you wouldn't be so hard on the man. He is a intellutical giant....a gentle man ...a kind man epotomising christian values.
Christian values ...which are soft, fuzzy, with mulchy paper thin faith whose leader has already converted in hos own mind...
Like the hindoos, christianity will be simply swept aside, there will be Islam and then followed by Islam, you can see the fruits, the strenghts of Allah Paak's faith...and I can sense your fear...but do not worry...let it wash over you...you'll be ok.
Savage barbarians reading infantile hadith to us ...that's what you peoples said....
Now imagine your granddaughters reading the same....
and yes they will enjoy.
Posted by: Naseem at February 7, 2008 5:42 PM
Calon Lan,
As soon as I read the Archbishop cite Tariq Ramadan as a "groundbreaking" authority near the beginning of his lecture you linked, I needed read nay more.
'In the West', writes Tariq Ramadan in his groundbreaking Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, 'the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam...It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word' (p.31).
Just to pick one of 1,001 egregious examples out of a turban to demonstrate Tariq Ramadan's serpentine mendacity, there was the confrontation on French television between Ramadan and Sarkozy (before the latter became President of France), where Ramadan, after being asked point-blank by Sarkozy what should be done about lapidation (stoning to death as part of Sharia), proposed that in those Muslim countries where lapidation is part of the law, we should ask for a "moratorium" on that punishment to give Muslims more time to have a "dialogue" about it:
Tariq Ramadan:
On the question of lapidation, I will put it with utmost precision by saying that according to my position it is not applicable and I would ask, since my position is a minority position today in the Muslim world, for a moratorium so that there may be a real debate about this among Muslims.
Nicolas Sarkozy:
A moratorium? Mr. Ramadan, am I understanding you correctly...?
Ramadan:
No, listen, let me finish...
Sarkozy:
A moratorium? Are you saying that we should wait a while before renouncing the practice of stoning women?
Ramadan:
No. No, no, no, listen: let's ask ourselves, what is meant by a "moratorium"? A moratorium means that there is an absolute cessation of all the punishments while a true debate ensues, and my position is that, unless a consensus among Muslims occurs, you cannot definitively stop that practice... It is not merely my position that counts, there is the evolution of mentalities of Muslims to consider, Mr. Sarkozy, you must understand.
Sarkozy:
A moratorium? What are you trying to say? We are in 2003, and stoning is a monstrous thing.
Notice two things from this exchange:
1. Ramadan like a snake tries to weasel out of what he is implying, by trying to argue that a "moratorium" is in fact a cessation of the objectionable practice in question -- while at the same time calling for a "debate" in the Muslim world about this practice. (Notice too that Sarkozy understood quite well what a moratorium is: Sarkozy's objection was that Ramadan was proposing waiting for a while before we renounce that barbarous practice -- this is a separate issue from whether during that waiting period, that practice will be "put on a shelf" and not be implemented.) At any rate, the screamingly obvious point Sarkozy was impressing upon the television audience was that, while such a notion of a "moratorium while we debate the issue" may be appropriate for less objectionable practices, it has zero justification for practices that are monstrous. The latter practices must be stopped -- NOW. There is no "debate".
2. Notice that even from a slick and sly Muslim apologist like Ramadan, there is the admission that the support for stoning women is the majority position in the Muslim world: To quote Ramadan from the above transcript: "...my position [against lapidation] is a minority position today in the Muslim world..." So much for those who say that the majority of Muslims are reasonable and decent.
at February 7, 2008 5:48 PM
!#!@!@$@!$#!@@@#!
How do you excommunicate an Archbishop?
I guess the only move that makes sense is for the English to move to the Catholic church.
===============
I can't claim much familiarity with the history of England's church, but I suspect that this craven act of treasonous surrender is one of the worst injuries that has ever been inflicted on it.
This is cultural suicide and treason on a world-historical level.
================
St. George!
at February 7, 2008 5:53 PM
Just one question: How is this any different to what we ALREADY have for Orthodox Jews in this country, where we have private courts that allow disputing parties to let an agreed-upon third party mediate and settle their dispute?
Posted by: Ben at February 7, 2008 5:56 PM
Calon Lan,
The Archbishop quotes Ramadan as being authoritative.
But how does Ramadan return the love?
Like the slippery snake-oil salesman he is:
"Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed the comments.
...
"We are however disappointed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silent when Mr Nazir-Ali was promoting intolerance and lying about no-go areas for Christians in the UK by Muslim extremists.
"Unless he speaks out against this intolerance, Muslims will take his silence as authorisation and support for such comments."
Yes, unless the Archbishop further prostrates himself, Muslims will do what Muslims will do.
Being a Dhimmi means never being able to bow quite low enough.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 6:07 PM
Problems Of Unbelief In The Anglican Church
Apparently the Protest March that was suggested here a few days ago, envisaging or hearing in the mind's ear hundreds of thousands of feet, in ancient or 3/4 modern time, treading England's well-macadamized and still passably pleasant land all the way to Lambeth Palace, to implore the current occupant to leave, for God's sake leave (and if he doesn't take the Cromwellian hint then perhaps mention of January 30, 1649, might get his attention) has not yet taken place, and would-be participants in the Lambeth Walk may need a little tuition in the step. Adele England, who invented the Lambeth Walk, is on record as ready to do her bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5yO7OFNE00
For clearly there are problems of Belief at the highest level of the Church's hierarchy. Too many of the leaders of the Anglican Church do not quite understand, or believe, in their own mission, their own duty, their own responsiblity.
And they must, or they must step aside, get out of the way, end their dangerous feigning. Other problems of belief, of a much less consequential kind, felt by simple parishioners, are unobjectionable and can even be, at times ,welcome.
Here is such a problem of belief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MsbvGmLaU4&feature=related
Now that kind of unbelief among Anglicans need not launch a Lambeth Walk.
at February 7, 2008 6:08 PM
Apparently the Protest March against the Archbishop, which was to end up at Lambeth Palace (and hence I called it the Lambeth Walk), that was suggested here a few days ago, a suggestion that no doubt caused some to hear, in the mind's ear, hundreds of thousands of feet, marching in ancient or 3/4 modern time, treading England's well-macadamized and still passably pleasant land all the way to Lambeth Palace, to implore the current occupant to leave, for God's sake leave (and if he doesn't take the Cromwellian hint then perhaps mention of January 30, 1649, might get his attention) has not yet taken place, and would-be participants in the Lambeth Walk may need a little tuition in the step. Adele England, who invented the Lambeth Walk, is on record as ready to do her bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5yO7OFNE00
For clearly there are problems of Belief at the highest level of the Church's hierarchy. Too many of the leaders of the Anglican Church do not quite understand, or believe, in their own doctrines, their own mission, their own duty, their own responsibility to Believers.
And they must, or they must step aside, get out of the way, end their dangerous feigning. Other problems of belief, of a much less consequential kind, felt by simple parishioners, are unobjectionable and can even be, at times ,welcome.
Here is such a problem of belief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MsbvGmLaU4&feature=related
Now that kind of unbelief among Anglicans need not launch a Lambeth Walk.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 7:06 PM
I think Ben's question is a valid one, and I'll give it a shot --
1. Degree of coersion, esp. by force, applied to the members of the community to use the court and to comply with its rulings.
2. Whether the court's rulings can be in conflict with the rule of the land,
3. to what extent the court's decisions affect citizens outside of the community
4. and, to a much lesser degree, i'd say, to what extent the court's rulings conflict with the values of the land -- there may not be a law against a woman allowed out of the house only with a male guardian but it ain't right.
Anyone else cares to add?
Posted by: kuchuklambat at February 7, 2008 7:16 PM
On the face of it this is a fair question as there is a great tradition in Britain of allowing all kinds of groups to manage their own affairs. What it comes down to is a question of degree and at the moment every enforcement institution of the government is in a state of abject terror for fear of offending Muslims. I have seen everyone from railway conductors to senior managers of councils and police back off in the face of the most blatant abuse of British society and its norms.
I happen to have worked with some orthodox institutions and found them to be a complete pain in the a***. The difference is that so far as I can see the majority of Jews have pretty much the same feeling about them and have no hesitation in saying so. The orthodox really are a "tiny minority" and not an agressive and expanding minority with demography on their side.
I assume you have never worked in a Muslim area because unless you do you can have no idea how far things have gone. I could fill several pages setting out the state of affairs but the problem was best expressed by the advice and man gave to his son who was going to do business with Muslims. “Be careful they do not play by our rules” believe me they don't and to give their rules force of law requires a level of stupidity only found in the intelligentsia.
at February 7, 2008 7:25 PM
Oh my goodness--George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!
From Orwell's book, Animal Farm, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Ironic, isn't it, that the "more equal" animals in the story are...pigs! (Perhaps there's even a bit of prescience in this, as it were.)
Posted by: PorkFatRules at February 7, 2008 7:28 PM
Oh my goodness--George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!
From Orwell's book, Animal Farm, "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Ironic, isn't it, that the "more equal" animals in the story are...pigs! (Perhaps there's even a bit of prescience in this, as it were.)
Posted by: PorkFatRules at February 7, 2008 7:28 PM
kuchuklambat, ben,
I read an article the other day that raised just this issue, ie Jewish private religious courts issuing rulings in civil matters.
The difference I came away with is that in the Jewish court system (it has a name but I can't remember it), items such as a divorce that are granted by a civil (secular/state) judge can be taken to the Rabbi in charge of the religious court, where it will be confirmed for the benefit of the religious community.
The Muslim (sharia) court system being recommended, on the other hand, would allow the Sharia judge to make a ruling, which then presumably the State would have to honor.
So the big difference, as I see it, is one system rubberstamps the State's legal decisions for the benefit of the religious community, while the other seeks to have the State rubber-stamp the religious decision of the religious community.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 7:31 PM
Don't they have dentists in the UK?
Posted by: Sounder at February 7, 2008 7:53 PM
Sounder,
Yes they do, but many don't work on unbelievers' teeth. Maybe that's why the Archbishop is so keen to bow to Islam.
at February 7, 2008 8:31 PM
Actually, I meant the Muslim one's don't. I wasn't trying to be rude to UK dentists. Sorry.
Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 7, 2008 8:37 PM
The difference between the imposition of any part of the Shari'a, and whatever very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, is that there is no real challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law. There is no long-term program to use whatever small place has been allowed for there to be some kind of use of Jewish (or Hindu?) family law, in very limited ways, and ONLY when those ways do not contradict English law, to undercut that supremacy of the law of the English state, no program to undo the legal and political institutions of the English state.
The situation is quite different from Islam. The pretense, that the uninformed and terminally naive Archbishop of Canterbury has fallen for, that Muslims "only" want this little concession, should be seen in light of the steady, and inevitable, Muslim desire, to remove everything that stands in the way of the spread of Islam. Shari'a imposed on Muslims -- many of whom do not want it (see the example of Canada, where female Muslims led the fight against it) because their legal position, under the Shari'a-supplied family law, is far inferior to what it would be under the laws of any Infidel land -- in the supposedly limited area of family law, where it may, and indeed does, contradict the law of the land in Great Britain, is quite another matter. And so too is the fact that this is not a final demand, but merely an opening one, and if granted, will lead to more and more such demands -- demands that swell with each new victory, as a sense of triumphalism is at the heart of the matter. That sense must never be encouraged, must always be discouraged and disappointed.
Last I looked, neither Jews nor Hindus had a plan for world ideological conquest so that Judaism, or Hinduism, rules everywhere. At the very most, some Jews would like Israel to be able to retain what that state currently possesses, for having given up more than 95% of the land area it won in the Six-Day War, they think -- how outrageous of them, how impossible! -- that they have a right, under all the settled rules of warfare and of post-war territorial adjustments, and under the express terms of the Mandate for Palestine, as established by the League of Nations (and the U.N. accepted all of the terms, in toto, of the Mandates, of the League of Nations, in its own founding charter), to hold onto what they have.
As for Hindus, what do they want? Nothing, except not to be continually unsettled in their lives by Muslim demands, and to be allowed to continue to recover their own past, the past of that "wounded civilization" (in Naipaul's phrase), and not to be subject to Jihad, either that in the Indian-held parts of Kashmir (Pakistan already holds anoteher part), or against Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh (who have been murdered, or driven out by the millions), or not to be the objects of Muslim terrorism inside India proper. And that's it. As with Israel, it is not exactly much to ask.
But the Muslims who want Shari'a, in whole or, to start with, in part, imposed on other Muslims, are out for much more than merely having that Shari'a imposed in the area of family law.
That is what the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't understand. He's taken in even by the likes, even, of Tariq Ramadan. And in his book-blurb of praise for Caroline Fourest's "Brother Tariq: The Double-Speak of Tariq Ramadan," Christopher Hitchens correctly notes that with this book Fourest "has done culture and civilization a service by exposing the surreptitious and insultingly obvious manner in which a pseudo-intellectual has bamboozled so many of his peers, and a generally adulatory media, into becoming accomplices to their own annihilation." Insultingly obvious, except to some, and among those some, high up on the list, is the name of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2008 8:40 PM
Looks more the the Minister of Silly Walks.
No one expects the Islamic Inquisition!
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 7, 2008 8:45 PM
Thats the biggest flaw in Christianity. It just isnt structured to combat Islam.
-Elric66
This clown has no relationship to Christianity. He is an impostor like the rest of the decadent deadbeats who rule England.
The Crusades did a good job in combating Islam.
Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough Infidel corpses at the hands of the Islamists to offer the inspiration that our ancestors had in combating this plague.
I don't believe for a minute that this buffoon represents a real Christian nor do I believe that
the lame British politicos represent the will and spirit of Britain. Nor are the spirits of the heroes who rest beneath the British flags, who gave their lives to keep men free will sleep.
at February 7, 2008 9:05 PM
Ben and Kuchuklambat;
you're referring to 'beit din', the Jewish civil court/mediation system...NOT obligatory to Jews but certainly far less expensive than going the lawyer route. Some background and history here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/courts_judges.html
This article from 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3599264.stm
at February 7, 2008 9:07 PM
Oh, and Ben? Beit dins don't issue death threats.
"Terrence McNally was sentenced to death by the Shari’ah Court of the UK as his play, Corpus Christi, opened in London on Thursday night."
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/entertainment?bbPostId=BzFFgvAMudffBEeTVmVxCtP4BzIjMRYKrqulCz1L6seb8uqwj
at February 7, 2008 9:22 PM
Naseem states: "...and I can sense your fear...but do not worry...let it wash over you...you'll be ok."
I think what you're sensing is anger, not fear; anger over this evil & crazy system of government known as Islam and the toxic effect it has on society.
And you are the one who should worry, because there is no way that we as Americans are going to let Islam take a foothold. No way.
The only thing that I'm going to let wash over me is the love of God -- and allah ain't it.
Oh, and I don't need fixing, I am already OK.
Posted by: champ at February 7, 2008 9:42 PM
Naseem: What I cannot get over is how well and easily the British understood this most important lesson from Allah SWT.
Naseem never fails to crack me up.
The picture of the Archbishop looks just like someone I know, and who is every bit as stoned.
If the Arch, thinks Shari'a is A-OK, will he be ok with some of it's punishments as well? Like stoning of women accused of adultery, or amputations? How about a few locally sanctioned beheading's in public. Would the Arch go for those? This guy is a fool and he is stoned as well.
Posted by: duh_swami at February 8, 2008 12:48 AM
As for Hindus, what do they want?Hagemonic conquest and re-conversion of ancient sacred Islamic shrines, such as in Mathura, Varanasi, Ayodhya with no mention of any others. Shrines that are as Islamic as the Dome of the Rock, Sophia Hagia, Templ
Posted by: Hugh
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)