| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
He said it.
"Libyan Liberal Muhammad Al-Houni on Statements by Archbishop of Canterbury: If Europe Adopts Shari'a, It Will Revert to Pre-Enlightenment Era," from MEMRI, with thanks to the Constantinoplitan Irredentist:
In a February 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari'a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well.The following are excerpts from Al-Houni's article:
[...]
"Also, European countries seeking to implement shari'a would need to submit their reservations regarding any international conventions they may have signed. This is because they will have to:
"1) Permit polygamy for European Muslim citizens, and not punish them for it - [even though] this is considered criminal under European law;
"2) Permit European Muslim citizens to beat their wives to discipline them, as the Koran urges;
"3) Allow men to unilaterally decide to divorce without requiring any court proceedings, as this is a right guaranteed [to men] by shari'a;
"4) Give daughters [only] half the inheritance rights that sons have, while widows receive only an eighth of the inheritance;
"5) [Not] consider women's testimony the equal of men's in shari'a courts;
"6) Deprive a divorced woman of custody of her children if she remarries;
"7) Allow European Muslim citizens to marry in traditional marriages without the need to officially register these marriages;
"8) Eliminate adoption, since it is contrary to shari'a;
"9) Force a woman whose Muslim husband converts to another religion to divorce him, because he is an apostate;
"10) Prevent European Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims…"
Adopting Shari'a Would Undermine the Concept of Citizenship
"If [Archbishop Rowan's] intention is to introduce some or all of these laws from Islamic shari'a into Europe's legal systems, it would mean the following:
"1) The concept of citizenship in Europe will change. There will be [different] classes of citizenship and of citizens, with some citizens being exempt from having the general law applied to them because they belong to a particular religion or belief. There will be a Muslim [class of] citizen, a Christian [class of] citizen, a Buddhist [class of] citizen, a Confucian [class of] citizen, and so on. Each will apply his own laws... Thus, faith will not be an individual freedom or belief; it will [come to] have extremely serious public ramifications.
"2) If some or all of these laws were implemented and recognized by European legislative bodies, it would not only seriously damage human rights legislation - it would spell the end [of this legislation]. This is because everything I mentioned above is a negation of human rights principles.
"3) Recognizing all, or [even] some, of these laws would take European societies back to the age before the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, the West would revert to barbarism."
Is the Anglican Church a Partner in Fundamentalism?
"While I maintain that the European countries will never accede to these catastrophic demands - for reasons more practical than humanist - the fact that they were proposed by the British archbishop sends the wrong message to the Islamic world. The gist of this message is that there is no contradiction between Islamic shari'a and Western civilization if [shari'a] applies [only] for Muslim citizens.
[...]
"The Islamic world has been suffering from fundamentalist attacks on what is left of secular society in their countries. These fundamentalists want to implement a shari'a law that contravenes human rights, taking as their model and inspiration the seventh-century state [established by] the Prophet Muhammad in Medina.
"At present, these [fundamentalists] are picking fights with the secularists in Islamic countries, and their attitude is: 'How can you oppose shari'a law in your own countries when we see that the Anglican Church is seeking its implementation in Europe?
"This message is wrong, and it is detrimental to all pleas for modernism and secularism in the Islamic world. Such [pleas] are weak enough as it is, overpowered as they are by the tsunami of Islamist extremists who accuse [those who voice] them of subordination [to the West], treason, and heresy. Such statements by some Anglican clerics are nothing less than support for the ideas of Islamist extremists, and are also an attempt to make fundamentalist religious thought triumph over secular thought in the Islamic countries.
Posted by Robert at March 25, 2008 7:59 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
That list from Al-Houni's article should be kept up as part of a primer for debating the nature of the threat to our society. A brief list of the consequences of appeasement can help sway an argument. Especially when dealing with people who believe they are showing their tolerance by supporting muslim demands.
How widespread are his views in the North African states?
Posted by: Big Luke![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 25, 2008 9:43 AM
One hopes the Archbishop might run across this piece and surmise the utter folly of his own views.
Posted by: Cornelius at March 25, 2008 10:21 AM
The most confused people not born into Islam, but living in the Infidel lands, become the apologists for Islam, or in some cases when suffering from true psychic disarray, convert to Islam.
See the Archbishop of Canterbury, see a dozen writers for "The Guardian" and a dozen reporters for the BBC, for examples of the first.
The most unconfused and advanced (morally and mentallly) people born into Islam, on the other hand, are those most likely to become the Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims,or the "cultural Muslims" (as some loyally continue to identify themselves), or the "secular" Muslims (meaning: I don't believe a word of it, but where I live, I've got to keep calling myself a Muslim), and in some cases, of uncompromising clarity, and in the West where such things are made possible, such people do jettison Islam altogether.
See Wafa Sultan, see Ibn Warraq, see Magdi Allam, see Ali Sina, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali for examples of the second.
at March 25, 2008 10:24 AM
Achbishop Rowan seems to be a little shy about his email address. You might like to send this article to either:
1.) The General Synod of the Church of England,
"synod@c-of-e.org.uk" where it will be handled by a staffer, or you might consider...
2.) The Synod's Secretary General, William Fittall, "william.fittall@c-of-e.org.uk"
You can easily e mail this informative article while letting you voice be heard.
/That is all.
at March 25, 2008 11:21 AM
MP
He has a contact page here:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1531?navid=102&formid=10
Posted by: Silvester at March 25, 2008 11:58 AM
Thanks, Silvester. I'll use it like a public convenience!
Posted by: MP at March 25, 2008 12:23 PM
Sent to magazine@nytimes.com:
------------------
Dear Editor,
I read Noah Feldman's article "Why Sharia?" from 3/16/08 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?ei=5088&en=8a9c9bceeb43a1ae&ex=1363320000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) and was surprised to see very few specifics about what Shariah actually would entail vis a vis women's rights.
Perhaps to provide another perspective you would consider including an article on the subject from Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni, a Muslim citizen of Europe who recently wrote an article in Arabic providing another view of Sharia, as translated here: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD187708.
As Houni says, "Recognizing all, or [even] some, of these laws would take European societies back to the age before the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, the West would revert to barbarism."
An interesting viewpoint, no?
Posted by: kamala at March 25, 2008 1:20 PM
One could also take away from this argument that if the archidhimmi of Canterbury won't stand up for his religion, then the Catholic Church should move in force back into Britain to save western civilization. Who would have thought even 50 years ago that Britain, the country that spread civilization and modern values around the centuries, would not be able to shore up its own house. Get some spine already, will ya?!!
As for Libyan Liberal Muhammad Al-Houni, I could not have said it better--and if this is what the moderates in dar al islam are saying, then I ask you, how can the archibishop whose own church was institutionalized in a rejection of foreign influence, say such things? I conclude he is an ignoramus of grand proportion.
Posted by: lonewolf at March 25, 2008 1:21 PM
I wonder what is really behind this dhimmi's logic. Surely he realises that he'd be the first to go under sharia law. Probably the first to convert, I should say.
OT--The www.SonsofApesandPigs.org
site is inaccessible. My provider indicates they have not blocked it. Anyone else care to try, or have info?
at March 25, 2008 2:05 PM
I am Episcopalian, and have sent Mr. Williams a copy of the message from Libya.
Mr. Williams should remember and recognize the sacrifices, danger, and suffering of the Anglicans of Sudan. Dozens of refugees from Sudan attend our church here in the USA.
They were offered 1) conversion or 2) slavery or
3) flight, as the Muslims imposed sharia law on South Sudan.
Many Africans are struggling against this, and have been for decades in some areas. Don't abandon them by accepting sharia in Europe. Where will this end?
Posted by: NavyMom at March 25, 2008 2:46 PM
capitalistgig and others:
I cannot access sons of apes and pigs either from work or at home. Somethings fishy here, and I don't know what it is. Anyone else experiemcimg problems with it as well? I have a feeling of dread about this.....
"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women and children since 622AD"
at March 25, 2008 3:06 PM
We need sharia'h as much as we need more cancer deaths, plagues, crimes, hurricanes, you add to the list!
Posted by: Dumbo at March 25, 2008 3:20 PM
Everyone,
Got into Sons of Apes and Pigs without problem:
http://www.downloadriches.com/children_of_apes_and_pigs/
at March 25, 2008 4:23 PM
boneshack
Thanks. The address is different, and the site format, also, but the content is the same.
Much appreciate your help.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at March 25, 2008 4:31 PM
A most interesting and clear-sighted article, which deserves a wider audience.
I have to confess that I had not previously understood that adoption is contrary to shari'a, though I was aware that it is unusual in some Muslim countries.
The awful Archbishop is, of course, still not doing his job, despite all efforts to remind him of his duties:
"two protesters were arrested yesterday during the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter Sunday sermon...with placards bearing the words "Support the persecuted church" ....swiftly removed by officers".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;?xml=/news/2008/03/23/narchbishop123.xml
My feelings towards him are highly negative (which could be said another way, but that way would be deletable).
Posted by: M Al-Content at March 25, 2008 4:32 PM
Speaking of dhimmitude, here's a cross post from Islamic cleric on the Jews concerning a film opportunity that will be perfect for the Archdude of Dhimwitty.
------------------------------------------------
I saw a short news bit on Fox News yesterday about the U.N. and Hollywood getting together to make a movie, with a budget of $100 million, to foster understanding between Western civilization and Islam.
No doubt Hollywood will insist that it cover the wars Washington and Jefferson had with Islamic pirates, and the Islamic justification given for their piracy; which of course is the same explanation they give today for their 'terrorism': the words of the prophet.
Perhaps they could include this guy's speech, scrolling down the screen, in the intro.
Unfortunately, it will most likely become some U.N. Islamist twit's dream of a propaganda piece: actors from the west encouraging the west to be more seeensitive and understanding.
But, at least the credits will contain a pre-compiled list of those who enable it, for future reference.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 25, 2008 5:16 PM
----------------------------------------------
at March 25, 2008 5:34 PM
OT but i'd thought i'd share this..
I was in a charity shop/thrift store today called "help the aged"
I often get good bargains in there and have a weekly browse,particularly in the books section.
Lo and behold.But what did I see today?..a full bound 9 volume edition of Bukhari.
Now i'm sure Robert could correct me on this as i'm no islamic scholar.But isn't it a little odd for someone to get rid of their Huge voluminous hardback embossed collection of Bukhari?
Is it a sign of the faith/ideology slipping even further into the charity shop of history where it belongs?
Posted by: ovinesongs at March 26, 2008 2:26 PM
If it's in English, buy it. Think of all the hours of hilarity that await you, and those you invite over, who will amazedly listen as you read aloud from Bukhari. Perfect for parties and family gatherings.
Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2008 10:38 PM
I did think about buying it,after all the proceeds would go to help the old and infirm.
Fortunately for me I ride a motorcycle and it was just too damn big and ugly to get home.I refered a friend to it who is currently under the yoke of PC friends and needs some ammo.
I could devise a quaint parlour game involving the quran/hadith/sura something along the lines of charades or "who's line is it anyway?"
Maybe called:
The game of strife
My gods bigger than your god
Name that sura
Friend or foe
operation(sic)
Jihad or Bust
win,lose or convert
the price is wrong
and my personal favourite..
"the 64 trillion dollar question"
in which contestents try and work out,through a myriad of complex mental and metaphysical tasks whether islam is a religion of peace or not.Hours of fun for all the family.Infidels not welcome.
I could go on but the joke wore very thin for me years ago..
Remember,there's no humour in islam and don't we just know it.
Posted by: ovinesongs at March 27, 2008 11:39 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)