In Human Events today I discuss a few features of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Britain:
Three years after the July 7, 2005, jihad terror attacks in London, the jihad in Britain is stronger than ever. It is not proceeding by means of more terrorism, but by stealth and by the preemptive surrender of all too many British officials.
The stealth jihad is a deeply-rooted, well-funded and wide-ranging effort to impose Islamic law, Sharia, upon the non-Muslim populations of Western countries. In England, and in America, it sometimes takes the form of an effort to win acceptance for Sharia law by portraying it as a matter of “civil rights” and multicultural “diversity.”
This effort got a tremendous shot in the arm in Britain last Thursday, when the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said in an address at the London Muslim Centre that “it is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law.” Including Islamic law? Yes: “There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.”
At first glance there is nothing remarkable in this. The Lord Chief Justice is calling simply for the voluntary application of Sharia in private arbitration. He emphasized that the decisions of such arbitration would be subject to British law: “So far as the law is concerned,” he explained, “those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts.” As such, “it must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”
He also decisively rejected the idea that the notorious Sharia penalties of stoning for adultery and amputation for theft would be implemented in Britain: “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction.”
But if he hedged his statement about the use of Sharia for private arbitration so carefully, why are the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks a victory for the stealth jihad?
The answer to this lies in the nature of Sharia itself. Private matters are not so easy to separate from public ones. If a Sharia court finds a man not guilty of adultery, would that judgment be enforced in a British court, perhaps denying his wife a divorce? The Lord Chief Justice speaks coolly of not allowing punishments that contravene British law, but once the principle that Sharia can be applied in Britain is accepted, calls to increase its scope will begin immediately.
The next step will be challenges to the principle he stated that whenever British law and Sharia come into conflict, British law must give way. And given the prevailing multiculturalist relativism, soon enough that principle will give way to British courts enforcing Sharia decisions.
In his address Lord Phillips praised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who famously said last February that it was “inevitable” that Sharia would come to Britain. “An approach to law which simply said — there’s one law for everybody — I think that’s a bit of a danger,” said the Archbishop. He had apparently forgotten, if he ever knew, that the idea of “one law for everybody” was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization, and was rooted in the idea of the dignity of all human beings as created in the image of God.
Once a society discards the principle of “one law for everybody,” it lays the groundwork for protected and privileged classes, and ends up inevitably with a tyranny in which some groups are denied basic rights. That’s why the American Constitution requires “equal protection under the law” for all citizens.
How rapidly is the stealth jihad advancing in Britain? Two British seventh graders were recently given detention after refusing to take part in a class exercise that involved their participating in Islamic prayer: literally, they were being forced to pray to Allah. The mother of one of the boys commented: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.” Another parent remarked: “The school is wonderful but this one teacher has made a major mistake. It seems to be happening throughout society. People think they can ride roughshod over our beliefs and the way we live.”
Indeed they do, and multiculturalist relativists such as the teacher at this school seem to have no idea of the larger implications of their actions. They, like Lord Phillips, remain unaware of the stealth jihad agenda to implement Sharia, and their own role as the useful idiots in that campaign.
They will, before too long, find that those they have been so earnest to accommodate are not at all satisfied by their surrenders and have come up with new lists of demands. They will have to draw the line or consent to their conquest and Islamization. It may, for England, already be too late.