Adoption of Islamic Sharia Law in Britain Is ‘Unavoidable’, Says Archbishop of Canterbury
| AR Articles on Britain |
|---|
| Whites as Kulaks (Jan. 2002) |
| Report from Britain (Sep. 2001) |
| Oldham Erupts (Jul. 2001) |
| No Representation (May 2001) |
| The Racial Transformation of Britain (Aug. 2000) |
| Black Crime in Britain (Apr. 1996) |
| Search AmRen.com for Britain |
| More news stories on Britain |
Controversial: Dr Rowan Williams believes the introduction of Sharia law to Britain will help maintain social cohesion
The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.
Rowan Williams told BBC 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.
He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a “constructive accommodation” in areas such as marriage—allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.
Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual’s rights as a citizen.
He said it would also require a change in perception of what Sharia involved beyond the “inhumanity” of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.
Dr Williams said: “It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.
“We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances.”
He added: “There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.
“It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.
Sharia law in Britain would provide Muslims with an alternative to our divorce courts
“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.
“In some cultural and religious settings, they would seem more appropriate.”
But his views were condemned today by senior Tory MP Peter Luff, who said: “This is a very dangerous route which we should not go down. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You can’t have a little bit of sharia law.
“We should not start introducing new different legal systems alongside ours.”
But the Archbishop defended his position saying people people needed to look at Islamic law “with a clear eye.”
“They should not imagine, either, that we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and just associate it with … Saudi Arabia, or whatever,” he continued.
“Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women.”
There were questions about how it interacted with human rights, he said.
“But I do not think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights just because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it.”
Dr Williams said Orthodox Jewish courts already operated in the UK, and anti-abortion views of Catholics and other Christians were “accommodated within the law”.
“The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that’s already there.”
He said the issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced under equality laws to accept gay parents showed there was confusion on the matter.
“That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western democracy.
“But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that.”
He said he accepted people might be surprised by his call but urged them to consider the wider question.
“What we don’t want is a stand-off where the law squares up to people’s religious consciences, on something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the Commons … we don’t either want a situation where, because there’s no legal way of monitoring what communities do, making them part of the public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression within a community.”
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.”
Responding to comments by one of his senior bishops that Islamic extremism was creating communities with “no-go areas” for non-Muslims, he said it was “not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion.
“But we do have a lot of social suspicion, a lot of distance and we just have to go on working at how that shared citizenship comes through.”
The Bishop of Rochester, The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said last month that non-Muslims faced a hostile reception in places dominated by the ideology of Islamic radicals.
Dr Williams said the use of the phrase “no-go areas” had sparked controversy because it reminded people of Northern Ireland.
“I don’t think that was at all what was intended; I think it was meant to point to the silo problem, the sense of communities not communicating with each other.
“Many Muslims would say that they feel bits of British society are no-go areas for them.”
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed the comments.
“These comments further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance.
“Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some Western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith.
“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.
“The Ramadhan Foundation will continue to work with the Church of England to build understanding and respect for our two communities.”
Dr Williams’s comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
But he insists that Sharia law needs to be better understood.
At the moment, he says “sensational reporting of opinion polls” clouds the issue.
(Posted on February 7, 2008)
Comments
“the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system…”
It appears the elderly 60’s 70’s “Better dead than Red”, “Go with the flow”, “just give up and die without a fight” crowd is now firmly entrenched within the power structure of the once great Britain.
Ronald
Posted by Ronald at 5:13 PM on February 7
Dr. Williams? It seems we have another academic divorced from the reality of the commoners.
Posted by Kyle at 5:28 PM on February 7
It doesn’t matter what Williams says since his English Church is dead anyway, England is very athiestic.
Posted by at 5:36 PM on February 7
So the terrorists got an endorsment from the Archbishop, huh?
Guess we’ll see the queen flying a white flag over Buckingham Palace soon. Whatever happened to the stiff upper lip of the Brits? They went through two world wars and aquited themselves admirably. Are they really going to throw in the towel to a bunch of murderers?
Posted by June at 5:53 PM on February 7
There is a simple word for this - TREASON.
Posted by Robert at 5:57 PM on February 7
It neither christian nor British to allow for sharia law into Britian, anymore than it would be reasonable to allow for British Common Law to be forced onto the people of Korea or, for that matter, Ethiopia. Rowan Williams is a despicable fool and a traitor, and he should be treated as one.
One notes that the Church of England is bleeding parishoners and I suppose it wouldn’t be altogether a bad thing if this organization, as it now exists, disolve through attrition and another, more reasonable church take it’s place. The Bishop is a knave.
Posted by at 5:59 PM on February 7
This is absolutely insane. There would be no dilemma if there were no Muslims in Britain, plain and simple. If Britain wants social cohesion, it should get really radical: become Britain again.
Posted by Greg at 6:11 PM on February 7
Where Operation Sea Lion failed in the summer of 1940, the new invasion by the Sons of Islam are doing quite well without a shot being fired.
Posted by Sam Saxon at 6:22 PM on February 7
“Sharia law in the U.K. is unavoidable”
I read somewhere that “It`s Inevitable” and “There`s nothing you can do about it” are what a rapist says to get their victim to surrender resistence just long enough to be able to exert complete control…
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 6:26 PM on February 7
“Controversial: Dr Rowan Williams believes the introduction of Sharia law to Britain will help maintain social cohesion.”
Wouldn’t keeping them out obtain even better cohesion?
The only way we would hear a protest from this character is if he were in danger of being replaced himself.
That can be said of every gutless, white, self-appointed elitist in the West.
Posted by Robert Kelly at 6:40 PM on February 7
Complete capitulation. The Liberal Death Wish triumphant. What else can you call it? The Archbishop of Canterbury is right about one thing: the presence of a large sub-population of Muslims is fatal to social cohesion. Perhaps he is also right about the inevitable triumph of the Muslims and Sharia law. One-man-one-vote democracy is doomed to failure whenever the electorate includes large, cohesive subgroups –– especially where one subgroup has limited capacity or inclination for civilization and adheres to a separate ideology (Islam) which shares no common framework, interests, or ideas with the rest of the electorate. However, conditions in the U.K. and elsewhere in the West do not automatically call for capitulation to Islam. History teaches that under these conditions democracy will degenerate into either semi-anarchy or some form of despotism (Caesarism, Bonapartism). The real question then is whether Liberal ideology has so far sucked the spirit out of Western man that he has lost the will to life? That is the one overwhelming question. The Archbishop answers the great “Yes” to this question. Clearly he has searched his own heart and found it empty. “Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?” Yes, that’s our do-goody, liberal Archbishop. But –– for some of us –– I think this is still an open question.
Posted by Petronius at 6:41 PM on February 7
He should be removed from his position, he has betrayed his position as Archbishop and sought to apease moslems, in short he has sold out.
Posted by Englishman at 6:51 PM on February 7
“Dr Williams said Orthodox Jewish courts already operated in the UK, and anti-abortion views of Catholics and other Christians were “accommodated within the law”.”
Jewish law has traditionally been practiced in Western nations for many centuries due to their ancient Jewish communities that, in some cases, predated their Christian ones. At the time, there was no Jewish homeland where Jews could go to practice the “halakha” (Jewish law) autonomously. Contrast this with Muslims, who have any number of countries they can go to in order to live within sharia’. Interesting side note: the words “halakha” and “sharia” have the same literal translation: “the way/road”.
Posted by jewamongyou at 7:13 PM on February 7
Paging Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams, your crucifix is ready. Paging Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams, please pick up your crucifix at the courtesy desk…
Ah, there you are, Dr. Williams. We’re ready to do your crucifixion now, Archbishop, just as you requested. So climb up here please, and we’ll get you all nice and nailed up…
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 7:23 PM on February 7
Sharia was already proposed in Ontario, Canada. It was immediately shot down by Canadians by simply saying, “No”.
Muslim women living in Canada also opposed it as a threat to their freedoms.
Posted by at 7:26 PM on February 7
Can we race realists opt out of the current mad society and be governed under our own law, which takes account of our community’s unique views and perspectives?
Hey, one can dream…
Posted by Kevin at 8:04 PM on February 7
social cohesion? Every formerly decent piece of land is on the brink of social meltdown.
If the citizens that do not relate to the British system and do not abide by the British system, that makes them criminals. (What then, do they get a prize?)
If they have ‘other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how they behave in society’, they obviously weren’t involved with the make-up of British society.(‘society’-group of persons forming a single community; system of living together in such a group; all people, collectively; companionship; an organized group with some interest in common-Webster’s New World Dictionary)
Posted by GAonMYmind at 8:04 PM on February 7
By trying to please everyone, he ends up pleasing no one. Check out the BBC web site “Have Your Say” section on this. Almost universal anger & outrage, from a group that tends to be fairly liberal. You could almost feel sorry for the jerk…. Is it really that hard to be a bishop these days?
Posted by WaitNow at 8:16 PM on February 7
If the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks Britain’s adaptation to Sharia Law would help “maintain social cohesion”, then why isn’t he proposing the conversion to Islam for entire Britain?
That’s that simple… But I have to tell him that even if all Brits would convert to Islam, tensions would still remain - they would sweep from religious tensions into racial, political and ethnic tensions - look at Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, the West Bank, Algeria, Afghanistan,…
Aside from that, as much as I love being a member of the beautiful white race who created civilization around a huge part of the world, as much do I hate my own race for our deceitful humanities and our stupid tolerance against intolerance. How could Britain, creator of genious people like Newton, leader of industrialization who ruled over an empire where the sun did never set, descend into submission and affiliation to Islam? This is complete madness.
I guess it’s easier to explain the universe than that.
Posted by Ziwtra at 8:18 PM on February 7
Our culture built our states! There can be no backing down from multicultrual challenge. This is a zero sum game playing out, with Muslims leading, but by no means alone in, the attack.
Posted by PBL at 8:40 PM on February 7
no one is forcing muslims to go to UK or stay there.williams should be forced from his post his duty is to attend to the affairs of the church of england and no more.
Posted by richard at 9:02 PM on February 7
This cannot possibly be for real.
Is there no England anymore?
…/…
The three roots of modern liberalism and the guilt that causes political correction:
1.) Salvery
2.) Colonialism
3.) Naziism
Posted by from new orleans at 9:15 PM on February 7
Sorry, Archbishop. It is “avoidable.” Nobody in the UK’s PC politburo has the guts to do it. The BNP knows what to do, though.
Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 9:17 PM on February 7
How about Muslims move back to their country of origin if they wish to live under Sharia Law? Does Sharia Law call for the killing of infidels in certain situations? The Brits are opening a Pandora’s Box with this one.
Posted by Super Dave at 10:00 PM on February 7
Islam and Christianity do not mix. Williams is a fool. Social cohesion? What is that? The muslims do not want to get along. They want to take over. Britains must purge their land of muslims and other non-British or the end of their civilization and slavery under muslim rule. They won’t be able to until they purge themselves of marxist bilge.
Posted by Flamethrower at 10:27 PM on February 7
Why do these people consider themselves Christians?
Posted by sbuffalonative at 10:36 PM on February 7
It’s time to kick the church out of Britain. For the first time in hundreds of years, they have stopped championing Christ. They are no longer fit to lead the faithful.
Posted by at 11:22 PM on February 7
“It is neither Christian, nor British, to allow for Sharia law into Britain.”
It is more than that. It is heresy.
Every pronouncement from the Apostolic Canons (said to be decided on by the Apostles themselves) to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, clearly designated that Mosaic Law, as interpreted and given fuller vision by Christianity, was the ONLY law of the Land.
Constantine’s convening of the First Ecumencial Council in 325, Justinian’s Institutes, Charlemagne’s edicts, English Common Law from Magna Carta on down, all DENY ANY OTHER LAW than CHRISTIAN Law.
And, while there are those that think ‘other religion’s laws’ were allowed, it is clear from both pre-and post-Schism popes, that such was NOT the case. The Expulsion of Jews from England is a direct denial of such wishful, but ultimately blasphemous, thinking.
IT was only a schismatic Cromwell that allowed them back in , and only in order to establish a Bank of England, that continues to cripple Britain to this day.
No, Rowan Williams is a heretic. And the Church rightly calls such, “Anathema.”
Posted by Fr. John at 11:24 PM on February 7
At this rate the white flight from England will continue to increase and in less than 100 years there will be no real English left in England, it will be all non-white immigrants and “England” will effectively cease to exist. I have friends in England and they say them and everyone they know plans to leave when possible.
Posted by Saddened at 11:35 PM on February 7
First the people become apathetic, then the government exerts their control over free speech and hate crimes, then the church capitulates. The Muslims and other minority groups sit on the sidelines and simply watch the demise of their enemies, without firing a shot and little effort on their part.
Free White men and women of the West, STAND UP TO THIS MADNESS!
Each of us can prevent this. Don’t let one single day go by without doing something, ANYTHING to help our cause. We have no time to lose.
Posted by Renae at 12:01 AM on February 8
““the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system…””
Would that include bank Robbers, Rapists, Murderers etc…?
They don’t “relate” to the British Legal system either!
Will they be pandered too as well?
Isn’t it a “Citizen’s” duty to abide by the laws and legal system of the State in which they choose to reside?
Bloody Imbecile!!!
Posted by Formerly (James From NOLA) at 12:33 AM on February 8
Hi my amren buddies. This is Eugene from Liverpool, UK. I’ve had a few guinesses tonight and now it’s time for a rant. You know, if I was in the least bit religious I would think the Devil was at large in Western civilisation. We are experiencing our third wave of Muslim invasion. The first being Arab invasion of Spain, France and smaller Mediterranean territories; the second being the Ottoman Empire for which we may well be
about to experience it’s most devastating repercussion as the US pushes for an independent Kosovo and Putin is on standby for a first strike against the US. And third, just as we thought we’d seen the back of Islam in Europe, the Neo-liberals decided it would be a good idea to open the gates to unlimited Muslim immigration.
The Balkans war, which was about the West breaking Yugoslavia apart so as to better control that region, created Bosnia-Herzegovina, a new Muslim territory in Europe. In this state, since the last Balkans war, Saudi Arabia has built one thousand
new mosques and a number of Muslim countries seem to hold sway over the country. Kosovo, which was always a part of Serbia, and whose southern border is one of the oldest recognised borders in Europe is about to become ‘independent’, which means it will join with the old Turkish colony of Albania (previously Christian, now Muslim) to become ‘greater Albania’. Fifteen years ago, Bill Clinton created the new country now known as Bosinia herzegovina (I think I just mentioned it above). The big question is, how will greater Albanian join itself to its Muslim neighbour, Bosnia Herzegovina?
I’m drunk, but please indulge me. The Serbs were occupied by the Turks for 4 or 5 hundred years. They were brutalised. Women would dress their sons as girls so they wouldn’t be abducted. Nevertheless, the Turks abducted one million boys, mainly Serbs, converted them to Islam and trained them for the Ottoman army.
Soon after liberation came WW1 and Austrian-Hungarian atrocities against Serbs. Then came WWII. Croatian Nazis murdered 800,000 Serbs, a figure oft quoted by The New York Times until 1991, after which the figure mysteriously become 80,000. (Strange, that)
After years of communism we have the break up of Yugoslavia. The West accused Serbia of trying to ‘destabilise’ the Balkans. What, by trying to keep Yugoslavia together???. Then they are accused of trying to create a greater Serbia. Never in their history have Serbs annexed one acre of land. Then they are accused of ethinic cleansing. Sorry, but Serbia even today is 40% non-ethnic-Serb Orthodox. Why didn’t they start by cleansing the predominantly Serb regions? Then came Srebrenica, the massacre of ‘7000’ Bosnian Muslims, which was the trigger for Hillary Clinton to persuade Bill to bomb Serbia.
Well, there was no massacre. No bodies have been found and if you look on www.tenc.net, you will see that the atrocity was logistically impossible. Also, let it be noted here the the West is training Kosovar (ie Albanian) Muslim terrorists as I write.
What I want to know is, what in G*d’s name is going on? Two new Muslim countries in Europe. The US pushing for Turkey to be accepted as part of Europe. Mass immigration of Muslims, and the Archbishop (powerless though he is) calling for Sharia law.
(Am I wrong to be an atheist? Is the devil real?)
It’s a connundrum, with each party having its own agenda. For the C of E, they know they’re on their last legs and so, by accommodating Islam they think they can scare people into going to church again. For the US, its about gaining Muslim favour in the Middle East by supporting European Muslims.
And for Putin? Absolutely no way is he going to let Kosovo go.
And,though I’m generally pro-US I support the Slavs on this one.
Anyway, as I said, I’ve had a few tonight. But for all those Neo-liberal fanatics who trawl these sites looking for ammo, tonight, yet again, YET AGAIN, I found myself putting my own flesh and blood between aggressive whites and,on this occasion, Muslim immigrants (Muslim takeaway). Why? Because I have the b*lls and because I believe in justice. I hate immigration because it’s undemocratic, but it’s a symptom - the disease being Neo-liberalism. How many of you Neo-liberals have ever had the b*lls to stand up for a black or any other immigrant in a potentially lethal situation like I have on many occasions? You all make me sick.
Posted by Eugene at 12:58 AM on February 8
“the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system…”
This world is made up of many societies. These people came from Islamic societies and moved to a Christian one.
If they dont “relate” then they can just go back.
Its that simple.
Posted by at 4:23 AM on February 8
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. 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.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, British citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
Posted by Geoff Miller at 4:30 AM on February 8
Ask them if, in return for the right to practice Sharia law, they would renounce any right to recieve welfare benefits and government services, and the right to be covered by anti-discrimination laws. I think they’d pipe down.
Posted by at 4:32 AM on February 8
This fool should resign. Sharia law means murdering innocent people. Obviously this demented cleric is in favor of the murder of innocent women and people who leave that violent, destructive political movement that calls itself a religion.
Posted by at 7:39 AM on February 8
I can’t decide which group has the most nerve. The illegals who march in our country threatening, demanding, whining and insulting, or the people who wish to force Sharia law on the people of the UK. Why are we sitting here and writing about it? Let’s get on the computers and phones and demand that our leaders stand up for our country and its laws. Hopefully, the British will act before it’s too late, if it isn’t already. Obama and Clinton want “change.” They neglect to say what kind of change, but they, like McCain, are acting just like Bush when it comes to being open borders proponents, so that isn’t a change at all!Am Ren posters, let ‘em know we want our country back - demand that they build a fence, enforce workplace laws, stop the idiotic giveaways(benefits) and the insane birthright law and take our country back unless they really want a third world nation.
Posted by June at 9:10 AM on February 8
For some sick reason, I will smile when the Royal Family has to drive their foreign built Rolls Royces through a black and arab jungle to get to and fro Buckingham Palace.
I wonder if the “queen” will say anything as she looks out the tinted widows and all she sees is a sea of black and brown faces glaring at her as she drives by, without stopping, to her gated compound in the center of New Mecca (previous known by the racist white name of “london”).
Posted by LOGIC at 10:13 AM on February 8
Here in Canada, when the province of Ontario considered allowing the use of sharia law to settle issues, the uproar was horrendous. Perhaps the Ontario gov’t would have allowed sharia law to be formalized, were it not for the bad press, demonstrations, legal challenges, and threats by female politicians to leave the governing party. Sharia law need not be inevitable in the U.K. - at least not yet. Just fight back!
Posted by Matt at 10:23 AM on February 8
Well, as they say, ‘Worse is better.’
The brown stuff has hit the fan and Britain’s long-suffering indigenous Brits are up in arms about this (even the lady at my public library had abandoned the fence that she usually sits on and had ‘had enough’….phew.
Dr Rowan Williamsssss, The Hissing Bishop, (have you heard him talking) has really done it this time. I must admit, I couldn’t understand a word of his speech (he’s not the best communicator in the business) but I got the gyst of the message - basically we have all got to bend over backwards to incorporate a religion whose roots and ethos are buried in the middle ages and seamlessly blend this into British law.
Talk to the hand, Row, ‘cos the head ain’t listenin’.
Posted by Graham of Wales at 10:53 AM on February 8
Too bad the British Government sacked Enoch Powell for his “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968. He was right on the money.
Posted by at 11:38 AM on February 8
Go to the BNP website. They have pictures of sharia executions and stonings… Looks like something out of the Holocaust. Pretty sickening.
Posted by TIm Mc Hugh at 12:20 PM on February 8
His Grace, the archbishop of Canterbury in advocating the acceptance of Sharia Law by Britain (once Great) is in good company. I refer to his Royal Highness, Charles Prince of Wales who makes no secret of the fact that he is, to all intents and purposes, a closet Muslim.
It is quite within the bounds of possibilities that at his coronation it will be the Grand Imam of All England who will administer the coronation oath.
E. David Litvcak
Posted by E. David Litvak at 1:43 PM on February 8
He is no longer my archbishop and obviously no longer a Christian. He is now a lacky for hamas and ‘the hook’. Remember .. ‘who will rid me of this troublesome priest…’? Visit Canterbury Cathedral to see the exact spot.
Posted by Yorkshireman at 2:11 PM on February 8
There is only one word to describe this: treason.
Even I am shocked at how fast things are going downhill. We all knew how liberal the Church of England leadership had become, but who would have predicted the Archbishop of Canterbury advocating Sharia law just a few years ago?
In my opinion the political class and the idiotic archbishop are sowing the seeds of future civil war. Needless to say civil wars are always extremely cruel and traumatic, leaving scars that last decades or generations. We should take Spain in the 1930s as an awful warning of the sort of bitter, drawn out war marked by atrocities on both sides that is possible.
Posted by Ed at 2:53 PM on February 8
The BNP should make Rowan Williams its “poster boy” and make him a textbook example of everything that’s wrong with the country. Then watch the votes roll in.
Posted by Strider at 2:53 PM on February 8
So I again ask the US government: why do we have troops in Europe? What are we defending? They obviously don’t want or need our “protection.” Please, Europeans, ask our troops to leave NOW. We really don’t care anymore what happens “over there.”
Posted by Xenophon at 4:08 PM on February 8
Making Rowan Williams the poster boy for the English establishment would be a master stoke by the BNP. Seeing his geeky visage above his anti-white statements would help educate lots of Brits.
Posted by Bernie at 5:15 PM on February 8
Stage 1: “Don’t worry about the immigrants, they’ll assimilate”.
Stage 2: “OK, so they won’t assimilate, but just let them do their own thing” [multicultural stage]
Stage 3: “We’d better start assimilating to THEIR ways”.
Stage 4: “Allahu akhbar!”
Posted by at 6:02 PM on February 8
But he forgot to start and close with these wonderful words:
“It’s a religion of peace”.
Let’s welcome all the Third World Muslims in the world - all who want to come to England, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Australia, Canada and our own USA
Ie, what’s left of the White West.
We made a sarcastic music video on this theme - set to the music of the former pop folk singer Cat Stevens, now Yusuf Islam - imploring us to get on “their” peace train.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7n731ujoR2Q
Events are certainly moving fast, going down.
JR
Posted by JR at 6:28 PM on February 8
“And,though I’m generally pro-US I support the Slavs on this one.” Eugene
Eugene, I agree the United States has no strategic interest in the Balkans, which Bismarck called the “powder keg of Europe.”
Why the United States is so hell-bent to support the creation of a new Muslim state, with links to terrorism, in the middle of Europe is beyond me. There’s no need to apologize for not supporting the United States Government. One can disagree with our controlled government and still be a patriot by supporting our Constitution, land and people.
Posted by Sardonicus at 3:32 PM on February 9
Western man has created a couple of secular religions. Environmentalism with it’s compulsory faith in man caused global warming and the Church of Greater Diversity which believes that all diversity is good regardless of the consequences. This Church preaches all encompassing Tolerance as it’s chief theological requirement, even if the outcome destroys your culture, mutilates your daughter and or kills you. Call me a Agnostic on the former and a Atheist on the later.
swim out pass the breakers and watch the world die
Posted by swimoutpassthebreakers at 4:37 PM on February 9
“It doesn’t matter what Williams says since his English Church is dead anyway, England is very athiestic. “
Posted by at 5:36 PM
And as an atheist myself, whose father’s family was of that church, I can ask: who would possibly want to return to it? Any sane person would want to flee it!
Posted by at 8:45 PM on February 9
“And,though I’m generally pro-US I support the Slavs on this one.” Eugene
No need to apologize, Eugene. Many Americans will agree with you on this.
Posted by at 8:47 PM on February 9
Note the smarmy expression on his face-all Anglicans and
Episcopalian Men look like that and many liberal Catholics as
well. They have no interest in God-what excites them is trans-
gression. They yearn for gay bishops and lesbian priests. They
are complete degenerates and the days of the Church are numbered.
Anyone with any integrity is schisming out or converting to Or-
thodoxy or Conservative Catholicism.
Posted by Leif the Lucky at 11:27 PM on February 9
I would have no objection to Sharia Law being used in cases between two Muslims, as long as both agree to it. This would be similar to the Bet Din in Judaism or the Matrimonial Courts in the Roman Catholic Church.
However, under no conditions should in-active Muslims or non-Muslims be forced to accept Sharia law. I seriously doubt that these Muslim fanatics would accept this limitation.
Posted by ALLAN at 11:18 AM on February 10
However, under no conditions should in-active Muslims or non-Muslims be forced to accept Sharia law. I seriously doubt that these Muslim fanatics would accept this limitation.
Posted by ALLAN at 11:18 AM on February 10
Sharia law can be used as a mediation tool with the consent of all parties. I have no problem with that, it’s like families settling their affairs in private. This is what I view as acceptable application of sharia law, not real law!!!
Posted by realist at 4:24 PM on February 10
>>>You know, if I was in the least bit religious I would think the Devil was at large in Western civilisation
I’ve often thought the same myself Eugene; there’s supposed to be some Beast or Anti-Christ who returns to wreak world-wide havoc, I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and they don’t go in for Revelations as much as some Christians so I’m a bit vague on who it’s meant to be.
Thought! Perhaps it’s that 12th Imman who’s been hiding in a well for all these centuries.
Good post by the way. Drunk or no.
Arc.
Posted by Arcadian at 10:13 PM on February 10
That spaced-out old hippie, a product of the “do your own thing” generation, ought to retire and go smoke his weed and listen to his John Lennon records, and leave the rest of us in peace. The harm that well meaning fools like that have done is incalculable.
Posted by voter at 11:48 AM on February 11
My feeling is that New Labour appointed Rowan Williams in the full knowledge that he was a loose cannon who would bring the Church of England into discredit, prompting calls for the disestablishment of the Church. Like the destruction of the British monarchy, this would be a near-fatal blow to the national and cultural identity of the United Kingdom - especially England.
To be perfectly honest, the only two serious contenders for Archbishop of Canterbury in succession to the lunatic Williams are Dr John Sentamu (currently Archbishop of York) and Dr Michael Nazir-Ali (currently Bishop of Rochester). The first is a black African, the latter an Asian of Indian origin; both are finer men than the pitiful Williams, and both would be truer to the culture and identity of the Church and nation of England. Furthermore, both understand precisely the threat that Islam poses today in the UK.
Posted by Johnny English at 12:12 PM on February 11
This just in:
“Speaking to the Anglican Church’s General Synod in Westminster, [Monday] Rowan Williams acknowledged that a “misleading” choice of words had led to some distress and misunderstanding within the British public at large.
[He] said today he took responsibility for any “unclarity” surrounding comments he made on Sharia Law.”
More weaseling! I don’t think there was any “unclarity” or “misunderstanding” at all. He was very clear. Now this shameless prelate is trying to back out of the mess he got himself into.
Defrock him and be done with him!
Posted by browser at 4:43 PM on February 11
“If you are neither hot or cold for ME,
I will SPEW you out of my mouth”
The “church” of England is about to be spewed from GOD’s mouth, and it wont be pretty!
Posted by bill at 9:18 PM on February 11
Sharia law can be used as a mediation tool with the consent of all parties. I have no problem with that, it’s like families settling their affairs in private. This is what I view as acceptable application of sharia law, not real law!!!
Posted by realist at 4:24 PM
——————-
I have to disagree with both of you on that. Why? This is just giving them the first foot in the door. And we have already seen that they never stop with one demand. They’ll keep going until they have it all.
Posted by voter at 12:17 AM on February 12
“Now this shameless prelate is trying to back out of the mess he got himself into. Defrock him and be done with him!”
- - - - - - - - - -
Having read Johnny English’ knowledgeable post about the two likely contenders who would replace him, I might want to take back my above suggestion. They are probably both (as Johnny says) better men, but they are not ENGLSHhmen — which is what England should have. What a dilemma! I had not known the Anglican church was in such a sorry state. Yes, I knew it was pretty bad, but not this bad!
Posted by voter at 2:22 AM on February 13
This is why I hate religion… the utter lack of morals!
Posted by David K at 11:29 PM on February 13
>>>BEIRUT, Lebanon - A leading human rights group appealed to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah on Thursday to stop the execution of a woman accused of witchcraft and performing supernatural acts.
The idea of England under Sharia Law would be FUNNY if it weren’t such an unspeakable absurdity. Europeans took many centuries to rid themselves of barbaric, primitive punishments for trivial offenses. Punishments like floggings, brandings, amputation of parts of the body. Can the vaunted Archbishop of Canterbury REALLY BE AS STUPID AS HIS COMMENT SUGGESTS?
What in the name of HELL is wrong with Europe’s governments — to allow White nations to be flooded by third-worlders from Africa and Asia? Do these governments deliberately WISH TO DESTROY WHITE EUROPEAN CULTURE of two thousand years? If so, WHY?
Posted by Fed Up at 11:07 AM on February 14