The Archbishop's speech

field

We look forward to that!

Robert Wood, Ottawa, Canada

Who will rid us of this ... Oh, no, wait a minute. He is the Mullah of Canterbury after all.

M Clyde

I am speechless with fury at this witless idiot who has brought ridicule upon the Christian faith, the Anglican communion and the United Kingdom by his wittering speech which extrapolates from the very general to the totally incoherent, being entirely lacking in any sort of empiric detail of the type that lawyers (as opposed to theologians) routinely concern themselves with. In such a fashion are 1000 years of British civil law dispensed with in favour of a theocratic system that has no place on our soil except as a limited voluntary code for those masochistic enough to wish to submit to it, in the manner that any voluntary society may implement their own 'club' rules for members only. Following on from the news earlier this week that polygamy is to be recognised and paid for by the (monogamous) British tax-payer in welfare benefits to additional Muslim spouses brought from Pakistan, I am writing to my MP to demand a review of this decision which was taken without parliamentary debate or consultation with the legal establishment, but will have major implications for the status of sharia as obviously it sets a legal precedent. I hope the lawyers at Temple have now woken up to the threat of Islamism (for it is Islamists who push aggressively for sharia to by thrust into mainstream British life). 'Moderate' Muslims are content with freedom of worship and halal foods. More to the point, that they have woken up to the threat posed by Rowan Williams. Bishop Nazr-Ali is a far better leader for our times.

Miv Tucker

Archbishop hits bottom, keeps digging Just when you think things couldn't possibly get more idiotic, something like this leaps up and smacks you right in the face. But as Edgar says in King Lear (Act IV, sc i): "...the worst is not / So long as we can say 'This is the worst.'" So be on the alert, be vigilant - you just don't know where and when the next outbreak of madness will erupt.

Ian

I cn't decide whether he's begging a secularist society to give all religions a place or cleverly trying to stir up precisely the reaction that has occurred. It was extremely considerd and carefully worded, perhaps too much so. He is supposed to Pastor and teacher to the nation; not its subtlest diplomat. 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field whivch the LORD God had made..

Frank Pulley

I've come to the conclusion that Canterbury enjoys being flayed by Melanie Phillips. There can be no other reason for him to utter such inflammatory and subversive twaddle. If he were not the A of C I would attribute such madness to tertiary stage syphilis ... but then he is a Welsh druid, so perhaps it's scrapie - which has similar symptoms.

Bill M

What an ignorant buffoon. Perhaps he should change his last name to Atkinson.

David

"… without a strong religious core providing the moral, ethical and cultural ballast, the society it has been instrumental in forming becomes intensely vulnerable to collapse and colonisation." This is obviously true, therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that the UK is finished as a civilised society and if I lived there, I wouldn't. I would migrate. I also have mused about the first case of a homosexual vicar being dragged before a sharia court and sentenced to being thrown to his death from the steeple of his own church. Laugh if you must, but I predict this will happen within thirty years.

EG

I cannot believe what I am reading. Is this man totally and utterly mad!? Why is he deserting his own church, that he leads? Will the Queen sack him? A very very sad crisis for the UK and all people who believe in liberty.

Sarah Margittai

The Archbishop is undermining the State and denying the Bible he is supposed to uphold. That Bible teaches that there must be one set of Laws and one Justice for everyone in the land. I hope he will admit his apostasy and resign.

Roy

Dear Queen of the realm, sack him.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

When 'citizenship' was introduced to the school curriculum, I was asked to teach aspects of the subject at a large state girls' school in Greater Manchester. The subject of 'crime and punishment' came up, as it normally does in RE lessons. The teacher's role was to encourage debate on this subject, without making 'judgements'. Without exception, every Muslim child in the class opted for sharia law as the correct British response to burglary, for instance. When asked to elaborate further, they insisted that this should cover all British citizens, irrespective of religion or creed, as 'sharia law knows no boundaries'. When asked what the punishment for burglary would be, they all stated 'amputation of hands'. This disucssion took place in 1999, well before 9/11. When I reported my considerable misgivings to the school authorities, I was told that pupils were 'entitled to their opinion, and by the way, Manchester LEA has asked that we do not use the word 'Israel' in class, so as not to offend Muslim pupils'. Unfortunately for Manchester LEA the RE subject to be taught in another class was 'the Exodus from Egypt'. And their own syllabus mentioned 'the Children of Israel'. Teachers were now expected to use the phrase 'Children of Palestine'. I reported all this to the local Manchester Representative Jewish Council who basically accused me of fabricating the whole thing. 'We know the advisor for RE and she would never do such a thing'. Any wonder that the Arcbbishop of Canterbury is now advocating sharia law and using Jewish norms incorrectly to implement it.

Lee Jakeman

... or he could be just plain stupid.

tommy

What a sad excuse for a religious leader--- the mans acuity and suitability for his position are now not even in question Retire this dangerous buffoon now.. As a previous poster writes "Bishop Nazr-Ali is a far better leader for our times."

David M.

Comrade Williams was perhaps Tony (if you mention religion people think that you are a looney) Blair's "finest" appointment?

Oliver

Bill M "What an ignorant buffoon. Perhaps he should change his last name to Atkinson." Bill - Rowan Atkinson is an extremely bright person who has made his feelings plain on the freedom of speech and religious censorship issue. He - or Mr Bean - would make a far better leader than Rowan Williams, who should be sacked by the Queen forthwith.

Tony

It's interesting how Islamic apologists try to maintain they are only interested in the marriage, divorce and financial aspects of sharia, as if that't reasonable. in fact sharia shouldn't be allowed anywhere near such disputes. Anyone familiar with sharia rulings can see that the male/female imbalance in these areas is grossly unjust and mathematically unsound. Incidentally, how do we get rid of the A of C? When is his next election? Do I get to vote? Can he be impeached?

field

Well most of us can agree that the Archbishop is a loose cannon that has just thwacked the British legal system over the head. But I think Melanie has neatly side-stepped the issue of the official recognition granted in law to the Jewish religious courts in matters of personal relationships. This cannot be right. It is wholly wrong. It will lead inevitably to comparisons (quite correct comparisons) with the position of Muslims in our society. David Green (from think tank - Civitas?) is in a hopeless position if he is going to argue that it is different for Islam because women are inferior under Islam. Women are also held to be inferior under Orthodox Judaism. We can either go down the road of legal pluralism advocated (quite logically in many ways) by the Archbishop or we can take a step back and apply the principle of a single legal system for all.

EDDIE

It could just be that the penny has dropped with a loud clang. The people of this country will now begin to realize that there is a long term strategy in place to undermine our systems of government. I live in hope that, eventually, even the BBC will also see the light

Louise

The Archbishop, who has now become a ludicrous figure and quite possibly sounded the deathknell not only of his divided Church but of Britain as we know it, should realise that the Jewish position has always been "The Law of the Land is the Law". That is why the Anglo-Jewish community is and always has been an integral part of British society. If only Islam would similarly adapt to modernity.

Stanley Jerusalem Israel

Sorry Field, Melanie has side-stepped absolutely nothing. The official status of Jewish Religious Courts in the UK is exactly the same as Courts of Arbitration. However they have no power to fine or otherwise punish and may not rule contrary to anything which is forbidden under English Law and cannot compel anyone to follow their dictat under threat of punishment.They cannot force a man to grant his wife a divorce even though the couple may already be divorced in a civil court. You are either misinformed or have a totally alternative and undisclosed agenda.

David

Jewish Law more than "acknowledges" that Jews "live under the law of the land" - under the tenet of "dina de-malchuta dina" it states unequivocally that the law of the land IS the law.

Barry Larking

I came here and I am surprised to find Melanie is still upright – and she was in the hall with Dr Williams!

One thing is certain; after this no sharia here.

D. Cohen

He has become the Archbishop of Cant

Ian C

To quote Jeremy Clarkson (surelythe next appointee for Archbishop!) "This is a man who was arrested in the antinuclear protests of the 1980s. Who refused to call the 9/11 terrorists evil and said they had serious moral goals. Who thinks that every single thing bought and sold is “an act of aggression” on the developing world. Who campaigns for gay rights but wouldn’t actually appoint a homosexual as a bishop. And who recently said in an interview that America was the bad guy and that Muslims in Britain were like the good Samaritans..... In other words, he’s a full-on, five-star, paid-up member of the loony left..." Now what we know exactly what that means. That we have the full range of views of the 'liberal left' laid out in full. I thought that "Liberal" meant being free and equal, if it meant anything. What we are seeing is the overdue uncovering of the true views of the left as being the next closest thing to fascism.

Geoff Miller

This man shouldn't be running a whelk stall let alone the Established Church of England. The confusion and abject surrender of any sense of belief in anything is astounding. Here we see plainly the workings of the Liberal mind. He is one of many who are eating away at British culture, institutions and society. We never asked for the radical changes they have wrought upon our country. That plain fact says everything we need to know about our so-called democracy. We don't live in one.

Rachel Miller

Thank you for this detailed report of what Dr. Williams actually said and in what context, Melanie. So far, the reports I have read have made no attempt to go beyond giving 'soundbites' of Dr. Williams's interview. I do have one question for the Archbishop - what would he propose as a solution after the introduction of Sharia law should a Muslim have a dispute with his non-Muslim neighbour? Which law code should be applied? This highlights the very problem inherent in the Archbishop's proposal; it is not possible for two legal systems to co-exist side-by-side in one state. There will inevitably be a point at which one or the other must be declared paramount. If Sharia courts are 'incorporated into' the British legal system, as Dr. Williams suggests, conflict between the two systems is unavoidable.

Tony Rawlings

I wonder how Terry Waite feels about these stupid meanderings?

Michael Taylor

In Archbishop Sentamu of York we have a very capable replacement standing by. . .

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

This is for those who think that Jewish Law is somehow the equivalent of sharia law - from a well known former British rabbi, now living abroad: 'What a catastrophic betrayal of the very Western values that have made Britain a free, open and egalitarian society! But let me not assume he is an idiot. Let me assume he just phrased things in a clumsy way and see if I can read some sense into what he said. He kept on repeating that Jews in Britain have a Beth Din that deals with family and other matters. He is right that we Jews may voluntarily take issues to a Beth Din and it is true that Jewish Law asks of us that we do this rather than go to civil courts. But the Beth Din only functions voluntarily and does not override or supersede the law of the land. 'For example, a Beth Din will not finally issue a divorce until after the civil courts have finalized the matter. As for arbitration or settling financial matters, this can only be done by agreement. As we saw two years ago, a Dayan of the Federation ended up in the civil courts in a dispute with a Jewish businessman. Halachic courts operate purely on a voluntary basis. Now if the Archbishop was saying that Muslim courts could function in the same voluntary way, no one would argue with him. Of course, every religion has the right to worship, dress and conduct its internal affairs as it wishes so long as it does not offend the law of the land. 'But he didn't say that. He said Civil Law has to accommodate to Sharia. In this charged, tense atmosphere his language was ill considered and childish at best. Such a suggestion is not only madness, but a complete betrayal of British values. No wonder so many Christians in the UK prefer the Chief Rabbi to the Archbishop. 'There is no way you can unite a country and a varied population without a single system of law. It is already a scandal that the police and the judiciary turn blind eyes to honour murders and forced marriages in flagrant opposition to English Law, for fear of offending sections of the population. It is a scandal that Social Welfare pays out large sums to multiple wives in a society where polygamy is against the law. 'The problem is that many Muslims are as open, law-abiding, and religiously moderate as most Jews. Sadly, there is a significant number that come from more primitive sectors of Islam and have not yet made any concessions to modernity, other than Coca-Cola. They need to be encouraged to do so, not be pandered to, because in pandering we are abetting the betrayal of moderate Islam. 'If Christianity is so weak that it has given up the fight for its values, please, I beg the government to stand firm. It was elected to serve British values, but if it concedes it will preside over the destruction of British values within a generation. 'The Jews who came to Britain always knew they had to abide by the law of the land. We have always done this. Now it seems the Archbishop wants to see one law for Christians and Jews and another for Muslims. We might as well invite the Saudi Royal Family to move into Buck House. Shabbat Shalom'

Joshua Scholar

I think he wants to reestablish the church's own political power by using Islamism as a 'stalking horse'. Certainly if the British government recognizes the authority of Islamic clerics, it must recognize the authority of the Archbishop!

Ian

Consider this: Bishop Nazir-Ali is outspoken and gets a reaction from those who have experienced what he was talking about, but is condemend by the liberal elite. The ABC is 'nuanced', obfuscatory,complex and polysyllabic; and succeeds in uniting the liberal elite and everyone else, apart from the sharia supporters, against him. The issue of Islam and how we deal with it is now centre-stage in a way that it was never before. I'm no supporter of liberal theology (it has all but destroyed the Church I love), but even liberal theologians, most of them, draw the line somewhere. Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences or has the ABC, by taking this shocking step, delberately sought to draw our attention to the consequences of our current cultural cringe?

Frank

The Archbishop's finely nuanced stutterings can only lead to still more departures from his Church, and even more disintegration. How must Anglicans and other Christians feel in those parts of Africa where Sharia Law is being forcibly imposed upon them?

Stephen Fox

It appears that the UFO widely reported over the Isle of Wight is in fact Dr Williams's mother ship. Perhaps soon he will rejoin it, and return to his home planet. And comparisons with Rowan Atkinson are deeply unfair to a well balanced and intelligent man, Rowan Atkinson.

JJ

I watched reports on the Archbishdolt's interview on Radio 4 on the early evening news last night and wanted to put a brick through the TV screen. How different a couple of hours later when purely by chance I got to see John McCain's speech live on one of the 24 hour news channels. From the depths of despair I was cheering to the rafters - and the language on terror! - just wonderful. No surrender here. Just a clear-headed no-nonsense approach from a brilliant public speaker. What a pity I'm not American. We will never see or hear a British political leader ever give a speech like that, either now or in the future. How shameful this country's craven surrender to terrorism is. Was it me overreacting to the speech, I thought afterwards? No. The excellent Stephen Pollard was watching and has provided a commentary and links to it on his blog. If there's anything I can do to help the FBI with their enquiries, I'm only too happy to help. Do keep an eye on Lambeth Palace, though, boys. The word treachery doesn't do it justice. God bless America and God help Britain.

Ian C

Ruth Gledhill may have found a clue as to where he is coming from "Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse.....!!!" The confidence that came from the Twickenham win perhaps!

Ian C

Read the whole of the Ruth Gledhill piece and see not only why, in the real world - not just in the intellectual argument Melanie has articultaed so well, the Archbishop is so fundamentally wrong in his opinion. http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html

korova

Blah blah. So much nonsense, so little time. There is no real reason why Muslims cannot use Sharia Law Councils to arbitrate disputes rather than using the civil courts. Good luck to them. If only we would recognise the process a lot less harm might be done. Take this example: "....Luton police contacted WLUML after pursuing a man for bigamy who had married in Luton, then flown to Pakistan and married again. After looking into the case, they found that the first marriage was invalid as it had been conducted by an imam in an unregistered mosque. His first wife was left with no legal protection by the family courts, and the husband was free to bring his second wife back to Britain as his legal spouse." If sharia was permitted under English law, the rights of the woman would have been protected and the bigamist would have been locked up. Furthermore, the acceptance of khul'a will ensure that many Islamic women are protected from husbands that seek to hold them in marriage against their will. It seems sensible to allow sharia courts to deal with such issues as it will not seriously damage the legal framework in which this country operates. In fact, a registrar at a Jewish court even suggested on Radio 4 this morning that he can see no reason why Muslims do not have this right. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of sharia, and the establishment has once more closed ranks and decried anyone who dares to think differently. Such a shame.

Ethan

Sadly, the tragic case of the Archbishop is not an isolated one. There is a malaise running through the very heart of the political and intellectual elite of our country. Basically whatever else they might believe in, they have ceased to believe in themselves. They have lost all sense of their own moral, spiritual or social authority. Whatever its failings, Islam most definitely believes in itself. That is why our leaders are so powerless against it. Belief can only be countered by belief; conviction by conviction; spirit by spirit. The maxim that nature abhors a vacuum applies equally to the moral and spiritual domain. Islam will fill that spiritual vacuum unless we do so ourselves.

Rob Slack

"Those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad". (Euripidies). He's almost gone.

Ben Philips

The paradox is staggering isn't it, and makes his utterances all the more absurd. I'm filled with a mixture of disbelief and anger: disbelief that he hadn't thought through the contradictory nature of what he was saying - that the 'liberal' message he thought he was advocating would infact lead to the very reverse of what he wants. And anger that the head of the established church could be such a pitiful and moral coward in standing up for the Judeo-Christian tradition in this country. From Iain Blair to Ken Livingstone, and Tony Blair to Gordon Brown, I'm sick of being governed by weak, misguided, incompetant fools with no vision or moral backbone. He should resign.

field

We need to address these issues in a principled manner. I am afraid that the threats we face at home and abroad are now so serious as to mean that British muddle will not see us through anymore. Abroad we need a principled commitment to free democracies. The same goes for at home. Whilst it MIGHT be true that Jewish religious law makes itself subservient to British law (I say might because I very much doubt it - I suspect this is the Jewish equivalent of Taqqiyah), that does not alter the fact that in a modern context there is no way the state will be able to deny Muslims what it has been given to Jews. It will appear fundamentally inequitable not to out Islam on an equal footing with Judaism and Judges might even overturn the law on the basis of human rights legislation, without Parliament having a say. Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists, Pagans and others will also clamour for their version of the law. To go down the path of state recognition of religious courts takes us ever closer to the cliff edge. Time to stop, take a step back and begin on a new, principled path: equality before the law for all. We can at least thank our PC Prelate for alerting us to what is in store for the country. And incidentally - haven't all those voices who have assured us here that we were all paranoid, neo-con loons to think that Shariah law could ever be implemented in the UK gone suddenly VERY VERY quiet!!! With good reason.

Simon

Disestablish now

MichaelB

Your piece expresses the horror many of us feel about the Archbishop's clever-stupid pronouncements. What a typical product of the western Left university he is, with his cod wisdoms derived from Philip Bobbit's 'market state' and the multiculti creed. PS Your piece on SOAS's celebration of the Iranian Islamic Revolution was also spot on.

Chingford Man

The best critique of Beardy's nonsense that I have read. Well done, Melanie.

Jess

It's not a strong religious core that we need to protect against this outcome, it's a strong *secular* one. Where people are free to practise whatever religion they like in private, but where that religion is not permitted to encroach in any way or in any sphere on the state and its decisions. Nobody should be above the law, full stop. Get rid of the faith schools, too, all of them, of every religion - what's more divisive in a multicultural society than segregating our children?

Lynne T

I know the situation in Britain isn't exactly the same as here in Canada as I expect we don't have as large a Muslim community proportionately, and what we have may be more diverse as to country of origin and adherence to the faith, but a few years ago, the government of Ontario considered allowing Sharia courts status under the act that governed arbitration, under which Beit Dins and Catholic family courts had been operating as a means of alternate dispute resolution for certain family and civil matters. A large enough portion of the Muslim community, mainly female, westernized and not particlarly well organized into lobby groups, rallied against it, and succeeded in having the notion dropped. However, along with it, the Beit Dins and Catholic courts, which had been operating without complaint for over a decade, lost status. Given the influence Muslim organizations on the reactionary side seem to have in Britain, I'm not sure you can count on a similar result if your government was to entertain such a notion.

Scipio

Spoken like a true Livingstone/Galloway acolyte. Get rid of this moron.

Ranjeev

India has gone down this road already by allowing some laws for this group of people and some for that. The multiethnic nature of their society is being gnawed at, just as it is here, by the acidic platitudes of multiculturalism that burn through any attempt at cohesiveness. We have much to learn from India, from the folly of its lack of foresight with issues like this and also how it, too, handles Islamist terrorism. Think how bad we feel and then realise how close they are to Pakistan from whence Osama's chums sometimes pop over with a bomb or two. The British media always downplay the suffering of the Indian people at the hands of Islamist suicide bombers because it points up the fallacy of so many glib UK commentators blaming Islamist aggression on US/UK foreign policy. The conflicts we have only been dealing with here for a few years have been raging over there for hundreds of years and guess what? George Bush wasn't around to 'start' any of it.

John R Clegg

These comments by the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will pass into history in the same way as the murder of Thomas a'Beckit did. We have now reached in our Christian evolutionary history a low point. Our society is under a sustained and subversive attack by militant Islam and comments like these by the Archbishop are unbelievably naive and dangerous. He should have realised that his remarks would be incendiary. I look to the Archbishop of Canterbury to protect MY Christian faith and stand up for MY Christian beliefs, not to bend his knee to Islam. He's showing moral and intellectual cowardice and I can't stop thinking about his illustrious predecessors, some of whom died for their beliefs. If he can't or won't stand up for Christianity then he should make way for someone who will.

Joe Strummer

Rowan Williams MUST be sacked forthwith. He is clearly unfit to lead what was once a revered institution such as the COE.

AppalledofLondon

Spot on. What we now need is not just condemnation of the Archbishop's ludicrous speech but the following:- 1. A clear statement that Sharia law will never be permitted in the UK. If people want to live under Sharia law, they should move to countries where it is the law. All citizens, whatever their religion, are equally subject to British law. 2. Minorities have the right to practise their religion but where they seek to do so in a way which impinges on the majority their rights will necessarily have to be limited: so, for instance, no calls to prayer in Oxford or anywhere else. 3. Where minorities' so-called cultural practices conflict with the laws of the land, the latter take priority. So no "forced marriages" or rape as it's known here, no "honour killings" or murder etc. Let them be called by what they are not by euphemisms and let the law be rigorously applied to such crimes. All those who participate in these appalling practices should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Indeed, I would favour making "honour killings" a specific offence, precisely because of the signal it sends out that we will not tolerate the intolerable whatever cultural pieties we hear from so-called community leaders. 4. No more Islamic faith schools until we can be confident - as we are not now - that they are not being used to indoctrinate the young with anti-British/anti-democratic views and beliefs. 5. Much tougher action against those mosques, mosque and other so-called Islamic bookshops, preachers, imams, community leaders who preach hate, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian views. We must state clearly that there is a treasonous group within the Muslim community and that we have to take whatever steps are needed to root it - and its pernicious views - out. We have waited in vain for Muslims themselves to do this. Since they won't or can't we have to do it. 6. Ban all foreign funding of Islamic mosques, schools, charities etc. 7. Refuse to deal with the MCB and other so-called community leaders. We need to encourage genuinely moderate Muslim leaders not appease self-appointed ones with an agenda which is hostile to our interests. 8. Tell Muslims that as British citizens they are expected to abide by British law in full and they have both the rights and responsibilities of British citizens. If they feel a greater allegiance to some other state, country, system of law or whatever, then they need to make the obvious choice. What we cannot have is a community here which seeks to enjoy our advantanges and freedoms while undermining - in a host of ways - the very way of life which underpins those same advantages/freedoms. 9. So take active steps to encourage integration: no burqas, reintroduce the primary purpose rule for marriages from the Indian sub-continent, stop the over-sensitivity to Muslim complaints / sensitivities, stop appeasing every demand. As a Catholic I don't expect my employer to provide me with an in-house chapel. Why should Muslims be given special prayer rooms? And to those who will inevitably say that I'm picking on Muslims and why not do the same to Hindus, Sikhs etc? Well the answer is that it is not those communities who are demanding special privileges and sympathising with and producing terrorists, suicide bombers and the like. It is from Islamic fundamentalists and radicals (and I fear not just them) that the risk comes and that is where the action needs to be directed. If Muslims do not like being associated with terrorists, then they need to do something about it. So far, there has been - largely - silence from them. If only we had leaders with the gumption to do what's necessary. But if not, I think the future here could be very bleak.

Jeremy Thompsom

The problem is that sharia law is inherently unequal towards different people. Women have less standing than men. Non-Muslims have much less standing that do Muslims. For instance, an allegation by a non-Muslim accusing a Muslim is worthless unless it is confirmed by two independent Muslims. Questions of amputation and stoning are of course beyond the pale. Bottom line is that sharia law is in direct contradiction to Western law which has been attempting to see each and evey person as equal before it. It is medieval and debases modern Western law basics.

idle

This tortured soul should be seen but not beard. Get thee to a trappist monastery!

Robert (Kettering)

A simple test for Williams would be to encourage him to pack his bags and head for Iran or better still Saudi Arabia and try to openly practice his Christian Faith. He'd very soon learn the realities for many non Muslims in Muslim countries which operate Sharia Law that there simply isn't watered down Sharia. Once you have approved it the rest will follow as sure as night follows day!

Alcuin

The BBC Have Your Say" is overwhelmingly condemnatory of the ABC's remarks, yet true to form the moderator has found a supportive comment to "balance" these on the front page. Williams' days at Lambeth must be numbered.

Melanie is spot on is her fears for Muslim women. Here, the legal protection of British law is already inadequate in a sub-culture where many are intimidated into silence. Sharia would make them legally invisible. The appearance of Muttaween on the streets of Dewsbury, Bradford and Burnley would not be far behind. There is evidence in the gangs of young men, that in many Muslim enclaves they are already here. Such people need constraining, not empowering. The proposed introduction of Sharia in Ontario was stopped by protests from Muslim women.

On the issues that we may be able to accommodate Muslims, these are in their hands. Anglican priests are automatically qualified as registrars, so marriages they conduct are legal under British Law. Many Catholic priests have qualified as registrars so that they may so do. If Imams wish to conduct legally recognised marriages, they can train and qualify as registrars.

We have modified the law to allow "Halal" mortgages, though this is more a matter of economics. If they wish to use mortgages that are more expensive of more risky, that is their business.

Rights of custody over children and rights of inheritance are another matter. We should not move an inch on child custody - to do so would result in a discriminatory legal system. If any Muslim wishes to control his/her inheritance, (s)he should write a will. Job done.

If anyone wants to see how a dual legal system works, look at Malaysia. Here, your faith is registered at birth and you may not change it (see the Lina Joy case), unless you wish to convert to Islam. Muslims are prohibited from drinking, gambling etc., in a country where such activities are permitted to others. This is the road down which any concession to Sharia will lead. No thanks.

Maven

15:38 8th Feb. Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 applies to both Jewish and Muslim marriages in that a decree absolute may be witheld if one of the parties raises an objection that the other refuses to provide a religious divorce or refuses to acknowledge the process to do so. It is not mandatory that a Jewish Divorce (Get) must be issued. This was to protect people in a religiously sanctioned marriage who might wish to re-marry and prove to a synagogue or mosque that the person was free to marry there. I have heard this mis-represented in the media as if it binds Jewish and UK Law as a single co-ordinated law. It doesn't. Its simply protection against a partner who is malicious and uses the refusal of a religious divorce as a device.

korova

Judging by the comments of Jeremy Thompsom et al, there seems to be rather too many people who do not understand what sharia actually is. Sharia doesn't, as a rule, discriminate against women. In fact, in many cases, it protects them from Muslim men. This gross mis-understandinig of what sharia means really underlines quite how ignorant (or malevolent) many posters on this blog actually are.

Chris UK

To AppalledofLondon, You've taken the words out of my mouth, hear, hear, I emphatically agree with everything you say. Just one thing to add. Where has the gumption of the British people gone, the gumption that got us through 2 World Wars. It's time to stop being led by fear and it's time to start calling a spade a spade. Let's get rid of all this politically correct language and tell the truth. Come England, Scotland and Wales our beloved British Isles. Wake Up!

M Clyde

'"....Luton police contacted WLUML after pursuing a man for bigamy who had married in Luton, then flown to Pakistan and married again. After looking into the case, they found that the first marriage was invalid as it had been conducted by an imam in an unregistered mosque. His first wife was left with no legal protection by the family courts, and the husband was free to bring his second wife back to Britain as his legal spouse." If sharia was permitted under English law, the rights of the woman would have been protected and the bigamist would have been locked up.' Do keep up. Have you been following this at all? They that live by sharia shall suffer by sharia. Sharia recognises polygamy. Didn't the wife know this when she signed up for a sharia marriage? What did she expect? Sharia is 'allowed' (as a voluntary code) under British law in the sense that any two citizens can make any kind of pact they like provided it does not harm anyone. But it is non-enforceable by British authorities. To gain this, 'Islamic' marriages also require to be registered in a civil ceremony and Muslims are recommended to do this to receive the protection of British law. Most do. It is a simple civil act like filling in your tax forms. Nothing unIslamic in that. The lady in question, having failed to obtain a civil marriage, should now apply to her local sharia court for arbitration and reparation. Why should the British state do this? She had her chance and didn't take it: more fool her. But, mosques collect zakat from the faithfull these days and have a fund they can dish out at their discretion to abandonned women. As I said, let they that live by sharia suffer/or be recompensed by sharia. It's only justice after all? That was her free choice: it is her bed now let her lie on it.

Tim

Williams must have a private agenda to let such a dangerous genie out of the bottle. Our servicemen must wonder what they are fighting to defend.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Field, as to your charge that "Whilst it MIGHT be true that Jewish religious law makes itself subservient to British law (I say might because I very much doubt it - I suspect this is the Jewish equivalent of Taqqiyah)," you have declared that you will view with suspicion anything a Jew has to say about Judaism, simply because it was a Jew who said it. Not unlike the British editor who said that he automatically disregards any letter pointing out mistakes in his paper's Israel coverage if the letter writer has a Jewish name. Instead of just charging -- with no evidence -- that Jews consider themselves free to lie to non-Jews about what the Jewish religion teaches, why don't you show us a source in Jewish religious law itself? And instead of discounting that Jews believe that the law of the land is the law, why don't you show us examples where British Jews have used their religion to commit wholesale distregard of British law? The answer, of course, is that you can't, for neither proposition is true. Apparently a thing may be true althoug Lord Beaverbrook has said it, but not if a Jew has said it.

Mick Stoner

The best analysis and best response so far to this dangerous, delusional Neville Chamberlain of the Christian Faith

Zaider

Usually we are only motivated by some positive benefit. What is Rowan Williams positive benefit in his mind.

Mark

I was anxiously waiting for you to take up the flaying knife, Mel. You did not disappoint. If I lived in Britain right now, I'd structure my finances so that I could buy a property in Canada or the United States. Begin planning your possible exit now. If things turn around the worst thing that'll happen is you'll have a nice nest egg to sell later on.

M Clyde

korova writes: 'Judging by the comments of Jeremy Thompsom et al, there seems to be rather too many people who do not understand what sharia actually is.' We understand very well what sharia is. (Unlike Williams). It is not a precise legal code like British statute law but a loose system of ethics drawn together by fiqh or legal prounouncements by various jurists at various times and never precisely codified into a univerally agreed comprehensive body of laws. The Quran mentions hudud punishments but that is about as far as clear pronouncements go from that primary source. Sharia is aimed at religious life and is more appropriately translated as a 'spiritual path' or 'way'. Sharia is thus open-ended and subject to interpretation: it is not a PRECISE legal code as regards social issues such as divorce, etc. It is this last aspect that renders it suspect to local cultural interpretation, including the local cultural interpretation of retrogrades who perpetuate barbaric and misogynistic cultural norms in the name of Islam. See for instance the recent report from the Centre of Social Cohesion. Women who apply for divorce are often refused it. Divorced women have no rights to half the marital property or access to their children. This is why many 'agree' to their husband's polygamy, like I suspect the lady in Luton you mentioned earlier, as they have no real choice. They would lose their home and their children, as well as their status in the community. Polygamy is not the free choice of free women and never was. Until sharia is precisely codified it will always be subject to what we call here 'arbitrary law'. This was a big issue in the 17th century, and we have learned a GREAT deal from this experience. We realise that unless laws are precise and specific, and there is an independent judiciary, loose interpretation in effect gives certain individuals considerable power, influence and latitude in interpreting them. This may tend (optimistically) towards clemency; but (pessimistically) towards tyranny, prejudice, lack of transparency and abuse of power: irrational selfish corrosive elements which not only prejudice individuals, but also the common good. Long experience showed that the merits of the first proposition were grossly outweighed by the problems of the second, especially in a developing society. This is why we object so strongly to 'arbitrary law' which is what sharia is in its present uncodified condition. Please show some respect for 1000 years of development in British legal thinking; learn some British constitutional and intellectual history. We have considerable wisdom in this affair.

JJS

I find the correspondent called "field"'s blatant anti-Semitism appalling -- and not only from this discussion -- and why am I the only one who has the courage to say so???

James Pawlak

Once, the English burnt an Archbishop of Canterbury at the stake. Times have changes. O tempora, O mores!

Laura

"How shameful this country's craven surrender to terrorism is" ................ Winston Churchill must be rolling over in his grave. However judging by these repsonses, I have full faith that the British people will save their country in the long run.

dsquared

[There is no real reason why Muslims cannot use Sharia Law Councils to arbitrate disputes rather than using the civil courts] there is actually; unlike the Beth Din, the Sharia Law Councils are not currently recognised as Courts of Arbitration, mainly because they don't seem to be able to agree on a consistent framework. Meanwhile, something like 69 comments into this thread, can I remind everyone that there is this thing called "The European Convention on Human Rights" and the UK has signed up to it as part of the Treaty of Rome? If the UK Parliament were to pass any law which allowed the creation of a sharia system which discriminated on grounds of sex, race, religion or lack thereof or sexual orientation, that provision of UK law would be in breach of the ECHR, would be found to be so by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and would therefore be overturned by the House of Lords as invalid law. Melanie Phillips wrote a quite substantial and angry chapter about the European Convention on Human Rights in her book "Londonistan", so I'm surprised she forgot about it in the context of her article above.

alan stoddart

Woman who stabbed pilots on flight from New Zealand to Australia was Somali, as most news sites will tell you...except for one, the BBC. Presumably Somali could mean Muslim....

Wattock Hunt

I think Williams might be my long-lost brother. I detect a strong genetic similarity.

Zaider

Field, in your clearly Antisemitic spew (undetected by the moderators) you say these disgusting things:" Whilst it MIGHT be true that Jewish religious law makes itself subservient to British law (I say might because I very much doubt it - I suspect this is the Jewish equivalent of Taqqiyah), that does not alter the fact that in a modern context there is no way the state will be able to deny Muslims what it has been given to Jews. It will appear fundamentally inequitable not to out Islam on an equal footing with Judaism and Judges might even overturn the law on the basis of human rights legislation, without Parliament having a say. Mormons, Hindus, Scientologists, Pagans and others will also clamour for their version of the law. To go down the path of state recognition of religious courts takes us ever closer to the cliff edge". Hence I read this as "Jews lie and Jews can't be trusted". Its strange that you feel that the Beth Din has taken us to "the cliff edge" as it has been around for 200+ years in the UK and you never noticed the edge of the cliff approaching, did you? Its poor taste to highlight that Islam actually has a word "Taqiyya" to specifically describe the mechanism by which they may tell lies in order to protect their status as Muslims. Note that Hamas said a few days ago it often employs Taqiyya. Actually the state DOES give the Muslims what it allowed Jews to have (not give). Any Muslim may delay a decree absolute if the ex-partner denies them a Shariah divorce. Its in the 2002 Divorce Act.

Zaider

JJS, I hadn't really read field's twaddle properly. Now I've read it I wonder why it was allowed.

Salvatore

When I heard the mealy mouthed Archbishop speak to his theme about Sharia law on radio 4, I shook my head in dismay.
When I later read his views in the papers, the articles appeared with pictures of him which reminded me that on occasions he can look disturbingly mad.
Conducting a personal reality check I read the Spectator Bloggs and was reassured by the common sense I found registered by most correspondents.
I don't need to repeat all the good stuff written, but felt Dr Irene Lancaster,and AppalledofLondon deserved prizes in their respective categories.
However, there are two features of this sorry story that have not really been remarked on.
The first is that the Archbishop is a political appointment, and therefore it is reasonable to suspect his remarks probably had some degree of political approval.
If he is sacked, that might be some evidence to the contrary.
The second is that giving Sharia Law and values some kind of approval opens the door for all kinds of legal mitigations when cultural clashes or reprehensible behaviour ends up in our criminal or civil courts.
That process, and the attendant confusions will itself operate to dilute our national identity, and play into those who want to change our culture towards theirs.

Alcuin

I have just read Ruth Gledhill's column in the Times. I recommend all read the encounter Ruth had with a Muslim woman who was acting for other women (usually not Englis speakers) sectioned into NHS mental hospitals by Muslim doctors. This brave woman was in fear for her life and those she represented. The Social Cohesion report speaks of women going to the police being betrayed and returned to their abusive husbands by Muslim policemen. When we need the Mafia to enforce social cohesion, it is time to fight or leave.

It would appear that if it is control that the Muslim patriarchy wants, they already have it through violence and intimidation, and have no need of assistance from the British legal system. Such would be a betrayal of Britain, decency and many Muslims oppressed by their own thugs. The reverse is required.

field

I think there is something to be learnt from the hysterical overreaction of those with a religious axe to grind - accusing me of anti-semitism when on this blog and others I have shown myself a good friend of Israel and Jews generally, who as a defined community have probably contributed more to civilisation than any other community in the last 200 years. However, I won't be swayed from my rational and correct analysis of the situation. Whilst the Archbishop is on the ropes now, gradually we will see things begin to change. People will look into the issue of the Jewish religious courts. They will see they do have official status in UK law and they will begin to say well "that all seems very reasonable - why can't the Muslims have something similar" and we will indeed see that the Archbishop's words were prophetic rather than pathetic. If you want to stop Shariah you have to stop all religions getting special treatment before the law. There is no pain-free way of stopping Shariah. Appalled of London is closer to identifying what needs to be done: we need to have a vigorous defence of our democracy. As for the specific point I made, I am sceptical that Jewish religious judges really think British law is superior to God's law as found in the OT, Torah and the rulings down the ages. That's all I was saying. The same applies to the Pope. He might ask people to be law abiding but he could never say that British law is superior to God's law. I should say I am most definitely an equal opportunity sceptic - I think all religions, indeed all ideologies (atheist, communist as well) have their version of Taqqiyah, call it cognitive dissonance if you want another name. Judaism is no different in that regard. This is not to say that all religions have it embedded in them to the same degree. I think Islam along with some others like Mormonism and Scientology is unusual in that regard.

Sergey

May be, this is a medical case, say, senile dementia? The man is so obviously mad, that this question naturally arise. As for Jewish code, it became operative only after Maimonid formulated it in Shulkhan Arukh in 12 century, and since it became a religious obligation of every Jew to obey the Law of land. This the only way a religious minority can evade persecution, and anybody who breaches this rule puts in danger the whole community.

Ken Wortelhock

Dr.Rowan Windbag ?

Monty

"The danger is in acting as if the authority that managed the abstract level of equal citizenship represented a sovereign order which then allowed other levels to exist."

I think he will find that is precisely the case. It was a necessary precursor to the waves of immigration which allowed the establishment of islamic communities on British soil. Sovereignty rests with the public, who can not be forced to tolerate the intolerable.

Alfred of Wessex

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.” - St. John Chrysostom http://countryparson.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/quote-for-today-3/

Hannah

Yes, Alan Stoddart, I noticed that too. I watched BBC1's Six O'Clock News this evening where they all wore smug little grins as if to say: "We all know what you're thinking because we've read your comments on our website but we won't be settling for that line." Oh no, what we got at the end of the report as a summary of the situation was that the bulk of the British public had misinterpretd things as had the tabloids and that this was really what Dr Williams' problem was. The tone was: this was a lecture for academics - what's it got to do with Joe Public? Which is condescending twaddle first off and totally ignores the fact that the man took to the airwaves of a national radio station to spout some of this drivel. In other words, don't you worry your little heads, you just follow like sheep where the BBC and the Archbishop tell you and everything in the tabloids is wrong, but we're the BBC so all we say is right. You know what expletive phrase I want to put here. If you still have time, do try to catch Channel 4's Unreported World - Egypt's Rubbish People, which lays bare just how Christians are treated in an Islamic country. It will be repeated on 4 + 1 at 20.30 tonight. How long until we face a similar predicament here? Enough is enough, I'm fed up to the back teeth with having Islamic values forced down my throat at every opportunity and the sickening state-funded broadcaster acting as an apologist for it.

Zaider

field, the Beth Din bows to all UK laws and has nothing which conflicts with UK Law. A Shariah court would sanction the 2nd and 3rd marriage of a Muslim to different wives. This was stated by the Imam representing the UK Shariah Courts on BBC 5Live last night. That is in direct contradiction to UK Law. The Beth din only has a relevance to 10% of UK Jewry on a permanent basis. 30,000 people. Shariah has a relevance to all 1.3m UK Muslims. That creates an identifiable split with a community we all want to better integrate. Instead we give them ways to separate.

Zaider

Hannah, the BBC gave in when someone said "But the Jews got it!". They thought "In that case we have to balance it up. Muslims MUST have Shariah because Jews have got the Beth Din (all two of them!)"

Bill M

Ranjeev--a healthy sprinkling of reality. Frank Pulley--it has all the appearance of being scrapie-related. My apologies to the esteemed Mr. Atkinson. To clarify, it would have been better to say he should change his name to Archbishop Bean. Regardless whatever we may call him, he remains an ignorant buffoon!

Zaider

I would also like to remind us all that Jewish Law is ALREADY part of UK Law and the laws found in Democracies. We follow what is called a Judaeo-Christian ethic that is our moral and law-base. Obviously, Christianity evolved from Judaism as its root. Islamic Law, Shariah follows several thousand years later. We don't need it. Been there. Done that. Rejected most of it and kept the good bits.

Scipio

The effeminate, foppish ABC is in all likelihood an atheist himself.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

JJS, I agree, and I think I was the first on this thread to point out that Field has said that no Jew should ever be trusted when he tells a non-Jew what the Jewish religion teaches. I hope his Jewish employees never have to ask him for time off to observe a Jewish holy day.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Sergey, the Shulchan Aruch was codified by Yosef Karo, who lived several hundred years AFTER Maimonides. And like Maimonides code -- the Mishneh Torah --, the Shulchan Aruch reports the long standing ruling of Mar Samuel found in the Talmud, which predates Maimonides by a millenium -- that Jews are obligated to follow the laws of the land where they live, and that this obligation has the force of religious law. Maimonides "codified" in the sense that he took the rulings of the Talmud and reported them in systematic organized fashion, reporting the black letter law without the discussions and debates that arrived at that law. He did not create new laws or change those of the Talmud, nor did he claim any authority to, and would have been shocked at any accusation that he did. Field, no one said that Jews consider British law SUPERIOR to Jewish religious law -- what we have said is that Judaism teaches that Jews living in Britain have a RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION not to violate British law, just as Jews living in the US have a similar religious obligation not to violate US law, etc. But don't believe me -- you love Jews, you just consider them to be unworthy of trust in telling you what their religion says. Try googling "dina d'malchuta dina" -- yeah, we fabricated all those references to it just to fool you.

Tim Calvert

I think its time for a good conspiracy theory. Crypto-Catholic PM appoints Williams in plan to destroy CoE.

Jon_boy

Maybe Comrade, sorry Ayatola Williams will now issue a fatwha to silence his critics. The BBC are already accusing his critics of being counter revolutionaries, sorry Islamophobes!

KateA

Superb analysis Melanie. It truly is 'make up your mind time' for British (or perhaps more immediately, English) society. "First they came for the English"? An apposite quote from Ibn Warraq: "A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate." http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_snd-west.html Do read the whole article.

Tas Walker

What post modernist nonsense the Archbishop sprooks. But then he has had a lifetime of training since first entered seminary and learned how to re-define language so he can recite the creeds without believing a word of them. He is no representative of Jesus Christ. No friend of His either. I suspect that if Jesus came to London the Archbishop would conspire with the liberal left pollies and the mobs of the religion of peace to do away with Him again.

J. Isaacs

The BBC's Newsnight discussion between the unctuous Tariq Ramadan and the finger-in-ear and eyes-closed Bishop of Hulme on the Archbishop's side and the angry Douglas Murray of think-tank Civitas on the other side was very entertaining. Jeremy Paxman had great trouble holding the ring, when both the Bishop and Ramadan started having a go at him and the BBC as well as Murray. They were still shouting when Paxman had to cut their microphones. Are any bookies giving odds on whether the Archbish will be voted out at the General Synod next week?

field

For those of you still interested in rational debate I would make the following points:- 1. It's possible some people are a bit behind the times as to what UK law consists of or maybe live abroad and are unfamiliar with the UK. You can be arrested in the UK for making statements critical of homosexuality, even if you quote biblical texts. Homosexual unions are recognised in UK law. Homosexual adoption is allowed and no one can do anything to prevent it or act against it. The idea that Orthodox Jewish religious authorities accept all these UK laws as valid is frankly nonsense. 2. I am not going to take any lectures from people as to whether I should believe what spokespeople for religions say about their religion. There was the well attested case recently where the Chief Rabbi while publicly mourning an individual wrote a letter to an Orthodox Jew in far less flattering terms and expressing distaste towards the person (this for religious reasons): "The rift between the Orthodox and Reform Jewish communities in Britain dramatically deepened yesterday after it was disclosed that the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, had accused Rabbi Hugo Gryn, a Holocaust survivor who died last August, of being a destroyer of Judaism. The attack, in a leaked letter to a right-wing Orthodox Jewish leader, intensifies the row between the Orthodox tradition and the Reformists over Dr Sacks and his attitude to Rabbi Gryn, a Reformist." The Chief Rabbi kept this attack secret. We only know about it because of the leaked letter. Whether one should compare that to taqiyya, I leave to others. 3. We live in the internet age. Unfortunately for those claiming to represent Judaism here I can actually go an access the religious texts and see what they say about women, gays, and gentiles. And, assuming the moderators don't pull my contributions, I can quote them here. 4. I think the news story is developing in the way I predicted. It is becoming widely known now that Jewish religious courts enjoy this privileged status in UK law and people are drawing the obvious conclusion: "If it's OK for Judaism then why not Islam." The British people have a strong sense of fair play and this will be used as a wedge to drive forward Shariah. The only way to protect our democratic society is to drive out all separatist religious law.

Stephen K

Yes, J Isaacs, I also watched the Newsnight debate (I think it's online for those who missed it) and the Right Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, made a first class donkey of himself. He was doing everything he could to smother the debate. It was the Press that had whipped everybody up, he cried, but then Jeremy Paxman pointed out the BBC website was inundated as soon as the World at One interview had been broadcast. So then it was: people hadn't read the speech, people hadn't understood the speech. Well, not then they hadn't, but that doesn't mean the Archbishop didn't say those things in the interview or that people didn't follow it up afterwards. Rt Rev's attitude was, put simply: you silly little people, you don't know what you're talking about. And before that we had the egregious Roy Greenslade who was also banging on about the Press and how it was all their fault. The truth is that most newspaper readers are not cheerleaders for whatever paper they buy, they're very cynical about journalism on the whole, but there are certain writers and certain debates (ie not Britney's baby and the latest UFO story) that many of us follow down to the last comma and many of us certainly follow up lengthy speeches via web sources and books etc. Lowe and Greenslade simply don't like having their noses rubbed in a few hard facts that might show up how spineless they and their colleagues are and so blame the Press and the public when they see through them.

JJS

Field -- you prove timne and time again that "For those of you still interested in rational debate.." you are certainly the wrong place to go! You seem so consumed by your hate that, typically, you don't LISTEN but just parrot your own ill-informed, misunderstood pablum ad nauseum. I cannot, and nobody else should, engage further with you because clearly it is a complete waste of time.

paul

As ever, a brilliant, searing analysis. What on earth can we do when people like Rowan Williams seem so ignorant as to what is at stake?

Jim Miller

I hope you will excuse for intruding into your affairs -- I am an American and not a member of the Episcopalian church -- but I would like to make a suggestion: Why not replace Rowan Williams with a Christian? Even the most secular should be able to see advantages in that solution. Imagine, for instance, the reaction of the BBC to an Archbishop of Canterbury who said that he intended to preach the gospel to Muslims. If he did that in a live interview, I would expect the BBC interviewer to just sit there, sputtering at that outlandish idea. I am not familiar with your religious rules, so I don't know whether a Christian can hold that position, but, if it is possible, I hope you will consider it.

field

Stephen K - A lot of good points in your post I think. The elite - our rulers, media interpreters and intellectuals - haven't caught up with the internet age. People can now follow up these news stories in some depth - certainly as much depth as your average tabloid journalist. Not everyone does, but a lot of us do. Greenslade and others can apply their bromides as much as they like, but we can conduct our own experiments, examining texts, visiting websites and so on. As we see with some of the comments I have drawn here, a lot of people just don't like that. They want to be uncriticisable spokespeople for religions or ideologies. I see with JJS it's the same old story I've found with apologists for Islam - as soon as you challenge their conceptions or confront them with some uncomfortable documented facts, they quickly close the debate. All fair minded observers here will take note.

Frank Pulley

Well, at least we are no longer 'sleepwalking into dhimmitude', we are wide awake now - and find ourselves being led by the nose into it by the Head of the Established Church. Off with his head! KateA: (Adie I presume?)- great link, thank you.

YA

field, - use wikipedia to spot the difference between "British Jews" and "British Muslims". In Anglo-sphere, as well. Facts are stubborn thing. There IS difference between Nobel prize winners, and my-second-wife-benefits winners. And BTW, there IS difference between terrorism users and those who suffer from terrorism. Israeli soldiers fight the same enemy, this very time.
The context of "religion" and "law" that everybody is waving here is just a substitute for "way of life". The way of life clearly contradictory to the Western one, is this dark tribal order that relies on most archaic and lowest of human emotions - fear, cruelty, ignorance. Not occasionally, Archbishop wanted Islamic not Jewish law to be incorporated into British law. He has no doubt about where he must bow.

Stefan Frodsham, Perth, Western Australia

Osama Bin Laden bears a grudge against the West that goes as far back as the Crusades. The Archbishop of Canterbury is following suit, exacting revenge on the English for Edward Longshanks' conquest of Wales in the 13th century.

Meccano

"Who will rid us of this turbulent priest?" Who will rid us of this treacherous government?" Who will stand up and condemn superstition ? Who will stand up and condemn fascist/mediaevalism? No one in the political/religeous mainstream it seams. If we are to accept that the BNP is unelectable what is the alternative? Melanie please stop just writing / moaning about it, we all do that every day in the pubs up and down the length and breadth of this land. Now is the time for action; for the formation of a political party that addresses these points and which is truly electable. We might just be able to pull it off in the nick of time. The alternative is very ugly i.e. look at the Balkans.

Mr G

Our Archbishop underestimates the amount of attention we give to his utterances. Though few of us believe he has a direct line to, or even rapport with, the Almighty, we should be able to expect him not to do or say silly things. But this hapless man has managed both. He is now reportedly distressed at our reactions. Thin-skinned are the vain. And Rowan is a vain man. So vain and self-absorbed that he had not the wit to foresee the distress his ramblings would cause to all those, whether non-Muslim or Muslim, whose lives are blighted by what he seeks to protect and nurture – the Sharia. What solace from Rowan for the Muslim women whose aspirations and potential are crippled, sometimes fatally, by its 'divine' constraints? What hope from Rowan for those who are stigmatised and degraded for not 'embracing' its tenets and practices? We don't understand the Sharia claims Rowan. I think we do. There is no better source text for understanding the Sharia than the New Testament. The 'Doctors of the Law' so brilliantly satirised by Jesus for their self-righteousness, their meddling in people's daily lives, their hypocrisy, their ignorance, their bullying, their exploitation of the gullible are the Sharia mongers of our day. But Rowan wants to give them comfort, not challenge them, not show them an alternative. But it's not just the content of his speech with its moral insensibility to the Sharia which astonishes, it is also the whole question of what he thought he was trying to achieve. Rowan's speech is littered with traces of his recent bedtime readings in postmodernism viz. reference to notions of 'deconstruction', 'mythologies', 'narratives', etc. He should, therefore, have realised that his own 'discourse' would be interpreted within a wider 'context' – a particularly ugly 'context' at present – irrespective of his own intentions for the effect of that 'discourse'. That he did not, is shocking. It also feeds the suspicion, widely felt, that he is irretrievably out of touch with his Church and his flock. Apologists for Rowan say what a clever chap he is. Perhaps the sort of cleverness that shouldn't be allowed out on its own?

Brian O'Connor

Here's a powerful OpEd by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent: http://tinyurl.com/3xq6go

My take on it is: "With friends like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who needs enemies?"

Brian O'Connor

Melanie wrote:

"The result of this pre-emptive interview was that, hours before he stood up to deliver his lecture to a packed audience of more than 1000 people in the Royal Courts of Justice, he had achieved the remarkable feat of uniting the leadership of the entire political class and more — even the leader of the LibDems! — in a firestorm of condemnation of his astonishing abandonment of the fundamental doctrine of a democratic nation state: equality before the law."

Rowan Williams -- a uniter, not divider.

J. Isaacs

From BBC Radio this morning it appears the Archbish is backtracking furiously, saying his speech didn't mean to bring in Sharia law as part of English law. He is shocked at everyone's reaction, but it is too late. The General Synod is probably even now taking Frank Pulley's advice and buying the Saudi executioner (see him fascinatingly interviewed on You Tube) a weekend flight to do some moonlighting in London.

Ken

Pity the Tower of London no longer engenders fear among meddlesome bishops. What an abysmal and abject figure this Welsh druid cuts with his spineless curving and crawling before the onslaught of medieval invaders. Has he forgotten Tours? There can be no compromise with the unenlightened creed of an Arabian desert empire builder.

Celia

Simple points are sometimes the essence of the argument. In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". So, the Archbishop tells us that, in his opinion, Muslims have a dilemma about whether to be loyal to their religion and culture or to the country they live in. Why hasn't anyone picked THIS up. If you challenge any of teh Muslim spokespeople they will have to deny this and so it will isolate Rowan Williams as not appearing to be a useful idiot to anyone.

phil

is this man really fit to represent christian thinking-he surely must have known what a bonfire he would light -whether he is right or wrong in his comments -,the controversy he has unleashed on all religions is appalling -i have no doubts as to his decency ,but that alone does not make him fit for his job.the fact that he could make so many mistakes in respect of other religious practices and be in position to do so is truly scary.

K Illemall

AppalledofLondon Go straight to the top of the class. Excellent comment, which says what so many of us are thinking. The Arch Mullah of Canterburystan is far too much of an academic to hold down this post, and should resign, or be sacked by Her Maj forthwith. He's a real product of the twilight, unreal world of the loony left, and following this demonstration of lunacy, should be put out to grass. Better still, he should be ececuted in Parliament Square. Wattock Hunt also makes an excellent point.

field

Lots of good points being made. Celia - You are right: the AB of C has lifted the veil so to speak on these starkly divided loyalties. He has done us an (unintended) service. This is why there was a note of panic in the voice of Islamic apologists like Tariq Ramadan. Mr. G. - You are right to point to the man's vanity. It is definitely vanity - intellectual of course - that has led him to this point. He's thought "I am the man who can square the circle" of divided loyalties and "this will produce some nice headlines - a bit of controversy perhaps but that will show how brave I am". He wasn't expecting a hail of half bricks to come his way in quite this quantity! YA - Where have I said that British Muslims have made as significant a contribution to this country as British Jews? Nowhere did I say that. Taken as a whole, clearly the cultural contribution of British Jews far, far outweighs that of British Muslims, wedded to a stultifying mind-control system. However (a) I don't really like to weigh up contributions in this way in this kind of forum - it just panders to group think. I prefer to see individuals as individuals with a personal history. (b) There is no way that in law you can differentiate between different communities on the basis of their assessed "contribution". You can't have official status for Jewish religious courts just because there have been a lot of Jewish nobel prize winners and interesting film makers! I think with the Sunday papers tomorrow we will see the start of the "well if Judaism can have these official courts, why not Islam" discourse.

steve

The least he can do to minimise the horrendous damage he has done to the Church of England, is resign.This is appauling.

Huw Thornton

I'd like to offer qualified support to the Archbishop in the sense that he certainly didn't let sleeping dogs lie. Like it or not, Sharia law is already here in Britain in the sense that it is being practised in the day-to-day lives of many Muslims. I have read the Archbishop's lecture and it did not seem to me that he was suggesting any more of a privileged position for Sharia law than that presently administered by the Beth Din, for example. It's not at all good to say simply "Let's pretend it's not happening and Sharia will go away". Are those who are opposing the Archbishop in such vitriolic terms suggesting that the practice of Sharia should be banned? Or that all religious tribunals, or mediation facilities be banned? That would have interesting results, to say the least.

dsquared

hey, guess which liberal Western democracy (one about which Melanie Phillips has written quite a bit) does have sharia courts for its Muslim minority. Clue: it begins with "I" but it isn't Ireland, Iceland or Italy

DANIEL SULLIVAN

No longer should anyone worry about what this man says. One must concentrate on a campaign to have him removed from office. He has managed to forget that he is the senior religious member of COE. He constantly puts the COE in danger. After his removal we can disestablish the church. This institutuion has stopped being a moral leader thus stopping being useful. We save a lot of money also.

Chris Wood

Why does Melanie Phillips always have to set things up as a battle between Islam and Christianity? Why must she repeatedly ignore the ridiculously obvious differences between Islam and terrorism? Allowing some legal recognition for some practices which do not go against current laws and especially not human rights is not equal to allowing Sharia law to take over. We do live in a pluralistic society, one law representing one group (whether this is the majority or not) will never be the best at accommodating all. Williams sees this inescapable fact, but Phillips resorts back to some antiquated, dangerous vision.

phil

field you write long and *knowing*posts on this site but please could you refrain from writing on behalf of the jewish community whether you have sympathy for them or not -one thing is clear you do not understand the role of the jewish *court*-IT HAS NO POWER OVER THE BRITHISH LEGAL SYSTEM nor does it seek it -one small example for you -a jewish divorce is not a legal divorce ,it has no legal status in the uk,it is used for recognition and confirmation between jewish people who may wish to remarry within their faith -it may also pronounce on whether food is kosher or not etc -the jewish people are proud to be british and to recognise british law and i suspect so are most of our muslim population -so please write about something else on which you are probably expert -as Ali G might say respect ,and keep your pen warm

Shona

Just a few comments, the same law for everyone dates from much earlier than people have been saying. It was invented by Kleisthenes in 507 BC in Athens it was the pre-requisite for democracy. Isonomia, equality under the law, was even conflated with democracy for generations. Any comparisons with Jewish courts is specious. For the simple reason that Jewish people don't "honour" kill women. When Sharia law complies with Human Rights, I'll be delighted to consider it. We are told Williams is a great theologian. I don't know, I've never heard him mention the word "Jesus". Maybe he should study the "render unto Caesar" line.

Stanley Jerusalem Israel

Just a brief diversionary note about 'field' who appears to display all of the symptoms of what the Chief Rabbi describes as a 'Self-loathing Jew'. He appears unwilling to accept any reasoned argument proposed by anyone who adopts a pro-Jewish stance and totally dismisses any point made in their defence as unreliable. As for the AoC; he poses as a warm wooly ecumenical senior bunny and inadvertently sews the whirlwind by wrapping up his message in such unctuous and sycophantic terms as to alienate the vast majority of those bothering to hear what he says, turning them into a lynch mob. Truth be told, the present conditions in the UK are that Muslims operate their Sharia Law courts for their own religious concerns in the same way as do the Jewish religious Court of the Beth Din. What the masses have 'heard' is the possibility of a good C of E person having to submit themselves to the possibility of appearing before such a court with no alternative. Never mind the status of the testimony of Dhimmis etc. Indeed, it might well be the thin end of the wedge to recognise the legal standing of such courts since we may find ouselves , in the words of another Prince of the Church, in C E no-go areas.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

My latest thoughts on the matter: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/with-the-abcs-a.html

Michael B

Imagine Elizabeth I welcoming the Spanish Armada (and the Spanish inquisition) rather than rebuffing them, excepting on a decidedly worse - a more fundamental and more thoroughgoing - scale. Otoh, the Archbishop is echoing and channeling the apparent ethos of the Prince of Wales - along with masses of popular opinion - albeit in a manner that reflects investments in casuistries, sophistical phrasings and barely coherent intellections rather than anything more coherent or cogent - largely to disguise the lack of backbone and depth on evidence. In sum, first and foremost a capitulation to the multi-culti regent, but in effect a capitulation to Islamicist interests; the multi-culti phenomenon is more an initiative that promotes a negation rather than anything very positive or assertive, certainly so at its most basic levels of conceptualization, and as power will ALWAYS exploit a vacuum, Islamicist interests will certainly take advantage of the opening created by social/political realities which, in large part, Williams is in fact merely echoing. "The Demos Regnant, the Demos Capitulates, the Demos Subservient" Put it in latin; emblazon it upon a shield, a shield absent any cross or scepter, unless a hollowed out scepter can be depicted; place Damnatio Memoriae" on the same shield; bequeath it to the Prince of Wales and the Archbishop and the demos in general. A generation comes, a generation goes ...

Jimmylongshanks

For people who do not live in or close by a community or neighbourhood which is predominntly muslim you may wonder how elements of Sharia, already being practiced impacts on the lives of those who do and could and are altering society. You may like to read my posts on the BBC PM blog for a few of my experiences follow the link below and scrolldown to 'The Archbishop of Canterbury and Sharia Law' and click on the comments button and read comments no 161,272,347....Perhaps those amongst the readers who believe this a lot of fuss over nothing will wake up to the reality of what will happen if we do not prevent it!

Jimmylongshanks

Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/02/the_archbishop_of_canterbury_a_1.shtml

YA

field - so you do admit difference between constructive contribution to society and social parasitism. Great. Next question - why, then, in your view, these two different contributions should be equally rewarded? Your desire to distantiate from groups discrimination is nothing but attempt to ignore reality. People are tribal. In his delusional vanity, Bishop is ready to ally with (potentially dominant) cannibal tribe in order to secure (at least share of) power for his extra-terrestrial institution. You accept another extreme, preaching that it is mandatory to reject hard-earned privilege for a non-violent, loyal, productive group. Briefly - Bish is cynical pragmatic, and you are PC obsessed snob. I don't know what is worse. As Comrade Stalin used to say - "both are worse".

Cassandra

I wonder if the Archbishop has any understanding of Islam: of the many passages in the Qur'an urging death to unbelievers and the destruction of Christianity, of its supremacist attitude towards non-Muslims, of the forced dhimmi status of Christians and Jews, of the support of slavery, polygamy and child marriage, of jihad. In fact, I wonder if the Archbishop has any understanding of anything.

Hugo White

Field, "I suspect this is the Jewish equivalent of Taqqiyah." There is no Jewish (nor Christian) equivalent of taqqiyah. Jews and Christians follow the same basic rules, hence calling it the Judeo-Christian system. Maybe you should read a few books on religion before making your comments.

Neville Parker

The Archbishop is truly one of the 17th Centuries great thinkers

freespeech

I defend his right to be a complete idiot; if he were living under Sharia Law and said something like this what would his punishment be?

alan stoddart

Clever or stupid: If he had said Islam is a threat to this country etc etc etc he would have been roundly condemned by Muslims and Liberals and ignored by everyone else. Look at the comments here in huge numbers and he has a reaction any BNP member would dream of.

Michael

Melanie, why do you think that the people of Great Britain have been largely disarmed (as have people in most of western Europe)? It is so that you can not fight back against the formation of the EU (an attempt to recreate the former Soviet Union throughout all of Europe). Socialist have long yearned for a vanguard that would help them destroy capitalism, Christianity, and Western Civilization and in Islam they have found their vanguard. In 1985, I saw a vampire-comedy film called "Fright Night" whose premise was that a vampire will not enter your home unless you have invited him in. The ruling elites, without any democratic input from the people, have invited the vampire into your homes and they are sucking you dry. Archbishop Williams is playing the role as Dracula's valet.

Art Vandalay

Maybe the archbishop is in need of a good 'dominatrix'

JJS

Freespeech - excellent point! In the midst of all the other discussion, we all lost sight of your interesting and cogent observation!

JDW

The AB is a spineless POS! I wrote his site directly telling him so. I suspect they will attempt to prosecute by law we individuals who dare identify him for what he is - a POS! Hey, archbishop bald-guy - you, my pedigree-chum are indeed and in fact and in the eyes of God a POS. Now, resign and convert dhimmi.

JDW

Michael, Great Post. "Dracula's valet" is a wonderful description of the idiot-eyed bishop. Pefect, in fact.

Adrian Reddy

If Rowan wants to try Sharia for himself, he should know that there are three levels of sin: minor sins; enormities and unbelief (see ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ by Al-Misri, translated by Keller). As the leader of the Anglican Church, he should first appreciate that he is guilty of the latter, big-time. The berobed, hirsute Archbish should consider that actual examples of enormities (see the above book) are “dragging the hem of one’s garment out of conceit” and “not trimming one’s moustache” though, in fairness, the latter is listed as only a ‘probable enormity’. Nevertheless, it would be wise for him to adopt a policy of regular trimming until this issue is resolved. The above examples are a consequence of founding one’s legal system on the delusions of a 7th century desert-dwelling illiterate. Why any non-Muslim should even begin to consider recommending such nonsense is quite beyond me.

BR

The Jewish Beth Din does not operate as a court in respect to divorce. Its role is akin to that of a notary public or registry. In civil courts, a spouse who petitions a court for a divorce needs to prove that he or she has grounds for divorce. In Sharia Courts the wife petitions the court and needs to prove grounds for divorce (a husband being entitled to a divorce without the courts consent). As far as the Beth Din is concerned, if a husband and wife jointly ask for a divorce, the Beth Din will prepare a bill of divorce without further inquiry as proving grounds for divorce. Unlike a proper court it cannot refuse to issue a divorce should both parties ask for it neither can it grant a divorce if either party objects. It acts as a registry and not a court. Recent UK legislation requires a party which petitions or consents to a civil divorce to obtain a divorce from the Beth Din before the divorce is made absolute

Godrey Davies

I amazed that you have said these things, which tells me that you have very little insight to islam. I do not call onyou to resign, but to repent before GOD and the people.

phil

Field i think i have been a little hard on you,this column is obviously a major part of your life -so i apologise -and now that i have, do you think you could use your vast knowledge of uk law to complain about the congestion charge and parking tickets and leave the beth din alone -what did they ever do to you ?keep it short and simple we need the space ,best regards phil

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Speaking as a Jew living in my homeland of Israel and not subject to foreign rule, I must add an important point which my fellow British Jews in this forum have neglected to mention. Yes it's true that we have an obligation to obey ALL laws of the government of the land, even if they contradict Rabbinic Jewish law (DeRabanan). This does not however include Biblical based laws. (DeoRitah). For instance, if the government passed a law banning Brit Mila (Circumcision) or they banned the study of Torah on grounds of racism or homophobia, we could not obey such laws. There are, in addition, exceptions to this rule. For instance, even though it is not strictly a DeORita that Jews need a quorum of 10 men or more to pray, if the government passed a law forbidding the gathering of more than nine men, this too could not be tolerated. Now, what would be the response to such laws being passed? Indeed, this is not a theoretical question for it has happened to Jewish communities in almost all countries throughout the Jewish exile. The response of the Jewish community was not to riot or commit acts of terrorism. The Jewish response was always to pick up one's belongings and leave that country. Jews have been doing this for the past 2,000 years.

Kathleen Mary, Federal Way WA, USA

This is how the West ends, this is how the West ends, not with a bang, but as the whimper of a priest. Oh, well. I grieve.. as an Episcopalian - as an American, I am shocked. As a lover of democracy, I am abhorred.As a woman, I am terrified. He doesn't even understand that there can be one law in the land or chaos will soon overtake all. And I don't even live in your country. How long will it be before English women must wear veils to accommodate their Muslim neighbors? (hair is so-o-o shocking!!) Laugh, now, because I predict it will happen. What communism couldn't do, modern liberal political correctness colliding with Islam, will do... modern liberalism is committing suicide and they who espouse it don't even see that its not compassion or kindness - it's surrender.How long will liberal philosophy endure under sharia law? two minutes? (long enough for the rope or the blade?)

field

Reb Shlomo Silverstein - Thanks for the clarification which I think is important. In other words there are limits to the accommodation one makes as a minority within a community: as a believer there are limits to which laws you can accept (that seems obvious and logical to me). Islam has a similar approach I believe. As for terrorism, of course many in the UK would consider that the bombing of the King David's Hotel was terrorism, although I can understand that many Israelis would have a different view. I only mention that because you appear to be wishing to dissociate active involvement with Judaism from any connectino whatsoever with terrorism, whereas I think most fair-minded observers would say that the actions of the more extreme Jewish activists in Mandate Palestine did amount to terrorism. Hugo White - Whilst Taqiyya is clearly a specifically Islamic concept I think there are equivalents in all other religions. Have you never heard of the doctrine of "mental reservation" within Catholicism? In other words, it was (not sure if it still is) held that Catholics living as a minority in Protestant countries could dissemble as long as they registered a "mental reservation" i.e. as long as a Catholic consciously kept faith even while denying the true faith, that was considered acceptable. We have seen Christian Churches hide sexual abuse within their organisations for the sake of the faith. We know that various texts from the early Christian Church - some of which were revered in that period - have effectively been suppressed. I am obviously less familiar with Judaism but having read some of the religious texts on line it's pretty clear to me that spokespeople for Judaism skate over various aspects of those texts: support for the institution of slavery; treatment of women as inferior to men; and disdain for gentiles. To avoid any confusion on this point: this sort of denial is replicated in ALL religions not just Judaism - indeed ALL ideological systems including Communism and Atheism.

MOHAN DADDIKAR

The Archbishop's comments are deplorable and dangerous too. It seems the Archbishop is convinced that the whole of Great Britian is sure to be converted to Islam in the near future, thanks to the excessive tolerance shown by the politicians towards the aggressive postures of the Muslim fundamentalists. The day is not far off when Islam will be the national religion of Great Britain and Christainity will be banned. The archbishop is trying to ensure for himself at least a post of Imam in some mosque when all the churches are converted into Masjids.

IBI

THERE IS JEWISH LAW TO PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWS IN THIS COUNTRY WHO CAN COVER DIVORCE, MARRIAGE ETC ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE FAITH AND THE SAME FOR CHRISTIANS YET WHEN IT IS SAID ABOUT MUSLIMS SHARING THE SAME RIGHT AS THE PREVIOUS TWO, WHICH THE MEDIA DOES NOT MENTION, THEN WE SEE ALL OUT ATTACK ON IT. MY ADVICE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING ESPECIALLY SOMETHING WHICH HAS BEEN ATTACKED LIKE THE MUSLIM RELIGION IS OPEN HEARTEDLY LOOK INTO THE CORRECT TRADITIONAL WORKS, FROM THE QURAN HADITH AND WORKS OF SCHOLARS TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. PEACE REMEMBER THESE ARE THE SAME NEWSPAPERS AND CHANNELS WHICH COVERED THE WAR IN IRAQ AND WMDS WHICH WAS A CLEAR LIE LOOK INTO THESE THINGS BEFORE YOU ACT IN A WAY WHICH IS NOT HONOURABLE MY FRIENDS.

Joe

what do expect from a christian denomonation started by a debauch king who only created it so he could divorce his wife haha. I say england needs a new arch-bishop!! The idea of opposing charia law goes against democracy it would be like ignoring the separation between church (in this case mosque) and state lol. Just because there are quite a few muslims doenst mean they should be given power what about hindus and sihks ? should they be able to set up their own religious courts as well? where will it end? Or is the British government just placating the Muslims out of a fear of islamic fanatacism?? I cant imagine the brittish parliment setting special courts just for catholics or giving the COE full legal powers within england which would be a gaint step backwards

Fergus

The Archbishop has raised a serious issue and should be addressed in a calm, measured manner: So what is the Archbishop suggesting? It would appear that 2% of the UK population should be free to govern themselves and apply sharia law. It seems impractical to me; would any muslim be permitted to opt out of the Common Law and if so would they be permitted to 'mix and match' as they chose - accept the nice bits of each system, or apply the nastiest bits of sharia to women, gay people and apostates but defending their 'Human Rights' when it suited their purposes? It would appear that much of that, in certain areas, already applies in the UK. Clearly, such a situation is nonsensical and where there are opted-out areas, the existing hard-won Common Law must be applied in all cases and communities. Anything else is chaos and anarchy.

Iftikhar Ahmad

Salaam

European Commission President said that Islam is an important part of today's Europe and Muslims are playing an important role in developing their European societies. There are between 15-20 million Muslims in Western Europe. It is a fastest growing faith. The number of Muslims in Europe is projected to double by 2025 or sooner. Europe has to prove that Islam is part of Europe by introducing Sharia laws for the Muslims and by accepting Turkey to the EU.

Septimius Severus

I recently visited Libya as a tourist. Our guide to the wonderful ruins of ancient Roman cities was a learned man, once condemned by the criminal Gaddafi regime as a 'stray dog'. With enormous pride, he announced we were standing in the Forum of the town, gleefully declaring that Roman citizens were 'free to criticise' anyone and anything 'even the emperor'. After a long discusion about the entirely arbitrary Sharia-law-based Lybian justice system (roughly the reverse of the Roman code), I told him of our Moral Leader's pronouncements. He fell silent and his jaw dropped. 'But...this would be a catastrophe!' he expostulated when he had finally regained his composure.

When taken with William's scurrilous apologia, Iftikhar Ahmed's statistics (above)suggest the catastrophe is well under way. It may need only this final act to seal the doom of the west, so long weakened from inner hostility and now economic breakdown(particularly striking is Ahmed's implicit argument to the effect that the majority is always right!).

The west's lack of confidence in its civilising mission, coupled with its near-destruction at the hands of endemic indigenous totalitarian ideologies, means it is once more exposed to what this time might prove to be a fatal blow.