The Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his mind...

[JSLTIGER]

LONDON - The archbishop of Canterbury on Thursday called for a limited application of Islamic law in Britain. Muslims praised the proposal but the government rejected it.
The unusual suggestion from Britain's highest ranking Christian leader would, if adopted, allow British Muslims to choose to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law, known as Shariah, rather than through British courts.
Archbishop Rowan Williams said in a radio interview with British Broadcasting Corp. that incorporating Islamic law could help improve Britain's flagging social cohesion.
"Certain provisions of Shariah are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system," said Williams, who gave a speech on the topic Thursday night.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman immediately rejected Williams' proposal.
"The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," said Michael Ellam.
The idea was also rejected by Sayeed Warsi, an opposition spokeswoman for social affairs. She said all British citizens had to be subject to the same laws developed by Parliament.
Williams said he was not advocating that Britain allow extreme aspects of Shariah, which has been associated with harsh punishments meted out by Islamic courts in Saudi Arabia and some other countries and has been used to undermine the rights of women.
"Nobody in their right mind" would want to see that, he said. He called for "a clear eye" when discussing Islamic law.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said the use of Shariah would help lower tensions in British society.
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," he said. "It would give Muslims the sense that the British respect our faith."
Shafiq said it was important that non-Muslims in Britain understand that Williams is not suggesting Shariah be adopted for resolving criminal charges, but only civil disputes.
Shafiq and Williams noted that Britain already allows Orthodox Jews to resolve disputes under traditional Jewish law.
Rodney Barker, a political science professor at the London School of Economics, said Williams' decision to address such a controversial issue was not surprising.
"He's not a cautious, conservative priest," Barker said. "He recognizes we live in a society where there is not one dominant religion. He doesn't say, 'I have the truth and the rest of you are wicked and deluded.'"
But there are dangers involved in letting one community apply one type of justice while another uses a different system, said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, who has written extensively about militant Islam.
"It's a minefield," he said. "Britain is a nation of laws, once you say to a community that they can apply their own laws, you are establishing a dangerous precedent."

[Skybird]

Don't get me started. Had to bite my lips not to post it myself this morning.

"Fall back!" he says. And that is all he says - and not for the first time. Since almost 50 years, European nations do sign up to one prior concession to Islam after another. On the Islamic side: no answer, just more demands. Not a hint of reciprocity, just intimidation, and threatening. In no way the Western concessions have ever been answered by Islam and Islamic countries on euqal terms, nowhere, which at least is in full correspondence with Quran'S teaching and demands. Islam spreads in the West. Foreign cultures and religions in islamic countries over the past years and decades have systemtically been driven back, discirminated, hindred, banned.

Europe has seen two totalitarian ideologies hurting the continent in the past 90 years, there was fascism, and there was soviet communism. Have we learned nothing from that - that now we allow Islam to become the third catastrophe in a row?

http://www.welt.de/politik/article11...elgesicht.html

Hiltrud Schröter is one of the two only german academic Islam experts that I would agree to be in full and objective knowledge of Muhammedan scripture and history. The other if H.P. Raddatz. She says to feel guilty because it was her generation opening the gates for Islam in the West, and Germany. - Oh, and the one as well as the other are threatened to get assassinated. But that must not explicitly been pointed out anymore these days.

Bah. If europeans do not wish to defend themselevs against this, and do not act against leaders that sell them into slavery - then they have not deserved any better than to see their sons and sons of sons living in Islamic supression and medival primitiveness of mind. Or in short: serves you right, Europe. Bad enough if somebody is too weak and cannot defend himself. But even worse if he even does not wish to defend himself although he could, and prefers submission to conflict just for the sake of dceiving himself about how superior peaceful and civilised he is. that bis no civilised superiority - civilisation gets lost that way. And maybe it even is not deserved any longer.

[baggygreen]

But coming from a bloody archbishop...

maybe the caliphate wont be arcoss the rim of the Indian Ocean, but in europe instead

[Onkel Neal]

Unleash the hounds.

[Tchocky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...ng-779799.html

The error is assuming that the leader of a major church has the same intellectual freedom that he had when he was merely an eminent theologian. The cold fact is that the semiotics are entirely different. An academic may call for a nuanced renegotiation of society's attitudes to the internal laws of religious communities. But when the Archbishop of Canterbury does that the headline follows, as night follows day: "Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, says Archbishop."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Unleash the hounds.

[jumpy]

I understand (in some small way) comments that support implimentation of such an idea - "The Jews are allowed to practice their religious laws, so are the Hindu's and Sikh's, so why not the Muslems?" - no link I'm afraid, I heard it last night on the radio.

However, I'm fairly sure that these others have little or no conflict when it comes to their religious laws being superseded by British Law. I don't see Shariah being quite so compliant somehow.
I think it's fair to allow Islamic law regarding marriage/divorce and similar civil disputes to have its place alongside UK civil law. As said, others do it, and so do the Islamic community here today.
In reality, what is being asked for is to have Shariah develop above the influence of UK law. Perhaps if certain elements from the Islamic community here in the UK were a little less fanatical and some aspects of the proposed Islamic law were a little more progressive in their thinking, the backlash against such a request might be less absolute.

I still think that it's the proverbial 'thin end of the wedge' for those who would be prepared to exploit it.

[Ishmael]

Living as I do in Indian country, I'll offer the native perspective that it is just two factions of wasitchu fighting over the same false god. So I offer some comments from that different perspective by John Trudell:





What both systems share is the divorcing of humanity's spirit from both their ancestors and their descendants.

[Skybird]

Sharia cannot be picked apart into pieces that one does like, and others one does not like. It is ONE whole thing, like is the Quran. Things are sometimes said to be "monolithic" in Islam, and that is correct, both on a theological level (what is allowed by Muslim teachings), and on a historic level (what Islam has already shown to behave like over past centuries.)

Last but not least it all is not so much a traditional religion, but it is power-politics and personality cult. Since Muhammedanism is a totalitarian ideology and a leadership cult, it will not accept self-restraint and stop at what it already got, but will press until everything has submitted to Sharia, and Quranic teaching. This is the grim fact, proven by history, that the brainless bishop comfortably is missing.

He also ignores that foreigners coming to Britain should have a rightful obigation -l ike they would have in all of europe, theoretically at least - to adapt to existing cultural rules they find. Today, migration is a weapon in a non-militaric war of conquest, and various Islamic politicians, leaders and clerics have said it into our faces very bluntly and frankly and openly and directly - but we still ignore the truth being spit into our face. In no way immigrants should have any right to colonize the place they went to and demand - although Islam claims to have that right to demand it from all the world - that their new national hosting societies have to adapt to their home standards of their countries they were coming from. If you are not willing to adapt to that new society you want to live in, you better don'T go there - period. If that soceity is not in correspondence with your relgion, stay away. but Islam uses it'S migrants like stormtroops today, and the goal of this strategy is to erode our legislation, to weaken our sense of self-preservance, and deceive us over the true nature of Islam and it'S intolerant, discriminating intentions. We are under attack, and we are the prey.

Most important is to finally realise the most elemental separation of relgion and poltics - that is unknown and unaccepted in Islam, and the practice of taqyia which allows Islam to lie about it'S intentions and deceive western people on the surface that it would adapt to Western standards, by that undermining any willingness to defend ourselves. That is not true - it just is an effective way of buying time to sink into our societies until it has gained enough critical mass to enforce its ways and no longer just asking for them. Like Mrs Schröter in that German article correctly lined out, historically mosques are no temples and holy houses of prayer, they do not compare to churches and synagogues, but to town houses and administrative centres, they are political places of communal administration, and social communication centres of a given community. Politics is religion, religion is powerpoltics, and totalitarian control of the individual as well as the community. A dedicated "only religious" place like a church for example was meant to be, Islam does not know, which only is consistent in itself, then. In these political communal centers that mosques are, they also do their religious practice, yes. Take it as another illustration that islam does not really differ between religion and politics, like this bishop seem to believe. the political demonstration, proclamations and heated calls for action you see on Friday evenings, is another hint for how very much one and the same thing politics and religion in Islam is.

It is of the most urgent essence for the West to finally realise this characteristic of islam: totalitarian politics and religion not being separated in Islam. It leaves our constitutional orders most vulnerable to Islam's intolerant demand that all others have to accept the dominance of Islam and must submit to it's leading role in the world. That way, politics can be pushed forward and making them unquestionable and unavailable for criticism and attacks - by labelling them "religion". That is what muhammad has formed it up for, and that is how he used it all his life! Criticism of your ambitions for power = religious heresy, religious heresy = your life in danger. Practically all major attempts to move beyond Muhammad's dogmatism and to critically analyse and question Islam'S self-revolving egocentrism saw the autgors getting jailed and/or murdered, and the backbone of such movements being broken. That'S why there never was soemthing that compares to the age of enlightement, or the reformation. Islam is stuck where christianity was before these events and phases took place - in the medival.

Regarding Sharia, it forbids by death penalty to question the Quran and to seek answers outside the Quran's teaching, and it is of the same unforgiveness regarding trying to choose parts of the Sharia only, and ignore others one does not like. From an Islamic point of view, this is not possible. The Sharia was made for exactly this purpose: hindering and preventing and supressing every attempt of splitting Islam into two, and weakening it and it'S poltical power and the motivation of its followers by making it an object of democratic consenus and partial "reformation". In this function, it compares to the inquisition. That is what the brainless bishop also is missing. He wants islam to be no longer Islam that way, and thinks it is just another religion like Judaism and christianity, and it could be comopared to these. Islam is all that - NOT, does not seek agreement, does not tolerate what is not itself, does not want understanding by others. It wants to rule, and whatever acting is needed to acchieve that, is allowed and is acceptable: intimidation, lying, war, infiltration, deception, bullying.

As long as western-declared "moderate muslims" do not tell us clear and loudly what parts of the Quran they want to delete unconditionally, irreversibly, in order to adapt to the standards of the foreign culture they have settled in, and in order to overcome it's brutality and intolerance and mercyless intellectual crippeling of human mind, people like this blind wellmeaning bishop are a threat to their own home and culture and to their own people, and must be stopped. And if theoretically they would delete and reform the Quran indeed (what will not happen), the result would be something that no longer is Islam, of course. In other words: you are either muslim with all consequences, or you are not and violate Islam. That is true for infindels, and that is true for people who on the one hand claim to be democrats and enlightened intellects and liberals following Western ethics and freedoms, but still refuse to turn their back on the grim face of Islam, instead just ignore them and remain silent about the unwelcomed aspects of Islam and that way help to spread it nevertheless - by doing nothing about it. I do not care wether someobdy calls himself a etsern or modeate muslim now, or is a true Muslim in Quranic understanding - the one is as big a problem and a threat like the other.

What it all means? Anger and conflict at the end of the day. We never should have let Islam in, never.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Living as I do in Indian country, I'll offer the native perspective that it is just two factions of wasitchu fighting over the same false god. So I offer some comments from that different perspective by John Trudell:





What both systems share is the divorcing of humanity's spirit from both their ancestors and their descendants.

Words of wisdom. Or just healthy reason, however one wants to call. Not being Indian, I do not follow the mythology of Indians, and it'S symbols and rites. But what is expressed by it and lies behind the level of symbols and rites, I always felt instinctive sympathy for. I also feel that it does not matter if thse things and things that I do follow are really completely in correspondence. It's more important that no matter where we are, we all look at the same direction to see the sun rising, or setting.

P.S. Very interesting myspace profile of yours. Looks like a very interesting life to me!

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Words of wisdom. Or just healthy reason, however one wants to call. Not being Indian, I do not follow the mythology of Indians, and it'S symbols and rites. But what is expressed by it and lies behind the level of symbols and rites, I always felt instinctive sympathy for. I also feel that it does not matter if thse things and things that I do follow are really completely in correspondence. It's more important that no matter where we are, we all look at the same direction to see the sun rising, or setting.

P.S. Very interesting myspace profile of yours. Looks like a very interesting life to me!

I put one of John Trudell's songs up on my publishing website at:

http://www.sandybeachpublishing.com/

From "Tribal Voice" it's called "Living In Reality"

It took the times we didn't care about living,
To learn survivors survive whether they want or not.
It took the pain, the grief and the dying to remember,
What gets forgotten in the living.
It took the lessons of a thousand generations,
To get through the time of yesterday.
It took the joyful songs of laughter,
To last beyond today into tomorrow.
It took the fragrence of a woman's touch,
To realize brothers and sisters are never alone.
It took the joining of earth and sky,
To create, centering the universe.

Many times it takes the poet to see the larger truth.
http://www.johntrudell.com/

Regarding my myspace page, My background wallpaper is a painting of Hotei Ushu, the Zen sack-and-stick priest embodiment of Zan fullness painted by Miyamoto Musashi.

[STEED]

Archbishop of Canterbury is so liberal must be puffing on a good spliff. I rest my case.


PS: We all know he shot his bolt years ago.

PPS: He is a out of touch twit just like our government.

[Oberon]

The guy's a bloody nutter, someone needs to Becket him. I have no doubt that one of the Muslims he seems to like so much will gladly do the job...

[STEED]

While I'm in the mood for a rant I like to add the church of england is liberal as well and should be bought to book.

[STEED]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmp..._answer1=61228

Hey hook hands your out of a job. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Have your say
Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?
1 Abu Hamza
35%
2 Archbishop of Canterbury
65%

As of 7pm today.