Thursday, February 07, 2008

Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘Shari’a law in Britain is unavoidable’

Cranmer has reflected much on this statement by the present incumbent of the See of Canterbury, and the media furore which has ensued (indeed, all over the world). As he was writing this article, his original headline echoed the words of Oliver Cromwell to the ‘Rump Parliament’: ‘In the name of God, go!’, for that was his feeling on the matter, and Cranmer has for a very long time been quite patient with his successor. The man has become a liability: Roman Catholics are dismissive, Non-conformists bemused, Anglicans are incensed, Downing Street incandescent, and the Bishop of Rochester completely silent.

And yet Dr Williams did not advocate Shari’a law; he said quite distinctly that ‘aspects’ of it might be incorporated into British law. He said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for ‘constructive accommodation’ with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction.

Asked if the adoption of Shari'a law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said that certain conditions of Shari’a ‘are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system’.

It is this statement which exposes the barefaced hypocrisy of the present government, for New Labour has already permitted Shari’a principles to be applied to Muslims and not to other British citizens. While the Prime Minister’s spokesman insisted that ‘British law would be based on British values’, he admitted that concessions had already been made in specific instances, such as a relaxation of the law on stamp duty to avoid it being paid twice when Shari’a-compliant mortgages were used. And husbands with multiple wives have been given permission to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long review, and this will lead inexorably to different pension rights and exemption from death duties. Once the Government recognised and legitimised polygamy, it is only a matter of time before legislative creep demands further accommodating exemptions.

And yet the Archbishop’s naivety is astonishing. He treats Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford theological college, and assumes that his audience is made up of academics with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his professorial precision.

Shari’a may be a complex and convoluted legal system, but it means only one thing in the UK: oppression, barbarism and injustice. This judgement may in itself be unjust, but the word is alien and, like ‘jihad’, has taken on its own meaning. Shari’a law is in fact profoundly complex, and varies in interpretation and application from Islamic community to Islamic community. In one place, one may be publicly flogged merely for being in the presence of a member of the opposite sex, in another, one may be hanged. And it is the women and children who are executed, since the word of the man outweighs all others. Shari'a covers religious rituals, behaviour, dress codes, grooming and diet, and also legislates in matters of finance, trade, marriage and family – in short, it is a religio-political system for the whole of life. While the Archbishop may have been referring to the first of these – the ‘private realm’ – it is the application of Shari’a in the latter – the ‘public realm’ – which is utterly unacceptable in a modern, democratic and free society.

Either Dr Williams knew what he was saying, or how his words would be interpreted, which would be an abdication of his authority, or he was simply utterly naïve, in which case he should be removed from Canterbury. That the Archbishop has not been clear, and that he has permitted his words to be taken to imply his support for the application of Shari’a in the public realm, is a grievous error of judgement, and for this reason alone he ought to consider his position. It is politically unacceptable that the words of the leader of the Established Church should embolden those who advocate a parallel system of law for any group. He has given succour to those who would establish an Islamic theocracy in the UK, and has hastened the day when 'Mary's Dowry' becomes another room in Mohammed's Dar al-Islam.

And Cranmer is not here talking of occasional exemptions. To those who insist that the UK should not tolerate any such exemptions from the law for different faith groups, you might consider that Sikhs are already exempt from having to wear crash helmets, and Sikhs also uniquely enjoy the right to carry a knife (kirpan) in public. And how many of Cranmer’s communicants were in agreement with him that Roman Catholic adoption agencies ought to be exempt from ‘equality’ legislation? And there are also Jewish and Roman Catholic matrimonial tribunals, but these are not empowered to pass judgement which are binding in the civil courts. The rabbinical granting of a divorce or a canonical annulment are not civil dissolutions of marriage: the civil courts must ultimately grant the decree. But Shari’a law does not make any such distinction, for it refuses to recognise the civil authority.

Shari’a was judged in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights to be antithetical to the foundations of democracy (and the principles of the Enlightenment) because its rulings on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedom violated human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights.

But what a pity the Archbishop didn’t hit the headlines over the abortion holocaust, or over poverty and deprivation, or over the incessant erosion of our ancient and hard-won liberties. Instead of proposing the introduction of Shari’a law to Britain, why did Dr Williams not speak out on behalf of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the 23-year-old Afghan student journalist sentenced to death for downloading ‘anti-Islamic’ material from the internet?

Article XXVI of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England talks 'Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments':

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

For those who judge Dr Williams to be 'evil', therein lies the mechanism for the removal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and yet it is undeniable that he does not speak for the Church of England on this matter. And in a curious kind of way, Cranmer is most grateful to him for raising this subject, for how else will the British people ever wake up to what is unfolding before their very eyes? While His Holiness has had a few things to say on the matter, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has been decidedly trappist. And one wonders why the Archbishop has not consulted the thousands of British Muslims who would find the whole concept of a British Shari'a utterly repugnant. Indeed, many came here to escape its oppressive injustices. These British Muslims are quite content with liberal democracy, and it is this which must be defended at all costs against the politicians and prelates who would seek to destroy it.

God forbid that Britain should ever return to the days when religious leaders should determine guilt or innocence, or legislate on matters of crime and punishment. For some of us, those memories are all too acute and dreadfully painful.


Anonymous spanner said...

With the lunatics not content with taking over the asylum (Westminster) they have now taken over the Church, whatever next?

7 February 2008 at 20:13  
Blogger Stan!! said...

I am Islamophobic in the sense that I'm phobic towards the notion of treating women as third-class citizens, flogging people and killing them for having an independent thought. I'm also rather phobic to the notion that the Muslim world has the right to riot and kill each other because of a few unfunny cartoons in an obscure Danish publication.
I spend a lot of time in Istanbul and have many muslim friends there. They too are disgusted and very afraid that this type of uncivilised and degrading sharia regime will become more widespread in the muslim world.They are rather shocked that such matters are under consideration in the UK.

Oh, and for the record, 40pc of British Muslims are on the record as wanting Sharia to be instituted in Britain.

7 February 2008 at 20:21  
Anonymous Eric said...

I wonder if Judas would have been an antidisestablishmentarian?

Williams is a tool, in almost every sense.

7 February 2008 at 20:34  
Anonymous mickey said...

Your Grace,

One's first reaction is, quite naturally, to recoil in shock at what it seems is being proposed. But perhaps this is the Archbishop's intention? Maybe this is how he feels that a dialogue should begin.

We should never forget that England is a trading nation. We cannot afford to offend the billion or so people around the globe who live by the tenets of Sharia.

Far better to hear what the Archbishop and the Muslim spokesmen have to say and then take it from there.

English law is not immutable. Perhaps there will be something in Sharia that can be assimilated into our own codes. Whipping, for example, is always popular with a dedicated minority!

7 February 2008 at 20:43  
Blogger Man in a Shed said...

Your Grace,

When I was being trained as a young engineer who had just joined a large company there was a slogan on the wall which said "The meaning of your communication is the response you get". Whilst this may not be legally true, it is honoured in practice.

Rowan Williams will have emboldened those who's plan for the UK is to keep demanding more and more of the country until it is an Islamic state.

Christians will have been down hearted by the utter weakness such statements betray. Such weakness will only encourage more and more demands always backed by the threat of something dangerous or damage to community cohesion (aka violence ).

When is all this appeasement to stop ? There will never be enough.

Dr Williams should be found a quiet cloister in Oxford to retire to - preferable only next to a Mosque load speaker.

He has failed as a leader, and like Neville Chamberlain before him must go.

I understand the points about minority religions and minor accommodations - but the meaning of his communication is the shock wave heading towards Lambeth palace demanding he go.

7 February 2008 at 20:51  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Your Grace

In the Church of England, how can an ArchBishop or any other of the Monstrous Regiment of Bishops & ArchBishops be sacked ?

Surely the answer is in the hands of Good Christian Folk

- if we the People cancelled our Giving to the Church of England, it would be reduced to financial insolvency within 3 months

I have the honour to remain in Christ your Grace's obedient servant etc

G Eagle

7 February 2008 at 20:55  
Blogger rob's uncle said...

Re: 'Shari’a was judged in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights to be antithetical to the foundations of democracy (and the principles of the Enlightenment) . . ' It would be most helpful if you could provide a reference or link to this judgment, so that we could read it for ourselves. I do not recall reading about it at the time.

7 February 2008 at 21:01  
Anonymous Time will Tell said...

Shari'a has achieved a major beachhead. It is now a matter for legitimate discussion which will inevitably have even the approval, but certainly not condemnation, of the Independent and Guardian readers. To criticise Islam is "racist" - but what can we do? Oxford C of E clerics seem to want the call for prayer to be broadcast five times a day - but often do the gleaming spires resonate to Onward Christion Soldiers?
Your Grace, The only hope for the C of E can only come now from the African bishops, York and Rochester.

7 February 2008 at 21:25  
OpenID 99shepherd said...

I think your's is a good assessment.

Williams may mean well but he is unlikely to have much sympathy.

The public is tired of a hostile minority within muslims who think they should call the shots, so why should special allowances be made.

7 February 2008 at 21:25  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rob's Uncle,

His Grace has provided the link, but wishes to drink another glass of red before writing further.

7 February 2008 at 21:36  
Anonymous Victor Emmanuel III will protect U from the hooded claw & the Xenu paused but then said...

...was listening to a discussion about this issue on the BBC World Service when someone said that there were Jewish courts in the UK so why should there not be Sharia courts. I did not even know there were Jewish courts, with legal authority in Britain. Why on earth do British Jewish people have a separate court system, how did that come about?! I thought I lived in a secular country but apparently not! Just another reason, in my opinion, to abolish the House of Lords and give the British people the power!

Orthodox Jewish courts, what next, Mormon courts, Scientologist courts...?!?

7 February 2008 at 21:37  
Anonymous irenelancaster said...

When the subject of citizenship was first introduced into the national curriculum, I discussed the subject of crime and punishment in a large girls' state school in Greater Manchester.

All the Muslim girls in the class, without exception, advocated sharia law FOR ALL in the case of burglaries, for instance.

When asked what this meant in practice, they said 'amputation of hands'.

I did warn the school at the time that we were heading for a minefield, and got thoroughly castigated as a result.

Oh, and told not to mention the word 'Israel' in lessons, as this might offend 'some':

7 February 2008 at 21:51  
Anonymous dexey said...

victor emmanuel iii will protect u from the hooded claw & the xenu paused but then said...
...was listening to a discussion about this issue on the BBC World Service when someone said that there were Jewish courts in the UK so why should there not be Sharia courts. I did not even know there were Jewish courts, with legal authority in Britain. Why on earth do British Jewish people have a separate court system, how did that come about?! I thought I lived in a secular country but apparently not! Just another reason, in my opinion, to abolish the House of Lords and give the British people the power!

Orthodox Jewish courts, what next, Mormon courts, Scientologist courts...?!?

07 February 2008 21:37

I thought His Grace had covered that.
Mormons certainly convene church courts for their members and sometimes excommunicate or suspend from fellowship.

7 February 2008 at 21:55  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Further evidence ( that I for one do not need ) that it is the establishment of this country that is really driving the Islamic agenda.

Why the British Establishment should be wanting to promote this agenda. Or who is bribing, forcing, or otherwise the establishment to go along with this horrifically divisive nonsense?

Are highly complicated questions, on which we can only speculate.


A united, free, peaceful, prosperous, confident nation, is more difficult to rule over.

(Still less easy to radically change that nation forever, while sadistically and profitably controlling every aspect of a
the great mass of ordinary individual citizens lives.)

More difficult then it is in a racially and religiously divided, eternally debt enslaved, pointlessly embattled, rapidly impoverished, once great, but now clearly failing, endemically corrupted, medium sized European state, like ours.

7 February 2008 at 22:00  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Characteristically the BBC surreptitiously dilutes anything they can’t control or that might offend their vacuous secularity and victim cultured partiality to Islam, whilst at the same time not missing every opportunity to smear Christianity.

The BBC slipped into the debate reference to those (peaceful – BBC forgot to mention that) Catholics and Anglicans who have demonstrated (quite legitimately) outside parliament, objecting on religious grounds (and not threatening the kill anyone – BBC forgot that too) to abortion, stem cell research and cloning. The BBC equated the behaviour of these (calm, well behaved - oops) protestors which were attempting to persuade British lawmakers to amend existing domestic law, with the imposition of a foreign, violent, theocratic alien legal system that is quite antithetical to basic human or civil rights. The nuance of the BBCs piece would have been lost on the vast majority of viewers, but I am quite sure deliberate on the part of the Sheppard’s Bush mafia.

A form of law in direct opposition to existing British (and it has to be said European) law, an array of ordinance that are now establishing themselves in Islamic ghettos all over this country by default; right under the noses of this bloody awful government. A House of corruption run by here today, gone tomorrow chancers on taxpayer funded get rich quick schemes, and not one of them is prepared to do diddly-squat about it, including that pillock Cameron. Oh yes they’ll spout, spout until the cows come home, but put words into action that’s another matter, these placemen, these coat-tailers will reduce this land to a vassal of the mufti and then bugger off to the States where they can continue to snipe and spread their poison.

This Sharia law that just a few weeks ago that appalling woman Hazel Blears denied was in place and being practiced to the exclusion of any native who might cross its path, this Sharia law that is stuck in a1400 year old time warp, that condemns women to be stoned to death, that hangs homosexuals (no its not my idea of a good time either but I wouldn’t hang them), That mutilates, imprisons, rapes; the list goes on. And this, this dull, insipid, ineffectual grey man, this Jonah, this imbecile with the face you’d most like to punch in 2008, advocates the toleration of the barbarity that is Sharia Law. Well I say NO Dr Williams, NO, NO, NO, not in my country. He’s the sort of wet liberal dishrag that would exclaim the Nazi guards were only doing their duty and anyway they’re sorry now.

Where do I sign up, anyone?

7 February 2008 at 22:15  
OpenID yokel said...

This episode confirms to me that the hour is late, and that the formation of a one world (false) religion is not far off. It seems that the Druid Williams will lead away from faith in the on true God as many of his flock as he can manage. I fear that the time has come for true Christians to leave the Church of England while they still have their faith.

7 February 2008 at 22:16  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Whatever church goers get up to within the confines of their church is up to them, as long as they do not break the law of the land.

A Roman Catholic couple might obtain a divorce under civil law but if either of them wishes to be married again as Catholics they must seek an annulment of their marriage separately. This is granted in fairly rare circumstances.

But if no annulment can be obtained, the couple are still regarded as divorced as far as the Civil Authorities in the UK are concerned and they have all their rights as single persons.

This is an example of Canon Law existing within the bounds of Civil Law.

If the Muslims wish to operate their Sharia laws within the confines of the UK law, I have no problem with that. But I suspect it is wider than that.

By the way, I heard part of AOCs discourse at lunchtime today, and Your Grace is correct; he sounded as if he were talking to a group of theological students. He speaks so quickly and quietly, in the end it was difficult to know exactly what he was advocating - but it boded no good.

Across the Tiber, we exhibit a similar degree of cultural cringe - not so long ago Westminster Cathedral was ringing to 100 names of Allah.

7 February 2008 at 22:25  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Here's what I believe is the crux of the problem:

We think that:

A. Muslims can practice the religion of Islam, it is their right within their individual freedom and liberty,


B. Expecting Muslims to not act in an Islamic manner.

Make no mistake, the liberals (among whom we can include libertarians) are close minded and insular. They are backwards and old fashioned. They need to expand their minds to diversity.

We need to circumvent the whole problem with immigration restriction. But you wont like that because it infringes the right of the individual to go where they please. Which just goes to show that libertarianism is impotent as an ideology before Islam.

7 February 2008 at 22:35  
Anonymous infidelus said...

Goodbye Enlightenment! Hello 8th-century!

7 February 2008 at 22:36  
Blogger Head of Legal said...

Here's the link to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Refah Partisi v Turkey.

As David Dimbleby has just said on Question Time, Williams is an obscure speaker, and he's not made himself completely clear today. However, he must mean more than simply that Islamic councils should be able to rule on Islamic marriages: they can now, as the Bath Din does of Jewish marriages.

What he must want is for the civil system to recognise their judgments, so that Muslims would be able to use the Muslim divorce system instead of the normal civil system to dissolve a civil marriage.

Obviously, the result would be that women in Bradford would be pressurised into "choosing" a divorce system that would give them worse financial settlements and less contact with their children. How would Williams guarantee them proper, independent advice before being pressed into their "choice".

7 February 2008 at 22:49  
Anonymous David said...

" husbands with multiple wives have been given permission to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long review, "

This was a review of something introduced by the Conservative Party as a cost saving measure-recognising the multiple wives results in smaller payouts than if the women were assessed individually.

7 February 2008 at 22:51  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

My Majesty thought this one might just cause a flurry of toys out of the pram...

Is My Majesty right that there is a Jewish Religious Court called the Beth Din?

And that court has some recognition in UK law?

And no-one gives a stuff?

And no-one should give a stuff?

And - with appropriate safeguards - the difference is???

My Majesty has no plans to burn Rowan Williams at the stake :D

7 February 2008 at 22:56  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


I think you have got the message. Welcome to the world of conspiracy FACT.

However this is not the time to be losing your faith. Far from it, you need all the help and support you can muster.

You are a protestant for Gods sake.

Therefore what difference does it make to you personally what the elected Chief Executive of CofE PLC, thinks?

If you want to be dictated to, become a Roman Catholic.


Don't panic about a world religion because it already exists, and has done a lot longer then Abraham.

All of the major religions of the world always have been basically the same thing. They are all strictly based on the same star formations and proclaim the same types of gods.

So far from them not being capable of being right all at the same time, the opposite could in fact be true.

They could ALL be basically correct in their understanding of the universe. The Devil does however live in the detail.

7 February 2008 at 22:57  
Blogger Evan Price said...

Your Grace

I will blog on this tomorrow; but I don't think that what is being reported accorded with what I heard on the radio this afternoon. I have blogged on Iain Dale's Diary a summary of what I will set out tomorrow.

7 February 2008 at 23:12  
Anonymous Psilocybe semilanceata said...


"Whilst chaplain of Clare College, Cambridge, Williams took part in anti-nuclear demonstrations at US bases. In 1985, he was arrested for singing psalms as part of a protest organized by the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament at Lakenheath, an American air base in Suffolk; his fine was paid by his college. At this time he was a member of the left-wing Anglo-Catholic Jubilee Group headed by Father Kenneth Leech and he collaborated with Leech in a number of publications including the anthology of essays to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Assize Sermon entitled Essays Catholic and Radical in 1983.

He was in New York at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, only yards from Ground Zero delivering a lecture; he subsequently wrote a short book, 'Writing in the Dust', offering reflections on the event. In reference to Al Qaeda, he claimed that terrorists "... can have serious moral goals"[9] and that the attackers on 9/11 should not be called evil."

COMMENT: May this pitiful aging hippie's incoherant ramblings serve as a dire warning to the young people of Britain of how abuse of hallucinogenic substances in ones' youth can lead to insanity in later life.

7 February 2008 at 23:18  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

Psilocybe semilanceata said...

COMMENT: May this pitiful aging hippie's incoherant ramblings serve as a dire warning to the young people of Britain of how abuse of hallucinogenic substances in ones' youth can lead to insanity in later life.

My Majesty bets he can spell incoherent, though...

7 February 2008 at 23:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could the Head of the Church of England please rise? She is needed now.

7 February 2008 at 23:25  
Anonymous mary 'on the cockspur' tudor said...

Anonymous said...
Could the Head of the Church of England please rise? She is needed now.

My Majesty assumes this to be a reference to the usurper Elizabeth 2- Whatever she may be, it is theologicaly illiterate to describe her as the 'head' of the Church of England.

The head of the Church of England is.....

Clue: 6 letters, first letter 'C'

7 February 2008 at 23:32  
Anonymous mary 'on the cockspur' tudor said...

Anonymous said...
Could the Head of the Church of England please rise? She is needed now.

My Majesty assumes this to be a reference to the usurper Elizabeth 2- Whatever she may be, it is theologicaly illiterate to describe her as the 'head' of the Church of England.

The head of the Church of England is.....

Clue: 6 letters, first letter 'C'

7 February 2008 at 23:33  
Anonymous mary 'having another glass' tudor said...


My Majesty doubled...

7 February 2008 at 23:34  
Anonymous mary 'nuts to this' tudor said...

and yes - there are two l's in theologically - it was a typo


jus sayin

7 February 2008 at 23:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the hand of the creator of all things, the great and mighty Naih, that he who doth take the female by force shall be cast out though tis permissible by the law of Karuth that he who taketh the one who hath the brunette or blonde hair who doth be slim and of figure that hath similarity to they instrument of glass measuring the hour.

He who taketh thy neighbours dominion or posessions shall be granted possesory title where he hath taken those posessions or dominion unbeknownest to thou neighbour.

Let him who hath envy be free to take thy mode of transport without recourse to thy peers, should thy transport be of inferior quality to thy neighbours.

He who hath wisdom and foresight shall be appointed as tribal leader, to give Counsel and those who are bound by the leader shall pay six groots on the 27th day, upon the demise of tribal leader, where he hath been taken by mighty Naih thou shalt hold gathering, where in thou leader shall proclaim his status, thou shalt not impede tribal leader whence thy tribal leader hath abdicated or hath suffered from dispossession by underlings...

So by my religious law I can take all the women I want, steal cars, steal your home and depose any leader without being elected...compatible with British Law...NOOO I'm discriminated against.

7 February 2008 at 23:40  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...


LOL! I love you from a distance. I suspect that if I loved you close up I might strangle you.

The last ABofC I had any respect at all for was Killer Runcie. And that was only for his war record. I have a high regard for B Ali. Next ABofC?

As His Grace knows, I am an atheist at the personal level.

7 February 2008 at 23:43  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Homophobic horse

Libertarianism is not a dogma or an ideology. It is a way of thinking.

Therefore IMO Libertarianism can not be wrong or impotent because it does not propose to have an answer, and it has no weapons.

In a pure libertarian fantasy world, which all intelligent Libertarians know will never exist. There would be not be any types of potentially dangerous organized religions whatsoever between which to have conflicts.

Having said that.

An absolutely binding Bill of individual human rights based on libertarian principles, engraved on tablets of stone and a return to some kind of Gold standard, would greatly help. Not only this particular problem but many many others now and in the future.

Libertarians never have been completely keen on straight forward democracy.

Rule by the mob must not be allowed to dominate over the individual human spirit. Democracy is only good where it has shown itself to be better then the alternative.

Which in the case of this country in particular, has become increasingly rare.

7 February 2008 at 23:51  
Anonymous najistani said...

"Polls show that 40 percent of British Muslims want Sharia, Islamic Law implemented in the UK and the government has moved to accommodate them. Tony Blair's government passed a law that would essentially criminalize blaspheming Islam. The law was weakened in the House of Lords but it will return again stronger than ever especially as the electoral and terror power of Muslims grow along with the desire of Western governments to appease them.

Norway and Sweden have already begun the process of implementing similar laws. In parts of Australia criticizing Islam can get you jail time. In Israel a woman was sentenced to prison for drawing and distributing a cartoon of Mohamed as a pig. In Russia and Belarus newspaper editors have faced jail time for reprinting the Danish cartoons.

For all intents and purposes, from our government to our media to our public entertainment and educational system; the first law of Islam has been implemented.

The laws beyond that will follow. Since this special status of Islam leaves all other religions unprotected, Islam already has a superior status to other religions while other religions have an inferior status to Islam. With the first law in place, WE ARE ALL ALREADY DHIMMIS.

Islam may be propagandized in schools while Judaism or Christianity may not. Muslims may pray in schools, members of other religions may not. Muslim holy books are treated as holy, while the holy books of other religions are treated as myth. The violence of other religions is condemned, while the violence of Islam is covered up. This leads us to Islam's second law, Islam Is Superior To All Other Beliefs. By giving exclusive status to Islam, we have already implemented this as well.

By giving in to Islamic rage, we have already set the pattern of functioning as Dhimmis, of responding to Muslim tantrums with appeasement. The pattern continues from there with Muslims in public life enforcing their religious laws on everyone else. Muslim taxi drivers are already doing this by refusing to carry passengers who carry alcohol, seeing eye dogs for the blind and Muslim cashiers are refusing to handle pork.

There are Islamic laws that place restrictions on women. These won't require government authority to legislate. Muslims simply implement them by making clear what happens to women who don't. In parts of the world that has meant throwing acid into the faces of schoolgirls who don't wear the Hijab as in Indonesia, preventing women from entering public areas if they are not dressed 'modestly' as is widespread in African countries where Islam is on the rise, treating any woman not dressed in the Islamic manner as a legitimate rape target as in Europe.

Sharia Law doesn't need to function officially as long as Muslims have the leverage to implement it by force on an individual level. Through sensitivity training and religious protection laws, Muslims are forcing schools to allow Hijabs and Sex Separation as their requirements for women and through violence and harassment will force women to follow those requirements. ... The same feminists who hold Take Back The Night Rallies along with solidarity rallies for Palestine will discover themselves the targets soon enough, as women increasingly face harassment from Muslim bosses, clients and customers for not complying while the various offices of civil and human rights naturally look the other way.

The only major step Muslims have yet to achieve is to force disputes between Muslims and Non-Muslims to be mediated in Muslim courts.

The hour is much later than we think.



8 February 2008 at 00:14  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

in a brief defence of some other aspects of rowan williams ,i have found him to be a very learned man on the history of christianity and he does have a knack of using obscure texts to shine a little light.

however this for me does him no favours but i am grateful for him talking about this . i watched as politicians on newsnight rounded on him , politicians of no belief possibly . these comments are from the mouths of a post thatcher generation , that speak unto there electorate under the assumption that most people do not interpret the arch bishops words well, theological understanding having been eroded into relativism .

our laws are based on christian principals, and very well they have served us in our history.

sharia law is not based on christian principals indeed you could interpret certain bits of the koran to be against christs following even seeking to claim it as a limited or not true to the teachings of god.

if we cannot have one law what nation will we be , if that law is not based in christianity , then we will cease to be christian country.

one nation , one law, one god.
it is not that i wish for the great commandment to love one another to cease , its is that under sharia law this great commandment will cease to exist.

its advancement will not stop , its elders favour its spread and we will be seperated from our history and in my view from the christ i wish to try and follow in its fullness .

the debate will progress , but i do not see that i can change my heart for somthing that refuses to be uanble to change or agree on its violence and determinations to its own ends are as superior as it would like us to believe.

if rowan williams can defend the faith, he should continue , if not he should make better use of his intellect , i am sure he is aware of the weakness of sharia and i understand we live in far more complex world , but defend the faith is a must for the job .

8 February 2008 at 01:09  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

I'll say this for Williams, he's not church leader material. More of a monk.

Thank you for your comment Atlas. Though unfortunately my quandary remains unconcluded. Libertarianism is not just a habit of thinking, it does have principles, one of them being the sovereignty of the individual. If an individual decides to practice a religion and enters into communion with a god whose existence is uncertain, is it not an aggressive presumption and immoral imposition to deny them the practice of their religion? According to the to sovereignty of the individual it is indeed wrong. For one cannot say with certainty who is right.

8 February 2008 at 02:25  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
i have just re read his lecture , i think it asks the muslim scholars a a very complex question as well , if you can handle the liguistics (and i am struggling to grasp it), it is a very interesting question he poses.

however for now i do not feel able to mix the two, nor can i trust and guarentees that are offered that it would work.

but it is wrong to dismiss it , it is quite a detailed theological work with a very modern dimension.his dialogue needs thought more so towards the end of the talk .

i would be surprised if most mosques imans struggle to understand it .

come to think of it quite a few politicians as well

but basically i still feel once this starts it will be unstoppable , so better to decide "not in haste" but in reflection on the christ .

but it is quite a masterful thelogical piece , that poses the questions to the muslims and secularists.

this talk was not about defending the faith , i have wrongly assumed that. subsequent to this talk though we may need a defender of the faith !!

8 February 2008 at 02:46  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Homophobic horse

Yes of course it is, and no libertarian I am sure would claim to ever want to even try to force anyone to worship or not worship anyone or anything.

Lets put it another way.

If you was trying to create a non obtainable libertarian paradise.

You would not want to start from here. Although it could be worse, it sometimes seems it could not possibly be.

However the ONLY way, in my most honest opinion, to get closer to a good place to start, is to seriously begin thinking like a real libertarian. The quicker and the more practically the better for everyone.

This is especially true these days. As our coming fascist future will require the full resolve of the individual to retain his/her personal liberty and prosperity.

Collectivism was a con job orchestrated and financed by our own establishments. Which is why the days of protest have simply just vanished almost overnight.

Ayn Rand understood the future. She was financed and published by the people that planned it. That future is now here.

You and your family are now on your own whether you like it or know it or not. So keep your wits about you, and count your blessings, my friend. It might not turn out all bad.

8 February 2008 at 03:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Williams is a fool to say what he did. He forgets his own culture and heritage and the values that derive from that; let alone the laws of the land on which he treads.

Where we need more understanding of other cultures, we do not need need endorsement of ancient and idiotic rights over the female gender. What on earth was this man thinking of?

8 February 2008 at 03:31  
Blogger Alwyn ap Huw said...

Your Grace,

I dislike what His Grace the present incumbent of the see of Canterbury has said. But I welcome the fact that he has said it.

Usually, discussions about the Muslim Problem begin when a criticism of Islam is made, or when Muslims belive that their faith has been insulted. The end result is usually some snivelling apology by some Christian or secular political authority which is perceived as a victory over the infidels by the Muslims.

Rowan has started the biggest debate about Muslim / Western (even Christian with a small c) relations ever! He has raised the debate with his usual, brilliant astuteness, by starting the debate on the wrong side of the fence, as it were.

Before condemning your successor, take a few moments to consider what this debate would have been like if he had started it by condemning Shariah and criticising the Muslim view of justice!

8 February 2008 at 05:55  
Blogger Battersea Boy said...

FWIW The Archbishop of Canterbury was right to set out the inevitable outcome of the Government's current immigration policy.

With the number of muslim immigrants increasing each year, and the fact that (when compared with the settled population) they are breeding like rabbits, it will not be long before Islam becomes the majority religion of the British people.

And what alternative is there? Does anyone seriously believe the situation can change without drastic action?

8 February 2008 at 08:17  
Anonymous judith said...

Could we straighten up one misunderstanding that seems to be creeping into commentaries:

When Jews marry in a synagogue in the Diaspora, they receive a civil certificate and a religious certificate. If they don't marry in synagogue, a civic registrar is present to provide that certificate. Should they subsequently wish to divorce, they must first go to the civil courts. Then, if they wish to marry again in a synagogue, they must obtain a religious divorce.

It appears that many Muslim marriages are performed only as religious ceremonies, not civil ones, although Muslim authorities say they recommend couples to get a civil union.

It would appear that Williams is advocating that the Muslim religious marriage, for example, should be regarded as a civil contract. This is a huge step change.

8 February 2008 at 08:28  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

Mary Tudor said "... My Majesty ...."

... err ... embarrassed shuffling of talons ...

.... to conform more closely unto the etiquette of Polite Society .... perhaps Your Majesty might in future prefer to wRite :

"OUR Majesty"

If we do not like Dr Williams and what (little) he stands for, we have only ourselves to blame - the answer lies in our own hands :

Christian Folk should cancel their Giving to the Church of England

THEN by the unpleasantness of their reaction, we will see what these Ecclesiarchs really care about - their position and emoluments and power

Yr Grace's obedient servant etc

G Eagle

8 February 2008 at 08:30  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion is quite clear.

"The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction".

The 39 Articles can be found in the book of common prayer, which has not been repealed and are part of the British constitution through the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union with Scotland 1707

Clergy of the Church of England are still required to acknowledge that the Articles are "agreeable to the Word of God,"


Off with his head

8 February 2008 at 09:12  
Anonymous mickey said...

Your Grace,

I find the reaction of Gordon Brown intriguing. Hitherto the response to every contentious issue has been a review. In this case he wants to close the debate asap - now why could that be one wonders?

Could it be because his Government is already turning a blind eye to many Sharia financial practices that might be considered to be in breach of British tax law? For example, the convoluted arrangements to purchase property (I am not talking about stamp duty). Or inheritance tax issues.

I think the Archbishop has innocently lifted a rock and we can all peer underneath at some of the (illegal) practices which the Government has been prepared to accept amongst the Muslim community.

I, for one, fully support the Archbishop's proposal that we investigate the pros and cons of the Sharia system. If nothing else, I suspect it will reveal the hypocrisy and ill intent of our Prime Minister and his incompetent government.

8 February 2008 at 09:23  
Anonymous Apathist in the UK said...

Dr Williams is a sound theologian and a decent man, but his knowledge of the British constitution and the legal system that supports it seems to be nil.

I don't see any particular reason why he should quit, but his press secretary ought seriously to be considering his position!

8 February 2008 at 10:06  
Anonymous mary 'hottie' tudor said...

The morning shift already rme

Sir Henry Morgan said...


LOL! I love you from a distance. I suspect that if I loved you close up I might strangle you.

My Majesty gives Sir Henry permission to love the royal person from a distance (only) but warns that she thinks that AethelBald is a cutie...

G Eagle Esq said...
Mary Tudor said "... My Majesty ...."

.... perhaps Your Majesty might in future prefer to wRite :

"OUR Majesty"

My Majesty will refer to myself as I like - perk of the job ;)

My Majesty has been looking at these '39 articles' and several of them strike her as complete rhymes with rowlocks.

My Majesty considers that R Williams only mistake is naivete in not realising that his address would inevitably be seized and duly twisted on by those who dislike his politics/churchanship as an excuse for another good media kicking

8 February 2008 at 10:07  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

ps Giles Fraser for AoC!!!


well provocative

8 February 2008 at 10:16  
Blogger Evan Price said...

Your Grace,

I think that the speech, indistinct and unclear as it is, reveals more about the Archbishop's misunderstandings of the law and how it is applied, than about any real proposals for extending the remit of Sharia law.

In simple terms, what he appears to propose merely reflects, I believe, what the courts would do now; and indeed have done for some very considerable time.

Please visit my blog for a more detailed explanation.

8 February 2008 at 10:59  
Anonymous The Land of Lost Content said...

I had high hopes for the present incumbant of Canterbury. However, I now believe that he is the most ineffectual Archbishop we have seen for centuries. He needs to realise that he is head of a Christian Church and not the chair of a left wing political pressure group. Cranmer must be turning in his grave...

8 February 2008 at 11:13  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace,

If, as Head of Legal suggests, the Archbishop is 'an obscure speaker' then it is incumbent upon the Bishop to make himself clear. It is regrettable that a Church leader should make himself so unintelligible to his flock.

But Church leaders should not spend their time 'musing' and 'debating' via public platforms. Their task is to lead, to defend, and to provide clear guidance. In this the Archbishop has manifestly failed.

The desire by the Muslim community to have their own separate laws is understandable, however it has long been the case that all religions remain subject to the laws of the State. Other religions have always had to find ways to accommodate the State, why should Islam be any different?

What is being proposed is a departure from existing legislation in the interests of a minority and, patently, without the support of the majority. Muslims must set about persuading the majority of the rightness, justice and fairness of their cause. They will certainly not do that by Jihad, by simply making demands or by attempting to impose their will. This is a political matter, not a religious issue, and the solution will be political.

It is unfortunate that the Archbishop has been so castigated. He has been the architect of his own undoing. But perhaps it would be more Christian to cease bashing the Bishop.

8 February 2008 at 11:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Cranmer must be turning in his grave...

If he but had one...

8 February 2008 at 11:28  
Anonymous king kong said...

Let's see how many Muslims there are in this country.....better have an embargo then?

And which law should be chosen that gives the aggrieved party the best outcome..... let's toss a coin to see which law is applicable?

Oh, can we apply Sharia law to all rapists, drug dealers, vandals and would be good to see the offending parts of their respective anatomies chopped off!

Ah, but what about miscarriage of justice? It's Shar...

8 February 2008 at 12:00  
Anonymous mickey said...

It would appear that the Archbishop is more hip to what is goin' down on da street than da blogsters, see link:

8 February 2008 at 12:02  
Blogger Dark_Heretic said...

Mickey said "We should never forget that England is a trading nation. We cannot afford to offend the billion or so people around the globe who live by the tenets of Sharia"

That may well be true except that we do most of our trade some 80% of it with anglicised nations. Which also makes a mockery of people saying we need to be in the EU but that's another argument.

Sharia law should never be acceptable in this land but all that depends on the prats in charge who seem content in selling their souls to the highest bidders and damn the consequences.

When in Rome do as the Romans do and if you want those laws then there's plenty of places that already offer them should be two phrases used to rebut the march of Sharia.

And politicians should remember that they are there to enact the will of the people and not enforce it as they seem content to do now.

I apologise your Grace for my ramblings but I am incensed over this story.

8 February 2008 at 12:13  
Anonymous Michael Canaris said...

For what it's worth, my bishop has repudiated Cantuar's reported comments here.

To my (admittedly not trained) reading, it seems said speech might potentially breach Articles XVIII and XXXVII at some points.

If for some reason a replacement for the present incumbent of Canterbury must be found, I'd like to suggest Oliver O'Donovan.

8 February 2008 at 12:15  
Blogger The Black Fingernail said...

The Archbishop's only fault is that he is too clever for the flock he purports to lead.

Sharia is very complex, and much of the media reaction is knee-jerk. Much of Sharia law is wholly consistent with Christian ethical foundations, and there's nothing wrong in joining forces where the two are in agreement, or in permitting Muslims to communicate in their own 'cultural language'. And where they aren't in agreement, the law of the land must prevail.

This is what the Archbishop said.

8 February 2008 at 12:19  
Anonymous mickey said...

Mr Heretic,

Should you be in the market for a Sharia investment product, you will find that the City's 'offshore' department (the Channel Islands) is one of the World's premier domiciles for these items.

The problem, it seems to me, is that there is a form of Sharia practised by people with whom we would like to do business and there are other forms of Sharia practised by people we would rather have nothing to do with. Unfortunately, it is the latter, rather than the former, who are (currently) the strangers in our midst.

8 February 2008 at 12:30  
Blogger Dark_Heretic said...


Point well made and humbly taken on board.

I would also like to suggest that part of the trouble is the cowardly actions of those who supposedly lead us. They would rather be in bed with the devil or appease, than risk confrontation or upsetting someone.

8 February 2008 at 12:40  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

I propose that we surround him with faggots ,if he is not already,and apply a beneficial flame to acclimatise him to the heat,and make sure his goose is thouroghly cooked,then polish up our armour and deal with his friends.

8 February 2008 at 12:44  
Anonymous Realistic Citizen said...

Your grace,

The sad reality is that people are just dropping their faith. The church of england is in a grand decline.

The push of democracy is inevitable and the future of england is projected on three paths.

1. Sunni Islam
2. Atheism
3. Catholicism

If Sunni Islam wins then people has no choice to accept that sharia law is inevitable.

If Atheism wins then mosques and churches will be museums or to my taste exotic homes/apartments.

If Catholicism wins then they will simply take, what Henry VIII took before.

The lesson here is that this situation is here because the Anglican faithful is simply not faithful anymore.

You reap what you sow.

For what ever future it may bring, let democracy rule.

With respect,


8 February 2008 at 12:47  
Blogger The Black Fingernail said...

Realist, you are completely uinrealistic.

The RC Church in the UK is in terminal decline, and even a few thousand faithful Poles can't save it.

Mass attendance has fallen by 50% over the past 50 years, cradle baptisms by 25%, converts by 30%, and marriages and burials by 23%. In addition, the membership has aged and continues to do so.

The Catholic Times finds this 'horrific' and calls it 'the greatest threat to the Roman Catholic Church in Britain since the Reformation'.

And since Islam is just 3% of the population, the most likely outcome is that secularism (rather than atheism) will supplant Anglicanism.

8 February 2008 at 12:57  
Anonymous mary tudor said...


Michael Canaris said...
For what it's worth, my bishop has repudiated Cantuar's reported comments here.

Our man's bishop is one of the loons-in-charge in the appalling archdiocese of Sydney

nuff said


My Majesty heard Rod Thomas on 'The World at One' a few minutes ago having a predictable pop at the archbish - it has incurred the royal displeasure that the following health warning was not also broadcast 'Rod Thomas is a prominent member of 'Reform', an unpleasant collection of bigots, bullies, papist haters and represent about 2 men and a dog - and the dog is there under duress'.

Thought for the day - the Christian right is neither :D

8 February 2008 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Archbishop Rowan Atkinson-Williams should go now. He is incapable of any meaningful communication. The secret of good communication skills is not how well one speaks but whether the listener understands what is being said. He's a failure and must go. Compare him with the Archbishop of York who, in cutting up his dog collar on national TV, graphically and convincingly expressed hsi outrage at the situation in Zimbabwe. Compare him with the Bishop of Rochester, another excellent communicator.
The problem is not with what is being said, it's with what is being heard.

8 February 2008 at 13:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Is there not a little irony here.

Muslim clerics have long called for a separate jurisdiction, only to be decried as radicals.

They rightly received little to no press, but this meant the public could not see Sharia law for what it is: barbaric.

But when a Christian leader makes any pronouncement he is immediately mocked.

It seems the Archbishop, tired of being mocked for his own worldview, has turned the tables on Islam by espousing Sharia.

As a Christian leader, he must be untruthful/out of date/misogynistic/homophobic, ergo, Sharia law is all of the above.

Perhaps he has done us all a favour by bringing this to light in a way no Muslim could.

8 February 2008 at 13:50  
Anonymous Najistani said...

The Arch Druid would like to make human sacrifices of the bloggers on the altar of Political Correctness:


January 29, 2008

"Archbishop of Canterbury calls for new law to punish 'thoughtless or cruel' words

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has called for new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking...

The Archbishop, delivering the James Callaghan Memorial Lecture in London this afternoon, said it should not just be a few forms of extreme behaviour that were deemed unacceptable, leaving everything else as fair game.

“The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,” he said.

8 February 2008 at 16:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when have 'extra' wives been able to enjoy the benefits previously only given to one ? This was news to me, and confirms that we are already capitulating too much to non-British values.

8 February 2008 at 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when have 'extra' wives been able to enjoy the benefits previously only given to one ?

When the Department of Work & Pensions sneaked it out very quietly last week, to paraphrase the words of Ian Fleming it was "For Muslim (Voters) Eyes only"

8 February 2008 at 18:50  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Methinks the following quotation applies to Dr Williams in spades:

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”

- St. John Chrysostom

However, Dr Williams may have unintentionally done the cause of Western Civilization some good, by possibly finally getting the commentariat to wake up to what is already happening in many of our major cities - namely the creeping islamization of England.

One little point of cheer. It may have been entirely coincidental, but on passing Bath Abbey today I could not help but note the Cross of St George flying from uppermost flagpole. Maybe, just maybe, at least one Anglican has at long last rediscovered a little steel in their spine...

8 February 2008 at 19:33  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

Mea culpa. In the forgoing, the last para., 2nd sentence should read "from the uppermost flagpole."

8 February 2008 at 19:37  
Anonymous R.C. said...

Let's be clear here: Not all Muslims are barbaric; only those who are faithful to the orthodox teachings of Islam are.

Not all men are fit to live in (or be citizens of) a free society. Those who voluntarily embrace teachings (whether Mao's, or Hitler's, or Muhammad's) which instruct followers to initiate force against others in order to deprive them of their freedoms are intrinsically not immigrants but invaders; not citizens but saboteurs. As such they should be denied entry to free societies, and, so far as is practical, expelled when found therein.

Not all civilizations and moral codes are sufficiently civilized to merit our praise and comradeship. The American and the Australian, the British and the French, the post-WWII Japanese and the South Korean: These societies differ but uniformly attain that level of civility which merits the respect due to equals.

The dog's breakfast that is the Arab world, on the other hand, rises scarcely a hair's-breadth above the tribalism of central Africa or the Amazon basin, and while the people enslaved therein merit our pity and our civility and our kindness when we deal with them as fellow men, they should rightfully encounter scorn and negation when they approach us as representatives or evangelists of evil ideologies and practices.

This is moral clarity. It is what Rowan Williams so entirely lacks. It is what the majority of the political class of the United Kingdom apparently lacks.

There may still be time to find and sack the university professors and schoolmasters and bureaucrats who've drummed politically-correct (and civilizationally-suicidal) nonsense into the heads of each of the last few generations of leaders. If this happens, the United Kingdom may yet pull back from the brink.

Alternatively, a surge of American-style evangelical Christianity could help counteract the septic sermons of Rowan Williams-like quislings. For, while I find some of its trappings distasteful, I would far rather live in a society where gays and philanderers were annoyingly and cloyingly exhorted to come to Jesus than in one where they were stoned to death upon discovery. And for whatever reason, those mildly nekulturny Americans have retained the kind of civilizational confidence and moral clarity which has apparently bled out of Britain in the last hundred years.

Failing either the sacking of those who poison the young against their homeland, or a robust Christianity sufficient to counter the apathetic malaise of post-modernity, we the free peoples of Europe face extinction.

So much the worse for us. So much the worse for the future of the world.

8 February 2008 at 20:44  
Anonymous William Lamberton said...

I somewhat despair of the head of the Episcopalian Church in England. His pronouncements have brought a once great Church to a state of ridicule and contempt.

I understand that he has never been involved first hand in Parish work and that may be his specific weakness.
But one must pose the question that whilst it may be the case that England is weak and stupid enough to take Williams' comments to heart, with devolved assemblies in Scotland and Ulster, I cannot see them taking any form of Sharia into their legal systems.The after all have their own sectarian problems without the additional complication of Islam but if adopted, it could unite Paisley and the Bishop of Rome

8 February 2008 at 21:15  
Blogger Roland said...

And yet the Archbishop’s naivety is astonishing. He treats Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford theological college, and assumes that his audience is made up of academics with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his professorial precision.

Are you suggesting that your learned successor should have dumbed down his ponderings, delivered to an audience of judges and legal scholars, in anticipation that eavesdroppers from the media might misrepresent what he said? Or that honest intellectual inquiry should be subordinated to the intemperate demands of posturing politicians?

Hmmm . . . I guess you would say that, wouldn't you?

8 February 2008 at 22:20  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Roland,

The furore was as a consequence of a BBC Radio 4 interview prior to his lecture, for which 'dumbing down' is a necessary prerequisite.

8 February 2008 at 23:12  
Anonymous mary 'doesn't care if this gets her banned' tudor said...

My Majesty is slightly pissed & playing very loud rock and roll :D

Rown Williams is a far, far better man than the arses who are having their wet dream baiting him.

Get a life...

9 February 2008 at 00:25  
Anonymous Michael Canaris said...

Ms Tudor,


Michael Canaris said...
For what it's worth, my bishop has repudiated Cantuar's reported comments here.

Our man's bishop is one of the loons-in-charge in the appalling archdiocese of Sydney

nuff said

I am not a Calvinist (rather, I'm a "High but Dry" churchman). From having met him once or twice, I'd say my bishop seems a fairly decent man.

As it happens, I hold Rowan Cantuar in generally high esteem.

9 February 2008 at 00:57  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"Let's be clear here: Not all Muslims are barbaric; only those who are faithful to the orthodox teachings of Islam are."

So you expect Muslims to

A. Practice the religion of Islam


B. Not acting on its actual tenets?

9 February 2008 at 01:14  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

I understand that Rowan Williams can envisage certain issues being resolved via " religious Courts" applying religious principles for a given community and that may not seem terribly outrageous.

Where, however, a divorcing couple reach a proposed solution informed by their religious heritage, or any other mediating process, there is nothing to stop that being offered in the form of an Order to the secular Court for its approval.

It is here however that the key problem lies. As a practicing lawyer I have seen the fruits of an arm's length, independently legally advised outcome rejected by a District Judge because no matter what the parties said, he regarded the outcome as not fulfilling his duty to do justice and achieve a fair solution between the parties. Judges sometimes remind parties that they are not a "rubber stamp" over such agreements and have their own independent duty.

Ultimately, the authority lies with the secular Court, and it is this. that the militant advocates of Sharia cannot accept.

This contrasts with Jesus' injunction to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to offer not a legal system, but spiritual guidance for living.

I suspect that underlying much of the furore is a sense that the Archbishop will go out on a limb for Islam and yet be less forthright over matters of importance to us such as the teaching of Christianity in schools or the whittling away of Christianity from the public arena in our public places or media.

Most important of all however, I suspect that he gave little thought to how these matters would be percieved in Africa where the interface with Sharia is rather less comfortable than debates occuring in Oxford Common rooms.

9 February 2008 at 08:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think religion plays a part in society anymore... the beliefs should be personal and personal only. I don't want to think of the judges of this country being influenced by the "voice of god" - to me, hearing voices in your head should be considered madness, not divine wisdom.

9 February 2008 at 09:48  
Anonymous mary tudor said...

Michael Canaris said...
Ms Tudor,

I am not a Calvinist (rather, I'm a "High but Dry" churchman). From having met him once or twice, I'd say my bishop seems a fairly decent man.

As it happens, I hold Rowan Cantuar in generally high esteem.

My Majesty is graciously pleased to accept that if Mr Canaris says he is not a Calvinist then he is not, My Majesty notes that he describes his bishop as a 'fairly decent man' - My Majesty detects some damning with faint prasie here :D

My Majesty has not granted Rowan Williams an audience but has discussed him with people who have met him. They universally say that he is a lovely man,

Unlike his unlovely tormentors.

9 February 2008 at 10:37  
Anonymous Realistic said...

To The Black Fingernail and every believer of the abrahamic faiths.

Its ok. If I was wrong in my research about the growth of Islam, Atheism, and Catholicism against the Church of England in the U.K.

Some people like me are just tired of all the hatred that the "people of God" has brought to the earth.

I respect religions, but I am really disappointed with their followers.

9 February 2008 at 11:32  
Blogger Lanarion said...

To Realistic.

I respect politics. But I'm really disappointed with what politicians have done. I'm tired of the wars that politicians have started, and all the hatred that 'democratically elected people' have brought to earth.

Christianity should never bring hatred. If you see hatred it is because the people who are christians are still *people* and thus flawed. Christianity never says that on this earth christians will be perfect - they reserve that honour for Jesus Christ. Although, interestingly, what happened to him?

My point is this. It is not the 'people of God' bringing hatred.

It is people.

9 February 2008 at 12:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My respect for the Archbishop is, if anything, increased by another thoughtful comment.

9 February 2008 at 16:37  
Anonymous USpace said...

IMHO Dr. Williams is insane and/or evil. He should be put out to pasture ASAP. He is a traitor to England and to all Christians and freedom-loving people everywhere; and he deserves to be hated and vilified for the rest of his life and beyond.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
the Archbishop is correct

little by little allow
mad mullahs to call the shots

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
freedom is bollocks

dismantle your human rights
earned over centuries

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never dethrone leaders

religious ones are special
give them lifetime positions

10 February 2008 at 07:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear All,

Christians wake up in UK!
You have an archibishop who want to put sharia into practice?
Are there not enough verses in the bible to comfort the sheep.
Make not mistake if you encourage the muslims the way I see it in UK the days are near when you will soon be a muslim country.
Get your acts together,pray fast and ask the holyspirit to guide your leaders

with all love
Philip from India

14 May 2008 at 21:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the 23-year-old Afghan student journalist sentenced to death for downloading ‘anti-Islamic’ material from the internet"
wow. the uk must really be going down the drain if you're executing people for possessing (anti) religious materials.

26 August 2010 at 12:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older