The UK's Lord Chief Justice In A Muslim Fantasy World

As Winston Churchill once commented about Stanley Baldwin, Britain's ineffectual and incompetent Prime Minister in the mid-1930's, "he will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on." Were Churchill alive today, he could well make the same remark in regards to Britain's Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, who has called for allowing a parallel legal system with Sharia law to be recognized in Britain. And indeed, Churchill's commentary on Baldwin applies essentially across the board to the U.K.'s socialist elite, all of whom seem to live in a cloistered world of pure fantasy. Unfortunately, in Britain, it is this 'chattering class' of socialist elitists who hold all the reigns of power in government, the judiciary, academia, and even the Anglican Church.

A few weeks ago, Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest priest of the Anglican Church - a man who has praised Islam, damned America as an imperialist nation to a crowd of Muslims, blamed America for Muslim violence against Christians in the Middle East, and who refuses to proselytize for Christianity among Muslims - himself advocated implementing at least parts of Sharia law in Britain. Today, Britain's Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips - the man who has overseen the gutting of Britain's anti-terrorism law, the man whose judiciary has made it impossible to deport the terrorists and radical Islamists from Britain, and the man who has helped make of the British justice system a joke as a deterrent to crime - has himself now joined this supremely misguided Archbishop in calling for at least the partial enforcement of Sharia law in Britain.

For the past millenium, it has been a foundational element of Anglo-Saxon law that no person was above the law and that one law applies to all in the kingdom. Yet now Britain's highest judge, who seemingly should be prepared to defend the ancient Anglo-Saxon legal system with his very life against any hint of encroachment, is prepared to jettison it as no longer relevant. He is calling for the impostion of two different legal systems in Britain - systems with wholly incompatible values.

One wonders if these socialist elites have a clue as to the nature of Sharia law? Do they understand the harm they are doing to all of British society - not just the majority of Muslims in the UK who wish to live in freedom - by calling for this? Do they understand that there is a war going on at this very moment for the heart and soul of Islam? Do they understand that it is a war between those who wish to live and pursue their faith under Western freedoms versus those who wish to do away with the West and impose Sharia law? All one needs to do to understand what is at stake is listen to Parts II and III of the debate on this issue between the Muslim reformer, Dr. Zhudi Jasser, and a Salafi Imam (see here).

One wonders if these socialist elites understand so little about Islam that they do not know its basic precepts. One of those precepts is that calling for Sharia to be imposed in a non-Muslim country is "actually a violation of traditional sharia, which commands that Muslims living in non-Muslim lands obey the law and respect the customs of the host countries." The call to Sharia in the UK is not made in respect of traditional Islam, but in the name of radicalization and triumphalism.

One wonders if these socialist elites understand the relationship between Sharia law, the subjugation of women and honor violence? Perhaps they would do well to read the report on it from the UK Center for Social Cohesion that played so prominently in the U.K. papers a few weeks ago.

One wonders if these socialist elites understand that the call to Sharia comes from the fanatics who reject British law and who do not want Muslims to integrate into British society. Do they understand that these same fanatics wish to impose their belief system on all of Britain and precisely what that means? When the head of the Muslim Council of Britain calls for the stoning of adulterers in Britain as part of the country-wide imposition of Sharia law, perhaps that should be a clue to these socialists that they are living in a fantasy world. Or when converts from Islam face death threats and are hunted down in Christian Britain, mayhap there is a need to fully establish the primacy and exculsivity of British laws in Britain.

With no written Constitution, with no system of checks and balances between co-equal branches of government, and with Parliament over a century ago having claimed for itself unlimited sovereignty, Britain lives in a tyranny of parliament today. Ancient rights of the British have been taken away at Parliamentary whim over the past century. Labour and Tory offer essentially the same brand of socialism. Democracy is near death in Britain and, with the transfer of sovereignty to the EU, it will be in fact be dead in all but name. The socialists are in total control and are imposing their suicidal and destructive values by fiat. They are deconstructing society at an ever increasing rate even as they hold open the floodgates to massive immigration (with corresponding massive emigration). The virulent strain of Islam now dominant in Britain and being homegrown on British soil in Deobandi seminaries is, according to the Times, even more radical than the strain animating the brutal Taliban. This is suicidal insanity. It truly is a race to see whether Britain's socialists will completely destroy what remains of Anglo-Saxon society before the rank and file of Britain revolt and either retake their country or are defeated, ending once and forever the Anglo-Saxon kingdom that has been such a positive force in the world.

The Telegraph provides the sordid details of Lord Phillips perfidy:
_____________________________________________________

This from the Telegraph:

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain.

The archbishop's remarks sparked a national debate and led to calls for his resignation.

Risking inflaming that controversy again, Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.

The judge did add that only the criminal courts should have the power to decide when a crime has been committed and when to impose punishment.

But his suggestion that different religious groups should run their affairs according to different rules sparked warnings that community cohesion could be undermined.

In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in east London, Lord Phillips said it was "not very radical" for Dr Williams to argue that Sharia law can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products.

Lord Phillips said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law."

Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why Sharia law should not be used to settle disputes in this country.

I have to intercede here. What the Lord Justice has said is incredibly disingenuous. Yes, it is possible for parties to a contract in the UK, just as in the U.S., to enter into a choice of law agreement specifying that another country's law should govern the terms of that particular agreement. However, it is a long established doctrine at common law that no court will enforce an agreement - or any law requiring a specific interpretation of an agreement - that contravenes the public policy of the state. There is no question that Sharia law, particularly as to marriage and family, is at odds with the values - and thus the public policy - of the West in many respects. See the links discussing this below. To continue with the Telegraph article:

He said: "There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."

He added: "It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

Sharia law suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.

"Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands or death for those fail to comply with the law," he said.

"In some countries the courts interpret Sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here."

The judge said Dr Williams had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by Sharia law.

Lord Phillips said that the archbishop was saying only that "it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law".

There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce.

However some critics say that women marrying under Sharia law do not have the same rights as in English law, and could lead to them being treated as second class citizens as far as divorce settlements, custody of children and inheritance go.

Muslim and Christian politicians expressed fears that at a time of heightened tensions, encouraging Muslims to live by their own distinct rules could make it harder for different communities to integrate.

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing Sharia law in parts of the UK would be divisive.

He said: "This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society.

"The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently.

"What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding."

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said Lord Phillips' suggestion was "totally unacceptable."

He said: "It is very unhelpful for community cohesion. This is the sort of thing that builds up tensions in areas like mine, in places like Bradford. Sharia law has got no place in any shape or form in British law."

Andrew Selous, a Tory MP and chairman of the all-party Christians in Parliament group, said calls like those made by Lord Phillips and the archbishop were "worrying."

. . . A spokesman for Dr Williams said: "We welcome the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice as a positive and constructive contribution to this important and ongoing debate." . . .

Read the entire article.

You can find the links responding to why the Archbishop of Canterbury's calls for Sharia law were so misguided here, here and here. They apply with equal force to the foolish Lord Chief Justice. But perhaps the most articulate statement of just how suicidally misguided acquiescing to calls for recognizing Sharia law in the UK is comes from the Sufi Muslim author and Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, who writes:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Communion, doubtless thought he was making a positive contribution to interfaith relations when he gave a speech on February 7 suggesting that some form of official recognition in Britain for elements of sharia--Islamic religious law--is "unavoidable." . . .

Britons--some 3 percent of whom are Muslims--were disturbed by more than Williams's naiveté. Many Muslim immigrants came to the West to escape the excesses of Islamic ideology in countries like Pakistan, where extremism is advancing. Imposition of sharia could deny these immigrants' children opportunities to become successful in British society or elsewhere in the West.

What the archbishop ignored is that British Muslim radicals raise the demand for sharia as an ideological banner. They hope to separate Muslims from their non-Muslim neighbors, the easier to recruit and indoctrinate believers for jihadism. George Carey, Rowan Williams's predecessor as archbishop of Canterbury, warned in the Sunday Telegraph of February 10 that sharia might perpetuate Muslim ghettoes in Britain.

But sharia is not a sound-bite topic. Paradoxically, ignorance of sharia among non-Muslims is matched by a similar void among the radical agitators, who chiefly seek publicity with their demands and threats. Unschooled in Islamic law, they equate sharia with their own improvised notions of religious justice. In reality, sharia is a complex system of jurisprudence, differently applied by four different Sunni and two Shia schools of interpretation.

One aspect of sharia governs religious customs that are not normally the subject of public law in the West--things like diet, prayer, burial, and zakat, the obligatory contribution for relief of the poor. Non-Muslims need not be concerned about, say, clerical supervision of the slaughtering of meat. In this limited sense, sharia already functions on a voluntary basis in Britain and wherever Muslims live, and poses no threat to Western legal systems.

. . . Further, a "shadow sharia" already exists in Britain: informal courts, usually handling family matters or alleged apostasy, that impose forcible marriage and divorce. But sharia fanatics call for something more: They want the public enforcement of religious decrees. Obligatory sharia for Muslims, enforced by the British state, is the ultimate threat implicit in Archbishop Williams's call for accommodation.

Counterintuitive as it may seem, the Islamists' call for introduction of Islamic religious law in the West is an innovation, not heard in Europe or the United States before the radicalization of Muslims at the end of the 1970s. This is because it is actually a violation of traditional sharia, which commands that Muslims living in non-Muslim lands obey the law and respect the customs of the host countries. This requirement is spelled out, for instance, in the sharia volume A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West (1999), which quotes the moderate Iraqi Shia ayatollah Ali Sistani pronouncing that Muslims living in non-Muslim nations must commit themselves "to abide by the laws of that country," as they implicitly promise to do when they sign an immigration form. If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory.

Traditional sharia also forbids antagonizing the local majority in non-Muslim societies. Through most of Islamic history, jihad against non-Muslims referred to warfare between states and armies, not infiltration and conspiracy. For normal Muslims, there is a duty to protect one's family and community by showing a good civic example to non-Muslims.

Many great Islamic polities--including the Ottoman empire, the most powerful Muslim state in history--refused to grant primacy of sharia over common law. The Turks maintained a legal standard, kanun, for administration of government, taxation, and related affairs and left sharia to family and religious matters. Exclusive authority for sharia is an Arab and Pakistani fixation, occasionally sprouting in the margins of the Islamic global community--in parts of Nigeria, northern Malaysia, and the Muslim diaspora in the West.

Family law is the most controversial aspect of sharia, because radical Muslim concepts of modesty, and traditional regulation of marriage and divorce, violate Western canons on women's equality. Many Muslim clerics in Western Europe acquiesce in, and offer mendacious legal interpretations to support, such offenses as wife-beating, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced marriage, forced divorce, and the Saudi practice of "tourist marriage." (Late last year, the Saudi daily al-Watan claimed that Saudis have spent $25 million over the past three years on this scam, in which Saudi men on vacation deceptively marry local women for a summer, then divorce them before returning to the kingdom. Some of this behavior is derived from local cultures, but it has been assimilated by Islamist ideology.)

In practice, government recognition of the jurisdiction of sharia courts over matters of common law in the West would mean either sharia on the cheap dominated by ignorant radicals depriving British Muslims of their due rights--or an extremely elaborate system making room for the six main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, providing for an administrative apparatus, certification of judges, appeals, and so on, creating a major burden on the public budget. Sharia as a basis for strictly voluntary mediation of family or business disputes might sound well and good, except for the likely appointment of radicals as arbiters.

Archbishop Williams failed to see that demands for sharia in the West have little to do with increased respect for Islam and everything to do with the continuing radicalization of Muslims. His lightminded remarks aggravate, rather than diminish, the growing tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain, the West's main center for expansion of radical Islam.

Read the entire article.

Update: For a good view of how many in the chattering class seem to approach this issue, see UK columnist Peter Osborne in the Independent today. His take is that the problems associated with Islam are all a "Islamaphobia" - mere figments of the imagination of the BNP types. For some reason, he chose to ignore in his article all of the attacks and attempted attacks by Muslims occurring after 7/7, the most recent being an attempted massacre just a little over a month ago. In that incident, Muslim fanatics had armed and sent off a mentally retarded young man who attempted to massacre a lunch-time crowd at a busy UK restaurant. A phobia is an irrational fear. I would say the average Brit's concern with radical Islam in their borders is quite rational.

This is such misguided leftist fantasy as to defy belief. But the UK's left is no different from the elitist, fantasy based intelligentsia in the U.S. There is no more shining example of that than Obama. He believes he can meet and reason with the fanatical and deadly theocrats in Iran because, he believes, they will respond to economic incentives. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the motivations of Iran's theocracy. Perhaps if it was just Iran, it could be forgiven as merely a lack of knowledge on this existentially important topic. But it is more fundamental than that. Recall Obama's 'bitter people cling to guns and religion' remark. He likewise sees all people even here in the U.S. as having no principles more important than their immediate economics. He lives in a fantasy world where all share his values or can be rendered benign and brought to share his values with economic incentives. He is no less dangerous than the socialist elites who today control Britain.

Western civilization is in for one hell of a rocky ride. I wonder if we will recognize that which is left at the end of it.

Read More...

Summary only...

And They Are Just Figuring This Out Now?

When socialism was born in the French Revolution, the socialists went to war against Christianity. Fifty years or so later, Marx wrote that religion is the "opiate of the masses" - while sitting in a library in London, if I recall correctly. The British socialist party wrote in their 1911 manifesto that "it is a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion." So its taken two centuries for the Anglican Church to figure out that Britain's socialists - today found in the Labour Party - are anti-Christian? Talk about your incredibly slow learners.
________________________________________________________

This today from the Times:

The policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have helped to generate a spiritual, civic and economic crisis in Britain, according to an important Church of England report.

Labour is failing society and lacks the vision to restore a sense of British identity, the report says in the Church’s strongest attack on the Government for decades. It accuses the Government of “deep religious illiteracy” and of having “no convincing moral direction”.

The report, commissioned for the Church of England and to be published on Monday, accuses the Government of discriminating against the Christian Churches in favour of other faiths, including Islam. It calls for the appointment of a “Minister for Religion”, who would act as the Prime Minister’s personal “faith envoy” and who would recognise the contribution of faith communities to Britain across every government department.

. . . The report comes only days after Dr Sentamu accused Mr Brown of sacrificing liberty for misguided notions of equality and of betraying new Labour’s mantra of “rights and responsibilities”. It shows the extent to which church leaders feel betrayed by the Government’s embrace of a secular agenda.

The authors find evidence of deep-seated hostility to the Church in particular, excluding it from important areas of policy and research – despite Mr Blair being one of the most devout prime ministers of the past century. They portray a Government committed to research into Muslim communities but barely interested in Christian involvement in Britain’s civic and charitable life.

. . . Academics from the Von Hugel Institute at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, approached every Church of England bishop as well as more than 250 MPs, peers and academics. About 70 of the 106 diocesan and suffragan bishops responded. “Every participant in our study from the Church agreed that there was a deep ‘religious illiteracy’ on the part of the Government, especially on the local level, and that an increased tendency to centralised, mega-contracts in some government departments was bad for the whole of the voluntary sector,” they write. . . .

Read the entire article. British society has been coming apart at the seams for a long time as socialism has become ever more dominant. Half the problem is that the Anglican Church has an absolute sociliast nut job as its highest minister - Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams - a man who seems an apologist for Islam and blames the West for Islamic radicalism. He is not only ineffective as the archbishop, he himself is a threat to Christianity in Britain.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Multicultural Fool of Canterbury

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the priest who recently supported allowing some form of Sharia law in Britain, is a fool who has no business whatsoever as the clerical head of the Anglican Church. He is an inveterate marxist and a pure multiculturalist who sees Western society and America as destructive forces, while accepting Islam non-judgmentally.

In his latest idiocy, the Archbishop has stated that "Christians in the Middle East are facing persecution because of British and American foreign policy," and more particularly, that the "indigenous Christian community throughout the [Middle East] have suffered from being associated with the American global project . . ." In other words, he blames America for the murderous rampages of radical Islamists while absolving them of responsibility for their actions.

Archbishop Williams might wish to educate himself as to the actual dogma of the radical Islamists - any post by Tawfiq Hamid would be a good start. Radical Sunni and Shia Islamists seek regional and global domination with nary a mention of America's "global project." He also might wish to map out where these radical Islamists hold sway - it happens to be all of the same locales where Christians are being persecuted. As to the "global project" of America, we are clearly having an effect on religious intolerance in the Middle East, it is just not the one this fool of an Archbishop is positing.



The above is Michael Yon's iconic photo from Baghdad of Christians and Muslims placing a cross back on top of a Church in Baghdad. The story that goes with that photo is here. And Williams might also want to test his hypothesis by discussing it with Rev Canon Andrew Whit, the Anglican Priest for Iraq, who seems of a different mind. And indeed, the American Project seems to be having a similar effect in the larger world, as the radical sects of Islam are weakened.

In parting, let me ask, who will rid us of this troublesome - and supremely misguided - priest?

(H/T Dinah Lord)

Read More...

Summary only...

More Relating To The Mad Archbishop of Canterbury

More things related to the mad Archbishop of Canterbury who has called for the official recognition of aspects of Sharia law in Britain.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have previously blogged on the Archbishop's madness here and here. And I have posted on a report about the prevelance of forced marraige, female genital mutilation, and honor violence in the UK's Muslim population - all of which have a direct or indirect relation to Islam and Sharia law - here. The report also dicusses the problems Britain faces in trying to end these scourges.

There is a case today before Senior Law Judges in the UK where the plaintiff is asking the Court to hold a "forced" marriage - which are recognized as valid under Sharia law - be held null for lack of consent under the public policy of Britain:

Three senior judges are to rule on the legality of an arranged marriage conducted in the UK under sharia law, a judgment that could have profound consequences for British Muslims.

Last week, as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared it was 'inevitable' that certain parts of Islamic law would be introduced into Britain, the Court of Appeal was told how a 26-year-old British Muslim with learning difficulties was married over the telephone to a woman in Bangladesh. It was arranged by the man's father and deemed lawful under sharia law.

Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Hall and Lady Justice Hallett were asked by the man's family to reject an earlier decision that, because the groom was unable to give his consent, the marriage was unlawful. Mr Justice Wood said that the true test into the validity of the marriage was 'whether the marriage is so offensive to the conscience of the English court that it should refuse to recognise and give effect to the proper foreign law'.

The judge added that the long-standing British policy to recognise sharia marriages conducted abroad should be offset by the understanding that 'there are occasions when such a marriage cannot be recognised in England, for example where to do so would be repugnant to public policy'.

The case was brought by Westminster city council community services department after the local authority raised concerns about a marriage in which the groom could not possibly have given consent because of his learning disabilities.

The marriage took place in September 2006. Although the bridegroom stayed in London and listened to the ceremony by speakerphone, the ceremony took place in Bangladesh and was declared valid under sharia law.

Yogi Amin of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, representing Westminster council, said: 'This case highlights that the law in this country may clash with sharia law and the cultural wishes of the family.' He added: 'The High Court held that the marriage in this case ... is not valid under English law, and that any marriage entered into by this vulnerable adult whether inside or outside England will not be recognised under English law.'

Legal experts said the case would have ramifications for plans to make forced marriages - often arranged marriages involving youngsters - prohibited in the UK under case law. . . .

Read the article. It should be noted that the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has "block[ed] attempts to criminalise forced marriage."

The reaction to the Archbishop across the pond has been heartening. For example, from the Times today, Minnette Marrin writes: "Archbishop, You Have Committed Treason." Then there is this exceptional article in the Times which does an excellent job of catalouging not only the "backlash" to the Archbishop's remarks, but also gives possibly the most thorough and balanced discussion of Sharia law and its application in other countries that I have seen so far..

The Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has weighed in on the contreversy, saying "I don't believe in a multicultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land."

And Ali Eteraz writes why he is oposed to Sharia courts in the UK.

Read More...

Summary only...

More On The Mad Archbishop's Call for Introducing Sharia Law In The UK

I blogged on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan William's call for officially recognizing aspects of Sharia law in Britain. In the wake of that, there have been calls by many for the resignation of the Archbishop. The BBC, on the other hand, asked whether this reaction is "Islamophobia?" There have also been several good articles out as to Sharia law and why it has no place whatsoever in the West - even though, it has apparently been reconized as a means of dispute resolution in Texas and Minnesotta.






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If one questions how deeply the socialist multicultural mindset has poisoned Britain, one need only look to the BBC, which, on the evening the news broke about the Archbishop's call for Sharia law in the UK, ran their "Newsnight Programme" on the issue of "Has the reaction to the Archbishop's Sharia law comments been Islamophobic?" To question anything about another culture is racism in the socialist world of identity politics and multiculturalism.

This article from the Daily Times covers most of the issues that have arisen in the wake of the Archbishop's call:

The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.

Leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.

With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.

. . . Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a "state of shock" and "completely overwhelmed" by the scale of the row.

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".

Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy

. . . Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.

Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.

"If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live."

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, rejected the idea that British law forces Muslims to choose between their religion and their society.

He said: "This will alienate people from other communities because they will think it is what Muslims want - and it is not."

The Muslim Council of Britain came to Dr Williams's aid, however, describing his comments in a lecture to lawyers and a BBC interview as "thoughtful".

But Oxford University Islamic scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan admitted: "These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens. I really think we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles."

. . . Liberal and feminist critics have been appalled by the thought of sharia law while evangelical opponents believe Dr Williams has failed to defend Christianity.

. . . He was more blunt in a circular to clergy in his diocese, saying he had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of incorporating any non-Christian religious law into the English legal system. . . .

Read the article.There are several major points in the above article worthy of further highlighting. One, Sharia law is substantively different from the laws and customs of the West, as Bishop Nazir-Ali noted. You can find a good explanation of Sharia law here. It should be noted that Sharia law is fundamentally different even on issues of family law, where, for example, the male is favored, polygamy and paedophilia is allowed, and a woman's testimony carries less weight than a man's.

Further, as one commentor in the Telegraph noted, just because we allow some religious courts to function, does not mean that Sharia courts should be afforded the same rights:

. . . Archbishop Williams looks, in a similar spirit, at the realm of law. He sees law as deriving ultimately from religious, not rationalist, principles. He notes how orthodox Judaism has its own Beth Din courts which do not quarrel with the secular law. His own Church of England, too, has its courts, he pointed out. Because we have an Established Church, their decisions have the force of secular law. They settle things like the rights of parochial church councils. Few people see them as instruments of clerical oppression.

So, says the archbishop, we in Britain clearly do not have "a monopolistic understanding of jurisdiction". Why not extend this plurality to Muslims? Why not allow sharia in some areas, such as marriage disputes?

Many people, surely, would want to follow the broad arguments of president and archbishop, but then stop before they do. Most people with any understanding of European culture will disagree with the militant secularists such as Richard Dawkins, who want any trace of Christianity expunged from our institutions and public life.

In the British context, many non-believers would recognise that, for instance, the state funding of Church schools has done much more good than harm. It would be crazy to cut the schools off now, in the abstract interests of neutrality.

And yes, most of us, believers or not, surely agree that one must permit Muslims to worship freely, and encourage all their genuine charitable and educational activities.

Yet there is a dreadful sense of unreality about the assertion, made both by Mr Sarkozy and by Dr Williams, that whatever applies to Christianity and to Judaism in the West can be applied, just like that, to Islam.

As a post-Vatican II Catholic myself, I share the ecumenical beliefs of most modern Christians. One of these is that Islam, being one of the three "Abrahamic" religions, has a great deal in common with Christianity, and that these common roots should be cultivated. It contains truth, and wisdom, and has built civilisations.

But it is also blindingly obvious that the current state of Islam is quite different from that of Christianity. Western societies are hosts to large numbers of Muslims, who quarrel fiercely among themselves and include extreme, sometimes violent minorities. Goodness knows, the history of Christianity is scarred with such things, but at the moment, in the West, Christian violence is not a big problem. Muslim violence is. If we incorporated sharia in our legal system, whom would we accept as its authentic interpreters?

In his lecture, Archbishop Williams tiptoes round the question, in sharia, of apostasy. He says it is unacceptable that people are punished for leaving the Muslim faith. But he cannot bring himself to say, which he knows to be true, that all the Muslim schools of law agree that the punishment for abandoning the Muslim religion is death. Some people, even in this country, live in hiding because they fear this.

"Sharia," says Dr Williams, "is not intrinsically to do with any demand for Muslim domination over non-Muslims." Actually, under sharia, Jews and Christians have only what is called "dhimmi" status, a sort of protected, but second-class citizenship.

But in a way, he is right. Sharia does not "demand" domination; it assumes it. The law of Islam is radically different from the law of Judaism, which is the law of a minority that accepts the authority of the majority, non-Jewish state. Islam, like Christianity, is a religion of conversion. Its sharia, unlike the teachings of Christianity, is a programme of law to be turned into a political reality, if possible everywhere.

Poor, dear Dr Williams mutters into his beard about a "market element" of taking a bit of sharia, and a bit of this and a bit of that, as if these things were herbs to spice our multicultural soup. People who want sharia do not see it like that. For them, it must be the only dish on the table.

And if I were French, even though I would agree with President Sarkozy's rejection of doctrinaire secularism, I would not accept that building lots more mosques is the same as building more churches. More than these leaders wish to admit, this is a zero-sum game.

I am surprised that Dr Williams did not, apparently, consider a rather important moment in the history of his own faith. When Jesus was tried, the Roman civil power could find no fault with him. But because it was under such pressure from the religious authorities of Judaea, who said that Jesus was a blasphemer, it handed him over to them.

So Pontius Pilate, you could argue, let Dr Williams's "market element" into the rule of law, with fatal results. Jesus was crucified.

Read the entire article. And it cannot be emphasized enough that all evidence is that the majority of Muslims in Britain want nothing to do with Sharia law.

That said, the truth is that the Labour has allowed Muslim Courts to assert dominance and, indeed, tolerates "Sharia" courts that solve not only family law issues, but also, in some cases, criminal matters:

The extent to which sharia law already operates in Britain was the subject of concern yesterday after it emerged that at least 10 Islamic "courts" are sitting across the country.

The existence of the courts, in towns and cities including London and Birmingham, heightened anxiety following the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks that the introduction of some elements of Islamic law was "unavoidable".

The majority of cases heard in the courts involve divorce or financial disputes, but one reported case involved a gang of Somali youths who were allowed to go free after paying compensation to a teenager they had stabbed.

Extremists were said to have used the spread of sharia courts to justify calls for Islamic law to be adopted "wholesale" for Muslims living in Britain.

Anjem Choudary, a solicitor and former senior figure in the banned organisation Al-Muhajiroun, said: "Some element of family law or social and economic law will not work. It has to be adopted wholesale. It will not happen tomorrow but it is inevitable because sharia is superior and better for mankind."

Despite grave warnings from lawyers about the dangers of a dual legal system, criminal cases are already being dealt with by some of the unofficial courts.

In 2006 an Islamic Council sitting in Woolwich, south-east London, heard the case of the Somali gang, who had been accused of stabbing another Somali teenager and were reportedly arrested by the police.

Aydarus Yusuf, a youth worker, told Radio 4's Law in Action programme that the suspects were released on bail after the victim's family said the matter would be dealt with by the Islamic community. "All their uncles and fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf.

"So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing." The Metropolitan Police said it was unaware of the case, but admitted that officers sometimes did not proceed with assault cases if the victim decided not to press charges.

Mr Yusuf told the programme that he felt more bound by sharia law than by the laws of his adopted country.

"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law,'' he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious, it's just a cultural thing.''

. . . The first sharia court in the UK started in Birmingham in 1982, and others have followed in London, Rotherham and Dewsbury, West Yorks.

Although their rulings are not recognised by English law, participants often agree to abide by the court's decision in the same way that Jewish civil disputes are often settled in their own court, the Beth Din.

. . . Omar Bakri Mohammed, the former leader of Al-Muhajiroun, who is banned from entering the UK, said: "If sharia law were introduced it would have all kinds of benefits. It would get rid of drinking, night clubs, casual sex, homosexuality, prostitution, gambling and usury."

David Pannick QC, a leading human rights barrister, said that if criminal law and marriages were dealt with by sharia courts "it would lead to the breakdown of society, if some groups could just ignore laws that applied to others".

Read the entire article. My own belief is that the Sharia courts, even operating unofficially on matters of family law, should be declared illegal and Britain should enforce its status as the sole authority to grant marriage or divorce. I base this on the degree of coercion of women in the Muslim community and how it all plays into honor violence. You can read the very recent report on that issue here.

I also blogged yesterday that we are seeing some allowance in our own courts in Texas and Minnesotta for the application of Sharia law iarbitration agreements. The way our legal system works, you can decide in advance which law shall govern your contractual obligations. The courts will enforce those obligations under the chosen law so long as it does not contravene public policy - i.e., fair and equal treatment of women, etc. I have not seen the cases in which it has been applied in America, but I have confidence that they involve discreet matters and would, in no case, approach the degree and dimension of allowing Sharia courts to function as a legal body under their own laws, such as the Archbishop suggested. Further, I would hope our courts refuse to enforce even discrete agreements when it involves people of different sexes, given the misogony and coercion systemic in Islam.

See another update here that includes discussion of a court case in the UK asking to rule on the legality of forced marriages.

Read More...

Summary only...

Insanity Of Biblical Proportions

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has seen fit to sharply criticize the U.S. for imperialism to an appreciative audience of Muslims. He also criticized the U.S. for having done nothing to rebuild Iraq's physical or political infrastructure. As to Western civilization as a whole, he muses to this audience that"“[o]ur modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”

As to any criticism of Islam - i.e., the most imperialistic force in history that has left nearly every country in which it has become ascendent a medieval backwater, and not to mention that it has been the driving force responsible for untold carnage in the world over the past two decades - he had words of praise for the Muslim habit of praying 5 times a day. You will find the article here.

Rather than question the Archbishop's sanity, let alone his grasp on reality, it is probably better just to make this brief but wholly appropriate reply in which, I am sure, most Americans will join:





[scroll down]

Update: Victor David Hanson felt a bit more loquacious:

ONE, who is clearing the decks and moving on? And who are the "other people" putting Iraq back together? Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? The British in Basra? First, we read from the anti-war Left that the US is wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of its lives in Iraq, and yet now that we are clearing the decks and not putting it back together? Which is it?

. . . THREE, he should also tally up the amount of money the U.S. has spent for civic and economic development in Iraq over four years, and then compare that to what Britain invested in any four-year period in their centuries-long occupation of India.

. . . FIVE, if he is worried about the soul of civilization in general, and the U.S. in particular, he might equally ask his Muslim interviewers about the status of women in the Muslim world, polygamy, female circumcision, the existence of slavery in the Sudan, the status of free expression and dissent, and religious tolerance (i.e., he should try to visit Mecca on his next goodwill, interfaith tour) .

SIX, all Williams will accomplish is to convince Episcopalians in the U.S. not to follow the Anglican Church, and most Americans in general that, if they need any reminders, many of the loud left-wing British elite, nursed on envy of the US, still petulant over lost power and influence, and scared stiff of the demographic and immigration trends in its own country, are well, unhinged.

Read it here.

Read More...

Summary only...