‘Freedom’ of Expression Under Sharia. Or Death? You Choose.
Quote below from a “demonstration” in Regents Park, London, 22nd June, 2007:
“Inshallah,” meaning “Allah willing,” he [Abu Saif] told the crowd, Blair will “go to the Middle East as an envoy, and he’ll come back in a box. Inshallah. What box that is, we leave that up to you.”
WHY DO OUR POLICE DO NOTHING ABOUT THIS? Could we say this in a Muslim country?
Comment at end
SHOOTING THE MESSENGER
Folowing the furore unleashed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s unwise words on Sharia Law on Britain, I have re-titled this page. Its original title was: “How Would Sharia Law Deal With The Archbishop’s Criticism? ”
I still pose that question. If the shoe were on the other foot, and ‘Caliph‘ Williams (committed to a worldwide caliphate) were to suggest English (‘Christian’) law be incorporated into an Islam land’s form of justice, or worse to suggest criticism of Islam, this could well be his fate.
MURDER OF THEO VAN GOGH
Dutch film maker, Theo van Gogh, descendant of Vincent van Gogh, was killed in 2004, in Amsterdam, for making a film called ‘Submission’ (the meaning of the word “Islam”). The short film highlighted the issues of extreme Islamists’ approach to women. It is hard hitting and PULLS NO PUNCHES.
But, for speaking out against the brutality of some men under fundamentalist elements within Islam, this artist paid with his life. He was shot and knifed, just to make sure, on the streets of his own land.
Couldn’t happen here?
It is now clearly in the hands of all good Muslims in Europe and around the world to organise themselves and their religion, and put an end to this threat to all of us.
Dr Williams heckled (watch video)
That, Archbishop, is what happens when you dabble in politics. And with religion, it’s a heady mix.
8th February, 2008
THE ARCHBISHOP SAID WHAT?
Rowan Williams says: “Sharia Law Inevitable”, BBC report.
For once all the political parties are singing from the same hymn book! They have rejected The Archbishop’s notion of the “inevitability of Sharia Law” for Muslims in this country.
Let’s hope they maintain that stance.
Islam has been criticised on the grounds that it is not true (on philosophical, historical, scientific or theological grounds), and that it is not moral (on ethical and political grounds).
One such topic is Islam’s tolerance (or intolerance) of criticism, and the treatment accorded to apostates in Islamic law. Another area focuses on the morality of the life of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, both in his public and personal life. Issues relating to the authenticity and morality of the Qu’ran, the Islamic holy book, are also discussed by critics. Other criticisms focus on the question of human rights in modern Islamic nations, and the treatment of women in Islamic law and practice. Recently, Islam’s influence on the ability of Muslim immigrants in the West to assimilate has been criticized. Criticism of Islam has its own rules.
What others say:
Below follows my own late night interpretation of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s highly controversial call for the incorporation of Sharia Law into OUR BRITISH culture and politics! He seemed to me to be entering an arena where churchmen and clerics should tread carefully, if at all.
Dangerous territory. Even for politicians.
The below could, arguably, have been a heavier exercise in analysis, but it was late and, frankly, I don’t think Rowan Williams’ deep and convoluted polemic deserved deeper consideration. It reads as though he were still fathoming it all out, albeit lucidly. So let others, if they wish, provide the ifs and buts and maybes.
On a read through of his speech, I concluded that he was saying, more or less, this – (paraphrased):
1. Governments are too strong, and are tempted into situations we don’t actually like, like wars. And wars can upset people, especially minorities. So, let us give real power to ALL the people in a different way; through religion – any sort’ll do, even if most people are NOT actually religious. As long as it’s not controlled, in the gift, or sanctioned by the state. And as for the law of the land, we should be flexible. And we can start off by allowing different court jurisdictions for such personal issues as, e.g. divorce, inheritance concerns, disputes with neighbours (providing they are ALSO Muslim, of course). And if it doesn’t work out we can revert back to English Law, which might, in some cases, be kinder. Then again it might not. We can have a kind of self selection pick ‘n’ mix. With a culturally/religiously guiding hand or two, or maybe five or ten, pointing, well, here, there and everywhere, more or less. To show us the way. Or ways. Sharia Law, or the Law of the Land? Well, does it matter? Will it? Oh dear, Sharia … you had better pick and you mix. I’m easy confused. Oh and we should give culture a touch of power too … whatever THAT is. Er… culture, I mean. Oh, not forgetting power. And we’ll work out the relationships when we’ve worked them all into the mix. It’ll taste lovely. I promise you this, with all my clerical understanding of these things. Whatever they are. Things, I mean.
2. …. who knows?
3. …. who cares?
4. …. Archbishop of … where?
I didn’t really expect the Archbishop to have anything positive to say about the British state & politics. He’s been drifting away for a long time. He certainly subscribes to the Guardian left’s view of the ‘crusader’ Blair.
But it comes to something when the Head of the Worldwide Anglican community genuflects to a semi-primitive set of uncodified, or badly codified mumbo-jumbo evolved to satisfy Mullah This or Imam That in Islamic State This or … well you know the rest.
With the greatest respect, it’s absolute rubbish, Archbishop.
[Re-thinking the above – WITHOUT the greatest respect.]
THIS, Sir, and not Tony Blair’s ‘sell-out to Christian Europe’, nor his struggle against religious/political fundamentalism, is TREACHERY.
You and we, ALL OF US, can thank God, or fortune, that you are not a politician.
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Worldwide Anglican Community, based in Great Britain. Defender of Dhimmitude. Writ large, and in Arabic.
To be generous I suggest that you may have been seduced by the good people within Islam, who would dearly love to bring their religious political movement into the last century. Yes, the last century. That would be a great leap (of faith) for them. At an estimate – about 600 years.
These wordy convoluted thoughts do not hide the fact that you are so thoroughly ashamed of our liberal, secular democracy that you conclude this:
A geographically rootless religion which breeds terrorism in its name, and without its blessing, and yet cannot contain or control its offspring due to the religion’s disparate nature at the top (in reality there is no ‘top’, just books open to multiple interpretation) is preferable to our democratic state hewn as it is out of centuries of democratic and political progress and a secular semi-separateness, long established, and hard won, between the crown, politics and religion.
And to such as THEY you would hand over our democracy, freedoms and culture? Lock, stock and barrel!
You, Sir, in my humble opinion, should be ashamed.
P.S. Just a ‘by the way’, lest we forget.
This co-incided with our present Dhimmi government altering the words we should use when referring to the terrorism that we are dealing with today.The idea is that the government, in some state of denial or wishful thinking, believes that we are building up terrorism by referring to them as terrorists.And … wait for it … if we use the words Islam or Muslim when referring to islamist fundamentalists we are legitimising the terrorists.Laughable. LAUGHABLE!I believe that this nonsense undermines our ability to confront ideologies which threaten our culture and our country.I am not always with Melanie Phillips, but in this thought, she is almost right.This IS a Religious War.But islamist fundamentalism, and what it leads to – (calling a spade a spade time) – means that THEIR religion IS political: Terrorism – worldwide caliphate – medieval punsihments. What do or should ANY of those have to do with religion? And they are practised by only one “religion”.
Chamberlain’s Children! Are you listening?
This is a POLITICAL / RELIGIOUS WAR.
Call it what you like. It’s brainwashing by a radical fundamentalist ideology. And many of us are taking a poluting shower.
No normal well-balanced human being could believe ANY of this rubbish. Pussy-footing around the deed, the causes and effects of the deed, will soften the deed.
Perhaps the government thinks that to avoid a third world war, sacrificing calling a spade a spade is a small price to pay.
That, of course, is arguable. But only if we are ALL doing it, everywhere around the world. The evidence does not support that. Daily, governments of the east and west use much stronger language in response to atrocities from islamist terrorists. Stronger by far than we, Chamberlain’s children dare.
WHERE HAVE ALL THE BLOGGERS GONE, LONG TIME PASSING …?
The other day a blogger mentioned something that had crossed my mind too, since Dr William’s speech. He said there seemed to be a dearth of blogging comment on the matter. I usually notice many blogs prattling on about our ‘police state’, our ‘corrupt’ government, our ‘illiberal’ approach to Islam etc etc. But the Archbishop’s remarks seem to have silenced many of them; or the resulting disquiet has left them confused and befuddled; or they can’t comment because the Archbishop put more than one thought into each sentence. Probably a combination of all three.
But now and again you read a blog which elucidates the position we are presently in. This is one such.
‘A new counter-terrorism phrasebook has been sent out to Whitehall offices, police forces and local councils to guide them on how to speak to Muslim communities about the threat of extremism without alienating them.
According to The Guardian newspaper, which has obtained a copy of the pamphlet, it advises against use of phrases like “jihadi fundamentalist” and “Islamist extremist” which might tend to suggest the authorities regard the whole Muslim community as responsible for the terror threat.
Instead, it suggests that words such as “violent extremism”, “criminal murderers” and “thugs” should be used, to avoid any suggestion of an explicit link between Islam and terror.
The document warns that the use of concepts like “the struggle for values” or “a battle of ideas” plays into the hands of those who wish to frame the issue in terms of a clash of civilisations between Islam and the West.
A more productive approach is to stress the idea of shared values, it suggests.
“This is not intended as a definitive list of what not to say but rather to highlight terms which risk being misunderstood and therefore prevent the effective reception of the message,” states the document, part of a pack created by the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that the document had been distributed to “key delivery partners” including chief constables, local authorities and Government offices a few weeks ago.
She added: “The pack is the first of a series of communications intended to brief partners about recent work to develop the ‘prevent’ strand of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and help them to identify further contributions they can make to this agenda.
“The ‘prevent’ strand relies on all sectors – public, private, voluntary and community – working with central Government in its aim of stopping people becoming or supporting violent extremists.
“Coherent and effective cross-Government communications are important in relation to countering terrorism. Language is part of this work.”‘
Click for the Daily Mail – (spit) – and the Home Secretary’s “anti-Islamic” nonsense.
You might recall that more than a year before he left office Mr Blair was laying down the foundations for politically correct language. See this remark, from the MI5 website:
‘Speaking on 21 March 2006, the Prime Minister, [Tony Blair] said: “This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core”. The third area of action to counter radicalisation is therefore a battle of ideas, challenging the ideological motivations that extremists believe justify the use of violence. In particular, we are working with communities to help them discourage susceptible individuals from turning towards extremist activity.”‘
He was omiting some of the unpleasant (linking) words, but he was clear as to the clash of values.
Why, today, are we not hearing even the above clarification from government?
APPLES OR PEARS?
Yes, it might have been worth a try, but 18 months on from then, and Brown’s government are having another go, only gentler still. But “this terrorism” as Mr Blair frequently described it, is Islamist terrorism in all but name. And don’t we all know it? And if Muslims here and elsewhere, not to mention the rest of us, think that calling an apple a pear is going to make the apple taste any different, they haven’t yet eaten enough apples.
Oh and by the way, it isn’t just the British government that has taken ‘political correctness’ to extremes. The UN did it at the end of December, 2007.
See This Telegraph article. Excerpt:
“It didn’t attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations.”
I suppose if today’s idiots had been around in the days of Hitler, they’d have banished all reference, even after the events, to the words ‘holocaust’ or ‘concentration camps’ or ‘death by gassing’.
If you have children, or hope, one day to have any, PLEASE, please wake up.