 Former Archbishop of Canterbury is ruffling British cultural and religious elites by warning against uncontrolled Islamic immigration that threatens Britain’s ”very ethos or DNA.” “The idea that Britain can continue to welcome with open arms immigrants who immediately establish their own tribunals to apply Sharia, rather than make use of British civil law, is deeply socially divisive,” Lord Carey warned in a January 7 Times of London op-ed. “The last thing any of us want is ghettos. And while we don’t expect groups to assimilate, there must be a willingness on their part to integrate with the rest of British society.” Carey was appointed to his former position by Margaret Thatcher and, in retirement, has sometimes offered a corrective to the left-leaning proclivities of his successor, Archbishop Rowan Williams. In America, as in Britain, left-leaning religious groups, most recently the U.S. National Association of Evangelicals, are urging more liberalized immigration laws. In Britain, the stakes are higher, with proportionally much higher levels of Muslim immigration, creating pockets of urban culture where Islamic mores prevail.
Carey has joined a coalition of British parliamentarians urging sharper controls on immigration. But somewhat unlike the parliamentary group, the former head of the Church of England and the global Anglican Communion is specifically urging that immigrants affirm Britain’s democratic heritage. Citing the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, and a free press, Carey lamented that “some groups of migrants” are “ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions” because they embody the Britain’s “liberal democratic values.” He specifically exampled a proposed antiwar Islamist march as evidence of the dangers that “extremists pose to British society.” As in America, where left-leaning religious elites deride any concerns about immigration as xenophobic, Carey has been widely lambasted in Britain. And he stands virtually alone as a senior churchman public urging more careful immigration, with an eye to Islam’s potentially dangerous growth. In a recent BBC radio broadcast, Carey shared his desire for a “country that values its Christian heritage and democratic standards and all that this country has fought over.” He also asserted that Britain needs a “tougher church” as “Christians are so very often so soft” and “allow other people to walk over us” because “we don’t want to upset other people.” Britain’s retired senior archbishop declared Christians must be “more outspoken.”
The Christian and Jewish idea to ‘welcome the stranger” must be affirmed, Carey said. But uncontrolled immigration could allow Britain to be “destabilized” and the creation of “ghettoes.” “Too often in recent years the call for a rational debate on mass migration has degenerated into name-calling and charges of racism,” Carey bemoaned in his newspaper op-ed. “Even the campaign for Balanced Migration, which I have supported, representing cross-party politicians, has barely been heeded by party leaders who have run scared of the issue.” Britain should “welcome the contribution of both economic migrants and asylum seekers to our lively cosmopolitan culture.” But uncontrolled borders that permit “new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own,” will stretch “almost to breaking point the enormous reserves of tolerance and generosity of the British people” and could damage Britain’s “future harmony.” Carey warned that irresponsible immigration policies policies would facilitate support for the far-right British National Party and “otherwise decent people supporting modern-day fascism.” In somewhat veiled critique of the current British government, Carey noted the Prime Minister has emphasized “shared values” such as “tolerance, fair play, pluralism.” But Carey retorted that those traits are not uniquely British and the nation must also look to “language, institutions and our shared history in valuing what it means to be British and what we could lose if the make-up of our nation changes too rapidly.” “It is my firm view that our society owes more to our Christian heritage than it realizes and to overlook this inheritance of faith will lead to the watering down of the very values of tolerance, openness, inclusion and democracy that we claim are central to all we stand for,” Carey warned. In his radio interview, he rejected any specific immigration policy against “non-Christian populations,” which would violate Britain’s “generous spirit.” But he did urge immigration policies that favored immigrants who affirm British “values.” Other religious voices have responded negatively to Carey. Bishop of Lincoln John Saxbee, the Church of England’s immigration spokesman in the House of Lords, demanded a “more nuanced” approach from Carey. “Christians across the country work hard to generate a culture of hospitality rather than hostility towards those who come to live, work and worship among us,” Saxbee was quoted as saying in the Independent of Ireland. “I am sure Lord Carey would not want to do or say anything which might make our task more difficult in that respect,” he harrumphed. United Reformed Church clergy and social justice activist Vaughan Jones was quoted by Ekklesia as more explicitly deriding Carey’s stance. “Crude, populist and simplistic comments like those of the former Archbishop add nothing new or helpful to the debate,” he sniffed. “The migrant is not a stranger to the church to be accepted or rejected at our convenience. We are brothers and sisters within a transnational and interdependent global community which transcends the Archbishop’s narrow and outdated nationalism.” Traditional Religious Left voices simplistically distill immigration law as simply a question of “hospitality.” Lord Carey, with more nuance than his ostensibly more sophisticated critics, seems to understand civil law’s supreme obligation to safeguard society. FPM 
 by Joan Smith When demonstrators gathered in London yesterday to protest against sharia, the Archbishop of Canterbury was otherwise engaged with the Pope. It's almost two years since Rowan Williams caused an outcry when he suggested that recognising aspects of sharia would help social cohesion, and, every day, evidence accumulates to show how wrong he was.
Women, girls and young men desperately need protection from religious laws and the patriarchal attitudes associated with them, as two ghastly events demonstrated last week. First, on Monday evening, a young mother was found dying from head injuries in a street in West London. Geeta Aulakh worked as a receptionist at Sunrise Radio in Ealing and was on her way to pick up her sons from a childminder when she was attacked.
As soon as I learned that her right hand had been hacked off, I assumed it was an "honour" killing, and I'm unconvinced by the claim of a senior police officer that "it could be a defence wound". The right hand has huge significance in Sikh culture and Jasvinder Sanghera, founder of the South Asian women's organisation Karma Nirvana, has described in her autobiographical book Shame how important "honour" is in some Sikh communities.
Geeta Aulakh left her husband last year after a troubled marriage and was in the process of getting divorced. Her sister Anita Shinh said she had felt threatened for months: "She feared for her life, but she wasn't able to talk about it to anyone. She didn't want to worry us." Also last week, a Muslim man appeared in court in Blackburn: Aurang Zeb made history earlier this year when he was one of the first people to be served with a forced marriage protection order, preventing him taking his daughter Rozina Akhtar to Pakistan to marry her cousin against her will. After the order was imposed in February, Zeb tried to force his son to attack his mother and sister, and threatened to kill his wife and cut out her tongue. Last week he was convicted of breaching the order, forbidden to contact his family and ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service. Shazia Qayum of Karma Nirvana criticised the sentence, pointing out there was clear evidence that Zeb had threatened to kill his wife. "Community service? He should have been locked up," she said. The MP for Blackburn is the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, and earlier this year the Government's forced marriage unit started holding confidential forced marriage surgeries in the town. In the first nine months of last year, the unit gave advice or support in 1,308 cases nationally and intervened directly in 388, a 100 per cent increase on the same period in 2007.
These figures are shocking and encouraging at the same time: as The Independent on Sunday reported last year, the extent of forced marriage and "honour" crimes in this country is only beginning to be revealed. It's sometimes argued that forced marriage and "honour" crimes have nothing to do with religion, as though faith and cultural practices are separate. Obviously they aren't, and "honour" crimes happen in circumstances where ideas about the superiority of male relatives are entrenched through religion. There is a bigger point here: the shift away from a tribal social structure, where senior males expect to enjoy unchallenged authority based on religious texts, is a key condition of modernity.
It's supported not just by secularists but by Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and Christians who want to practise their faith in the modern world. They're on the right side of the argument – and of history. The Independent
By Steve Doughty | 29th June At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.
 Disputes: Islamic leaders rule on disagreements
However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said. Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act. But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October. Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts. But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques. Read more here... Source: Daily Mail
How do you solve a problem like sharia?By Johann Harri For five days now, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been chorusing: how do you solve a problem like Sharia? Ever since he suggested it is "unavoidable" – and desirable – for Britain to have Islamic courts ruling on Muslim family affairs, bashing the bishop has become a national sport. But this row shouldn't be just about the pitiful contortions of the head of a dying Church. Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned. If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of "cultures" that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools. Read more ...Source: JohannHari.com
 By Mark Tooley Early last year, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams suggested that Great Britain accept aspects of Islamic law, or Sharia. Despite the ensuing controversy, he is now claiming some vindication, declaring that Sharia’s partial codification into British law “seems inevitable. Indeed, “a number of fairly senior people” in Britain share his view, Williams insisted, probably correctly. Meanwhile, the Archbishop engaged in interfaith outreach by visiting a Muslim group in Libya that Muammar Kaddafi founded. Williams heads the Church of England and is the spiritual leader of nearly 80 million Anglicans globally, many of whom, especially in Nigeria, are suffering under the oppressions of Islamic law. The archbishop made his comments at a recent global gathering of Anglican bishops in Egypt, where the Christian minority, although under ostensibly under a moderate Muslim regime, still suffers under Sharia inspired restrictions. Although not completely clueless about the threat that theocratic Islam poses to Christians and others, the purportedly very intellectual Archbishop blithely insisted that a partial Sharia in Britain is acceptable. Read more ...Source: FrontPage MagazineRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
By Martin Beckford The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his controversial comments about the introduction of Islamic law to Britain and claimed that public opinion is now behind him. On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it "seems inevitable" that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country's legal code, he claimed "a number of fairly senior people" now take the same view. He added that there is a "drift of understanding" towards what he was saying, and that the public sees the difference between letting Muslim courts decide divorces and wills, and allowing them to rule on criminal cases and impose harsh punishments. However critics insist that family disputes must be dealt with by civil law rather than according to religious principles, and claim the Archbishop's comments have only helped the case of extremists while making Muslim women worse off, because they do not have equal rights under Islamic law. Read more ...Source: TelegraphH/T: Jihad WatchRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
The Archbishop of Canterbury has joined widespread criticism over a BBC decision not to run a Gaza aid appeal after more than 50 MPs backed a move to increase pressure on the broadcaster. By Urmee Khan The decision has also angered sections of the public: at least 11,000 people have complained to the Corporation over its refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Crisis Appeal. The DEC, which includes the British Red Cross, Oxfam, Save the Children and 10 other charities, plans to launch its appeal on Monday. All the main broadcasters including, ITV, Channel 4 and Five have agreed to air a two-minute appeal. The BBC's refusal to broadcast the appeal has been widely criticised across the spectrum from parliamentarians to religious groups and broadcasters. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said: "My feeling is that the BBC should broadcast an appeal." However, the BBC continues to refuse to transmit the appeal because executives believe it might dent its reputation for impartiality. It also believes Gaza may not be stable enough to allow aid to be delivered. Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC Trust, has written to Mark Thompson, the corporation's Director General, defending Mr Thompson's right not to broadcast the appeal. Read more ...Source: TelegraphH/T: Weasel ZippersRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
 Thomas Stephens
A Swiss professor has stirred up a hornet's nest by suggesting that certain elements of Sharia, the Muslim legal system, should be introduced in Switzerland.
Christian Giordano told swissinfo that current Swiss legislation was "too narrow" for minorities and he put a case for introducing legal pluralism.
His position echoes that of Anglican Church head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who last year caused a storm of protest in Britain after suggesting a partial adoption of Sharia law there.
"Touching simple-mindedness" was the reaction of the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper to Giordano's proposal, saying it wasn't clear what problems this would solve.
"There's no place for Sharia in Switzerland," it said. "Special rights for people, apart from in courts of arbitration or associations, have been abolished."
The social anthropologist, who said he wanted to generate debate on the issue, claimed he had been misunderstood. "I was calling not so much for special rights for Muslims but for legal pluralism," he told swissinfo.
The controversy was triggered by an article Giordano wrote for the December edition of Tangram, the biannual magazine of the Federal Commission against Racism.
Legal pluralism
In it Giordano said legal pluralism was a reality in almost all ethnically and culturally diverse societies but was mostly ignored or denied "because it is perceived as a danger to social cohesion".
Legal pluralism, he added, was more a question of introducing in some areas of the law mechanisms that took into account cultural idiosyncrasies.
"Multiculturalism is not only cultural diversity – it is politically managed cultural diversity," the Fribourg professor explained.
"It is not sufficient to accept only the agreeable aspects of diversity like food and music."
Social cohesion
Giordano admitted he was "inspired" by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the world's 80 million Anglicans, who in February 2008 faced calls for his resignation after suggesting the British authorities would have to make some accommodation with Sharia for the sake of social cohesion.
Williams suggested there could be a "supplementary jurisdiction" in which Muslims could decide whether disputes – in which only co-religionists were involved – were resolved in secular courts or by Islamic institutions which offered an alternative forum for arbitration.
This angered people who believed in the separation of religion and state and the concept of everyone being equal before the law.
Giordano is explicit, however, that every court has to be subordinate to the state and the constitution.
"It goes without saying that the hierarchy on which the legal system is based must be respected in order to guarantee the legal validity of the constitution, which must remain secular, human rights and the basic principles of democracy," he said.
"I am not calling for the parallel introduction of such minority laws – that is absolutely not the case. The state will always have the final word. Also, not every member of a minority is obliged to go to these courts – only people who want to go."
Legal pluralism was certainly not a wonder cure, he added, but it was certainly a better solution than closing one's eyes to the parallel legal systems that already existed in some European countries and which were applied without any form of state control.
Asked why the law should adapt to foreigners rather than foreigners adapting to the law, Giordano replied: "I think some people – not everybody, but some people – are embedded in their culture and I don't think you can force them to change their identity."
Discrimination
This argument is rejected by Elham Manea, a political scientist at Zurich University with dual Yemeni and Swiss nationality.
"It's really presumptuous to say migrants can't actually integrate because they're not used to our legal tradition. I mean, why would migrants have a problem with a system that respects basic human rights and gender equality?" she told swissinfo.
Manea, a Muslim, said she also had a problem with the practice in Britain because it led to parallel societies and discriminated against women.
"When it comes specifically to divorce, compare the family law here in Switzerland with the divorce laws in Islamic tradition. In Switzerland women are treated as equals to men – both have the right to appeal and file for divorce in front of a court," she said.
"In Islamic tradition a man has a unilateral right to divorce his wife without giving her any kind of justification. All he has to do is say the word for 'I repudiate you' three times.
"She has no right of appeal. If she wants to file for divorce, she has to prove harm and this is left to the judge's discretion. Sometimes, even if she comes up with the most solid evidence, the judge thinks 'You're a woman – I don't believe you'."
"Step backwards"
"So, why on earth would we want a law that discriminates against women while we already have a law here that respects the concept of gender equality," she said.
"It's a step backwards and it's a step that actually legalises the establishment of a parallel society, because according to some Islamic legal tradition a father or guardian has the right to marry off his daughter without her knowledge - and in all Islamic jurisprudence schools the agreement of the male guardian is a condition for the woman to marry. Why would you want that? It's just not compatible with democracy, gender equality or human rights."
Manea also drew attention to the various studies which showed that most Muslims in Switzerland didn't have a problem with the Swiss legal system. "On the contrary, they consider it an advantage – a benefit that protects their rights."
Giordano admitted that at present no one would vote for legal pluralism in Switzerland. "But I think the debate should be held," he said. "Maybe in future interest will grow in the issue." Source: Swiss Info
 Islamic courts will be able to decide
how a Muslim couple divide their money
and property and who gets the childrenBy Steve Doughty Islamic courts have been cleared to deal with family and divorce disputes. Sharia tribunals will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children. The sole proviso from Jack Straw's Justice Ministry is that a formal law court must rubber-stamp the ruling. This would be in the form of a two-page form sent to a judge sitting in a family court. The divorcing couple would not need to attend. The decision follows nine months of controversy over the role of tribunals run according to Islamic strictures. In February, Downing Street slapped down the Archbishop of Canterbury when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'. But in July, Lord Phillips, who has since retired as Lord Chief Justice, said sharia principles could be the basis for resolving family and business disputes. Muslim ministers have warned that sharia should not have an official role because it accords unequal status to men and women. Giving more weight to evidence from men could hand them a greater share of property and enhanced custody rights. Lawyers said yesterday that using the secretive family courts to endorse sharia decisions would draw a veil over matters of wide public interest. Critics of the idea said yesterday advancing the role of Islamic tribunals would further marginalise isolated minority communities. The endorsement of sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior justice minister. She said the councils would still have no jurisdiction in England and that rulings by religious authorities had no legal force.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, provoked controversy
when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'But Miss Prentice added: 'If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. 'This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.' A consent order allows couples to have a 'clean break' divorce in which there are no long-term maintenance payments. The orders can be approved only where a couple have negotiated and agreed all aspects of their break-up such as money, debts, property and children. The family court judge must decide whether the agreement is reasonable and ensure no side has been disadvantaged. The great majority of consent orders are approved. Barrister Neil Addison said yesterday: 'If the system works, the judge will not allow an agreement where there has been pressure on one party. He allows a consent order only if the agreement seems reasonable. 'However most mediation of disputes takes place in private and agreements are approved in open court. This is different - the original sharia law is secret and so is the judgment.' Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think-tank, said: 'The problem with the Government's attitude is the big question over how far submission to sharia courts is voluntary among Muslim women. 'Women who live in some communities may have no option but to go to the sharia court. The case is then rubber-stamped by a family court without any of us knowing how the decision was reached.' Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties agree to accept arbitration. Five sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996. But financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women. Source: Mail OnlineRowan Williams
British Government
Latest recipients of The Dhimmi Award
 Dr Rowan Williams support for Sharia law is indefensible By Damian Thompson The Archbishop of Canterbury is helping "create the space for the most reactionary and even fundamentalist religious leaders to take control of minority communities", according to an article in the current New Statesman. The author, Pragna Patel, is chair of Southall Black Sisters, a radical feminist organisation. It may be a strident, dogmatic, Left-wing pressure group, but it's right about one thing: Rowan Williams's support for an extension of Sharia law, later backed by the Lord Chief Justice, is utterly indefensible in a secular society. I know: Holy Smoke keeps banging on about this. And it's not going to stop, either. Nor, I suspect, is Ms Patel, who writes: "The sentiments recently expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice concerning sharia law are very telling: in the rush to be tolerant or sensitive to religious difference, they create the space for the most reactionary and even fundamentalist religious leaders to take control of minority communities, and they enable a climate which allows religion to define our roles in both private and public spaces. Read more ...Source: TelegraphRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
In a February 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari'a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well. Read more ...Source: MEMRI
By Adrian Morgan Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently mused about Sharia law in Britain on BBC radio. He suggested that having only one system of law was "a danger." His comments sparked outrage, and numerous articles appeared, ostensibly "explaining" Sharia. Many of these were patronizing or inaccurate, attempting like Williams to avoid the plain fact that in marriage, Muslim law discriminates against women. In one article from the Guardian, Elizabeth Stewart mentioned briefly that in 1213, King John offered to become Muslim and submit Britain to the rule of Sharia law. Stewart wrote: "But the Moroccan ruler decided that a king who was prepared to betray his own religion and subjects would probably not make a good ally, and turned him down." Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
By M. Zuhdi Jasser  On February 7, 2008, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a global discussion on Sharia after his address entitled, "Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective." He and others have tried to backtrack his comments from any implication towards the application of Sharia in Britain for Muslims also providing reassurance that it would not trump British law. Hardly reassurance in a nation which submitted to Sharia already by recognizing polygamous marriages. In fact, the Archbishop's BBC interview before the speech was more clear where he implied that the application of Sharia law in Britain for Muslims was unavoidable. Commentaries both supporting and decrying the implications of the Archbishop's ideas about the UK slouching toward Sharia have been ubiquitous over the past week. Should we be concerned about the Western Islamist organizations that basked in the empowering glow of validation from the Archbishop of the Church of England? The Muslim Council of Britain released a press release on February 8, 2008 stating that, the MCB is "grateful for the thoughtful intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in Britain today." They then had the temerity to try and clarify what the Archbishop intended in his remarks stating, "[T]he Archbishop sought in his speech to explore the possibilities of an accommodation between English law and some aspects of Islamic personal law." This statement should immediately demonstrate the exploitation of such accommodations by Islamists in order to solidify their attempt to represent and control the Muslim community. Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
Feisal Abdul Rauf: Archbishop of Canterbury Was RightThe recent and controversial call by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England and spiritual leader of 80 million Anglicans, for incorporation of Sharia law into British law will not be the last utterance in favor of Islamic law. Nor should it be. The addition of Sharia law to "the law of the land", in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The Archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic law. Read more ...Source: Newsweek / Washington PostNewsweek / Washington Post
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Feisal Abdul Rauf
Latest recipient of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
 Muslims Against Sharia are amazed at the depth of Newsweek / Washington Post's stupidity for allowing Islamofascist propaganda on its site.
 By Christopher Hitchens In December 1931, George Orwell got himself arrested in the slums of East London in order to find out about conditions "inside," and then he wrote an essay about the people he met while in detention. One of them was a buyer for a kosher butcher who had embezzled some of his boss's money. To Orwell's surprise, the man told him that "his employer would probably get into trouble at the synagogue for prosecuting him. It appears that the Jews have arbitration courts of their own, and a Jew is not supposed to prosecute another Jew, at least in a breach-of-trust case like this, without first submitting it to the arbitration court." You might think that such relics of the medieval ghetto, and of the rabbinical control that was part of ghetto life, had more or less disappeared in England in the 21st century. And you would largely be right. There exists a "Beth Din," or religious court, in the prosperous North London suburb of Finchley to which the ultra-Orthodox submit some of their more arcane disputes. (This little world is very amusingly described by Naomi Alderman in her lovely novel Disobedience.) But to speak in general, Jews in Britain consider themselves, and are considered, to be answerable to the same laws as everybody else. Should I mention any of the numerous reasons why it would be extremely nerve-racking if this were not true? Read more ...Source: Slate.com
 And there have been calls for his resignation. First, last week the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, called for a "carbon fast" during Lent to enhance believers' awareness of their carbon footprint on the environment ( yawn!). [See my post from Thursday.] Then, on Friday called for parts of Sharia (Islamic) law to be incorporated into English law. He called for “supplementary jurisdiction” of Sharia for aspects of marital and financial law and for mediation and conflict resolution.
In the wake of the Anglican Church's big dispute over homosexuality, Williams' moral authority looked further in jeopardy as prelates from overseas provinces of the Anglican Communion joined in the criticism with some calling for his resignation. According to FoxNews on Friday,
Weblogs and other sites have been overwhelmed by comments from the public, Anglicans and non-Anglicans, the vast majority being highly critical of Williams and his apparent appeasement of Islamism. The Prince of Wales, Britain’s foremost champion of good relations with Islam, has distanced himself from the Archbishop’s views. Privately, he is concerned that the speech is in danger of being taken out of context and distilled into scaremongering headlines.
Although the Queen is head of the Church, her spokeswoman declined to comment. Alison Ruoff, a Synod member for London and a member of the Bishop of London’s diocesan council, said: “He has done the Anglican Communion and the Church of England no favours. He should go.” Dr. Peter Akinola, the Primate of Nigeria, where Christians are regularly persecuted by Muslims, called the remarks “most disturbing and most unfortunate”. Today, Williams is defending his right to broach the subject of Sharia law in England, but accepts now that his comments might have triggered misunderstanding and alarm. "I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity" or "any misleading choice of words that has helped cause distress or misunderstanding," he told the General Synod, the Church of England's governing body. But he added: "I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to discuss the perceived concerns of other religious communities and try to bring them into better public focus." [source] The AFP story continues: "Much of the debate has been centred on the potential for division between ethnic communities in Britain, particularly the country's 1.6 million Muslims, at a time when the government is trying to promote a more cohesive society. "Earlier, Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman praised Williams as a man of "great integrity," adding that the British leader understood the archbishop's "difficulty." "The prime minister believes the Archbishop of Canterbury is a man of great integrity and dedication to public and community service and he understands the difficulty he is facing at the moment," Brown's spokesman said." Interestingly ( "alarmingly?") FoxNews reported over the weekend that sharia courts are already operating in London. According to The Daily Mail (as cited by FoxNews), teen members of the Somali community in Woolwich were arrested on charges of stabbing another youth, but the victim’s family told police the case would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. At the hearing, the assailants were ordered to pay the victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Aydarus Yusuf, who helped set up the hearing. "So they all put something towards that and apologized for the wrongdoing." In Leyton, another Islamic council also said it had been handling cases -- more than 7,000 divorces -- while sharia courts in the capital were said to have settled hundreds of disputes regarding money. Wow, folks! Another "Dhimmi" with his head in the sand, thinking we can all hold hands and sing "Kum ba yah!" I fear this wave of Dhimmitude will catch on here in the U.S. soon. The Brits need another Winston Churchill!! Go here to see Father Jonathan Morris', of FoxNews, response. (Morris is the regular opinion journalist for the network on matters regarding religion.) Submitted by kmaginn at Hummers & CigarettesRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: What he wishes on us is an abominationWhat Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law – made by bearded men, for men – and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion. Read more ...Source: The IndependentH/T: Dhimmi Watch
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. Read more ... Source: BBCH/T: Dhimmi WatchMore on the story: Archbishop backs sharia law for British MuslimsUpdate: Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quitRowan Williams
Latest recipient of the Demented Priest Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Former Archbishop of Canterbury is ruffling British cultural and religious elites by warning against uncontrolled Islamic immigration that threatens Britain’s ”very ethos or DNA.”
Posts
