Rowan Williams would make a terrible gambler

He doesn’t know it’s best to quit when you’re ahead. Most people had forgotten Rowan’s ramblings about how good Sharia law would be for Britain. Considering the fuss it caused last time he brought this up, one would think he’d leave it alone; but does he? Of course not:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his controversial comments Add an Imageabout 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.

Rowan Williams makes it easy for us to overlook the fact that he is the leader of the Church of England, the established church in Britain: he is supposed to be defending Christianity, not acting like the Grand Mufti of Middlesbrough.

Update: Melanie Phillips has written about this here:

The attitude among Britain’s establishment towards Britain’s creeping Islamisation becomes ever more surreal. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who betrayed British Muslim women, Christian values and British national identity when he said that Britain had nothing to fear from embracing sharia law in personal status issues and other disputes, has used the anniversary of those infamous remarks to opine that more people now agree with him.

Well if he’s right, there’s going to be an enormous drift of misunderstanding between the establishment and the rest. There may be an increasing number of ‘fairly senior people’ who are taking up residence with the Archbishop on Planet Cringe, but among ordinary folk there is a steady buildup of positively volcanic fury at the way the UK is being offered up in salami slices to the Islamists.

Tolerance at work in the UK

Geert Wilders has been denied entry to the UK.

Add an Image

‘Let them arrest me’: Dutch MP vows to defy Home Office ban and fly to Britain to show anti-Islam film

A right-wing Dutch politician who has been banned from Britain said today he planned to defy the authorities and fly to the UK, stating ‘Let them put me in handcuffs’.

Geert Wilders had been invited by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) peer Lord Pearson to show his anti-Islam film ‘Fitna’ and hold a Q&A session in Parliament tomorrow.

The 17-minute documentary features verses from the Koran – which it brands a ‘fascist book’ – alongside images of the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks.

It equates Islam’s holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove its ‘hate-preaching’ verses.

Under UK and EU immigration rules, a person can be refused entry to Britain ‘if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’.

He is being denied entry on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Wilders does not have a contagious disease. In fact, the letter from the British Embassy cites a threat to community harmony as the reason; and, after all, the UK is replete with examples of community harmony that one would not wish to threaten.

On the other hand, Britain is sufficiently tolerant to allow this misomaniac not only to  live in the UK, but to use it as a base from which to spread his poisonous anti-Semitic vitriol:Add an Image

Riyadh ul Haq preaches contempt for non-Muslims

A hardline Islamic movement, whose leading UK imam preaches anti-Semitism and calls on Muslims to “shed blood for Allah”, is controlling almost half of Britain’s mosques, a police report has found.

The influence of the ultra-conservative Deobandi sect, which is characterised by its total rejection of western values, has grown to such an extent that police now believe it runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques.

The revelations will put further scrutiny on plans for a “mega mosque” in east London by a group called Tablighi Jamaat, who are closely linked to the Deobandi movement.

The £100 million plan to build the “Islamic village” next to the Olympic site is already mired in controversy after intelligence services said the group was a recruiting ground for al Qaeda.

What should the UK government do? Obviously, allow Wilders into the country and make the showing of Fitna in all of Britain’s Deobandi mosques a condition of Riyadh ul Haq’s remaining there.

Free to choose anything but Christ.

More evidence of anti-Christian bias in the UK; From the Telegraph.

Christian foster mother struck off after Muslim girl converts

A foster mother with 10 years’ experience was struck off after a Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity, it has emerged.

The woman has been banned by her local council for failing to prevent the teenager from getting baptised, even though the girl was 16 and made up her own mind to change religion.

The carer, a churchgoer in her 50s who has fostered more than 80 children, has now been forced to move out of her home.

She has lost the farmhouse she rented to look after vulnerable teenagers, due to the loss of income.

Another girl she was looking after has been taken back into care.

The woman, who has launched a legal challenge to the council’s challenge, told the Daily Telegraph: “I just want to get my life back.

“I still hope to resolve this so that I can possibly foster again in the future as I simply enjoy helping young people.”

Religious groups and fostering charities condemned the council’s decision, which comes amid a nationwide shortage of foster parents.

Last year the Fostering Network launched an urgent appeal for more than 5,000 families to come forward

Christ does not force himself upon us and compel us to believe in him: God created us in his image which means we have free will; he wants us to freely choose him. In the same way, this girl was not forced to become a Christian by her care giver: she chose. The foster mother’s  local council, a branch of the UK Stasi, setting ideology above reason, followed its mandate to further the self-destruction of the civilisation it is supposed to be serving by punishing her.

Contrast the above with this:

Kidnapped Children Forced to Convert and Marry Muslims Lose Court Case.

Saba and Anila Younas, both Christian, were abducted June 16 by a group of Muslims, and forced to marry and convert to Islam. A doctor’s report establishes that the eldest is 16 years old and thus capable of marriage.

There are slim hopes for the return home of the two Christian girls kidnapped by a group of Muslims on June 26 from Chowk Munda village in Punjab. According to the defence attorney, the situation is more complicated for the older of the two sisters, Saba Younas, who was forced to convert to Islam and marry a young Muslim the day after her kidnap.

The god of Islam compels obeisance rather than offering salvation. The god of Islam is not God.

Bigamy is the only crime where two rites make a wrong

From Here

Muslim is spared a speeding ban so he can drive between his two wivesAdd an Image

When it comes to avoiding a ban for speeding, the courts hear every excuse in the book.

But yesterday one motorist offered what must be a unique reason why he should keep his licence.

Mohammed Anwar said a ban would make it difficult to commute between his two wives and fulfil his matrimonial duties.

His lawyer told a Scottish court the Muslim restaurant owner has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow – he is allowed up to four under his religion – and sleeps with them on alternate nights.

He also needed his driving licence to run his restaurant in Falkirk, Stirlingshire.

Airdrie Sheriff Court had heard that Anwar was caught driving at 64mph in a 30mph zone in Glasgow, fast enough to qualify for instant disqualification.

Anwar admitted the offence, but Sheriff John C. Morris accepted his plea not to be banned and allowed him to keep his licence.

Instead, he was fined £200 and given six penalty points.

His lawyer, Paul Nicolson, said: “He realises his licence is at risk, but this is an unusual case and is very anxious to keep his driving licence.

“He has one wife in Motherwell and another in Glasgow and sleeps with one one night and stays with the other the next on an alternate basis.

“Without his driving licence he would be unable to do this on a regular basis.”

Now this all seems perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, I think the speeding laws should be modified thus:
1 wife: must drive at the speed limit
2 wives: allowed to drive 20 km/hour over the limit
3 wives: allowed to drive 30 km/hour over the limit
4 wives: allowed to drive 40 km/hour over the limit
5 wives and above: should be given a state supplied Aston Martin and allowed to drive at any speed.

Muslim convert to Catholicism tells pope Islam is not inherently good

From Here

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Muslim-born journalist baptised by Pope Benedict XVI at Easter asked the pope to tell his top aide for relations with Muslims that Islam is not an intrinsically good religion and that Islamic terrorism is not the result of a minority gone astray.

As the Vatican was preparing to host the first meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum Nov. 4-6, Magdi Allam, a longtime critic of the Muslim faith of his parents, issued an open letter to Pope Benedict that included criticism of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

In the letter, posted on his Web site Oct. 20, Allam said he wanted to tell the pope of his concern for “the serious religious and ethical straying that has infiltrated and spread within the heart of the church.”

He told the pope that it “is vital for the common good of the Catholic Church, the general interest of Christianity and of Western civilization itself” that the pope make a pronouncement in “a clear and binding way” on the question of whether Islam is a valid religion.

It takes an ex-Muslim to state the obvious.

Rowan vs the House of Lords

From the Guardian

The House of Lords today drew stark attention to the conflict between sharia and UK law, calling the Islamic legal code “wholly incompatible” with human rights legislation.

The remarks came as the Lords considered the case of a woman who, if she was sent back to Lebanon, would be obliged under sharia law to hand over custody of her 12-year-old son to a man who beat her, threw her off a balcony and, on one occasion, attempted to strangle her.

The woman was seeking asylum in the UK to avoid the provisions of sharia law that give fathers or other male family members the exclusive custody of children over seven.

In the most high-profile UK criticism of the family law provisions of sharia law so far, the Lords stated that these provisions breached the mother’s rights to family life and the right against discrimination and were severely disruptive to the child.

Contrast this reasonable and clear-sighted view of reality on planet earth to that of Rowan Williams, the Mr. Bean of the Anglican church:

From the BBC:

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.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Not only does Rowan think parts of Sharia might be a Good Thing, he picks the bits that would allow a demented Muslim husband to abuse his wife and child.

The new Anglislam

The Archbishop of Canterbury says theological differences separate Islam from Christianity. Here

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, admitted yesterday that the Christian and Muslim faiths are so fundamentally different that both sides are still unable to understand each other properly.
Dr Williams, speaking at an interfaith conference in Cambridge, said that it was possible for Islam and Christianity, two of the three Abrahamic faiths, to agree around the imperatives to love God and “love your neighbour”. Muslims and Christians agree about the need to alleviate both poverty and suffering, he said.

Is anyone particularly surprised that ‘theological differences separate Islam from Christianity’? Rowan Williams appears to be struggling to find similarities – a requirement of the new style of Politically Correct Evangelism, I expect. Pretty soon he will probably be declaring that Anglicanism and Islam are essentially equivalent. That, of course, is because an Anglican can believe just about anything he likes – except that Jesus is the Son of God, rose physically from the dead and was born of a virgin: believing that make you a fundamentalist.

The process has already started: Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest, converted to Islam over a year ago – while remaining an Episcopal priest – and apparently sees no conflict between the two belief systems.

I never thought I would say anything to support Richard Dawkins

But, it seems there are people who have bigger blinkers than he does; the prize-winning twerp is a Muslim.   Adnan Oktar, if you disagree with Dawkins, offer some rational arguments to refute his position; what you have managed to do is bolster his assertion that those who oppose his scientism are irrational nincompoops. From the Times

A Muslim creationist has succeeded in having Richard Dawkins’s website banned in Turkey, after complaining that its atheist content was blasphemous.

The country’s internet users are now subject to a court order imposed on Turk Telecom that prohibits them from accessing richarddawkins.net.

The court in Istanbul issued its judgment after Adnan Oktar claimed that his book Atlas of Creation, which contests the arguments for evolution, had been defamed on Dawkins’s website.

In July Professor Dawkins wrote on his site: “I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breath-taking inanity of the content.”
Related Links

Earlier this year Mr Oktar, who uses the pen name Harun Yahya, tried to have Dawkins’s book The God Delusion banned in Turkey but failed. He is also appealing against a three-year prison sentence for creating an illegal organisation for personal gain.

Rule Britannia

From the Telegraph.

We knew that sharia courts were operating in Britain even before Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the lecture  in February which caused such a stir.

It was said that these courts arbitrated on marriages, as Jewish courts or Catholic marriage tribunals do. Everything was to be done with the consent of both parties. More surprisingly, it seems that sharia courts are giving judgement in criminal cases. In six cases of domestic violence, according to Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

Can you imagine what kind of consent wives involved in such cases have given to the sharia court’s jurisdiction?

Often, Muslim women marry in an Islamic ceremony without the ratification of a marriage in English law. This gives them no rights under the law of the land in the case of divorce. Nor would they have any claim to inherit under English law.

So we see the growth of sharia as a parallel jurisdiction to the law of the land, imposed on a sector of society that cannot resist it.

It’s fitting that this is being publicised at the same time as this piece of anti-Christian claptrap from the BBC:

A successful Christian children’s author says he was refused appearances on the BBC because it couldn’t be “seen to be promoting Jesus”.

G P Taylor’s first novel, Shadowmancer, spent 15 weeks at the top of the British book charts in 2003. His second book, Wormwood, sold 22,000 copies in one day.

Yet the author claims that invitations for appearances on the BBC stopped once producers found out he was a Christian.

“I had good relations with them until they realised that there were religious allegories in my stories,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.

“Once they had decided that I was promoting Christianity in my books I found the door firmly shut.”

Mr Taylor said his faith meant that he was not welcome on children’s programmes like Blue Peter.

He said: “A BBC producer told me ‘off the record’ that it was a matter of my faith and the fact that I was an Anglican priest. ‘We can’t be seen to be promoting Jesus’, he said with a laugh.”

A spokesman for the BBC denied the allegations. “Programme makers make their own editorial decisions about which guests to have on their shows. There is no truth in the claim that there is a BBC ban on G P Taylor.”

However, Mr Taylor said: “They weren’t turning me down because I was a bad guest, but because of who I am.

“I’m an Anglican priest and sadly while it’s OK to be the next Philip Pullman, it’s not all right to be a Christian writer.”

And, one imagines, the Arch-twit of Canterbury, Rowan Williams – having explained to us why sharia law in the UK is such a good idea – will have absolutely nothing to say about this blatant discrimination against the religion he is supposed to be defending.

We’ve managed to find something else that’s offensive to Muslims: Pre-emptive censorship.

From the Globe and Mail:

This month, Random House in New York shelved plans to release The Jewel of Medina, an historical novel about the Prophet Mohammed’s second and youngest wife, Aisha. Their reason: It might incite a violent backlash.

Might? That’s all it takes these days? According to whom?

Welcome to where things get interesting. Long before the controversy arose, Random House sent an endorsement request to Denise Spellberg, a non-Muslim history professor at the University of Texas. She found parts of the manuscript offensive and decided that Muslims should feel the same.

Reportedly judging the book to be a “national security threat,” she depicted it as “more dangerous than the Satanic Verses.” Prof. Spellberg ought to know: She teaches Salman Rushdie’s notorious novel in her class. Clearly, she doesn’t back censorship.

And yet her lawyer warned Random House not to use Prof. Spellberg’s name in or on the novel. Random House then consulted more “scholars of Islam.” In effect, the publisher invited postcolonial theorists with ulterior agendas to make mincemeat of its mass-market offering. Also pulled in was the corporation’s head of security.

Meanwhile, a listserv of graduate students in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies caught wind of the still-unpublished novel. They heard about it through a Muslim website manager who claims to have received a “frantic” call from Prof. Spellberg. His postings got forwarded to various forums, ultimately reaching a blogger who circulated a protest strategy.

There’s no evidence that anybody paid serious attention to his plan.

However, no matter the resounding lack of threats, Random House announced it would postpone publication for the sake of safety – including that of the author, Sherry Jones.

Mind you, Ms. Jones is free to court a fatwa: Random House has now terminated her contract so she may shop the manuscript elsewhere. “We stand firmly by our responsibility to support our authors,” its corporate statement reads. That’s one way to prove it.

How to begin unravelling the absurdity of this decision? For starters, Random House is in the business of free expression. Of course so are newspapers – and most of them didn’t reprint the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

But this novel can’t be compared to those cartoons. The Jewel of Medina treats both the Prophet and his bride with deep affection. My own conversation with Ms. Jones affirms her respect for the dignity of Aisha.

“I wrote Jewel, in part, because I recognize the absence of women’s voices in the way Islamic history is told,” she explained by phone. “Women played a huge leadership role in the founding of the faith. Silencing my voice only achieves more silencing of theirs.”

Thus another absurdity. The muzzling of Sherry Jones originated with a woman. To boot, Denise Spellberg is non-Muslim. Why no cries of interference, imperialism, even racism from those who typically tell non-Muslims to stay out of Islamic issues?

And a curious form of racism the pulping of this book is. Random House has revealed what low expectations it has of Muslims. Pre-emptive censorship – PC, you could say – reduces all believers to the status of children, incapable of handling sensitive material with civility. Now, that’s offensive.

Although Irshad Manji, has been critical of Muslim fanatics, she is missing the point here. It’s true that Prof. Spellberg – like most academics – is suffering from terminal Political Correctness and Random House are behaving like gutless poltroons, but their doing so is not entirely without cause. The perpetration of such delights as beheadings, stabbings, death threats, fatwas and general jihad mayhem tends to be the response of Muslims when righting a perceived minor slight against an alleged prophet. Although, in polite Canada, symbolic decapitation through an extended whine to the Human Rights Commission is often the preferred route.

And we have low expectations of Muslims because they can’t handle ‘sensitive material with civility’. I wonder why.

Those who make the decisions at Random House, of course, are not in the business of free expression; they are in the business of making a profit and living long enough to enjoy it.

That being said, it’s good to see that a Muslim is saying that the suppression of this book is absurd. And not all Muslims are desperate to find a reason to chop someone’s head off, so I expect there will be a groundswell of rational Muslims protesting to have it published. Maybe not.