The Archbishop speaks..

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

It's not the same thing at ALL, you ignorant slut! If you'd pop out of your Alice's Rabbit hole long enough, you'd realize that the OTHER 'religious courts' are based on civil/domestic mediation.

Only an idiot thinks that the Imams, in whose asses your tongue is so deeply embedded, would be satisfied with that.

 

Nurse! Did you forget to give 'fog his medication this morning?

Seriously, dude, there are 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world (25% of the population) and while their extremist make the press on a regular basis, the vast majority are good, law-abiding people.

Think about it, if even half of the 1.5 billion of them thought the same as the extremist who make the press, we'd all either be dead or carrying around prayer blankets.

 

Yes, in fact you are 100% correct.

Just as those good christian southern baptists, methodists, and presbyterians in the south during the heyday of the Klan.

Some have spoken up against this concept.. have you read of it?

No? I thought so.

Let me ask you THIS.. is the surge in Iraq working? WHY is it working?

Let me ask you this... do you know how many Muslims who have spoken against Sharia in the west are under constant protection because of fatwa's for their heads fro speaking on it?

Again, I thought not.

If you're going to come to a duke-out, come armed with something other than a platitude.

I say that in all respect

 

'Fog, are you describing the Archbishop of Canterbury as an ignorant slut? If so, it's probably the best abuse I've ever heard!

The comments have been universally derided over here; every politician has distanced themselves from the comment, all citing that the law is blind etc....

Personally I think it would be divisive and ill conceived. Would a Muslim be able to prosecute a non-Muslim in a Sharia court? Dr Rowan "Slut" Williams is just a nut job.

 

If they can't get used to British law, customs, society, swimming with white people(read about that one a while back) than they ought not to be in Britain. Bottom line! If they can well than they should be welcome to stay and prosper. That would be my approach to it anyway.

 

I read some responses on the Guardian and the Archbishop is getting creamed, no pun intended.

Sharia should be disrespected as much as possible.

 

Perhaps some dont really recognise or understand the core issue of what this is about.

In the FIRST place, the Archbishop occupies his office as 'Defender of the Faith'. Which up to now has meant the Church of England, and Christian believers, secondarily. NOT the Muslim faith.

Secondly, the problem is that the mechanism ALREADY exists in most western countries to resolve civil disputes by mutually agreed arbitration. That can, in fact, be an Islamic Court.. yes, EVEN in Texas!

So far, so good. I cant argue against this, nor should anyone. Like the Archbishop says, The same mechanism is used by devout christians and jews, not to mention purely secular groups and individuals, when they want a quick and sure decision with a minimum of legal and court costs.

So.. where's the beef? The BEEF is in the coercive nature of the Islamic theocracy. There is little recourse to the pronouncement of a cleric, ANY CLERIC, not necessarily even of the congregation of the parties involved, that unless a party to ANY dispute submits to Sharia, that person is, in fact, apostate. That means "Unbelieving".

At best this can result in shunning... at worst, it can result in an 'honor killing'. Sometimes, the condemned can appeal to another cleric, but to do so, might place the appellant in even worse danger.

Does that happen all the time, no. Does it happen sometimes, yes. Is there any way of knowing when it might or might not happen?

THERE is the problem.

There's no doubt that some nutjob christian or jewish or say other Hubbardian cleric who has his own cult, might exercise the same pressure. but, when found out, that guy goes to jail.

Christians, and Jews, have fought long and hard to remove the yoke of suppression and persecution by their faiths. Sad to say, Islam has yet to address that.

Until Williams faces up to that and stands up to this atrocity, he is no better than a sniveling weasel apologist for the perpetrators of some inquisition.

 

The "Islamic Court of Texas" really isn't an Islamic Court though. They can't actually enforce anything that is unlawful.

For example, the fact that the wife's family paid the guy a dowry was not enforceable under Texas law (a dowry is not recognized in Texas marital laws). What was lawful was the fact that Muslim lawyers could arbitrate a dispute between two Muslims. That is all the court is saying.

However, a Muslim man killed his two daughters in the Dallas/FW area a few weeks ago... probably thanks to Sharia and he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail probably for it, if he isn't executed.

 

"I hate Islam"

I see. Thanks for making that perfectly clear.

And after DOZENS of posts challenging even BEGGING you to debate points I make, rather your response is to charge me with bigotry. To wit, when I go to great lengths to explain the nature of my outrage... that's all you can come up with.

That you cannot point to a specific point in what I just wrote and counter my observation instead of yelling 'racist' speaks volumes.

I hate no one. I hate the sin... and Williams just sinned by trivializing the effects of what he advocates. For reasons I just took GREAT PAINS to outline and to which you have no answer because you KNOW they are true.

I would rather see all litgation reverted to civil court under western law than allow sharia a greater foothold.

 

Lyle, that's what I was saying. It's an arbiter. Didnt I make that clear.

That wasnt proved. I mean that it was Sharia or even necessarily an honor killing. There's other reasons that apply to anyone in poor mental health. May be nothing at all to do with the tenets of the faith.

The reason I believe that is that the family usually claims or admits an honor killing.

But then what do I know... after all, I hate Islam.

 

'Fog. No one is saying to let Sharia law have rule in England or anywhere else outside the bounds of national law nor is anyone saying that there shouldn't be clear limits on it, ensuring that only willing participants fall under its jurisdiction. It should also be noted that the "powers and jurisdiction" of said "religious groups courts" are limited and bounded by the national laws. They are intended to be a vehicle by which, those that choose, can have their differences legally settled by religious authority.

Anything beyond that is bad, whether a Sharia court, a Jewish court, or a council of Free Masons.

It might be fair to say that Sharia Courts might have a higher tendency to attempt to rule beyond their jurisdiction, but even that is stretching things. Most those who practice Sharia Law do so in a respectable and law-abiding manner. Heck, if nothing else, it will give England an additional excuse to deport the "bad apples."

 

Ah... I despair.

How many is 'most'? What is the acceptable percentage of intimidating 'bad apples'?

What was it in the south when few dared speak against the klan?
- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

Whatever.. here is the 'lecture' on which the statement in the interview was based:

Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective

The title is misleading, it is certainly NOT from a 'religious' perspective, it's written from the view of a cultural observer or anthropologist.... notwithstanding his amazing implication that England governs by application of Anglican law. But dont worry. He only mentions anything to do with the church that one time. Wouldnt want to roil the water with 'Render unto Caesar.. ' or anything like that.

I recommend reading it. It looks daunting, but just 'let the force be with you'. The man certainly knew full well he was stepping in quicksand for he defined, though surrounded in high treacle, the exact problems in it. And then dismissed them in the same vein as his dismissive remarks on 'sensational' references to Sharia and recent rulings on forced marriages.

While he repeatedly refers to the arbitration privileges accorded Orthodox Jews, he fails to note that the tenets there are as rigid and uniform as any system of secular laws. He actually DOES point out that the application of Sharia law, on the other hand, is often 'living' and flexible.. ie, the basic teachings and findings interpreted.

Depending on the interpreter... get it?

 

'fog - You just compared Islam to the Klu Klux Klan.

With that statement you just must live in a different reality than the rest of us, so it's not really logical to attempt a rational discussion with you on the subject as you're obviously "unarmed" for the conversation.

 

Quote the place where I did that... and Why do I have to connect the dots?

The CONTEXT of the connection was that MOST good southern christians would not have anything to do with the Klan, but they wouldnt do anything much to talk against them, either. Why is that comparison so hard to get?

Now, say the fundamentalist sects.. Wahabi's or others want MORE than just the civil justice side decided?

Dont argue in terms of percentages here... argue in terms of those actively seeking change to western systems to suit them, and those empowering them.

Here... if you dont want to take the words of warning of a guy who 'hates Islam" {Yes my blood pressure ' is still up. but hey.. I know when someone has no other ammo}

Then read somewhat the same views on the issue from an Arab who I suppose is a Muslim.

See I AM armed. What was it you were saying?

And by the way, you might not know it... it's old news to me, but I dont post all the news of interest I follow on here.. but faced with the same issue Canada repealed their law allowing religious courts to serve as 'Agreed Arbiters'

 

Arbitration proceedings aren't religous though. They still have to conform to the law of whatever State. It's probably just a way for some Muslim lawyers to make money by passing themselves off to the Muslim community as a "Muslim Court".

... and Fogg no family is going to admit to an honor killing in America because they will get stoned by the rest of America and help the DA prosecute their family member. Muslims don't live in large enough enclaves in America to get away with murder like they do in some European countries. The DFW family doesn't want their family member to go to jail, especially if they supported what he did (one family apparently spoke out and pretty much defended the man, while disparaging the two girls).

Maybe the guy had a mental moment, but it was definitely influenced by his religous/cultural practices.

 

Wash Post, Anne Applebaum:

I think the highlighted portion explains a LOT of 'informed opinion', and not just on this issue

 

Radical Muslims are clearly worse than the Klan. Highjackings? Suicide bombs? 9/11? Madrd? London? Iraq? Plans to bomb trains in German? Theo van Gogh?

 

Just on a larger scale, Lyle... dont forget the 'Flying Imams', and 'suspicious arab band members'.

And just remember that SOME elements of those {Achoo-mini-jihad} WANT reactive attacks on Muslims, so as to 'solidify' anti-western emotion.

Fortunately, the good Arbishop has unwittingly set a back-fire that MIGHT stop the blood from flowing in the streets.
Liberals Conservatives Socialists Fascists Christians Jews Atheists Agnostics and Muslims all agree.. his proposal -and he DID PROPOSE- is dangerous to the public good.

Now, all that's left is for England to disestablish the Anglican Church and put Rowan Williams where he belongs... alongside the likes of Pat Robertson.

PS: That's a juicy thought isnt it! Dont forget though, IDIOCY like most other things CAN be mapped on a circle.

 

The Klan was bad, killed thousands.... but they are no longer active in the violence area. A few white supremascists in the Midwest kill someone every once in a while and there was the dragging death in TX a few years ago, but the Klan is mostly non-active and/or non-violent these days. I've lived in the South most of my life and can't think of a single Klan incident in the last 25 years. David Duke, from what I can tell, is a pansy.

Radical Muslims are a problem right now and are killing many more people, and on an international scale.

Speaking of radical Muslims...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/fe ... s.religion