This article is an excellent summary of the cowardly depths to which the West, particularly Britain, has sunk.

The 'war against terrorism' means nothing when Western religions and their sopping wet leaders signal that they have lost the will to defend their faith and democratic way of life against creeping, insidious Islam.

The situation in the UK and Europe is very difficult to say the least.But rants like this by Ariel do absolutely nothing to promote any kind of understanding.

It just inflames, or ratchets up, the collective insanity quotient.

Meanwhile what exactly is christian?

There is a USA Trident nuclear submarine with the name USS (City) of Corpus Christie----that is the body of christ---christ the potential killer of tens of millions of humans.

Many right wing "christians" in the USA are actively working to inflame the volatile politics in the Middle East, even via their "missionary" activities in the various branches of the US military---kill a towel-head for "jesus".

And/or praying (preying) for "armageddon" to occur--"jesus" is coming to establish his one thousand year REICH.

Ariel and his ilk will never ever address this issue.

And wasnt it the "christian" west that gave the entire world, World War's One and Two. The "west" was still very much "christian" then.
How many millions of corpses did that produce?

And the "west" still very much marches to the beat of the "christian" war drum---bringing "christ" to everyone---onward "christian" soldiers, quite literally preparing and going into war.

And both of these wars were effectively key events in the dis-integration of Civilization altogether. A quote:

"The Civilizing principles that allow human functioning to demonstrate the disposition of prior unity have already been destroyed---especially as a result of the terrible course of the twentieth century, and beginning with World War I in particular. World War I and World War II were, effectively the self-destruction of global civilization.....Now nothing but "Narcissistic" ego-culture remains, and the consequent human devastation."

FROM 1. http://www.ispeace723.org/realityhumanity2.html

This article is noteworthy for its vagueness about what the Archbishop actually said.

It does admit, though, that

"The Archbishop of Canterbury holds that Muslims "only" want this little concession, and no more"

Presumably we may infer that he has not given his support to anything more than "this little concession". But the article doesn't tell us precisely what he has supported.

Probably a good place to share this...

MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL (Muslim) TAXI DRIVERS REFUSE SERVICE TO PASSENGERS CARRYING ALCHOLOL.

Full background report here: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/679

Below link is here: http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html

"Our stance is first come, first served," said airport director Steve Wareham. "The message is if you want to drive a taxicab at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, you will serve all customers."

Many cabbies disagreed, saying that the proposal denies them the right to freely practice their religion.

"This is discrimination," proclaimed Ahmed Shine, a taxi driver for seven years.

Abdifatah Abdi, who said he was speaking for an association of cabdrivers, said the commissioners "will be judged on your decision."You are deciding the livelihood of 600 drivers and their families," Abdi said. "Say no to discrimination. Say yes to justice for the weak."

Does everyone see it?

I surely hope so...

CLAIM. "If.. muslims are allowed to dominate any industry or area, they WILL without question seek to impose Sharia law on the community, even if that goes against the law of the land."

-Call to Prayer from Mosques:
UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml
USA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPOwnsMIz5k
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0430/p01s03-ussc.html

DISCRIMINATION? Note also.. that the 'Muslim' perpsective is "If we cannot behave contrary to YOUR LAWS.. we consider this "Discrimination"

Never mind the fact that they KNOW that to migrate to a place MEANS abiding by its laws.

SO... does this have implications for our IMMIGRATION policy and our PRE-VISA information provision for would be migrants?

YOU BET IT DOES!
They must be not just TOLD'...but required to sign a statement.. with a heavy FINE attached... that they will not act in any way which is contrary to the law of the land, even IF this means their religous sensibilities are offended.

'It seems that the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world’s 80 million member strong Anglican Communion, has endorsed introducing sharia law into Great Britain. If true, then he was appallingly foolish.'

The only thing scandalous here is that author feels free to pour invective on the Archbishop when he confesses in the first paragraph to not having actually read what he said. This article is a rambling tirade against the usual Eurabia strawman, and offers nothing of substance about the supposed topic in question. I mean, what kind of fool would have the temerity to speak definitively of an attempted back-peddle when they haven't provided a shred of concrete evidence as to the stated position from which he Williams is supposedly retreating.

Honestly, I knew Jonathan was an intellectual light-weight, who spends a lot of time raking muck and carrying water for Likud party political narratives, but this is flabby, lazy journalism even by his standards. My next post will deal explicitly with what the issue is really about.

Ok, here goes for the actual issue. The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism.

As was the case with some of the Pope's recent speeches, we seem to have no shortage of commentators, but apparently nobody who actually bothers to read the primary material. Fact is, there is no reasonable way of inferring any such thing from Dr William's words. What was discussed was not a parallel civil or criminal jurisdiction, or any other nasty punitive measure that might be associated with 'Sharia Law'. Instead, the Archbishop was talking about the future of faith-based voluntary dispute mechanisms, which are based on ordinary principles of contractual arbitration, for people of Muslim faith in the UK. Such arrangements already exist in the West, and have centuries of precedent with other faiths such as the Jewish Beth Din rabbinical councils for marital disputes. Considering that Jonathan is a well-known militant defender of conservative Jewish orthodoxy, it is a complete disgrace that he is either unaware of this, or does not have the personal integrity to acknowledge that consistency requires him to repudiate both, or none at all.

Of course, there are legitimate arguments one can make about all religious arbitration, their fairness and the genuineness of any consent for women, but such a nuanced criticism is a far cry from the scorn and hyperbole being poured on the poor Archbishop here. Not a single intelligent or redeemable comment is to be found in this poor excuse for an article. For shame.

Leigh and Boaz are typical of the people talking tough about terrorism from the christian right, 'a lot of noise' but we won't be seeing either of them in uniform fighting the Taliban or seeing their family members in the fight either.

Christian and jewish fundamentalists are just as bad and we keep importing them each year, these nuts should be sent back home as well. Our secular society is already in danger of being swamped with these religious nuts from all three fairy tale groups ,so if you don't like our secular society go back to were you originated from and leave the rest of us non interested people alone.

A shameful article that simply adds to vilification of muslims. No doubt Graham Young believes its presence on OLO is to 'balance' the more reasonable article posted by Irfan.

Having said that, what all nations need is freedom from ALL religions, instead of pandering to any of them. That would be equitable treatment.

Well... I think its all talk.
The truth of Gods Word says that the christian believers win what is happening on the earth.
The Archbishops' views, compared to the times of the Holy Bible, dont matter much.
Neither do 99% of the responses to his words.
Islam isnt going to win (if the US doesnt nuke her major sites and throw here back to less than third world, China will eat her up at the end of the Bibles endtimes when the kings of the east asian confederacy army marches out across asia).
The gays likewise arent going to have their great golden age of "mutual feel".
No one wins what is going on on the earth except Jesus Christ and His believers.
This is Bible and this is the truth confirmed to Christs believers by The Holy Spirit as we read His Word.

YINDIN first.. err.. what the heck do you mean 'you wont be there fighting the taliban or in uniform ? huh?
For the record..I've been in uniform.. been to Vietnam during the war.. know what it's like to be on patrol and have explosions erupt on all sides, guns blazing at us, gun butts to the head.. ambushed.... have you ?

No..I won't be in Afghanistan fighting the taliban..I'm too old and have other, more effective ways of meeting that threat HERE. The closest I'll come to real combat would be seen if any moron trampled our flag in a public place. I'd give him some 'intense counselling'.

Consider this. BBOY went to a lot of trouble to disparage the authors research credentials "Do you know what he actually said" then... goes on to 'minimize' in such a predictable way about 'oh..its only this and that.. marriage disputes' etc...

WHICH IS EXACTLY why..I posted about the Sharia/Taxi thing.
You see.. what Williams said.. (be it limited to the 'minimalist' softly softly, she'll be right mate understanding BBOY has) does nothing to refute the 'creeping Sharia' and the "we will get away with alll that we can"ism trotted out by various Islamist interests.

You see BBOY... it's not about 'just this' or 'just that'...its about the big picture and.. dare I say it.. if you're knowledge of Islam was as sound as your level of gazing at the journalistic naval of Johnathan...you might even (if ur lucky) be said to 'have a clue'.

JOHNNY... no mate..what we need to be free of..is ANY Religion which is so intimately connected with the State or.. regards itSELF as a State.. be it Anglicanism.. RC.. or Islam and then.. we can all compete on a level playing field. Christ did not come to establish 'a state'.

Just a thought, in light of the above 2 posts...

When the christians "win" as Gibo claims, the world will full of nothing but Gibos and BD's...

AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!

BBoy

(1)You infer that I didn't read the Archbishop's words. Au contraire, I did read them and I also read a transcript of what His Eminence shared with the BBC.

(2) You claim that 'Jonathan.... spends a lot of time raking muck and carrying water for Likud party political narratives'. I think you, like a few others, may have confused me with a prolific writer on foreign affairs who shares my name, but alas doesn't share my profession or the topics I discuss.

Yes, Boaz, Yindin, keep religion and State completely separate. Williams is a complete idiot for even suggesting that, for some (not even just his own 'flock'), religion should rule over secular law. Are we to all go back to the Ottoman milet system where religious leaders dictated to 'their' flock' (under total Ottoman control, of course) according to their interpretation of religious law even in secular issues ?

Keep church and state totally separate. It's shameful that we should even have to consider this issue in the present time of diversity and exchange of ideas and experiences. We don't live in some sort of cookie-cutter world, and never have.

I dont think the Arch B actually called us to " embrace of sharia law to the bosom of the English legal system"

The trouble we face is that sharia law (and here I sound like those wingnuts I roundly condemn as latter day Korannic and Sharia scholars) is not only at odds with contemporary western views on women and children in partick you laar - but the type of law promullgated is the medieval interpretation. By those scalliwags hell bent on jihad

The old fella of the church - from my interpretation at least -suggested an accommdation of elements of sharia law - I mean we still have ritual spearings in parts of Australia dont we? - and a jolly good thing too - there are aboriginal courts in variuos jurisdictions around the country - same thing - accommodation.

Some people seem to think/want that Islam will some how change from what it is into something we will like - that is unlikely.

So as muslims, due to their great fecundity, progressivley out number the rest of us what do those who abhor all that is Islam propose should be done?

No one has yet to tell me what might be a way forward - except to say there is no redeeming qualities in any thing Islam and they should simply stop believing what they believe and doing what they do.

I returned recently to where I lived in Londons East End for a number of years, and had my social prinicples challenged by the change.

The local population after ten years, had gone from a Cockney, Jewish, Bengal and passing travellers community, to what appeared a strict Islam community.

The great majority of women wore hajibs head to toe and many where veiled, the men head covered socialised on the street to their own, this in a neighbourhood that was socially cohesive and interactive when I lived there.

Yet my experience was that community and social interaction had gone, I once tried to say hello to a veiled person in the street, and was ignored.

When any religion closes communication between fellow human beings, we have diluted human feelings and respect for each other.

Without identifying and showing common respect and communication for each person in our community, we have no community.

My social principles are still steadfast, though it is sad that we have people, who do not respect that they are in a different culture, and recognise accordingly.

England and Europe are in deep trouble and if the American Left has its way, we are soon to follow. Multi-culturism and polically correctness are surrender, if a nation doesn't care to protect its heritage and culture, it is done. That seems to be the path we and Europe are taking, but the left has always collapsed before, and I am confident it will collapse again. The Leftist phylosophy is not sustainable, there is no there, there. Just vote Republican, all the time, every time and turn back the Lefties, there is no future for America if we follow in the foot steps of Europe, an almost, and maybe soon to be, a failed continent. Europe will rise again, maybe, but it is a daunting task when you don't have at least 2.1 babies per couple, and no country in Europe has a native population birth rate close to that. Some European countries already have a death rate that surpasses the birth rate, thats why they let the moslems invade, to keep the current generation content in their welfare state, a condition that will collapse sooner then our Social Security system.

DeepDarkOpps

Unfortunately I am not surprised by the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in favour of sharia law.

It didn't make much news here but in the USA (where else?) in the middle of last year emerged a story of an Episcopalian 'priest' (mind you, the New Testament says that there is only one priest) had converted to Islam, and was still being employed in her job as a 'priest' after declaring her conversion to Islam.

See

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

a quote from that story:

"Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.

On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.

She does both, she says, because she's Christian and Muslim."

This story really shows how ruined the 'liberal' side of the Anglican community has become and how little it adheres to its 'constitution' contained in the 39 Articles, to its doctrinal basis as spoken in the Nicene creed.

This declaration by the Archbishop of Canterbury, when members of his own flock in Nigeria are increasing suffering under Sharia, strengthens my agreement in Sydney Bishops not attending Lambeth.

Perhaps the good Archbiship should remember what happens to people who convert to Christianity in countries under Sharia law.

BBoy says 'The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism.' Have you not read Melanie Phillips on the topic?. It is clear concise and quite superb and will change you point of view totally. Unless of course you choose to remain ignorant.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, and I quote,
"There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with SOME aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law."

But he DID NOT endorse the "kind of inhumanity" that was associated with sharia in some Islamic states.

His comments were made in a lecture on civil and religious law given at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, and were swiftly rebutted by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman, who insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," he said.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at."

As a previous poster exclaimed - "For Shame" on the author, for not presenting all of the facts as they occurred. And "shame" also
on those posters - who simply rant and rave about anything that has the word "Islam" in it.

It is all about power.If an Anglican waning diety sees an opportunity,then let Allah be the vehicle to his/her power.We don't need churches or godly concepts,just more faith in ourselves.

Foxy, the problem is a little like democracy - you can either take all or it, or leave all of it: Democracy functions due to the sum of its constituent parts, not just laws, but elections, separation of powers, separation of 'church' and state.

Who is to decide which bits of Sharia Law are to be incorporated into the law of the land? If it is only those parts of Sharia that already agree with the current law, then there is no point in privileging it. It is already there.

Or are you saying that Britain, and possibly Australia, should adopt the model currently in India, where some types of disputes are ruled upon by government set-up religious courts, where the culture of the parties are taken into account? That is, where a 'Christian' woman is treated more favourably than an Islamic woman in an otherwise identical family law matter, and where a Hindu women is treated differently again?

To privilege Sharia Law in a western democracy is to discriminate against women. After a long struggle, women and men are at least nominally equal (but not fully equal) under the law in the west, this is one thing that Islamic extremists are fighting against. Do you really want to set women back into the dark ages of being little more than chattels and possessions? Do you advocate the Sharia position because it privileges males?

Foxy: What do YOU see the role of Sharia in a 'western' democracy is? Seeing that it has been argued that democracy - being the acceptance of the inherent value of the individual - depends on so called Christian values?

Ah, Boaz, the undisputed champion of the knee-jerk, whack-a-mozzie reaction.

>>Probably a good place to share this...MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL (Muslim) TAXI DRIVERS REFUSE SERVICE TO PASSENGERS CARRYING ALCHOLOL[sic].<<

Boaz, you know as well as anyone that this was a pure media beat-up. The airport commission voted unanimously "to suspend for 30 days any driver who refuses to carry a passenger. A repeat offense could result in a two-year license revocation."

I know that this does not give you any pleasure, because it removes just one more opportunity for you to rant on about the encroaching Islamic hordes.

>>Does everyone see it? I surely hope so...<<

We do, Boaz. And it's not a pretty sight, that dribble on your chin.

>>Call to Prayer from Mosques: UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml

Did you read the article?

>>Last month, dozens of people packed into a council meeting to signal their outrage, claiming they feared the prayer call would be an "un-neighbourly intrusion" that could turn the area into a "Muslim ghetto".<<

"dozens of people" Boaz? "packed into a council meeting"? Yeah, right, that's a lot of worried Boaz's, signalling their outrage.

As someone who was woken up every Sunday as a youth by three separate local churches clanging away, I have a certain sympathy with the noise pollution argument. But it never struck me as signalling a religious revolution, despite the fact that the three churches were clearly different denominations. If it did turn into a "Christian ghetto", I didn't notice it.

>>Never mind the fact that they KNOW that to migrate to a place MEANS abiding by its laws.<<

Laws move with the times, Boaz, unlike you.

One day there may even be a law against beating your daughter - that's the day you should fear most, I reckon.

BOAZ,

CLAIM. "If.. muslims are allowed to dominate any industry or area, they WILL without question seek to impose Sharia law on the community, even if that goes against the law of the land."

Who is making that claim and under what circumstances could it possibly happen?

The truth is wobbles, not trying to negate what BOAZ might say in response to your question, is that the muslims take over whatever or wherever their seed sprouts up.
One sad little tragedy was a suburb called Punchbowl in Sydney. Bit by bit they moved into the suburb. Street by street they grew, pushing out the anglo-saxons. Older Australian folk got abused in the streets and spat on and harassed by the muslim thug children and eventualy were forced to move along. Then the muslims got into hen-pecking and whinging to the local politicians to have streets re-named with arab names and then they got schools closed and re-openned as muslim schools, then as the muslim kids grew up, taught by their fathers about the global conquest plan, they became muslim gangs and spread out from their base to contaminate surrounding suburbs...changing the flow of regional Australian youth society... running around with handguns and threatening lives.
Islam, as I have come to know it in Australia, is not a religion of great love but of conquest for the (fallen) spirit power that they call allah. They have guns stored away for the great day of the take-over of Australia and they have plans for civil war within our great land. Not all are like this... but the population percentage of violent and threatening world-conquering Islamics is estimated at a global 10%. Thats over 100million militants out of over 1 billion muslims.
Do you see why I push for a citizens home guard defence force?
We are threatened from within as well as from without.

Such a divisive tool this Religion.

On the Archbishop's website it is clear he was not advocating the wholesale adoption of Sharia. I am not sure which aspect he was referring to, it is not clear on the site and I have not done further reading.

Law and religion should not mix. The US makes similar concessions to the polygamist Christians some extremists even marrying girls as young as 13. This is child abuse under the law but is allowed to continue unabated in the US. Some of these concessions may not be in law but there is little recourse for the victims due to isolation.

Isolation is the biggest contributor to abuse, and Sharia Law or any other law that might conflict with a nation's law written to protect its inhabitants should be scrutinised rigorously.

Better really that Religion not play a part at all - too many different sects, sets of beliefs, distortions of history to suit the dogma and paternalistic posturing. While we can accept the various relgious beliefs - if someone wants to kneel in front of a wooden icon or dance around a pole I don't care and respect their right to choose how to live their life, but when these beliefs interfere with the legal system then it becomes a worry.

Dear Hamlet,

As you know - the powerful groups in the community, in particular government and the large corporations, carry a great responsibility but their access to money, information and the ears of power...drains the decency from democracy. Often the result is a kind of conservatism which is an impediment to social change and breeds prejudice. It's not good for the country, for the land, or the people.

As far as Britain and sharia law is concerned - what the Archbishop was saying in his lecture was, as I understand it, the accommodation could be looked at - concerning certain contractual laws ( for - example - marriage)that are aleady being practiced - which would not clash with the laws of the land.

However, the spokesman for the Prime Minister negated the Archbishop's point of view - and that was that.
I don't understand what all the fuss is about - it seems like a storm in a teacup to me...

The Archbishop of Canterbury's lecture,'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective' was an attempt to raise the issues surrounding a religious conscience in a secular state in an effort to 'prove' how it can play a positive role in everyday life. The real reason he used Sharia law as an example was to avoid mentioning other more pressing issues that relate to his own church - gay and female clergy, abortion , stem cell research and the like. One could either see it as I've stated above, or as a way of releasing the manifold demons of Islam for debate. It would seem he did both admirably.

Sharia law is a complex religious justice system. It starts from the most simple, common issues and goes to the most advanced. When we speak for Sharia law we mean the hard core, the law which violates women's rights, human rights, death by stone, cut thief's hand etc. When the Archbishop speak for Sharia law he probably means very simple common things, as registration, etc. I am sure the Archbishop try to make Muslim's life easier and less costly. I agree with him. It is better when we speak for sharia law to be specific, and avoid any misunderstanding. It is seemed there are people who try to find opportunities to attack Islam and if we are not very detailed, very specific we give them the chance to hit Islam and anyone else who promote the cooperation between people from different religious background.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

What people seem to be forgetting here is that Islam is not just a personal religion, it is also a political movement intent on imposing its law and regulations on the the whole world. If you doubt what I say, there are many examples on You-tube and other internet web sites of Muslims actually saying what they want and have decided is to be the fate of the west. What is more, it is all contained in the Koran, including their modus operandi.
We would be stupid to ignore what they are saying, thinking "it couldn't happen here" etc.
They have already announced their intentions and they started many years ago trying to implement their agenda. Well before 9/11.
The Archbishop's comments are really stupid. You can't have just a "little bit of Sharia"- as soon as the principle is accepted, the Muslims will push for more and more.
I really hope that the tolerant easy going people in the west will not let down their guard and allow the Islamic takeover, but due to the number of apologists for them in this forum and others, I fear that they will win.
Unfortunately things will have to get a lot worse and the proportion of Islamics in Europe will have to get bigger before the average westerner will start to wake up. By then it may be too late, if it is not already.
Appeasement will not help against such an implacable and determined enemy.

Lets have one more world war and get it over with! or this crap will go on forever. When will people learn that religion should be treated like a drug, and should be banned! But Hey! I could be wrong! Didn't Jesus try the religious thing! I don't see him in the share market, or have a long life. Funny how the coronation rings out like the cry of death.
Just joking! I just love teasing the sheep people. But not all is lost! Without archbishops and alike, how will they fleece your pockets and guide you home.

Is it emus or that other dumb bird that sticks it head in the sand.

Yes yes, I know that ostriches don't stick there heads in the sand.

DANISH RIOTS... Muslim youths...."now"

No..its not a year or so back.. its right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330911,00.html

WHO? Muslim youth.

WHY? "We feel harassed"

One has to ask...in all seriousness... why any thinking person would want to provide even the slightest encouragement to the legal/social infrastructure of a community which will, at the smallest provocation (in our eyes) respond in such violent, anti social ways.

How long before the Arch bishop is calling for "prohibition of anything which insults Muslims"... to "Accomodate" their religous sensibilities?

THE DRAMA UNFOLDS.....

I can see it now.

1/ Archbishop..in generosity of spririt and heart..calls for accomodation of banning 'things which insult Islam and its prophet'.

2/ The British government humbly and obediently obliges.

3/ The Muslim council of Britain COMPLIMENTS the Government.

4/ They invite Sheikh Yufuf Qaradawi to come and 'share' some deep islamic insights with them.
(He rejects human rights, support suicide bombings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

5/ Sheikh Qawadari rocks up.. rants and raves and stirs up the Muslims to be actively outraged over ALL things which insult Islam and their prophet......... he names 'SHIRK' as one of the most offensive things.

6/ The Muslim Council of Britain (now with considerable power and influence and prestige.. since the MegaMosque has been built, Wahabi Money has been funding many new religous schools.. buying knighthoods and bribing Peers and Lords, and it makes a declaration:

"Associating partners with Allah is the move grievous sin a human being can commmit... we call on the government to arrest the Archbishop of Canterbury, and execute him... for 'offending Islam and Insulting the prophet and most of all, the sin of 'SHIRK"

7/ The stunned Archbishop is dragged from his palace, to Jail, with a confused look on his face.

THIS IS MIND BLOWING......

Muslim Council of Great Britain.

http://www.mcb.org.uk/

"We need a thoughtful discourse, not a hysterical discord" (Muslims in Denmark are quite hysterical right now)

(Same page)

"The Muslim Community is urged to demonstrate Solidarity against Xenophobia and Racism"

(Same page)

"MCB deplores decision by British Government to bar Sheikh Qawadari"

COMMENT DISCUSSION.

What does Sheikh Qawadari believe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

<<Among many Muslims, he is considered a moderate conservative, who seeks to explain and adapt the ideals of the Islamic lifestyle with those of modern society. Others consider him as a staunch Islamist, who rejects universal human rights and some of the fundamentals of democracy, and note his endorsement of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilian targets.>>

"REJECTS UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS"

Qawadri Quotes:

Defending terrorist bombing against off duty soldiers Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:

* "An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
* "I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
* "Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".

In response to Muslim scholar 'Abdullaah ibn Jibreen's fatwa declaring that it was forbidden for Muslims to support or pray for the terrorist group Hezbollah because they are Shia, Qaradawi issued a contrary fatwa, stating that it was mandatory for all Muslims to support Hezbollah in its fight against Israel,

Israel=Ally of our Allies. Thus to support her enemies is breach of treaty and treachery.

Well golly gosh.... sounds like the sort of bloke we really need around...right? I cannot imAGine why the British Government would want to bar such an enlightened and tolerant soul. His position as one of the 'thinking elite' in the Muslim Brotherhood surely doesn't quality him for this 'xenophobic and racist' gesture?

Boaz David

I'm sure this has been said to you before:

But pot calling kettle?? I guess you don't own a mirror?

You consistently post some of the most divisive and vilifying comments on OLO, I had a christian upbringing and you are an embarrassment to all that is good about christianity - although you are an exemplary model of all that is bad.

I apologise to all other OLO readers and posters for succumbing to commenting on this deviant christian.

On the topic of Islam, it is a shame that the Koran doesn't have an equivalent 'new testament' which has clearly 'civilised' to some extent the singular deity followers who call themselves christians. Whether he existed or not, the philosophy espoused by Jesus has much merit - shame about the supernatural element with virgin births (problematic for women's autonomy) and resurrection of dead people (not so problematic for George Romero ;-)) However I digress.

It seems that without the NT we would be left with a religion on a par with Islam in its brutality and vengeful nature. As for sharia, well there are probably some reasonable bits that would fit in with current British law, but better to keep complete separation of church and state altogether.

And isn't it about time that the special treatment all religions get vis a vis taxation and schools was dispensed with? What a monumental con-job are the tax breaks and school concessions - is Australia the only country to fund religious schools?

We need freedom from all religions. But a NT koran would be a good start for this small world of ours.

1. Allow me to quote some inane comment from FoxNews.

2. Then I'll make up some quotations from the Koran that I just copied from JihadWatch.

3. Then let me link this to something I read the other day in the Daily Telegraph.

4. ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!

See, that all logically follows when you don't take your tablets.

BOZO_DAGWood

Bozo_Dagwood
1. Muslims are not all evil-most are just misguided.Maybe they can't help it if they have been indoctrinated since birth. Some Muslims ARE evil.
2. Islam is obviously not all evil- but it has some evil elements in it, which more properly belong to the 7th century. Maybe it needs updating, like Christianity-think about it.
3. Islam does not belong in the West, as it is incompatible with Western culture and thought, especially those aspects concerning tolerance and freedom. I'm talking about apostacy, women's rights, homosexual's human rights, and the right of other people NOT to believe in any religion.
4. I am an agnostic, but I do not wish to stop people from believing in their religion, if that is what makes them happy. It is only when religion impinges on other people's rights that I disagree with it.

This topic has headed off into its usual 'lets attack the Islamic faith and Muslim actions' directions.

If you want to go that way, fine, but I believe that we should get back to the initiating action: that is, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking as head of an international (fractured) community of around 80 million protestant Christians, and as the head of the official church of Britain, has sought to privilege the legal system which stems from another faith's beliefs.

In many ways different faiths are already privileged in nominally secular society, for instance Sikhs are allowed to carry their knives places where no-one else is allowed to carry a weapon, anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent disadvantage on the basis of belief.

If Rowan Williams as a private citizen who professes to be a Christian, had made these comments then no big deal. But as the head of the Anglican Church his views can be seen as his arguing, on behalf of the church.

This he was not doing. Perhaps he should be a servant to his flock, rather than a sheep swayed by politics. He should have looked to the basis of his faith, and sought the opinions of those he claims to speak on behalf of, before heading in this sort of direction.

He has rejected the views of the majority of the church, the church should now have the right to reject him.

Gibo,

You say that "They have guns stored away for the great day of the take-over of Australia and they have plans for civil war within our great land. ....the population percentage of violent and threatening world-conquering Islamics is estimated at a global 10%. Thats over 100million militants out of over 1 billion muslims."

One in ten Muslims in this country have a cache of weapons stashed somewhere and are waiting to launch a violent takeover at the order of some mysterious secret leader?

About 1% of our population is Muslim so that would mean about 20,000 armed insurgents are out there somewhere, and are so well organised that none of this has leaked out.

So where do you get this information from? I suggest you pass any information onto the authorities immediately.

I believe Gibo acquired his intelligence from a prophecy uttered by a pastor who arrived by flying saucer.

BOZO_DAGWOOD - you sound familiar. Are you related to anyone we know?

BBC TV today.

Just this morning.. in an interview with Muslims about the Archbrightspark's remarks on Sharia..one Muslim leader actually claimed that "There are many countries today where concurrent/parallel legal systems are the starting point and why shouldn't UK be the same?"

Well...as for me.. this is part of Sharia, and is one err shall we say... 'slight' reason why I would not want any Sharia.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm
PART FOUR
THE JUDGEMENTS CONCERNING THOSE WHO THINK THE PROPHET IMPERFECT OR CURSE HIM.

SECTION TWO
The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who
curses the Prophet or finds fault with him.

The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.

Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment." (33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, "Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain." (33: 61) He mentions the punishment of those who fight, "That is humiliation in this world for them." (5:45) "Killing" (qatl) can have the meaning of "curse".[6] Allah says, "May the conjecturers be killed!" (51:11) and "May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!" (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.

COMMENT.. well stripe me pink.... there it is.. Surah 9:30... hmmm I've seen that before.. AAH yes.. in just about every 2nd post I do.. .. I can't figure out why ...can you?

Notice ONE...thing..if you ignore all else. "The Connection between 'Allah's curses and earthly human punishment in Islam"

me...divisive ? Vilifying?

Thanx 4 the complement... now people are even inventing names deliberately to mock me :)

Boazy: " I can't figure out why ...can you?"

It's pretty obvious to most of us Boazy - it's called obsession, and is a form of psychopathology. I believe that the kind you have demonstrated in this thread is called Islamophobia.

Not to worry, it's probably treatable with a combination of medication and psychotherapy, which might also help with your other obsessive disorders, e.g. your homophobia.

A Muslim scholar noted that Muhammad spend 13 years preaching but to no avail. However, after setting up of the Islamic state in Medinah, and using force, beheadings, etc Islam became an instant success.

The success of Islam hinges upon the Islamic concept of the Kingdom of Allah on earth. The Kingdom of Allah is realised through the Shari’ah laws. Halal foods, Islamic banking, family issues laws( which discriminates against women), etc contribute towards the oppressive nature of Islam.

http://www.ikwro.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266&Itemid=26

In secular Singapore, a Muslim principal of a primary school mandated a HALAL-FOOD-ONLY rule in the school.
The school has only 20% Muslim, 80% non-Muslims. It was stated in forums that non-Muslim children had to ‘smuggle’ ham sandwiches, pork buns into school. Checks were made. Any non-halal food found was confiscated. When parents complained, the government quickly reversed the policy and apologised.

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-838.htm

Bboy states (Friday, 15 February 2008 11:14:11 AM):
"The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism."

Bboy is obviously not aware that the words were spoken by the Archbishop in a RADIO INTERVIEW on the BBC in England, which was heard by many people, among them my sister. The telephone lines to the BBC went red-hot with outrage at the end of the programme. The ARCHBISHOP OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH has subsequently tried to back-pedal, obviously, but to no avail, because people "HEARD" what he said.

Just shows how SOME people will go to any length, EVEN TO DENYING THE TRUTH, to defend the indefensible.

Re that Singapore school and halal food issue.

There can be considered another dimension to this: the non-Islamic kids didn't have to eat non-halal food, but if the Islamic kids ate, then in the opinion of Islamic scholars, they would be jeopardising their salvation:

Okay you say - big deal:

In many Australian schools, and probably in lots of other places, sandwiches and other foodstuffs containing peanut butter, peanuts, peanut oil and other nut products are banned, because of the risk of these foods causing massive and potentially fatal or crippling allergic reactions in maybe 5 to 10% of the kids at those schools. Children swap food, they are not able to recognise the difference between dangerous and not dangerous.

Kids get along very well without peanuts in their school lunches and snacks, other kids can get along very well with foods that do not contain non-halal items.

Was anyone actually harmed by the banning of non-halal foods? Or was this just a beat up?

If you are going to start criticising Islam (and there is a lot to be contentious about) do it for something more than the issue of halal foods.

Hamlet, what a load of bollocks!

There's a big difference between actual danger and supposed danger, based on the delusional ramblings of some seventh century SO CALLED "PROPHET"!!

The point is that these people, the Muslims, want to impose their religious mores on the rest of the Earth's population. I think they should be opposed ON PRINCIPLE.

"Was anyone actually harmed by the banning of non-halal foods?"

Yes, the rights of the non-Muslims to eat the foods of their choice. The school is a secular school and so no one religion should be favoured over another.

In fact, no harm comes to a Muslim if they were to eat pork or a ham sandwich. It is only because their minds are held captive by Islamic teachings that such-and-such a thing is unclean, and if they were to do it they would end up in hell.

This "halal-foods" case goes beyond dietary concerns, rather it shows how a Muslim in authority forces Islam on non-Muslims to observe the Islamic ideology.

Islam is an ideology that is steep in ancient superstitions with a long list of prohibitions. It was spread through the use of violence, coercion and deceit. Muslims are mentally imprisoned by the doctrines and practices of Islam. Frequently finding excuses for their irrational behaviour and never truly able to cope with the demands of modernity.

Pakístan was founded on the Islamic ideal, yet almost all of her prime ministers (Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-haq, Ms. Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, Nawar Sharif) went to Christian mission schools. Surely, if Muslims are to follow the Islamic ideology their mentality would not go further than the 7th century CE camel riders.

Maybe when we are talking about bad laws we could consider two that the Israeli High court have just deemed to be legal.

1. the murder of anyone that Shin Bet deems to be a threat with no interference from pesky lawyers and judiciary.

2. the starvation of 1.5 million Palestinians because a few people fire rockets.

Perhaps the lunar right want more laws like these from 'civ'lised' people?

GOOD old CJ... mate.. you just don't get it do you :)

*pat pat*..

RECENT CLAIM MADE BY 'ME' ABOUT MUSLIMS IN COMMUNITY..

<<Muslims in community will always seek to have Sharia (or as much of it as they can get) implemented over the rest of the community.>>

Now..qualifying this a tad further for accuracy. 'Within the Muslim community, there will be the usual spectrum extremes and the middle ground. The radical end.. will be most vocal.

Its 'that' end of the community spectrum I address these points to.

I looked up Steven Tangs link.

Some facts.

-BOON LAY is at the opposite end of Singapore from where most Muslims live.
-20% of students are Muslim 80% non Muslim
-Headmaster is... a MUSLIM.

<<The issue arose when headmaster {Wan Imran Woojdy} wrote to all parents telling them that their children would not be allowed to bring non-halal food into the canteen.>>

WELLLLL...there you go :) HAM SANDWICH fiasco alll over again.. repeated.. now..in scientific terms.. anything which is repeatable is pretty much confirmed.

So..we have
-Taxi Drivers in Minnesota(80%) refusing to carry booze or blind guide dogs
-Muslim mayors demanding all halal food at councils (Hume/Melbourne)

-Muslim principles dictating only halal food for 80% of students not Muslim.. (Singapore)
-Danish Muslim rioters yelling (freely) 'Free Speech is a plague' (this week)

and so the increasingly large list goes on....

BALANCE
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."

BUT... Muslim_Council_UK said of the Archbishops comments were "thoughtful".

and.. this is 'Islamophobia' ? now you know why I gave you a couple of pats :) to which I now add 'there there'.

Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -— several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. ~ Mark Twain

Good luck on this one folks. Call me when you reach a consensus.

"1. Allow me to quote some inane comment from FoxNews.

2. Then I'll make up some quotations from the Koran that I just copied from JihadWatch.

3. Then let me link this to something I read the other day in the Daily Telegraph.

4. ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!"

Very, very, very funny.