2008 February 07 Thursday
Archbishop of Canterbury Supports Sharia Law For British Muslims
The Archbishop of Canterbury should be stripped of his British citizenship and deported along with British Sharia supporters.
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.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
If you want to maintain social cohesion then don't let in incompatible cultures and religions. If you think that the potential exists for such disloyalty that parallel legal systems even come under consideration then you have a very deep problem that must be solved at its roots. A parallel legal system is just a step on the road toward deeper divisions and greater segregation into parallel societies in the same physical territory. Why inflict that upon yourselves unless you are a sadist or a masochist?
There's another way to avoid the conflict between cultural loyalty and state loyalty: Deport the foreign culture.
Balkanization leads to civil war. Lebanon is once again skirting the edges of possible civil war. Britain can become another Lebanon or perhaps a Kosovo. Or Britain can expel the incompatible religion and culture.
Not all cultures are mutually compatible. Not all religions are compatible. Loyalty to a culture can and does often mean disloyalty to the larger society. Why live in a society so divided and distrustful? Why let your country become divided up into separate incompatible cultures?
"Why inflict that upon yourselves unless you are a sadist or a masochist?"
Perhaps because your society is run along PC lines by a collection of deluded liberals, aided and abetted by an intelligensia strong on ideology, but with no knowledge of history and no common sense.
But if Sharia Law is to govern the lives of British Muslims, then what will happen to marriage contracts? For instance, the divorce laws according to Sharia, favor the decision of the husband to divorce much more easily than a woman's decision. There is no equality in marriage. Additionally, a husband can have several wives. Thus the marriage laws of UK and Sharia will collide.
Can Sharia be restricted to just Muslims? Arn't the rest of us suppose to comply?
Can Sharia be restricted to just Muslims? Arn't the rest of us suppose to comply?
Thus the marriage laws of UK and Sharia will collide.
I doubt it will work out that way. There will not be a "collision" as collision implies that there is some kind of resistance. If there is any resistance in England(or the rest of Europe), I must have missed it. Normal English and Western law will be bent, twisted and hammered like a square peg into a round hole by the communists/multiculturalists/3rd world lovers/accomodationist bureaucrats/traitors/useful idiots/, etc... In fact, it already is. There will be all kinds of bullshit reasoning and accomodating, etc...Finally, normal English and Western laws will be ignored( and it is). I call it "creeping" sharia. Sharia has been given an inch and the muslims are taking 100 miles. In Al England there are muslim nurses that are refusing to wash their hands and there can be no mention of pigs in schools. Muslim cab drivers are refusing to take blind people with dogs or passengers with booze and many colleges are providing these fucks with footbaths and room for their daily cult prayers to the Moon God Allah. Whoops, wait, that's here in the US! The rest of us dhimmis have to comply because if we don't we are not being sensitive or tolerant of islam. We just have to accept the fact that islam is a religion of peace, or else.
in any event, sharia is applied to everyone, muslim or not, when muslims run the show. Take a look at the ME or Pakistan. The only hope for England (and Europe)is violent civil conflict which cleanses England and Europe of islam. The surviving muslims are then rounded up and deported at gunpoint along with the traitors who brought about the situation in the first place. However, the European leaders and gov't types who brought about this situation may also get tried and shot or jailed. They may not survive white Euro counter terror(remember the OAS?) either.
Things are too far gone for a peaceful solution because islam is not about peaceful solutions. Islam is about power. The "elected" or "representative" governments of England or France or Germany or the Scandinavian nations are either ineffectual/incapable/unwilling in stopping muslim immigration, rioting, savagery and lunacy and the imposition of islam on the host population, so violence is the only solution.
What happens with disputes or crimes between British people and Muslims who reside there? Will Muslims be sentenced with Shaia laws? That might actually be good.
Of course, the best places for Muslims who want to live under Muslim laws are Muslim countries.
Rob said: "What happens with disputes or crimes between British people and Muslims who reside there? "
This is a very good question, because I have the impression that the Sharia law explicitly says that non-Muslims do not have equal rights in comparison to Muslims. Correct me if I am not precise, but I believe that there is a tax that the non-Muslims must pay the Muslim authority, and the Muslims are exempt from this tax. In other words, if there is a dispute between a Muslim and a non-Muslim individual in England, then there will be a conflict of interest between the two legal systems.
By the way, the punishment for insulting the Muslims can be death, and this punishment was successfully carried out last year in Holland when the Dutch politician Van Gogh was killed in the street for having made a movie criticizing Islam.
And now, another Dutch politician called Geert Wilders, is getting ready to make a new movie to criticize Islam. Apparently, he has received many death threats, and a large number of guards are protecting him all the time. Wilders is saying that the movie will be released in March 2008. If he really does release the movie, the reaction will be very violent. Actually, his two part interview with Fox News (separated in two pieces), can be found in the internet.
It is indeed tragic that the British people, who fought heroically, long and hard against the tyrants Napoleon and Hitler, are being asked to submit to this new form of tyranny. It reminds me of the 1930's, when, with unfriendly dictatorships flourishing all over Europe, British intellectuals vowed that they would not fight for king and country. Music to the ears of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, I'm sure. So I'll try to spell it out, so that even the Reverend Archbishop can understand:
The Muslims don't want equal rights, they want the only rights. Their ultimate goal is not a separate society in which they can live under Sharia (bad as that would be), it is to impose Sharia on the entire nation and force everyone to live according to their wonderful seventh century codes. They don't seek equality, they seek dominance. Islam means submission, which is what they expect from non-Muslims. They view assent to their ridiculous demands as a sign of weakness that will cause them to make even more outrageous demands. The tragic thing is that the Muslims have nothing to offer - their intellectual, political and social systems are centuries behind the West, and the gap is growing. So why do we want to have anything to do with them? For his achievements, we will present the Archbishop with our first annual Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Award. The presentation will be made in Munich on Hitler's birthday. All are welcome to attend.
This is absurd on so many levels.
One obvious problem with dual legal systems is that there are always going to be disputes where one party is subject to one legal system and the other party is subject to another. There can be no resolution that is entirely satisfactory to both parties and this inevitably fosters complaints of injustice. I believe you have a lot of these problems in India where the government attempts to legally accommodate various religions. Resolving disputes between Muslims and Hindus (not to mention Christians, Sikhs, and others) has got to be a real headache. You also have similar issues in places like Egypt where some people simply don't fit into any of the prevailing legal systems. (Bahais, for example, are neither Muslims nor Christians.) The end result is that such arrangements breed further tension between groups even as they discourage assimilation and interaction.
But since we are talking about the "passive and gentle" British culture, on this occasion let me mention that the British imperialists in South Africa, massacred thousands of Boers in concentration camps, by starving them:
100 years ago, the English invaded a country and interned their enemy there. Today, England itself has been invaded and the invaders have killed English citizens through suicide bombings and threatened more, all the while proclaiming their intent to remake England into something not English. These invaders also threaten anyone who insults their beliefs with death.
Instead of interning these savages and/or deporting them and shooting a few as a lesson to the rest(or at the very least demanding they conform to the English way of life like not committing honor killings, clitorectomies, wife beating, etc...), the English gov't has accomodated them and makes sure they don't have their feelings hurt by essentially handing over portions of their own land to the said invaders and making anything that English citizens say that could be considered insulting about them essentially against the law(like saying the invaders are lunatics, crazy, or fucked up 3rd world cultists and so on). Sounds like passivity to me. But then again I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.
The point I am trying to make is the the "passive" English people can change and they can revert back to their previous barbarism. The intentional mass starvation of the Boers (European immigrants in South Africa who opposed the British) as well as the enslavement of the Blacks, was done by the polite British. I do not think that people change so fast within just one century. The politeness is very superficial. For the moment, the British have a currently working system which is still reasonably comfortable, and so they just don't want to rock the boat or make waves, that's all. But when things get very difficult, it is guaranteed that they will become as ruthless and draconian as their German cousins during the previous century. Thus in the end, the Muslim extremists will understand that the British passiveness was not weakness but temporary laziness, but by then it will be too late for them.
Thus in the end, the Muslim extremists will understand that the British passiveness was not weakness but temporary laziness, but by then it will be too late for them.
I hope you are correct. As I said, it seems that violence is the only solution. It is all islamics seem to understand.
But if you read Kersten Memoirs, by Dr Felix Kersten, who was the personal physician of Heinrich Himmler, you will see that the Nazis actively favored Islam over Christianity. Both Hitler and Himmler explicitly said that they wished Germans were Muslims instead of Christians, for Islam, in their opinion, "was a strong and dominant religion that was the best faith for the German race, while Christianity was too weak for the Germany." Himmler said that "he regretted that Karl Martel defeated the Arab invaders, and that had the Arabs successfully invaded Germany a few centuries ago, then Germany would have become the most powerful country in the world, and that they would not have lost World WarI by showing weakness".
Basically any religion can be misused if the bad intention is there, but the current extremist literal interpretation of Islam definitely represents a problem, because after a decade, several Muslim countries will be mass-producing hundreds of nukes, if not thousands. Now get this: when the extremist Muslims obtain nuclear missiles, they can fire a dozen these from commercial ships in order to detonate these at high altitude, in order to cause an electromagnetic pulse ("EMP") that can destroy most of the electronics both in North America and also in Europe. This can devastate the western civilization. Of course this would also mean that our retaliation against those countries will be complete and absolute, but my concern is that life will be miserable in America and Europe if these extremists are allowed to use their EMP weapons. After the EMP attack is done, retaliation will not reverse the damage. It's FAR better if we can prevent it in the first place.
There were serious discussions in the U.S. government about the danger of EMP weapons used by terrorists, and this is a well understood problem by the science nerds, but it is somehow not very widely discussed by the media, since they have only witnessed Hiroshima and Nagazaki, but they cannot visualize what an EMP device is capable of.
Here is a long article that discusses the EMP phenomenon in detail:
The British did not massacre thousands of Boers in concentration camps with starvation, civilians were packed in 'concentration camps' #1 to make it easy to keep an eye on anyone sympathetic to the Boer and #2 to protect the rest of them and provide them with food, it went wrong when the supply lines were attacked causing massive food shortages causing the camps to degenerate into starving filthy hell holes. It was not intentional it was either a mistake or incompetence.
I don't think Britain will have the change in attitude that you suggest, at least not any time soon. What made the European powers strong 100+ years ago was that they were the most advanced countries in the world (yet before birth control) causing a population explosion, in Britain for example we went from approx 8.5million in 1800 to approz 30million in 1900. That surge in young people willing to fight for or agressively push their culture and way of life gave us a kind of strength, now the reverse is happening.
Do you mean that birth control is causing the decline of the Western civilization? This is possible. Especially given the fact that many rival civilizations are doing the opposite of birth control.
Well yes, I think the rapid increasing of the Western population caused their culture to increase in power relative to other parts of the world who were still facing horrific child mortality, places like the Middle-East were extremely sparely populated when Britain and France were the colonial powers there.
Syria: 1922 = 2.2 million, today = 19 million
Lebannon: 1950 = 1.5 million, today = 4 million
Iraq: 1950 = 5 million, today = 28 million
Iran: 1950 = 16 million, today = 70 million
Saudi Arabia: 1950 = 3 million, today = 25 million
Ethiopia: 1950 = 18 million, today = 80 million
Those stats show why Muslims are becoming more influential in the world, compared to Europeans whose populations are actually declining.
I got the stats from here: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/
Which was not great because it only goes back as far as 1950 as far as I could tell from a brief look, I was looking for a different site that went back over hundred years although it was probably estimates because that looked even more dramatic, however these stats seem broadly what I heard before anyway so they'll do to make the point.
I believe that there is a tax that the non-Muslims must pay the Muslim authority, and the Muslims are exempt from this tax.
That would be the jizya, the tax levied upon dhimmis.
This is an interesting discussion concerning why we lost our balls a century ago. I agree that rising population and a higher proportion of young fighters played a part, but I have always believed the main reason was getting rid of our upper class, and replacing them with a new elite sourced from the ranks of the middle class.
Originally, our ruling upper class were, on the whole, heartless, racist, amoral bastards. They knew that power had to be taken and held by force, and generally did not have a touchy feely bone in their bodies. Then along came the middle classes, in the guise of a new breed of entrepreneurs, professionals and industrialists in the nineteenth century. By today's standards these were still tough cookies, but they increasingly displayed a social conscience, and began to invest their profits accordingly. The rot had set in and the nanny state was born.
Eventually, we arrived at where we are today. A country with a majority of fools who have never gone hungry, never had to fight for anything, and increasingly reluctant to drag themselves away from their TVís once every four years to rubber stamp the mandate of their rulers.
Sorry if this is all doom and gloom. Iím in no doubt that we can revert to type, and fairly quickly too. Self interest and preservation borne from millions of years of evolution guarantees this, but these traits will only emerge when the good life and self delusion come to an end. Too late for an orderly change, maybe, but it will happen if tough times come to pass, and if they donít, perhaps we wonít need it.
If the new Dutch politician Geert Wilders keeps his word and really finds the courage to finish his anti-Islam movie in March 2008 as he promised, then it is very likely that there will be a major wave of violence in Europe. The two-part Fox News interview of Geert Wilders can be found in the internet.
If you do a Google search with the sentence: Geert Wilders interview Fox Fews part 1 and part 2 , you will find the two parts of the interview videos. The Dutch government warned Wilders that he might have to leave Nethelands and hide in other countries if he does not want to get killed.
What is being lost in all the blather and hot air is the inevitable (a word I hate using) fact that in 4o years' time at the uttmost Britain will be majority non-White - and perhaps 30% practising muslim.
Now, I don't agree with Dr. Williams' suggestion in the slightest, but even in his cack-handed way, he deserves credit for actually highlighting one sypmtom of the racial transformation of Britain - a topic that normally only invokes an ostrich-like denial by British 'political leaders', and of the challenges and reality that will impact enormously on the lives of future generations inhabiting this overcrowded isle.
In that context, the Williams speech was a 'Powell moment' rather like the late, great Enoch's 1968 speech.
Confrontation (whetther verbal or physical) is inevitable, all that lies wanting is the spark from some unexpected, unknown source to ignite the tinder.
I suspect the market orientation of the Middle Class causes them to spout all sorts of sweetness aimed at buyers. People whose job it is to sell sell sell typically avoid going negative about any potential customers. Whereas a hereditary ruling class that thinks it has a hereditary right to rule and expects it will rule for generations will take a longer term view.
Suppose it does come to violence. Look at Lebanon as a model. No faction has purged the other factions. They are all there moving from one crisis to the next for decades on end.
In earlier eras one faction would either wipe out another faction or force it to march out of the country. Will we ever see that again?
The West has a choice: Either wall off or get overwhelmed by a demographic deluge. So far getting overwhelmed seems the likelier outcome.