Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on February 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: “I haven’t experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.
“If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live.”
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.”
The Muslim Council of Britain came to Dr Williams’s aid, however, describing his comments in a lecture to lawyers and a BBC interview as “thoughtful”.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No kidding.
Jolly ole England gave us the Magna Carta and the fundamental background for the rights of man that are common accepted now in democratic governments around the world. Why they would want to piss it away is beyond me. Talk about self-loathing.
Spirit of 1776 on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Spirit of 1776 on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 PM
It’s what we have to look forward to in the US. When we constantly accept PC mediocrity…. when we constantly accept multiculturalism…. when we allow steady streams of unregulated and illegal immigration…. we’re going to lose our country’s identity.
Cold Steel on February 8, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Friday night, 21:48 hrs, and I already see the ‘Quote’ thread. Yep it has been a bad week.
Limerick on February 8, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Allah, take that idiot’s picture down, please. Does he purposely try to make us all look at his ugly nose hairs, or does he think that pose makes him look priestly or something?
funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 10:52 PM
AUINSC on February 8, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Unlike the UK, the USA has the Constitution — and a two century old legal system based on it. Sharia law has as much chance of moving into the American legal system as the Alien would have of defeating Godzilla. Even the momma Alien — just a bug shmertz on the bottom of Godzilla’s big foot.
SunSword on February 8, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Yeah, but everyday it seems like more people, including judges and those in power, forget about that.
Grayson on February 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Williams should just
convertrevert to Islam and get it over with. Why be a spineless dhimmi when you can be a Muslim supremacist? He could keep his ratty beard and get a few wives to boot (with government benefits, of course).Vote Sauron 08 on February 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Yep…it would make strange bedfellows. You’d have the Crypts and the NRA firing from the same foxhole.
Limerick on February 8, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Unfortunately.
locke on February 8, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Off with his head. Seriously. Off with his head!
Gartrip on February 8, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Our necessary cruelty is not the worse we can do. It our sadism that is the worse we can do. Dr. Williams wishes to exchange our necessary cruelty with the sadism of muslims. Morally, he is disgusting
thuja on February 8, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Sharia law wouldnt find it’s way into the US because people like me wouldnt let it. Take that however you would like too. :)
gator70 on February 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM
gator70 so you’re not an Obama voter, I guess? :-)
I think I see a disturbing resemblence. Adam Gadahn must be this guy’s love child. LOL
funky chicken on February 8, 2008 at 11:51 PM
This is the same Archbishop who, through a lack leadership, will inevitably cause the Anglican Church to break into multiple factions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3130601.stm
If, as I understand things, the Queen of England is the head of the Church of England, then She is well over due in finding a replacement for this knucklehead before the damage he does becomes irreversible.
c3ichief on February 9, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Never get too confident or too complacent. With judges referencing foreign courts in their decisions and a current bill in congress to set up a separate government for native Hawaiians, a separate law for Muslims is conceivable.
Nosferightu on February 9, 2008 at 12:19 AM
gator70 on February 8, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Read it and weep.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191148.php
appleann on February 9, 2008 at 12:25 AM
The man is an idiot. Why does the does the world pay so much attention to an idiot, and how does such an idiot get a good job?
Who is John Galt?
Montana on February 9, 2008 at 12:27 AM
I saw somewhere today that Texas already allows aspects of sharia law. So it is not a matter of never, it is how far will it spread and continue?
In Ontario Canada it was under consideration and it took Female Canadian Muslims to stop it. The indigenous folks had no idea what it was but it sounded multi-culti and therefore potentially diverse, which is the fashion after all.
Only family law? Divorce and inheritances and custody of children?
Well, that would be good for male Muslims for sure. And simple too.
On a positive note Holland has banned the burka and balaclava as of yesterday.
BL@KBIRD on February 9, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Ayn is weeping from the grave. We need her back to write a novel today, to wake the world up into good senses, again.
Entelechy on February 9, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Where did you see that?
I’ve lived in Texas all of my life. It’s a Republican state, and sharia law is not in effect in any portion of it.
paul006 on February 9, 2008 at 12:58 AM
paul006, see the link provided here (in this thread)
appleann on February 9, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Entelechy on February 9, 2008 at 1:03 AM
There already is such a move afoot in this country. I believe in cases where one might choose a private arbitrator to settle a difference, one might, if it is agreeable by both parties, use a sharia hearing to settle the matter.
crosspatch on February 9, 2008 at 1:06 AM
My internet friend Entelechy. I recommend this link (which is in the one you referenced). It is not nearly uncommon or sinister as some may make it out to be.
http://volokh.com/posts/1202454061.shtml
Regards,
Brad
Bradky on February 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I suspect Williams is too determined to surrender for anyone to talk him out of it.
snaggletoothie on February 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM
The shar’ia rulings of the Texas Islamic Court will now be enforcable through the US court system.
So much for the debate in Britain – we need a long hard look at what is sprouting up here!
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Before you merrily go too far down the path of conjecture and rumor mongering I’d recommend you read the article at
http://volokh.com/posts/1202454061.shtml
from the article:
“And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn’t matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious — secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties’ contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.”
Bradky on February 9, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Exactly, that’s kind of what I was trying to say. I’m just not eloquent tonight. And I don’t even drink.
Anyway, well said.
Grayson on February 9, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Does anyone else find it a wee bit interesting that the representative of the faith that is ready to lay down in the face of persecution looks so downright devilish himself?
I’m just sayin’…
NeoconNews.com on February 9, 2008 at 1:56 AM
It may not be uncommon but it is sinister. They may only be arbitration panels, but who is to say in these Islamic communities whether or not the parties have entered into the arbitration process voluntarily. There could be terrible social pressure, for instance, on a woman to use one of these arbitration courts because her husband wants a quickie divorce, to bind her to a forced marraige, or to be cut off from any inheritance.
I’m just not convinced that Shar’ia rulings should be enforceable at any stage of the process. In Europe it may actually more difficult to do this (maybe why it hasn’t happened yet in Britain) because Sharia has been deemed incompatible with the democracy and fundamental rights by the European Court on Human Rights.
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 2:07 AM
This is a loophole which can only be exploited by CAIR in the future. In this case Foreign Law = Shar’ia Law.
Wasn’t this the same issue in Canada, where Shar’ia arbitration tribunals were defeated? The objection was that these shar’ia arbitration tribunals create a space where women are not equal under the law.
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 2:13 AM
I give up. This has been around for more than a hundred years. All of a sudden it becomes an Islamist plot tied in with the NAU, the 9-11 truthers and the grassy knoll….
Bradky on February 9, 2008 at 2:16 AM
In that case why on earth are we bashing the bish? From what I see in his lecture he’s calling for the same thing, since that space for private dispute arbitration also exists in English law. But over there they haven’t authorised shar’ia courts to be part of that mechanism yet, or gone as far as the Texas Appeals Court in ensuring that the Islamic Tribunal’s decisions are enforceable through the US courts system.
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Rowan Williams is shocked, shocked, I tell you, over the reaction to his comments. What planet has he been living on?
Williams is, like me, from Wales; which is kind of embarrassing. On the other hand, I’m an atheist, so it’s kind of hilarious too.
The clerical head of the Church of England (the Queen is the titular head) is a gibbering imbecile. What does that say about the rest of the C of E?
What can we expect next week? Will the pope submit to Islam? Will Mitt Romney become a Buddhist?
infidel65 on February 9, 2008 at 5:38 AM
Sharia taking over Britain. Yet another reason why we don’t want our courts citing foreign law in American cases.
indythinker on February 9, 2008 at 5:54 AM
Seems very few people are willing to admit the obvious root of this problem – that Islam itself, a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion, is incompatible with Western democracy and free market capitalism. We can delay this showdown, but we can’t avoid it down the road.
Halley on February 9, 2008 at 6:41 AM
On a more positive note, I decided to schedule all of my future honor killings to be done on British soil.
snaggletoothie on February 9, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Rowen Atkinson was just being funny.
drjohn on February 9, 2008 at 8:43 AM
From monarchy to democracy to multi-culturalism to sharia.
DownLeftward spiral.jgapinoy on February 9, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Last time I checked, this man was an Anglican Archbishop. Islam and its customs and traditions are not his business.
trainwife1962 on February 9, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Because they have turned their backs on Christianity. Since there is no morality in their worldview, they can not morally judge another culture. Therefore it is acceptable if another culture wants to be oppressed or at least their men want to oppress women.
Tim Burton on February 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Moreover, in a bizaare way, it’s ok if another culture wants to oppress yours because it’s hard to criticize them for anything–even taking you over. Somewhere deep inside you know you deserve it because you sense your weakness and passivity.
JiangxiDad on February 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I think you’ll find that it seems to be the liberal Christians (and liberal Jews) who are some of the strongest supporters of shar’ia and Islamicisation in Britain, whereas agnostics (like the National Secular Society, are some of the strongest opponents. It is the same dynamic here when I see all those tools from our Divinity Schools licking the feet of the Islamists. In a number of respects such people are worse than the atheists, because in their naivity and blindness they let the whole side down.
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Islam and the Church of England do have in common that their beginnings depended largely on beheadings. As Henry VIII may have said in remembering Anne Boleyne:
Love and marriage;
Why disparage;
Just place the heads;
In a royal carriage.
Annar on February 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Pax americana,
It has always been the case, IMO, that the only real threats to Christianity came from within. So-called “liberal Christians” (who give lip service to Christian doctrine but in reality consider the Bible no more the Word of God than, say, The Golden Compass) have done far more damage to the Faith than any external enemy ever has (Islam being the sole possible exception).
I am just glad C.S. Lewis did not live to see what a disaster his Anglican Church has become.
Lancer on February 9, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I’ve seen that guy on Hot Air for a while now, but I have no idea who he is. Any help?
Weebork on February 9, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Brad, my e-budy, we differ greatly on this.
Spirit said it best here
Spirit of 1776 on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 PM
I don’t care to give them not even a split of a hair. If they don’t like our legal system, home to where they like it better. I’m very abstract in this regard. It’s by “a little here, a little there” that we slide toward loss of liberty and freedom. I find them sinister, yes I do, and have no desire to import any of it, except their food, which is pretty good. I also don’t care how “common” it might have been, or is. I also don’t like where our laws are going.
PC will kill us all, if we’re not careful. This is the moment, not later, when it will be too late. I see it first hand in Muslim acquaintances whom I thought to be ‘moderate’ before 9/11. They turned out otherwise, almost all of them. Huge disappointment, as they are very educated, yes, here.
Entelechy on February 9, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I’ll just bet the local Muslims were “rounding” on him.
Can’t be letting the cat out of the bag, now can we?
Alalazoo on February 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM
That ruling — rendered five years ago — related to a private arbitration agreement. It didn’t make sharia law generally applicable in Texas.
paul006 on February 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Isn’t it odd how good grooming is always the first casualty of a Liberal infection??
landlines on February 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM
German Bishop Protests Against UK Shariah Comments
GermanAtheist on February 9, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Seems like I accidentally quoted Williams just now. The way he qualifies his criticism of the inhumanity of Shariah is interesting though. He apparently believes that Islamic law and in fact Islam as such can be divided into private and public spheres. How sadly mistaken he is.
GermanAtheist on February 9, 2008 at 3:28 PM
might be interesting to see the effects on muslim populations if sharia law only applied to them (and i mean ONLY them) in the midst of the democratic/quasi-democratic nations. might actually result in some support against islamo-fascists from so-called moderate/mainstream muslims (if they truly exist in the purported numbers they claim). start chopping off some hands, heads, whatever, for various offenses, leave women destitute with children when hubbies go away, let ‘em sweat in burkhas, no driving, lose any and all privileges/freedoms now afforded, no booze, tobacco, sex limitations, etc. just might see a revolt in the mosques. or they might decide might as well go home to it.
keldog on February 9, 2008 at 4:27 PM
It’s already happening, thankfully. That’s exactly what Williams’ proposals seemed to be pushing at – shar’ia law for private disputes in the muslim community (something similar happens in Texas) – but it seems some Muslims are furious and have begun to have second thoughts.
Pax americana on February 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Can anyone say, reason for immigrating to Britain from Pakistan?
For that matter, reason why first immigrants to America left Britain?
Kini on February 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Update
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23083487
a capella on February 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Just to replace the current British system.
People hear the word Shariah and have an emotive conjuring of Taliban beheadings.
Shariah is a wide-ranging Islamic code that has evolved over the centuries and is subject to differing interpretations in various countries. It deals with many aspects of daily life, including dress and dietary restrictions, and also codifies how to punish serious offenses.
Kini on February 9, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Why is it that the Euro’s have to go to extremes? Seventy years ago fascism is all the rage. Then they go to becoming PC ewoks. Now, they embrace fascism again.
Take it down a notch for the good of the free world. We already have our military rescuing Afghanistan,Iraq and don’t need to be rescuing Europe with American lives for the third time in less than one hundred freakin’ years.
Hening on February 9, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Demonic eyebrows.
Moronic brain.
Dr. of what?
profitsbeard on February 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM
No joke, what is up with the sinister eyebrows?
Keli on February 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
????
aengus on February 10, 2008 at 11:17 AM