21:25  |  10 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

ISLAM - the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sharia

A very foreign-sounding Muslim on QUESTION TIME, BBC1, 7 February 2008 made the point that the Archbishop of Canterbury should have kept quiet because:

1) he does not represent Muslims
2) most Muslims are not asking for Sharia Law
3) Muslims are not relishing more unwelcome and hostile attention being focused on them at the moment

It is always possible to opt out of the court system here anyway. It is called arbitration, which is what is used to deal with landlord/tenant and construction disputes amongst others. Both parties (usually for cost reasons) agree

(1) to opt out of the court system
(2) on an arbitrator
(3) to accept the decision of the arbitrator

The sharia court is therefore a kind of arbitrator whose decision BOTH parties have agreed to accept. Muslims can either opt in or opt out of arbitration, depending on the degree to which way they think the court/arbitrator is going to look more favourably on their case. (When divorcing couples do this, it is called "venue shopping".)

The point has been made that it is CHEAPER to opt for sharia law.

A BNP supporter has made the point that sharia law should help men more effectively fight the scourge of feminism and suggested there might be sound anti-feminist reasons for adopting sharia law ....

Promoters of sharia law could have it in no time at all, particularly if they bribed the debt-laded non-Muslim Briton with the prospect of having all their usurious bank loans forgiven ...

Islamic Sovereign Wealth Funds could be thus applied for the purpose of establishing Islamic rule in formerly "Christian" countries and saving us all from the consequences of the Credit Crunch and irresponsible subprime lending ...

Sharia = The Way

Christ described himself as The Truth and The Way

The Tao of Lao Tzu is also known as The Way

"The Rightly-Guided Way" is probably what is meant.

Whether it is in fact rightly-guided or not is a moot point. It just means we have to read the small-print and exercise our own judgment and ask the right question. However, some of us would rather die, or pay a lawyer to do it for us, or pay a lawyer to sort it out for us later, than attempt to do just that.
Vote: Should the Archbishop of Canterbury have said that the adoption of Sharia Law is inevitable?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 5% No 95%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 50% No 50%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 1 of 21 2NextRecords Per Page
politeexcuse 6-Mar-2009 0:35
We should never allow any other laws only the laws as set out by the Queen and the Government.
Herb 18-Feb-2008 17:40
Adopt Sharia law? Our attitude ought to be like that depicted in the famous painting described here -


Isn't it marvellous?
jeffreymarshall 14-Feb-2008 22:6
Andromeda - Well, it’s a relief to know that Hindus do it too. But why stop at Sharia Law? Perhaps the Hindus’ own religious courts will be arriving here any day soon, & this will be ‘inevitable’ too. Oh well - keeps the population down. If Muslims distort the teachings of the Koran who are we to tell them so – our role is just to give them whatever they want, surely? In any case, the Koran appears to contain quite enough lunacy to start off with. (Parts of the Bible aren’t too hot either, but at least we’ve the good sense to ignore them.) Cannot imagine too much easy credit in your average banana republic – except for El Presidente’s benefit, of course, and it’s to the West he owes his never-to-be-paid debts at stratospheric interest rates. The BNP might thank Dr Williams a little more warmly if they genuinely thought they might ever be allowed to win power (getting a pro-BNP letter into the local rag seems to be difficult enough). And quite why the Muslims should be thanked for importing their video-nasty style judicial system I simply cannot imagine. An Anglican & a BNP member might very well be one & the same person. However, it is probably inadvisable to direct hate speech towards the good Dr W., just in case – God forbid – anything should ever happen to the poor chap.
jeffreymarshall 14-Feb-2008 16:28
To Sarah D – The BNP supporter’s comments about feminism have been taken seriously out of context. The member in question decided to write to the BBC to complain about their support for the Archbishop. Instead of complaining in a straightforward way (& being ignored as per usual) he decided to write a satirical letter pointing out the benefits of Sharia – you know, for the return of capital punishment, strong penalties against thieves (especially the ones who had stolen his car & been let off), Islamic approval for multiple wives & slave-girls, etc. His aim was to let the BBC know exactly what sort of system of justice they – in their liberal, toadying way – were actually offering their support to. The letter made an entertaining item on the BNP website – have a look at the following link:


The BNP are not anti-women at all. There are usually a number of women at BNP meetings, & they tend to be strong characters – though fairly obviously not in the man-hating manner of hard-line feminists. I should say the party – both implicitly & explicitly – believes in equality of the sexes in a way that reflects the views of the majority of men & women in Britain today. The contrast with the treatment of women under the alien & oppressive religion of Islam could not be greater.

To Herb – those comments are bang on the money. He is a ‘useful idiot’ in Lenin’s term - or possibly a ‘dhimmi’ in the Islamic sense. How shameful too that his remarks have now distressed the Queen, so that in her final years she has to witness the decline of the Anglican church, both in its accommodations with Islam & over Williams’ failure to assert his authority over sexual matters.

Yesterday five Muslims who’d been jailed for downloading & sharing extremist terror-related material on Jihad websites were released on appeal. They had been jailed under the Terrorism Act 2000, making it an offence to download & possess such materials. Surely it would have been better to keep these people in jail.

This is being treated as a test case by civil rights lawyers, & from now on it will be extremely difficult to keep such potential terrorist suspects locked up.

The BNP do appear to be the only ones aware of the extreme danger we are in.

Andromeda 14-Feb-2008 15:4
HONOUR KILLINGS are not exclusively Muslim. Hindus do it too. There are indeed silly and mad medieval Muslims, but let us not confuse our despair about too much Third World immigration with the teachings of the Koran itself, which the Muslims have themselves distorted.

The Credit Crunch suggests that Usury is not just loan sharking but irresponsible lending and borrowing, whether by banks, government or individuals. It is irresponsible lending and borrowing of a banana republic that any sane government would wish to avoid, but the West is no longer sane, having been collectively infantilised by 5 decades of Nanny Statism.

I am not advocating that asking a commercial rate of interest should be forbidden, but it is certainly open to abuse by the government and individuals. I do not know the answer, but the way Western economies have been run in service of creating desire (which any Buddhist knows is the root of all suffering) is morally dubious. The Bible warns against the worship of Mammon for its own sake.

Let me sum up the gist of an exchange between the Ultra-Liberal Archbishop and the citizen contemplating supporting the BNP:

DR WILLIAMS: "The adoption of Sharia Law is inevitable."


DR WILLIAMS: "I now know how shocking this sounds to you, but you must know we already have sharia courts here, surely."

BNP-MINDED VOTER: "What????!!! I'm off to join the BNP!!!"

I suppose the BNP should thank him for adding to their numbers and the Muslims too for raising this very interesting subject.

The Anglicans however, will have little to thank him for. It is enough to make any self-respecting Anglican want to behead or burn Dr Williams at the stake, after perhaps issuing an fatwa and then blowing himself up in a fit of religious exasperation ....
jeffreymarshall 13-Feb-2008 12:24
1. Surely the fairly frequent occurrence of ‘honour killings’ in the Muslim community must make the notion of ‘consent’ by both parties to be judged by Sharia Law a somewhat dubious proposition, to say the least – especially where women are concerned.

2. The credit crunch represents a downside of a financial system that has mostly served us very well, and largely continues to do so. Those who borrowed money did so voluntarily. Those who bought the ‘sliced’ loans also did so voluntarily and were delighted by the higher than average returns until things went pear-shaped. In fact the returns were so high these investors ought to have been suspicious. Nevertheless, – “let the buyer beware” should continue to be the guiding principle here. If you do want a high return you need to take more risks. Indeed I believe the only ‘immoral’ factor is when the government steps in to bail out those who have taken risks and have subsequently failed by using taxpayers’ money.

However I must say I’m a little puzzled by the idea that limiting one’s ability to buy and sell freely – though Islamic prohibitions on usury, which would destroy the free market economy – should be recommended on this forum (which until recently I had imagined had a bias in favour of free speech and towards freedom in general). Moreover, I don’t see how Islamising our financial system is going to help in any way at all – Islamic finance seems pretty inflexible to me. An Islamic bank - I believe - lends you money and wants a certain percentage of your business in return for the loan because they are unable to charge you interest. This is quite good for them, perhaps, but not so good for the success of your business if you are forced to allow the bank to become a shareholder in it.

It goes without saying that Islamic Sovereign Wealth Funds aiming to establish Islamic rule in ‘formerly "Christian" countries’ ought to be resisted. “Saving us all from the consequences of the Credit Crunch and irresponsible subprime lending” may sound attractive to begin with. However it is really like saying they’d be ‘saving’ us from the consequences of our own freedom - which includes the ability to make mistakes.

Anyway, it isn’t that our countries are ‘formerly Christian’; rather that our more rigid, earlier faith became more flexible, especially during the Enlightenment (& it’s certainly no coincidence that Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ appeared during this period).

To end - there are many reasons why an Islamic world wouldn’t be worth living in. But the total loss of freedom must surely be one of the most serious of them.
SarahD 12-Feb-2008 14:34
As to the BNP supporter and his fight against feminism - his comment is actually quite offensive. I did not realise the BNP were anti-women as well as racist - another nail in its coffin and another reason why this organisation is not acceptable as a political party.
SarahD 12-Feb-2008 14:28
I do think his comments were taken out of context, but a man in his position with his experience should have known better than to make a statement which was so open to misinterpretation!
Herb 12-Feb-2008 4:6
In the eyes of extremist Muslims, Rowan Williams is what Lenin used to call a 'useful idiot'.

Now I read that he is claiming that he had a perfect right to say what he did. Of course he did, as does everybody, and if he'd said it in private, it would probably have gone unmentioned.

But he didn't. He said it as Archbishop of Canterbury. That office that surely includes in it's duties, the duty to preach and spread Christianity, the duty not encourage other religions, the duty to safeguard the integrity of the Church of England and the duty to work for preserve the civilisation of his own country. Rowan Williams has failed in all those duties. He has encouraged the infiltration of Islamic principles and laws to the detriment of the nation's British and Christian very foundations. By doing so, he has betrayed his religion, his Church and his country.

Perhaps his shameful conduct will galvanise the people of Britain to understand what is at stake, to assert their common sense, and to realise that there is still time to avert disaster - and especially that the only way to do it is to throw their wholehearted support behind the BNP.
jeffreymarshall 8-Feb-2008 22:56
The Archbishop of Canterbury should not have said so. Williams is supposed to be to be the leader of the Anglican Church in Britain. This means his role is to defend the primacy of our church, not to suggest that the multiculturalising of our legal system is in some way desirable. One simply longs for genuine leaders in our country – both political and spiritual – who will defend our traditions with some passion, instead of constantly bending the knee to what they consider to be superior forces. Islam is an aggressive, colonising religion - but it should be not be allowed to colonise Britain. This is not a ‘formerly Christian country’ as I believe the introduction to this question is trying to suggest. It is a country whose laws & customs are founded on Christian traditions. The widespread presence of Islam in this country is entirely unwelcome, as it represents no more than a by-product of uncontrolled, third-world mass immigration which has been forced on the British people by the traitors of the Labour & Conservative parties who have held elected office since the Second World War.

Muslims should be told in no uncertain terms they should respect the primacy of our traditions – our religion, our culture - or get out.

As for the BNP supporter who thinks Sharia law should be introduced to help combat the ‘scourge’ of feminism, surely the worst excesses of political correctness can be resisted without a help of an alien religion.

Secondly, it may be that Islamic banks avoid the practice of ‘usury’ through a system of fixed payments (I’m not really clear how it works – perhaps someone else knows). However if you do lend money you are exposed to the risk of not recovering it, & levels of interest imposed normally reflect the perceived level of risk involved. The effects of the credit crunch & of the subprime borrowing/lending fiasco are not an outcome of ‘usury’ per se. They are the result of sheer greed, of the ability to disguise unacceptably high levels of risk, of incompetence & lack of experience among fund managers, of an awful lot of irresponsible (subprime) lending & - arguably – far too little regulation in the marketplace. In these areas, common sense and the wisdom born of hard experience ought to prevail in future – not the nonsensical shibboleths of a harsh, primitive faith which has been forced on this country through mass immigration.

So - as the Sun declared today of the Archbishop - What a Burkha!
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award