PTL! Someone agrees with Rowan

At last, in the interests of balance, I can report that someone agrees with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the introduction of parts of sharia law into Britain. Support for the beleagured Archbishop has come in from Hizb ut-Tahrir . But the overwhelming response has been negative, as our news story today makes clear.

This is their statement: 'The response to Dr William's comments illustrate both the profound level of ignorance in Britain about the Islamic Shariah and the near total blindness of some to the flaws within secularism and the harms it has caused in its implementation across the world. Xenophobia, the inherent assumption of superiority, and poor treatment of minorities is sadly part of Europe's tradition. Tolerance and pluralism are hollow slogans alongside this barrage of abuse, characterising the limited ability of this secular society to accomodate difference. By contrast, the rights of minorities were protected in the Islamic tradition.  The Shariah law protected the right of citizens of other minorities to live according to their faith traditions within their personal lives. Though many in the west claim to approach issues rationally, many utterly fail to respect the opinions of those they disagree with.

'Although the context of Hizb ut-Tahrir's work is, and always has been, to work for an Islamic state in the Muslim world, the debate thus far has neglected the fact that it is not Muslims campaigning for Shariah in Britain that is a cause of tension. It is the policies of western governments to deny people's desire to live by Shariah in the Muslim world. Indeed, it is the height of hypocrisy that politicians and media who approved the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan to export a secular system to the Muslim world, cry about protecting Britain's traditions and heritage, whilst obstructing the desire in the Muslim world to have laws that reflect their Islamic beliefs, heritage and system. For Muslims the world over, the Islamic Shariah is what brought civilisation and learning that characterised a golden age, such as that in Muslim Spain; it is the Shariah that guarantees an end to dictatorship, oppression and torture; it is the Shariah that protects family values in society; it is the Shariah that works to redistribute wealth and end poverty; it is the Shariah that restores the honour and dignity of women, allowing them to participate in society as human beings and not as commodities; it is the Shariah that protects people's privacy; it was the Shariah that allowed Muslim, Jew and Christian to live side by side for centuries in relative harmony; it was the Shariah that brought justice and stability to what are now some of the world's most trouble regions.”

'By contrast, when Muslims the world over look at secularism, liberal democracy and the capitalist free market they see enormous problems that some in the west simply fail to acknowledge. They see the century that secularism dominated was the arguably the bloodiest in human history, causing instabilty and conflict across the world; they see record gaps between rich and poor within and between states; they see the breakdown of family life and record numbers of broken families; they see a rampant individualism and consumerism; they see people increasingly disinterested in their own political process; they see rising social problems of drugs and alcohol abuse; they see an increasingly intrusive state and a surveillance society; they see an inability to bring about societal cohesion and to tolerate difference in society; they see an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy for material resources and political dominance. These are only a few things that have contributed to the failure of secularism to gain a foothold across the Muslim world. These are all very much in need of debate and discussion.

'It is our intention to open such a debate. We hope others will join us in it. However, we expect many will run away from such an honest appraisal of both systems, prefering abuse and generalisation to debate and discussion.'

mfl

Comments

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Rick

oh, we communicate very well.

It's your power of persuasion that's very weak. I'd suggest you going to the Logic Gym for weekly workouts and then return.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Andrew Holden,

Gee, analyze what your saying and don't put words in my mouth. You come off looking bad.

The "Moslem liberals" you're carrying on about are not liberals at all in the classic sense. These are just post Marxists or weak Reds in a Moslem/Arab context. They show no liberality of spirit, just the Third World version of grievances and tyranny.

Nowhere do I say there should be no Western liberals or fight fascism with "fascism". You don't know what a liberal is. A true liberal is a libertarian who's not afraid to fight for his culture. You are carrying the bag for Marxist/ Stalinist remnants who see the Third World as natural allies.

If "fascism" is fighting for traditional Western values based on the the Enlightenment and the Reformation, then I'm a fascist and proud of it.

[Rick Beekman]

emanuel appel;

I Don't Smoke Marijuana Take Illicit Drugs Drink Alcohol Or Smoke A Pipe Cigarettes Ot Cigars emanuel.

Your Wisdom Of How Things started is no match for The old and New Testaments..I Already Know How It All St&rted And Told You The Truth Whether You Wish To Believe It Or Not. To Quote An Old American Movie "Hud" One Of The Characters in that Movie Told Paul Newman; "What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate" Amen!

[andrew holden]

"In no citation, do you find the usual Western stance of the "liberal" - avoidance of violence at any cost, turning the other cheek, pacifism, surrender for the sake of quiet. No, it's the usual lies that the West has assaulted the assaulters."

Now it all becomes clear. There are no Muslim liberals because in reality there should be no Western Liberals - you'd have us fight one kind of facism with another kind of facism! And you have the cheek to go on an on about Muslims always playing the victim card!

And can you really not post without resorting to invective and insult (not to mention faeces)?

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Rick Beekman

I think you argue as if you're in a fever.

First, do not quote "Romans" to me since that is not the word of God. You are forced to use MY sources if you want to discuss Jewish history.

Second, the portion of Genesis you quote regarding Ishamel, 12 princes, and "a great nation" that you interpret as the Moslem nations were never interpreted that way before Mohamed 600 AD.

So, what kind of marijuana are you smoking? Peace and Jesus? Once again, pass the joint around.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Tom and Kate,

"Loyalty" concerns are solely based on what people do, not their thoughts.

Tom, the number of Americans who wear the green of Ireland is great but I'm not jealous or suspicious, rather amused. On the other hand, in the 19th century, there were many who, as "Molly Mcguires", performed guerilla raids against Canada with the crazy idea of fomenting war between the US and Britain. Why? So that Ireland would be free as the result. Now this is almost as crazy thinking and planning as our Moslem brethren :) do today .

Some Uk aborigines would resent one of your fellows of Italian blood pining for Capri and Italian cooking during a rainy, cold London day. You're not that jealous, are you?

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Andrew Holden,

When one tries to support a point, it really is a good idea to have the evidence do it rather than compromise it. You gave the above three citations as to "liberal Arabs" when, in fact, they're the furthest thing from "liberal". They really make you look like a liar or a fool.

Unfortunately for you, Jews can read and are not too lazy to look up citations.

Citaiton 1 - " A common Word"
This is simply a web site sponsored by the Jordanian king the message of which is to stress religious commonality with Christians only. Israel is never mentioned except for some renegade Jews. Judaism is never mentioned because we're not the military threat the West is. As they cry "commonality", they say "out" to Israel by omission. They never say that the Arabs should stop their war of aggression. That is not "liberal" but propaganda to gull the naive.

Citation 2 - "The myth of the myth of Moderate Islam "

The work of a western apologist for Islam. Nothing "liberal" there. Just the usual complaint of how the West "misunderstands" the Arabs and quotations ad nauseam about how Moslems are not "supposed" to do this or that. Garbahge ( pronounced as it were French)

Citation 3 - Arab starts off with "threats" that the West will lose their "friends in the arab world" if it doesn't do A, B, and C.
Then the usual complainsts about violence against the Arabs and Lebanon as if they were never guilty of instigating the current state of affairs. And yes, poor Lebanon, the target of Israel as if crossing Israel's borders and kidnapping her soldiers were not a act of war. Of course not, not for people like you.

I know the Democracy Project first hand; the place where you received the last piece of offal. I belonged to it and was forcibly removed when I refused to accept the party line. It should be called The Fascist Propaganda Project if there were truth in advertising.

In no citation, do you find the usual Western stance of the "liberal" - avoidance of violence at any cost, turning the other cheek, pacifism, surrender for the sake of quiet. No, it's the usual lies that the West has assaulted the assaulters.

For you, a large slice of the Moslem Welsh pie that recently made the news. It was frosted with human feces and the customers said "Yum Yum" because Moslems were serving it.

[Rick Beekman]

emanuel appel;

Romans 9 Verses 11 to 13; "FOr the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand. not of works but of him that calleth. It was said unto her (Rebecca) The Elder (Esau) shall serve the Younger (Isaac). As it is written Jacob have I loved But Esau have I hated."

[Rick Beekman]

emanuel appel;

The "Nation" Ishmael Became The Father Of Are The Muslims. You Are Correct That When Ishmael Was Born There Was No Muslim Religion Until 700 AD (approx.) However There Were 12 Tribes Of Ishmael Just As There Are 12 Tribes of The Jews. (Please Read; Genesis 17 Verse 20 /Genesis 25 Verses 13 To 18) The "Twelve Princes" are The Islamic Nations Today. Jacob and Esau were Both Children of Isaac (A Jew) But Esau sold his Birthright to Jacob Rejecting his Jewish Heritage Another ancestor of the Jewish-Hating Muslims. (Genesis 25 Verses 26 To 34). All the Hate and Destruction we see today from the Muslim Fanatics is Bible Prophecy Being fulfilled. The Arabs And Jews Will Never Have Any Peace Between Them...Until Jesus Christ Returns Bank On It....

[andrew holden]

"Now as to Andrew Holden, your faith in Moslem liberalism is as touching as the faith in German liberalism in 1940. You may be able to produce a few names but you haven't so far."

It's my pleasure to pass on (again as I've already posted these links) to the following (though I think you are perfectly capable of doing your own research):

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en

Google: "A Common Word"

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-15/The-Myth-of-The-Myth-of-Moderate-Islam.html

Google: "The Myth of the Myth of Moderate Islam"

and/or:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/liberal_muslim_4516.jsp

Google: Open Democracy Tarek Osman

I find that the formatting on this blog often chops links so you may need the Google hints - but it should be enough to get you started.

As for your comment about Muslim / German liberalism its not a good parallel. Well before 1940 the Facsists were in charge of the German war machine and the time for peaceful opposition (appeasement) was long gone. Religious groups in Germany had long caved in and were mostly supporting Hitler.

In this thread, at least, we are not discussing regime change in Islamo-facist nations. If we were you would not find that I'm much of a pacifist in word or deed. We are discussing, however, how to help British muslims be good muslims and good citizens - we've already had the concentration camp solution suggested by someone. Maybe it was a British invention but I hope we've long left that idea behind. The Americans have Camp X-ray - that's already a great example of the western love of freedom and human rights!

First they came for the Muslims.....

[Kate]

Dear Tom Jackson:

Humble apologies - your precise words were: "There is no such thing as "British" Islam."

(Thread: 'UK Imam's daughter gets death threats for apostasy' Dec 2007.)

Recalling the thread correctly, I have now uncovered the error. There CAN be, of course, a quantitative or even quantitative difference in the use of these words.

However, on the same thread, you also posed a relevant question on Muslim loyalties/priorities - Islam or Britain. A prescient rumination; answered perhaps, without equivocation, by abu husam khilafah rashidah!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Rick Beekman,

The Hebrew Bible, when telling the story of Sarah and Hagar, states that Ishmael would become the father of a nation, not the Arabs. He couldn't be the father of Egypt because that nation already existed.

Therefore, adopting Ishmael as their ancestor around 600AD, Mohamed and the Arabs were a little bit impudent. No one in the Near East made that claim before Mohamed.

[Rick Beekman]

emanuel appel;

You stated that Abraham was not the Father of the arabs. You mentioned the teachings before 1920 Showed (From Secular Books/Teachings Prove this.

The King James Edition Bible First Published in 1611 AD Tells Us That Abraham Was Indeed Father Of Both The Jews and the Arabs. The Story begins in Genesis Chapter 18. God and two angels appear unto Abraham and his wife Sarah. God tells them he will give them a son. They were both in their 90's And thought how could this be?
In The Following Chapters Of Genesis We Read Sarah Decided Maybe God Meant For Them To Have A Son Through Their Maid Hagar An Egyptian. The Maid Conceived Ishmael Who is The Father of All Arabs. God Was Not Pleased With What Sarah And Abraham Had Done. Then Abraham and Sarah Had The Child God Promised Them Between Each Other...Isaac The Father of All Jews. Isaac was the Child of God's Promise not Ishmael. God Did Tell Abraham He Would Make A Great Nation From The Seed Of Ishmael Which We Now Know As Islam. God Punished Abraham And Sarah By Putting Trouble Always Between The Seed Of Ishmael And Isaac Perpetually. Thus What We See Going On Today Is The Direct Result Of God's Promise....

[emanuel appel]

A letter from America

Dear Tom Jackson and Andrew Holden

I don't know why the simple statement that the religion of Israel, "Judaism", is based on God is construed to be an example of "Jewish Supremacy". To me, it means that you have to bring us down in order for you to be religiously confident. It is not a zero sum game.

"Abraham" was definitely NOT the father of the Arab peoples. This is pure propaganda from the Mohammedans to give themselves some religious provenance. There is a distinct division between the peoples of the Near East and "Arabs"as there are between Finns and Europeans.

My evidence- all those who received a normal education before 1920 were made to read the Greek and Latin Historians. There is no mention in Herodotus or Thucycides of the "Abrahamic" root even though both had extensive knowledge of the area. Before Christianity and Islam, the Near East was similar to Europe in that it was composed of different nations, including Israel, that had their own distinctive languages and customs.

Only with the coming of the religious imperialists were the various nations fed the garbage that all were part of the Arabs in language and custom. Google "kabyle" if you want to see what reception Arab imperialism received.

Now as to Andrew Holden, your faith in Moslem liberalism is as touching as the faith in German liberalism in 1940. You may be able to produce a few names but you haven't so far. No, your kind has to "equalize" Israel and the Arabs despite the evidence. How sad for your credibiility.

[andrew holden]

"I also disagree strongly with the idiotic platitude that the three Abrahamic faiths have "much in common". "

Of course you are entitled to that opinion, though I really don't see how insulting everyone who holds a different viewpoint to you helps anyone. In the end I'm as content as St Paul to be thought a fool for the sake of Christ....

Anyway I'm sure you will have read 'A Common Word' spelling out the basis of agreement between Christians and Muslims as a basis for dialogue and peace between the two faiths. Coming from an esteemed group of Islamic scholars it can hardly be described as the work of idiots.

See:
http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en

Even those who don't have much contact with real flesh and blood Muslims can find through a little honest reflection (and Googling) that there are some (maybe even many) Muslims, both in this country and worldwide, who are committed both to their faith and to liberal democracy.

I'm not unaware of the prevalence of Islamofacism and Islamic extremism - and, like Tom, think that it needs to be firmly opposed. In that regard I'm all for sending in the "rough men who stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" that we may sleep soundly in our beds! Those enemies of liberal democracy may be found in Bradford, Baghdad or some hidden cave in Torah Borah. All I ask is for the discrimination necessary to tell enemies from friends such as Tarek Osman:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/liberal_muslim_4516.jsp

So, I'm certainly not an appeaser - and though a supporter of ++Rowan I think that he is wrong not only over concessions to religious (of whatever brand) conscience in a plural secular society, but also over the place of gays in the modern Church. I still think that he's a good Archbishop and better than any of the current alternatives.

[Kate]

Dear Tom: apologies if I got it wrong or paraphrased. Sometimes small comments 'stick' in the mind. That particular one, far from being 'naive and clumsy' appealed as being SO unambiguous as to be eminently sensible.

No time right now but I can usually 'place' things in the context of a specific topic. I'll let you know.

[Tom Jackson]

"The Jews' religion is not based on Abraham, nor Moses, nor anyone else. It's based on God."

I've read this several times now and I can't decide if this is a statement of superiority on behalf of Judaism or simply confusion as to what people mean when they refer to "Abrahamic Faiths".

I consider Christianity to be a belief system "based on God" albeit through the revelation of the new covenant through Jesus Christ. And since my faith believes in the Trinity, there is no difference between God and Jesus (or, for that matter, the Holy Spirit).

But tracing back, the origins of God's hand in our world pass through Abraham, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, who see him as the father of the Arab people as well as the Jewish people through his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.

And. of course, Jesus being a Jew also allows us Gentiles to acknowledge the link with Abraham.

I am not sure that any of us consider Abraham as anything but someone who was chosen by God and who received his calling from God.

[Tom Jackson]

"There is no such thing as a British Muslim" (Tom Jackson on another thread). "

Just a small point, Kate, but I've gone back to the beginning of 2006 and searched for a contribution where I actually wrote this but with no success. If I did, it sounds rather naive and clumsy of me.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Kate, Tom Jackson et al,

I can't do better than you, Kate. However, I'd like to point out a little linguistic trap that the Moslems and the PC media have placed in your path.

There is no such thing as "Abrahamic Faiths". It's obvious to me that this is Moslem propaganda to somehow link Islam with authenticity, with the religion of Israel and Christianity as if we have something in common, as if we're all pals and all the same. We're not.

The Jews' religion is not based on Abraham, nor Moses, nor anyone else. It's based on God.

We don't go crazy when someone paints a picture of Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, David, Solomon or Sasha Baron Cohen ( ali G). These were men, born of women and died as mere mortals. No Jew who made his religious mark was ever treated as a "saint", no one is flawless. The historical record of the Hebrew Bible makes this abundantly clear.

[Kate]

Andrew: "you are assuming that those 'supporting' the AoC fall into those categories."

The short answer to that is 'Yes'. Yes, and I am not just 'assuming', I am reading, with care, the words on the page. I am noting the implicit intellectual 'superiority', blatant snobbery, and evidence of a 'closed shop' mentality.

I am reading the 'defenders' with precisely the same care as I have read Canterbury's own words. Twice. I would be embarrassed to think I had ever delivered such a desperately ambiguous, caveat-ed (i.e. obscurely qualified), and logically convoluted lecture to any group. But 'Unclarity'!!!!

Let us just say I spent too many years working to enable and inform students. I am NOT impressed by this loopy type of academic - up one's own posterior - gobbledygook.

After a deal of thought, I believe this was a lecture constructed to deceive. An exercise in dissembling whilst ostensibly showing concern for the most self-defined 'victims' in British society.

BUT, there was, I think, much more. An alliance of the religious against the Other i.e. the secularists. What this appeal for religious privilege for Muslims covertly incorporates, is a special position for the 'religious' in affecting civil law.

It was pointed out at Synod that Canterbury appears to ignore the plight of Anglicans under Muslim regimes. If that is the case, we must look deeper into his apparent 'alliance' with Muslims.

He spoke to close on 1,000 opinion-formers: politicians, clerics, journalists, individuals of all faiths and none. Knowing beforehand it was to be so, he had an obligation to make himself clear.

What he clearly said was 'we' (western society) should be willing to exempt Muslims from the

"stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty…".

Whoops! That statement alone is enough to confirm what a huge number of non-Muslims dread. "There is no such thing as a British Muslim" (Tom Jackson on another thread).

Confirmation of that well-founded suspicion - 'use and abuse' of the system by Muslim immigrants - together with endless media reports of Muslim complaints, such words could not fail to inflame. To follow it with the 'belief' that we should allow them to choose between 'jurisdictions' is the height of irresponsibility.

Worse, the casual duplicity with which he referenced Jewish religious law as example of how this could work, is "starkly" shocking. It immediately brought on board the lunatic anti Semites - they are at their keyboards reminding the world that "the Jews crucified Christ".

Jewish religious law has NO legal status in Britain, is utilised by equally consenting orthodox adults, and NEVER deals with criminal cases. Honest ignorance or crass stupidity?

However, that he believes the rule of law should not be identified with "one form of corporate belonging or any particular history" is not ambiguity.

It is a declaration that, CANTERBURY, the highest office in the Church of England, has no concept of the degree and importance of the philosophical, theological and political evolution that has enabled liberty, equality and fraternity.

Those principles, whilst often shown to be deficient in application by mere humans, are nonetheless the foundation stones of western democracy. We abandon them at great cost to future generations.

I suspect, in whatever 'cloud cuckoo land' the AoC inhabits, he has failed to note that such principles are totally absent from Sharia law.

I also disagree strongly with the idiotic platitude that the three Abrahamic faiths have "much in common". They do not. Islam has no respect for the other two. It is founded on conquest and falsehood. It glorifies war and subjection of the Infidel and the Jew. It teaches cultural, religious and political superiority.

I have no quarrel with those who wish to believe in it but I object to having either the tenets or the arrogance constantly in my face in my own land.

I listened today to an Irish Muslim (another oxymoron) complain that what "people do not understand" is that "Sharia has been handed down by God". That legal systems designed by 'man' have no relevance in Sharia. When questioned, on equality e.g. no woman can be a judge in Sharia courts, he stated, clearly irritated: "It is not the Will of God".

Pat Kenny did an excellent interrogation (in the best 'seeking information' sense) but even he did not 'dare' to remind the speaker that Mohammad was just a 'man', an illiterate warlord, whose dictation is now venerated as immutable.

I am happy to debate this with anyone (albeit with a copy of the lecture at hand) but space does not permit further examples except to say; cloistered ignorance is confirmed by the citing of Tariq Ramadan - a grandson of Sheikh Hassan Al-Bana, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Tariq Ramadan's father Said Ramadan became the leader on Al-Banna's death.

Egyptian journalist 'Adel Guindy published a series of articles in which he sought to enlighten the Arab public about Tariq Ramadan, [who is] "one of the most popular propagators of Islam in Europe". The series, appeared in the Egyptian Coptic weekly 'Watani' and on reformist websites.

After World War II, when Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini returned to Palestine, Said Ramadan helped him to form military groups for the struggle against the Jews. Abu Al-Ala Al-Mawdudi, who later became one of the great theoreticians of terrorist jihad, thanked Said Ramadan for 'awakening his [religious] consciousness.'

Guindy adds that "Tariq Ramadan belongs to the Salafi stream." He says "He is opposed to Islam developing into an individualistic faith that does not force itself on others... He condemns those who are opposed to the unique way of dress that distinguishes Muslims from others (such as the veil), describing them as traitors who have surrendered to Western thought. He also condemns those who think that the Koran and the Sunna cannot be a source of authority for contemporary personal and cultural behaviour, and depicts liberal Muslims who understand liberalism in the Western sense, as 'Muslims without Islam'...

"Doublespeak is the key to understanding Tariq Ramadan." In his audio recording 'Islam and the West', Ramadan sets out his strategy as follows: "I must speak in a way that is appropriate for the ear hearing me... yet faithful to the religious sources of authority." He advises his listeners to adopt a cautious media strategy.

In his book 'Trends in Modern Islamic Thought', Tariq Ramadan writes: "The Brotherhood use violence only as a last resort, when they are convinced that violence will help in [observing] their faith and realizing their unity."

Or, one might extrapolate, when demographics render the indigenous powerless, violent conquest will realise Islamic "unity"! And THIS is the man from whom Rowan of Canterbury seeks assurance.

There is not 'a snowball's chance in Hell' that Ramadan will acquiesce to giving up HIS "corporate belonging" or Islamic "history" OR the well-planned Muslim Brotherhood strategy for Islamifaction of Europe.

Ramadan is the foremost practitioner of taqiyya in Europe. Bari and ubiquitous MCB are not even fractionally as clever. I have previously written at length on 'facticity'. Ramadan's facticity speaks volumes. He has chosen (for we always have a choice), and despite a western education (utilized to streamline taqiyya) to adhere to 'that into which he was inserted' (Heidegger). The naivety or foolishness of Rowan Williams is along the lines of being "best chums" with Goebbels.

Just a thought: I KNOW how a certain brand of academics think: the more obscure or exotic, the more gigantic the intellect! Pure elitism under the guise of 'angst' or 'deep' thinking.

Ramadan will be courted because he appears to be of that 'type'. Many of the 'greats' at Oxford and Cambridge in the 1930s - not to mention Anglican clergy(!) - were equally inclined towards the more 'educated' face of Nazi ideology.

[Tom Jackson]

"Saudi Arabs are in the process of buying up American Corporations including banks, and anything else they can get their hands on in the free world. I wonder why?"

You know, this is really something that we should all be concerned about.

I've been accused of "slight of hand" in another, related debate but oil money is being used to buy into Western economies at the same time as we are beginning to focus our attention (some might cynically observe, have our attention drawn to) the Islamic terrorist activity that has shaken us to the core!

Now, that could be a most carefully orchestrated attempt at 'slight of hand' and subversion and we happily ignore it!

And, Andrew, while I would agree there are undoubtedly many people who would support Rowan Williams but robustly resist Islamic terrorism and extremism, these very same people seem incapable of identifying the harm that has been done to the Office of Archbishop and the associated fallout that Christianity and the Anglican Church in particular cannot avoid.

It really depends upon to what degree you believe we are under threat at this time. Like global warming, if you are of the opinion that we have decades to take action to reverse the process and prevent any catastrophe, we can live with a weak and muddled leadership for the time being.

But if you accept that the situation is deteriorating rapidly and that we should be acting strongly now to avoid the inevitable, then strong measures are needed immediately from a clear and unambiguous leader.

Where the changes to our society through developing and strengthening Islamic influence and involvement are concerned, we simply cannot afford to allow Rowan Williams and his supporters their intellectual and social meanderings which confuse and delay the growth and development of Christian resistance and opposition to Islam.

The time for gentlemanly debate is rapidly evaporating and we need someone with a realistic appreciation of the situation to take over the leadership of the Church - someone like Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, for example.

[andrew holden]

"I am with Tom Jackson! How else might one respond to abu husam khilafah rashidah's triumphalist taunting? Specifically, how do the appeasers and relativists 'accommodate' this mindset?"

Well we know how appeasers and relativists might - but you are assuming that those 'supporting' the AoC fall into those categories.

I've no problem at all with saying that Islamicist terrorism and extremism should be robustly resisted - just as long as we do make that discrimination and don't make the situation worse by targeting those, however few they might be, who might actually be on our side.

[Kate]

I am with Tom Jackson! How else might one respond to abu husam khilafah rashidah's triumphalist taunting? Specifically, how do the appeasers and relativists 'accommodate' this mindset?

Were such mockery not so pertinent to the fast-moving aspirations of 'political' Muslims, this might appear absurd; but it is NOT absurd it exposes precisely what lies behind the belief of too many Muslims that immigration to another country entitles them to demand/effect change in the very fabric of that nation's identity.

Wahabi Saudi Arabia is the most rampant and extreme (without a human face) example of 'capitalism' in the modern world.

It is no coincidence that, whilst the majority of Saudis are illiterate and, ignorant of the God-given faculty of freedom to 'think' outside the 'box' of Islamic political and religious indoctrination; their rulers, not the West, are responsible for the poverty and deprivation.

Yet the West is blamed. Not only by Muslims but by all those bag-carriers who are willing to sell their birthright for a quiet life - perchance to dream.

Saudi Arabs are in the process of buying up American Corporations including banks, and anything else they can get their hands on in the free world. I wonder why? Could attempts to gain control of the money market have aught to do with the proposed Caliphate?

It is no coincidence either that Islam has gained such a foothold in Britain. Saudi has bribed - via arms deals and oil - the British government into dhimmitude - welfare for numerous wives and children, Sharia banking and mortgages, Sharia courts in Muslim colonies. Doubtless there is more, but like the 'benefits' outrage, it is being conducted under the table.

Saudi Arabia funds, not only the burgeoning number of mosques in Britain; but supercilious and dangerous subversive organisations (like Hizb ut-Tahrir), along with schools and the fifth column of Imans who preach hate for all things western.

It is clear from the literal economic confusion of
A bu husamuddeen that the principle of 'taqiyya', i.e. 'lying', is alive and well in deceiving the 'lower orders' in Islam as well as the grovellers willing to hand over their nations to Islamic demands.

Jason: Ruth Gledhill is a highly regarded and reputable journalist with a responsibility to 'inform'. WHO is 'Jason'?

Equally, why do you presume to KNOW that those here, opposed to the colonisation of their country by uninvited 'guests', are unaware of sites like 'ummahpulse - Promoting Traditional Muslim Values'? I regularly search the net for "normal" Muslims. Very few appear! The majority are concerned with victim-hood, angry demands, or
outraged claims of British 'rights'. 'ummahapulse' is no exception.

Your rant re. Ruth, and other contributors exposes an identical arrogance to those Muslims who claim westerners do not 'understand' Islam and that, even those who have read the Koran et al, STILL cannot 'understand' because the Word of Mohammed is immutable and cannot be translated from the Arabic.

Ergo, we must all learn ARABIC. What superiority and divisive exclusivity. What rubbish.

The link you gave to this particular debate comes up with the message: "You are not authorised to view this resource"!!?? I wonder why.

That said, I HAVE previously read the jubilation on 'ummahpulse' when they extracted an apology from the BBC for daring to describe a criminal as 'a Muslim'! Also the outrage that a woman who stabbed an airline pilot was described by the BBC as Somali!! Dear God.

While I have no doubt there are a percentage of 'normal' (your word) Muslims out there who just want to get on with their lives, HOW do we distinguish them? Do you expect any non-Muslim to trust Hizb ut tahrir and their followers? People who are blatant about their intentions to take-over and convert Britain - abu husam khilafah rashidah and his ilk?

See:
http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/2008/02/10/
email-of-the-day-a-muslim-to-trust/

A small 'taster':
"Test them [i.e. so-called moderate Muslims]: ANY I mean ANY strong defensiveness when speaking of the history of the Mid East and the fact that non-Muslims were not always treated equally .. [or that] Muslims took over some countries, such as Spain; [defensiveness re] Non-Muslim contributions to science and medicine, [or] Jerusalem and its significance to OTHER faiths…. Anything that is historically documented and they become uncomfortable and defensive towards [it] without [being] willing to hear and discuss your point of view, LEAVE…."
(This is a warning from what sounds like a sane human being - one of Jason's "normal Muslims" perhaps. One can only hope whilst keeping one's 'powder dry'.

[Tom Jackson]

"Hizb ut tahrir is thriving and is bringing the west down to the knees . as it is elucidating the hypocacy and lies of the cult of capitalism".

I guess, as an example of fairness and even-handedness, this contribution should be published.

But there is only one response; BRING IT ON!

[abu husam khilafah rashidah]

Hizb ut tahrir is thriving and is bringing the west down to the knees . as it is elucidating the hypocacy and lies of the cult of capitalism .
Khilafah is surely coming , prove of it is Hizb ut tahrir growth and his captring the minds and hearts of the milions of muslims and the admirations of many more non muslims .
The world is in eager anticipation for what hizb ut tahrir is bringing back to Muslims (power and pride and Justice ) and to the world ( reliquesh from the oppressive capitalism and the void of comunism )
I thank you for bringing this abored
A bu husamuddeen

[Rick Beekman]

To All;

In All Seriousness Why Should Anyone Argue About What Muslims Believe Whether They Be extremist or moderates?

My Bible Teaches Only One Died On The Cross and Shed his Precious Blood for our Sins So We all Could Be Saved. Did Mohammed Do That? Is "Allah" (The Moon god Of The Sabeans) Our Creator?

Then Why Even Concern Ourselves With THOSE Who Call We Christians "Infidels" Treat Their Woman As second class citizens By Making them feel inferior wearing clothes from the Dark ages?

If There really is a difference between Radical and Moderate Muslims then why don't The Moderates Speak Out Against The Radicals?

In The Words Of Marie Antoinette I Say; "Let Them Eat Cake"!

[Rick Beekman]

Hi Boys And Girls!!

Here Are The Latest Conspiracy Theories circulating...(1) Was Humpty Dumpty Pushed?
(2) Did Little Bo Peep Really Lose Her Sheep?..Or Did She really sell them and buy 2 tickets to a Hannah Montana Concert??
(3) In The Rhyme "Star Bright Star Light First Star I See Tonite"..Was It A Star Or A UFO???
(4) Does The Saying; "Love Is Blind" Really Talking About Prince Charles And Camilla? (Ouch!)
(5) Was Old King Cole Really A Merry Old Soul Or Was His Addiction To Designer Drugs The Real Reason?

Feel Free To Comment.....

[Joe]

Does anyone know about the life of Mohammed and what he did?

I suggest more people need to know about it, to understand the historic and ideological heart of this vile religion.

The so called "extremists" and terrorists are as they say they are: the true Muslims. It was perfectly consistent for Pakistan to honour Bin Laden.

We are dealing with an indoctrinated, superstitious tribe with intolerant attitudes and tribal hostilities for as long as its existed, tracing all the way back to Mohammed (Paedophilia Be Upon Him).

I don't like any religion, but Islam requires far more than a mere tolerant dislike: it needs robust challenge and repudiation to counter its own hostile, backward tribalism.

Well done Archy, that's exactly what you've provoked.

[Jason]

Glad to see that you are enjoying your orgy of self-righteous rage, Ruth.

There is enough 'normal' Muslim comment out there in the blogosphere so that you didn't really have to rely on these kooks to stoke up the hysteria prevelent in the media.

Go and have a look at UmmahPulse.com if you want to see what normal muslims think of this episode.
http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=71

[Athelbald]

It's fair comment that then Bush/Blair vision of an invasion followed by an instant flowering of Jeffersonian democracy was magical and idiotic and therefore almost unspeakably bad and the cause of perhaps a million needless deaths, and here I'm assuming that this is a part of what is meant by "the inherent assumption of superiority". But now the statement that "the polic[y] of western governments [is] to deny people's desire to live by Shariah in the Muslim world"? Does Iran not live by Shariah? The West seeks to deny Iran the Bomb, but this is apparently not Tisb's point. The West does not seek to deny Iran its Sharia. Actually, we in the West don't really care much at all about Shariah in Iran. We may or may not get up a military strike to do something about their Bomb (and that would be pissing up wind, if you ask me), but Shariah? Who really cares? We may despise the seeming barbarity in some of its aspects but we're not about to spend treasure or blood denying people's desire to live by Shariah in the Muslim world. If they want it they can keep it. But keep it they must because we do not want Shariah here.

[Peter O]

The only people to agree with Rowan are Hizb ut-Tahrir? Marvellous...

FWIW, my own thoughts on this story are right here Ruth.

[Stephen Marsden]

Also in the interests of balance, Ruth, perhaps you might draw attention to the piece 'What did the Archbishop actually say?' at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581

(thanks, I was going to do this but you've done it for me. He says he did not recommend 'parallel jurisdiction' but he certainly used the phrase 'supplementary jurisdiction' in the lecture. rg)

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

It is not true that sharia in medieval Spain protected Jews and Christians. They had dhimmi status and if they were 'protected', it was simply as a minority who helped produce the Hispanic culture which is incorrectly thought of as Islamic.

By the way, Hizb are banned in most countries (including most Arab countries) and, yet (despite the efforts of David Cameron to get the, banned), continue to cause great misery to Jewish and Hindu students and staff on the various university campuses of Great Britain.

Giving Hizb the right of reply on your blog is something akin to allowing Hitler to do so after the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

The practice of Islam in the Near East means tyranny over the minority and continual abuse and indignity. You may google "Coptic Church" to see the treatment of Christians in Egypt, the remaining aboriginal element in that country who preceded Islam by 600 years.

I have been to Jewish Orthodox and Reform religious services all my life and have never heard any prayers "thanking God that I'm not a Christian" nor cursing Jesus. It is a crazy figment of the imagination coming from those who have to rationalize their dislike for Israel.

Now let us, for the sake of the argument, find some curse or insult among Jewish writings re Christianity or Islam. Don't you deserve it based on your treatment of us? You, the Christian Churches, are the ones whose writings are filled to the brim with insulting references to Israel. Yet, some of you have the nerve to allude to Jewish writings that don't exist seeking an excuse for your sick ideas.

Re Islam - the way you fight Islam is to stand by your culture and not make any concessions to Moslems who shouldn't even be in your countries. They have the colossal impudence to worm their way into Western societies and, like the boorish guest, demand a special dish from the host.