The Archbishop of Allah

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

Sharia law is simultaneously undemocratic and unChristian.

Dr Rowan Williams’ embrace of sharia law to the bosom of the English legal system was condemned by many quarters, not least by his immediate predecessor, Lord Carey.

But the clearest and least ambiguous reprimand came from the Pakistani-born (and convert to Christianity) Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, who said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity". Sharia “would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence”.

And the Right Reverend knows of what he speaks, having fled the Islamic republic of Pakistan in 1986 when his life was endangered. Some 17 years earlier, at the age of 20, he departed Roman Catholicism for Anglicanism and before that, the Right Reverend’s father turned his back on the teachings of Mohammed in favour of those of Jesus Christ.

Sadly Dr Williams is not alone in hoisting the white flag. The Church’s No 2, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, refused to discuss the matter of sharia with the media, murmuring only that “sharia law would never happen in Britain”.

While politicians, from the Prime Minister Gordon Brown down to leaders of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, all echoed their revulsion at Dr Williams’ comments, the Muslim Council of Britain was swift to come to Dr Williams' side, describing his comments as "thoughtful".

Islamic “scholars” and self styled “moderates” like Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born Muslim, Oxford University professor, voiced that: "… we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we abide by (such as) the common law, and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles."

Is Professor Ramadan saying that Muslims should follow English laws, only when those laws do not conflict with the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed? It sure looks that way. Unsurprisingly really, when you consider where Professor Ramadan’s values originate. His grandfather was (Egyptian) Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Interestingly, the group, established in 1928, was banned in 1954 specifically because it demanded that Egypt be governed under sharia law.

Dr Williams’ comments while scandalous must be seen in the context of what is happening throughout Europe. Yes, he was appeasing Muslims, but that’s been a European tradition for the last three decades. One can be thankful that it’s taken so long for the Anglican Church to embrace the teachings of Mohammed.

Some 30 years ago, Muslim immigrants began disembarking in European ports. The European establishment promoted a romantic view of these new Europeans. They were considered to be “victims” and any criticism of them was considered “racist”.

To Europe’s elites, racism was the sole cause of problems for immigrants, and by being “anti-racist”, Europeans would extinguish all of the immigrants’ woes. Furthermore, being Muslim it was believed (and still is) had everything to do with cuisine (think shawarma, tabouleh and baba ganuj), clothing (think hijab and burqa) and skin colour. Being Muslim, it was felt, had nothing whatsoever to do with holding certain beliefs.

Therefore, every time a Muslim did or said something that was out of kilter with European mores  Europe’s intelligentsia would try to “understand” Islamic radicalism by exaggerating the behaviour of Western leaders.

Euro-logic dictated that such behaviour was not a hallmark of incompatable religious values, but rather was an expression of a “different culture” whose differences must be accepted and understood in a multicultural society.

In June 2003, Norwegian historian Lin Silje Nilsen defended a proposal to establish a sharia court. She explained that minorities should have the right to “protect their culture and religious identity”. She advocated that what was important was “the desire for a dignified life for all and sensitivity to differences (between cultures).

Sadly, for her and for too many European leaders, it’s the remnants of Christian identity in Europe that desperately needs protection.

The decline of Christianity in Europe is demonstrated vividly by Walid al-Kubaisi. The Iraqi author in 1996 published My Faith, Your Myth where he recounts a meeting with a typical politically correct Euro-bureaucrat. The person concerned was the director of a Norwegian “international cultural centre”, a performing venue whose aim was to provide space for ethnic groups to host cultural activities.

Al-Kubaisi criticised this arrangement as fertilising a ghetto mentality and argued that immigrants must embrace the host culture (in this case, Norway) and not reject it in favour of their own imported ideas. He did not understand the logic of keeping immigrants at arm’s length from mainstream society by forcing them to keep their traditions to the exclusion of those of the host country.

The director of the centre stressed that it was not Norway’s government (nor for that matter the European Parliament’s) policy to teach immigrants Norwegian (or any European nation’s) culture, or to prise immigrants away from their long held traditions. “Foreigners” the director lectured, “have their own culture” and “Norwegians have theirs”. Al-Kubaisi left the meeting dispirited, understanding that it was Norway’s (and most of Europe’s) preference that immigrants remain separate and unequal. Forbidden from properly integrating into the society of their host country, and forever viewed as a romantic innocent ideal: unable to commit acts of violence or deeds of evil. And never ever, considered one of “us”.

Bleeding hearts, like misguided European bureaucrats, are not the only facilitators of Europe’s embrace of an intolerant religion. Academic warriors like  Tariq Ramadan, are seen by many as a bridge between Christians and Muslims in Europe. Ramadan  is also viewed as a potential architect of “Euro-Islam” that would involve compromises between Christians and Muslims in Europe in order for “harmony” to prevail.

Christianity he promises, will have to modify its values and its teachings so as to accommodate the Koran, given the swelling numbers of Europe’s Muslims and the sleep walking to extinction practiced by organised Christianity on that continent. Move over Jesus Christ and hello Prophet Mohammed.

Tariq Ramadan’s alleged “moderate” views were tested in 2003 by then French Interior Minister and now President, Mr Nicholas Sarkozy, who asked Ramadam to direct Muslim women to remove their veils and to declare his opposition to the stoning of adulteresses. Ramadam refused the first request and rather than oppose stoning, he suggested a “time out”. This is the same Tariq Ramadan, whose links to terror groups have seen him barred from entering France and the United States, yet he managed to be appointed by former British PM Tony Blair to a government panel to combat, of all things, Muslim violence. Go figure.

Ramadan wrote that European Muslims “are bound by the law in their country of residency to the degree that they are not thus compelled to act against their Muslim conscience”. The question that was not asked of him was: to what extent does their “Muslim conscience” compel them to violate European laws?

Now back to the Archbishop.

When prodded on the question of sharia, Dr Williams back peddled, hinting that he is merely in favour of certain aspects of sharia family law to be embraced by the English legal system. He opined that these would not contradict the laws and mores of Great Britain.

Not only is Dr Williams quite wrong on that score, but it’s worth noting that he never offered to discuss the introduction of sharia law into Britain. He endorsed the idea.

Sycophants have tried to compare the introduction of say, the family law aspects of sharia law with those of (Jewish) Beth Din courts - used by  very few Jews in a very few matters - or with Hindu courts. Such a comparison is misleading to say the least.

The differences between the faiths are great.

Dr Williams and fellow appeasers ignore the fundamental difference between the imposition of any part of sharia and whatever a very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, in that there is no challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law.

The application of Jewish (or Hindu) family law has been used in a very limited manner and only when it does not contradict English law. Neither the Jewish nor the Hindu communities in the United Kingdom have agitated to undercut the supremacy of the law of the English state.

The challenge from Islam is very, very different. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds that Muslims "only" want this little concession, and no more. He is deaf to the reality that sharia imposed on Muslims in the West, is often rejected even by them. Witness the example of Canada, where female Muslims led the fight against it, because their legal standing under the sharia-family law is far inferior to what it would be under the laws of Canada. And for that matter, the laws of any Infidel land.

The Archbishop refuses to acknowledge that this is not a final demand, but merely an opening one, which if granted, will lead to more such demands.

The Archbishop would do well to stop listening to his bleeding heart and to start listening to the likes of Mr Anjem Choudary, a former senior figure in the radical group al-Muhajiroun, who commented last week: "Some element of family law or social and economic law will not work, it has to be adopted wholesale. Sharia has been promised by the Prophet Mohammed and it will come either by embracing Islam, because it is the fastest growing religion in the country, or by an Islamic country conquering Britain or by elements embracing Islam and imposing it."

While we infidels may fundamentally disagree with Mr Choudary, it’s time we took him and his ilk seriously. And it’s high time the Anglican Church replaced an appeaser of Mohammed with a promoter of Christ in Lambeth Palace.

His Grace is a disgrace.