Did you see that the BBC has given due prominence to the outrageous claim by Rowan Williams, part-time Druid and full time hypocrite, that Sharia law in the UK “is inevitable” and indeed could help sustain social cohesion? Well, I’m not sure if beheadings for thieves in Blackburn, stonings of homosexuals in Bradford, maybe the occassional public amputation for adulterers in Birmingham will really add the social cohesion that Williams imagines. There appears to be a move afoot to institutionalise Sharia law here, with the dreadful Williams now becoming an advocate for this novel form of social cohesion. Maybe the BBC could provide us with insight into just how much “cohesion” Sharia has brought to those wretched countries that have embraced it?
UPDATE: Here’s a chance for Druid Williams to get real insight into the joys of Sharia Law. Let him buy a ticket to Tehran (One way, preferably) to witness the coming stoning to death of two women. Two sisters – identified only as Zohreh and Azar – have been convicted of adultery and have now been sentenced to be stoned to death. Adultery is a crime punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in accordance with the canons of Islamic Sharia law. The Iranian Supreme Court has upheld the stoning sentence. Zohreh and Azar have already received 99 lashes for “illegal relations.” Yet they were tried again for the same crime, and convicted of adultery on the evidence of videotape that showed them in the presence of other men while their husbands were absent. (Best Druid Williams leaves his wife Jane at home!) The video does not show either of them engaging in any sexual activity at all. Won’t it be fab when we get what the Druid wants – it will certainly create a few vacancies in the Media. Good for social adhesion, and coming to a town near you if Williams and his fellow dhimmis prevail. Any chance of the BBC providing a platform for those of us who oppose a return to dark ages savagery?
Please, could any remind me what happened to my Archbishop of Cantebury – Thomas Becket? Back in my day we knew how to deal with such people. Of course, times have changed today, to such an extent that said Archbishop can spout the most rediculous nonsense in public. Do the decent thing Williams and stand down from your position before you do any more harm to the Church of England.
Have you read the latest version of the article David?
Please explain how that is the BBC “shilling for sharia”?
Yet again you let your hyperbole get the better of you, to the detriment of any point you may have been able to make.
Good thought that the less hysterical commentators have already called you on it.
Are they shills and dhimmis too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm
The Archbishop shows that he is typical of religious people. Stark raving mad.
Oh and I see another preacher of the “great religion of peace” is to be extradited to the USA finally.
Yes Hook boy, the great Islamic preacher is finally off to the USA.
Tell you one think, Hooky won’t have anyone to wipe his arse there.
No doubt our “troll” IQ will be telling us that Abu Hamza is a great man from the great religion of peace?
Sarah Jane,
Wonder if you agree that Williams should check out Sharia in action in downtown Tehran? Ever wonder what might happen to the BBC should Sharia become accepted? Listen, the shilling for Sharia comes from WILLIAMS, but the BBC clearly finds sympathy with his view, as several posters here have demonstrated.
David: You are so right. The BBC has been banging on about Sharia law being a “good thing” for ages. The BBC has run two shows one on Forced Marriages (called arrange me a marriage – ho ho ho so funny) and one with some silly cow poncing around Africa finding out how wonderful the rights of women are under Sharia.
I often wonder what the Suffragettes would make of the BBC and their liberal approach to Sharia?
Perhaps instead of Match of the Day we will have “Sharia of the day” live from Bradford where Bradford City’s football ground will feature the famous penalty box execution of an adulterous woman or the good old half time stoning?
http://varifrank.com/images/turner1.jpg
http://www.religiouswatch.com/images/nestone.jpg
You can just imagine Abu Hamza sitting there with Abdul lineker doing the replay “well I’m not so sure that the second gunman was outside the 18 yard box Gary”
Brilliant. I bet the BBC are drawing up the rights to screen it already.
Martin | 07.02.08 – 8:56 pm | #
I believe in God and I am not mad. I am also very pissed off that the guy who is supposed to be leading our Church is making statements of this kind.
What kind of leadership is this for us? It actually makes me feel sick to think about it.
Rockall: I’m not bothered who or what you believe in. However, with all due respect please don’t expect me to have to “believe” or have the laws of this Country dicated by ANY religion.
Islamic values have no place in our society, in terms of religions I’m no fan, but I would put Islam down as the most cruel and barbaric.
Oh and of course I missed one for my “Sharia of the day”
Here we have an Islamic “goal hanger” not exaclty what Michael Owen would have in mind I suspect.
Sharia, my arse.
http://www.okay.com/dunc/images/stadium.hanging2w.jpg
Forgot it.
“No doubt our “troll” IQ will be telling us that Abu Hamza is a great man from the great religion of peace?”
Martin, stop punching that straw man; he didn’t do anything to you.
Did Williams come into the studio with that viewpoint or was he asked those questions by the BBC?
Now if those questions where asked by the BBC, (which I’m led to believe by listening to what he said) what has that done for the general view of the C of E? in the UK
With a membership problem the church cannot afford to alienate any more British Christians , yet at a stroke the BBC has done just that.
Less people will now defend the Church thus promoting the Islamic vision that Islam (read it up) should be classed as the main religion of the UK. In otherwords the BBC has done its bit in which to hasten the demise of the C of E and thus put forward Islam as the main religion of the UK. (Muslims are saying that because more Muslims go to the mosque in a week than Christians go to church do they should be classed the main faith of the UK)
The current outrage in the Uk will be used by the Muslims (and the BBC) in which to play the victimcard. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if a few muslims get a good kicking because of this. If this transpires are the BBC guilty of sedition.
On that note I am waiting with baited breath on any news on that headless body found in Kilburn. Now if it turns out he was a victim of Radical Islam, (and a video turns up on the net) would I be correct in saying that Muslims in the Uk will become the most hated minority in the UK. Of course the BBC will turn up lots of lots of programs promoting that Islam is a religion of peace. But the damage will have been done and no amount of Abu Bowen video spots about poor muslims will put the Jin back in the bottle. (jin is a Arabic word)
I for one hope the BBC are brought to account.
I have only heard excerpts of the interview, can any one tell me if the interviewer asked Williams who else could opt out of British law. I believe that citizens should have the right to kill burglars, as is the case in several other countries. So if I did so, would Williams come to court to support my right to ignore the present law which does not allow me to do this?
I think we can safely say that this is Rowan Williams’ “Ratner Moment”.
IQ: Do you troll here often?
Pounce: I don’t think it matters anymore. The rat is loose now.
Already 5 lite have some rabid Moozlum on demanding that because “white men” can have a Mistress Moozlum men should be allowed more wives.
Of course Sharia law is in force in the UK already.
Forced marriages, honour killings and female circumcision to name three that the Government turns a blind eye to .
Here’s what I believe is the crux of the problem:
We think that:
A. Muslims can practice the religion of Islam, it is their right within their individual freedom and liberty,
whilst,
B. Expecting Muslims to not act in an Islamic manner.
Make no mistake, the liberals (among whom we can include libertarians) are close minded and insular. They are backwards and old fashioned. They need to expand their minds to diversity.
We need to circumvent the whole problem with immigration restriction. But you wont like that because it infringes the right of the individual to go where they please. Which just goes to show that libertarianism is impotent as an ideology before Islam.
Well said Joel and Sarah-Jane. Maybe one day this blog will turn back to its original topic of BBC bias, rather than devoting 90% of the content to Islam-bashing, with a link to a BBC article tacked onto the end.
And to those who claim to believe in tolerance, and yet go on to say that Islam is “barbaric” and that no Islamic values have any place in our society – maybe you should take a long hard look at yourselves first before passing judgment on others?
WoAD: You are spot on. Muslims are brainwashed into believing that only the world of “Allah” is law. Man made law cannot over rule the word of their God.
This stupidity will always give us trouble. I take the view that the time has come to remove all religion from any involvement with decision making in society. I would for example ban anyone who holds a religious position (like a Priest) being appointed ot the House of Commons or Lords. I’d ban religious people from taking part in debates that might effect law making. If you allow religious people to take part in these debates, should you not ensure that ALL religions are given a voice? What about those that follow Paganism, or those that are Jedi’s Knights? Where would it stop.
We should look upon religion like we do football teams. We wouldn’t be interested in the views of a person on say abortion just because they were a Manchester United supporter would we? So why are we supposed ot be interested in them because they are a Muslim or Christian?
I’d ban the BBC from making religious programmes (as this is done with public money) and I’d crack down on religious TV channels.
Religion should be something that people do in their own homes and that’s it.
The French would NOT be having this debate.
BBC 2 ‘Newsnight’ was even worse than I feared tonight on Sharia Law. The main section of the item was a ‘discussion’ between two Muslim women and one C. of E. dhimmi; it was chaired by the high-speed gabble of the non-expert on Sharia, Ms. K.Wark (her pronunciation of the word varied throughout) who winged it, ‘as I understand it’,etc.
There was only one principled on-film opponent to Sharia allowed (Prof. Steve Jones)-with a contribution lasting about 30 seconds.
As usual when it comes to Islam, the views of the vast majority of British people are side-lined, and issues like Sharia Law are largely left to a BBC- picked Muslim few to have most say. And Al Beeb still doesn’t understand Islam; and Al Beeb will turn to the Tariq Ramadans of this world for the ‘correct’ view, as did John Humphrys in the programme ‘in search of god’. It throws up its hands in horror at the searing critique of Islam and Sharia Law to be found here, for example:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Al Beeb is in urgent need of independent, critical education on Islam; and I don’t mean turning to the 220 BBC Arabic TV staff in the East-Wing, Mecca-facing side of Broadcasting House.
More than a thousand comments an hour have been flooding the HYS on Sharia since the debate began this afternoon. less than a third of them have been published, but that’s still thousands:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4246&edition=1&ttl=20080207230507
I heard the deluded Wiliams interviewed on the World Service today. In fairness, they also gave a Conservative spokeswoman a good amount of time for a rebuttal.
I’m not entirely convinced that the BBC wants to see Sharia law in the UK. They must realise by now that it would mean coming to work in beards and veils to produce programmes limited to glorifying Islam and trashing Christianity…
Oh, hang on…
it was chaired by the high-speed gabble of the non-expert on Sharia, Ms. K.Wark
George R | 07.02.08 – 11:23 pm
I can only understand three words in four that she says. Perhaps that’s just as well.
“The French would NOT be having this debate.”
So move to France. As I said above, this kind of view unnerves me almost as much as Islam.
“They must realise by now that it would mean coming to work in beards and veils”.
Some of the men might object to the beards,but probally all would be happy with the veils.
IQ: You should learn a little about France. They have a secular approach to their nation that stops this religious nonsense.
In France, is it not the case that they have a higher population of Muslims than in that of the U.K.?
Martin: That’s why I suggested you move there. I would find a society forced to follow your rules as repugnant as a society forced to follow Islam.
Archbishop hits bottom, keeps digging
Just when you think things couldn’t possibly get more idiotic, something like this leaps up and smacks you right in the face.
But as Edgar says in King Lear (Act IV, sc i):
“…the worst is not / So long as we can say ‘This is the worst.'”
So be on the alert, be vigilant – you just don’t know where and when the next outbreak of madness will erupt.
You forget people that the guy you rightly are saying is a divisive clown a masonic Druid and a closet socialist, is an ELECTED and therefore selected pillar of the British Establishment.
The same British Establishment The BBC, The Royal Family, The Public Services, The Armed Forces, The Judicial and legal Systems, and The Civil and Secret Services, along with many other quangos and other official bodies too numerous to mention, are part of.
But still you all think that just the BBC is the problem and its views and opinions are somehow independent of the others branches of the state apparatus.
WHY?
Because there is no evidence that I can see that can sustain this viewpoint. Also no motivation for any of the states institutions for there to be any.
You should NOT bother to ask. WHY the BBC thinks this or is telling me that, its pointless.
Ask
Why is the establishment of this country thinking this or telling me that, its still pointless, but at least you might all start understanding something.
which is that, true representative parliamentary democracy has had its chips and is rapidly being replaced with a form of government that the powers that be have decided is more fitting for the new age we are about to enter.
They just have not bothered and are not going to bother either to tell us about the plan before its far to late to do anything to stop it.
Mainly because they think you all might get very angry if you knew too much too soon. But also because it will only wast time and cost even more vast amounts of money and effort telling complicated lies on the BBC and all over the worlds main stream media all night and day.
BTW
In the past the form of government I mentioned used to be called, a Neo Fascist type. However what the BBC call a Neo Fascist government that they prayed every day and night to help get elected, is fluid, to say the least.
If they were being honest of course the BBC would call it a perfect paradise for The BBC, government.
As the BBC never are honest about anything really important, they just call it a New Labour government and hope we will carry on being, to thick to notice whats going on all around us.
The Archbishop is demonstrating to us all that his organisation is as irrelevant to modern Britain as the BBC is. Both the C of E and the BBC need to be put out of their misery. They belong to the past like the Empire, steam trains and rickets.
Long live the Modern Age!! Heil the Age of Aquarius 1o1!!!
Atlas shrugged wrote:
‘You forget people that the guy you rightly are saying is a divisive clown a masonic Druid and a closet socialist, is an ELECTED and therefore selected pillar of the British Establishment. ‘
Er, no. There is nothing ELECTED about this appointment. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a Prime Ministerial appointment. The PM is passed a short list of candidates by the C of E but may choose to ignore it. Williams was a most controversial choice. And now even more so.
RE: the BBC coverage. On the 10 o clock news yesterday, the story was the opposition to his remarks rather than the remarks themselves. I didn’t catch any of the earlier coverage.
Seamlessly, from Al Beeb’s dhimmi methodology and ideology of Wark on ‘Newsnight’ last night (on which I posted at 11:23 pm), to Naughtie with more of the same on ‘Today’ for about 10 minutes, after the 7 am news.
Again, Al Beeb gives priority to Islamic apologists to have the main say on the position of Sharia law in British society; Naughtie is comfortable to leave the entire ‘discussion’ to that of only two Muslims; and Naughtie is particularly dhimmi in his introduction to one Tariq Ramadan, as being simply ‘from Oxford University’. How misleading. Naughtie seems unaware of this sort of critical view of Mr. T.Ramadan:
‘The Propagandist’
(by Hugh Fitzgerald):-
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/5881
Sarah-Jane: Have you read the latest version of the article David?
I have to agree: the main story now on the web about this seems pretty balanced, and it’s difficult to argue the BBC has given this undue prominence. It’s a big story.
The only reason Williams is given any time at all on the airwaves, is because of the unification of Church and State in the United Kingdom.
Without the establishment of a religion by the state, Williams would be the leader of a very small minority sect.
Will David Vance be calling for the separation of Church and State any time soon? Or will his hypocritical attitude to religions other than his own strangle his proclamations?
While the BBC defers to one Tariq Ramadan on Islam, apostate Ibn Warraq criticises his stance:-
“Why the West is Best”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AAED13E2-A9C0-4682-831B-89C949F395B6
Seriously though, how much longer will it be safe to be an ‘infidel’ in the UK? If the Archbishop (the head of the Church of England) is saying this, surely it is a sign that politicians have caven in to Islamism as the future for the UK? Why otherwise would they be so accomodating (multiple benefits for extra wives?). It seems like they are covering their backs so when the full takeover is completely they can claim they were Islam ‘friendly’. I think its time to get the hell out of Britainistan as it can only get a lot worse…
They are debating this on 5 lite right now. Should be a laugh. Some guy who opposed it has already been called a “racist”
Aussie Bystander: “Without the establishment of a religion by the state, Williams would be the leader of a very small minority sect.”
Latest polling by Opinion Research Business found 50 per cent of respondents in England affiliating themselves to the Church of England when asked which religion, if any, they regarded themselves as belonging to. Sixty-nine per cent to the Christian faith. Six per cent said they were members of another faith.
I wonder what Archbishop Baldwin would have made of Williams’ comments? Baldwin became archbishop in 1184 and took part in the Third Crusade, dying a few weeks after the siege of Acre.
I’m about to start a campaign pushing for sanctuary and benefit of the clergy for Christians. Can I be assured of the BBC’s full support in this endeavour?
No? Didn’t think I could.
It’s all too much | 07.02.08 – 7:36 pm
I think that you have forgotten the nulab master card in the battle of demographies – there are 3/4 of a million ‘new Britons’ who are all young and of child bearing age and pretty much Catholic to a person. is this enough of a counterbalance?
No it’s not enough of a counterbalance. Don’t forget that the powers that be want Turkey to join the EU (population 70m) and also want 20 million from outside the EU to come to the EU. So that could be an extra 1-2 million Muslims coming to Britain which will offset the 3/4 of a million Catholic “new Britons” that you talk about.
Either way, there’s going to be lots of Catholics and Muslims with traditional values and lots of babies about in the future Britain. There will be less liberals about, liberals just don’t have enough children to pass their liberal values on to.
As WoAD says, Liberals are impotent in the face of demographic warfare. Liberals can’t defend themselves against demographic warfare because it would go against their liberal values, so they just have to “accept their fate” and roll over and die.
The powers that be in the EU – the French – certainly don’t want Turkey to join, though.
Nicky Campbell this morning was an embarrassment – he asked a sensible question about Sharia treatment of women in divorce cases, and then let the muslim bloke waffle and duck the question. Maybe “Wheel of Fortune” wasn’t quite the best preparation for serious broadcasting.
Nor have I heard anyone from the “host community” be invited to talk about how shamed and degraded many of us feel by the fact that the systematic abuse of muslim women seems now to be tolerated in this country – and that some people want to see it institutionalised. You’d think the Beeb might want to raise this, if only in the name of “diversity”.
Hugh:
“CATHOLICS have overtaken Anglicans as Britain’s most dominant religious group, reflecting great waves of migration from Catholic countries.
More people are now attending Mass every Sunday than are worshipping with the Church of England, confirming that the established church has lost its spot as the most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.
Leading figures warned on Saturday that the Church of England faced becoming a minority faith and that the findings should act as a wake-up call.
The figures show that attendance at the Church of England’s Sunday services has dropped by 20 per cent since 2000. A survey of 37,000 churches to be published in the new year shows that the average number of people going to Mass each Sunday last year stood at 861,000 compared with 852,000 Anglicans worshipping.”
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/more-catholics-than-anglicans-in-britain/2007/12/23/1198344884603.html
“In 2007, Tearfund published the following results of their comprehensive review of British Christian religion in 2006:
“One in four of the UK adult population say they go to church at least once a year. […] 59% never or practically never go to church.”
* 10% of the UK adult population go to church at least weekly.
* 15% attend church at least monthly.
* 26% attend church at least yearly.
* 59% never or practically never go to church. ”
Source: http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#ChurchAttendance
“Roman Catholics who attend mass outnumber Anglican worshippers but the gap between the two denominations appears to be closing, a study by the organisation Christian Research has found.
In 1979 when the organisation began calculating attendances figures for churches in England, 1,991,000 Catholics attended Sunday mass compared to 1,671,000 Anglicans. Almost two decades later in 1998 another census found the numbers stood at 1,230,100 compared to 980,600 respectively.
Estimates for worshippers in 2006, based on previous years’ figures, suggest 861,800 Catholics attended mass every Sunday, compared to 893,100 in 2005, while 852,500 Anglicans went to Sunday services last year down 18,100 on 2005. ”
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3089229.ece
I stand by my statement that without estabishment, the CofE would seen for what it is, a minority sect.
Martin,
I do not agree with your radical atheist posts, frankly I think they are garbage, but I am prepared to differ with you over that, they are after all opinion.
What I am amazed at is that in all your posts not one mention is made of BBC bias, surely the whole point of this blog.
The moderation of this blog has apparently gone to the dogs, what does one have to post in order to get moderated (deleted).
If something isn’t done soon this blog will go back to being unreadable.
Although the BBC is reluctant to discuss the growing Islamisation
of the EU, it looks as though France will fall in line with the ‘Eurabia’ model (see Bat Ye’or on ‘Eurabia’) of the European Union and accept Turkey into the EU. French diplomat, Le Roy:-
” the Mediterranean Union proposal” (of closer relations between France, Spain and Italy on the one hand, and the Muslim countries bordering the Med including Turkey, on the other) “would not compromise in any way the EU membership process of either Turkey or Croatia.”
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=95771
And, of course, Turkey, whose population is 95% Muslim, is moving increasingly in an Islamic direction:
” Turkey: Re-Islamization Proceeding According to Plan ”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/12628
Church attendance (if you want to measure affiliation that way) by Anglicans – of which I’m not one – stands at about the same as attendance at a Mosque by Muslims. Therefore I guess by your reckoning we shouldn’t be giving those that purport to speak for the Islamic faithful “any time at all on the airwaves”.
Sorry, the last was a response to Aussie Bystander.
This thread has nothing to do with BBC bias. All news outlets are blanketing us with this drivel.
This has become a reactionary thread regarding a subject that no one – including Williams – has researched one jot. Williams says that ASPECTS of sharia law, such as divorce cases, will be inevitable. BUT THEY ARE USED HERE ALREADY.
Muslim women can get “permission” from a sharia court to divorce her husband, and this stops the misogynists within her community from beating her up or even killing her. THEN she gets it ratified in British court. State and religion are both satisfied. The importance she gives one court over another is irrelevant as long as she abides by British law. It ALREADY HAPPENS, so there is no need for a change in law, AND WILLIAMS KNOWS THIS.
If we did change it, all religions would demand their own sub-clauses: African cults would be free to beat their kids who are possessed by demons, Christians would be free to oppress homosexuals, the list could go on. It won’t happen, and again, WILLIAMS KNOWS IT.
So why did he say it?
One reason springs to mind: to spread violent images of Muslims being nasty across the country. Any high profile figure mentions sharia law, and images of Mohammed the Teddy Bear and the jailed Saudi rape victim start springing back into the British consciousness. Even the BBC showed footage of amputees and public executions on the 10 last night.
With falling attendences (and therefore money) in the Church, surely one way to increase attendence (£££)is to galvanise lapsed Christians against a perceived enemy, unite patriotic Britons against the errosion of British values.
Maybe I’m a cynic, or maybe I’ve caught Lefty-itis or something, but Williams’ comments do not scare me. They sadden me.
Baggie
Have to agree with you there. It is getting a bit weird in here.
There is a little bias story contained in all this. The equivalence that the BBC is giving between Sharia courts and Beth Din.
Either Williams is not properly briefed on the role of Beth Din as an arbitration body and that there is nothing stopping Sharia courts from operating in a similar manner or he was suggesting a stronger role for them. Either way the uncritical contrast with Beth Din gives the impression that he is seeking equality rather than the replacement of civil courts which is the reading of most commentators.
BTW all muslims I know are horrified at the idea of Sharia courts in the UK.
but the BBC clearly finds sympathy with his view, as several posters here have demonstrated.
David Vance | 07.02.08 – 8:57 pm | #
In a word – rot.
Did you see Mark Easton’s piece on the News at Ten? Where sharia law was illustrated by:
* footage of a public flogging
* footage of someone with missing limbs as a result of amputation
* footage of a public execution.
However if you think articles like this one are damaging of the BBC rather than the reputation of this blog, please keep them coming.
Thanks, Sarah-Jane. Much more succinct than my rant.
It’s well known that the Beeb is a bit too politically-correct for most tastes, but I can’t see anything here suggesting they approve of this.
The debate [nationally] has turned into a scare-mongering exercise and is turning too far the other way. People are serously ANGRY about this, despite NO MUSLIMS saying sharia law should replace British law.
The debate, IMO, should be whether Williams can possibly be taken seriously after such ridiculous comments.