Archbishop of Canterbury: UK Sha’ria Law Inevitable
Sourced from the BBC News Online:
The Archbishop of Canterbury is considered to be the top religious official in the Church of England, second only to the Crown.
So, with the UK possessed of a growing population of Muslims, many of them from the poorer regions of the Islamosphere where radical theopolitics and the teachings of Jihad have deep root, one of its major Christian leaders is not using his “bully pulpit” to call Britons to repentance and to faith in Christ, but no, he wants to give the radical Muslims even more license to browbeat the Government into more and more far reaching concessions.
Archbishop Rowan Williams has stated that Sha’ria Law (Muslim jurisprudence base upon the Koran and the Hadiths or additional teachings by historic jurists such as Al-Bukhari) should be the law of the land for Muslims to settle conflicts and such between themselves, and that (British) Muslims do not necessarily relate to all the facets of the British legal system.
He further stated: “Muslims should not have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
This does not bode well: why should we have two laws, one for one people, and another law for another? What of disputes between Muslim and non-muslim?
Would British police forces have to hire specialists in Islamic law to properly enforce Sha’ria, or would Muslim “religious police” be deputized to enforce it?
Indeed, as Rush pointed out today on his radio show, our British cousins seem to be enamoured of an authoritarian governance where so-called elites can make drastic changes to the fabric of society without regard for the consequences.
While these issues may have a few years before they percolate to our shores… it will be a sad day if we need to hold up the Koran and Mohammed on equal plane or higher than our Constitution.
The pressure to allow Sha’ria in the US will happen probably sooner rather than later. This is a coordinated movement by Islamic radicals to weaken western democracies. They took a page from Chairman Mao and are using their religion to spread discord and weaken polity throughout the nations of their enemies. And they are truly our enemies.
Comment by sig94 — 8 February 2008 @ 10:26 pm
The CofE has been reliably stupid on every major matter, particularly Christianity, since the 1930’s, when its reps drooled over the Soviet Unions version of an earthly Heaven.
Didn’t the CofE take the position recently that seriously disabled newborns should be allowed to die unattended, without the act conflicting with Christian teachings?
Catholicism and Islam continue to grow in the Isles while the CofE remains an attenuated, historical farce, widely ignored and mocked for its leftism and fat, subsidized, stupdity.
Malcolm Muggeridge said it…that from his earliest years he was conscious of having been taught by idiots, governed by fools, and preached at by hypocrites.
I used to be an Anglophile, but I’m recovering.
Comment by Rhod — 10 February 2008 @ 8:20 pm
The American branch of the CofE (Anglican Communion) isn’t too far off the the coattails of its parent either, for that matter. In fact, they are responsible for in very large measure for the liberalizing influences in mainstream protestantism (especially in the USA) with its outspoken adherents like Bishop John Shelby Spong. He’s more or less come out and said that Christ is no longer the center of Christianity.
I hate to mix my comparisons wildly, but that would be like taking the football out of a football game and still attempt to play the game.
Comment by seekeronos — 11 February 2008 @ 6:03 am
Maybe you’ve read it, Seek. “Love in the Ruins - The Adventures of a Bad Catholic at a Time Near the End of the World” by Walker Percy.
Christianity drained of a Divinity figures very prominently. Very scary. Spong is obviously an idiot.
Comment by Rhod — 11 February 2008 @ 9:18 pm
As an ex-Catholic meself… I just might have to take a peek at it.
Comment by seekeronos — 13 February 2008 @ 12:06 am
There are no country in the world with two different types of law, if the Muslim asks to apply Islamic Shariaa, then the Indian should have their Shariaa, also Chinese, Jewish, other believers which means dividing the country into different laws and rules and not treating people equal.
Comment by sali Markos — 26 February 2008 @ 8:56 pm
In the end, Sali… it comes down to defining what the law of the land really is.
And then sticking to it.
In the USA, that law comes first from the Constitution, which is expanded by (and not overruled by) United States Codes and other federal codes, and these largely deal with the national law.
The many states making up the USA have their own constitutions or compacts which govern those states. According to the US Constitution, whatever rights and laws that are not specifically enumerated to the federal (national) government are left to the states.
In similar manner, the power and scope of the law devolves down to local governments, towns, cities, counties, etc.
But, one thing that sets us apart is a (US) Constitutional rule that forbids the establishment of national religion(s).
In other words, by law, we cannot have separate (or separate but equal) jurisdictions of religious law and civil law (such as you might encounter in Muslim nations that share civil law and Sharia law, or those which completely submerge civil law into Sharia).
You are right in this - if we do make the mistake of setting up different jurisdictions of laws for each of our different ethnic or religious groups which overrides the provisions of our civil law - it will create divisions.
And what comes of the jurisdiction of Sharia or Talmudic law when a Jew offends a Muslim, or vice versa?
Nations that make these sorts of allowances (such as what the Rt. Rev. Rowan Williams suggests) do so to their own eventual demise.
Comment by seekeronos — 28 February 2008 @ 7:08 pm