41 1 min 14 yrs

The recently appointed spokesman for Shar’ia Law in the United Kingdom, Anglican Primate Rowan Williams, is doomed and will lose his job sooner rather than later. Why? Because GORDON BROWN has rushed to his side, praising his "integrity"! Given that Brown is effectively King Midas in reverse, everything he touches turns to rust so if I were the Ayatollah I would be looking for vacancies somewhere more suitable – Somalia, possibly, maybe Iran. There is a concerted attempt of behalf of the liberal establishment to keep Williams in position – and in his case it is one of craven supplication to the ROP. He already opposes the war on terror – now he has become an enabler for the other side – time he went!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. It is Lent and the leader of the Anglican Church is engaged in a debate about Islamic issues. Has he ever checked the name above the door to his shop?

    Mullah Williams may have been just noodling with an academic idea, as he calims, but I doubt it. He has form in this area which presents a pattern that suggests he either a knave or a fool, either way he is unfit for the job.

    Strange how the BBC in its endless sympathetic backgrounders does not mention Willaims past outbursts, remember:

    In an interview in the Muslim magazine Emel, he said lambasted the USA as a violent imperialist and said that “Our modern Western defination of humanity is not working well” and that Western moderfnity eats away at the soul.” The Muslim world by contrast was to be praised for its devotions to prayer but that perhaps some islamic “Political solutions were not the most impressive.”

  2. Of course he is not without his defenders

    Britain’s leading Islamic scholar believes the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams’ comments on sharia law have been profoundly misunderstood.

    Mr Hasan, secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council, a panel of Britain’s top Islamic scholars who decide on hundreds of Muslim marriages and divorces each year, said Dr Williams was being wrongly vilified.

    "I have listened to his speech and I think people are so ignorant that they cannot understand what he was saying," said Mr Hasan, a Pakistan-born Muslim who studied jurisprudence in Saudi Arabia before coming to Britain 31 years ago.

    Mr Hasan said part of the problem was that few people realise how integrated elements of sharia already are among Britain’s1.8 million Muslims in and other European countries.

    He and a panel of seven to 10 Islamic scholars hear about 50 divorce cases a month at the Islamic Sharia Council, formed 25 years ago, sometimes settling disputes with couples as far afield as Ireland, Denmark, Holland and Germany.

    ,i>As well as divorces and the division of dowry when a marriage ends, the panel rules in disputes over inheritance, contractual disagreements between Muslim landlords and tenants and sometimes between employees and their employer.

  3. Meanwhile back in actually existing Shariaworld the BBC tell us that there is no sign of reciprocation.

    Saudis clamp down on Valentines

    Prices for black market roses are reported to be rising
    Religious police in Saudi Arabia are banning the sale of Valentine’s Day gifts including red roses, a local newspaper has reported.
    The Saudi Gazette quoted shop workers as saying that officials had warned them to remove all red items including flowers and wrapping paper.

    Black market prices for roses were already rising, the paper said.

    Saudi authorities consider Valentine’s Day, along with a host of other annual celebrations, as un-Islamic.

    In addition to the prohibition on celebrating non-Islamic festivals, the authorities consider Valentine’s Day as encouraging relations between men and women outside wedlock – punishable by law in the conservative kingdom.

  4. I don’t know about the reverse midas touch but I think he’ll have to go. Most likely off to a university somewhere.

    Remote spot I hope.

  5. The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his decision to speak on Sharia law, saying it was his duty to speak on behalf of other religions.

    How did he come to that conclusion? It’s faily obvious that he doesn’t even speak for his own.

  6. As the old saying goes: "The higher the ape (Primate) climbs the tree, the more you can see his bare behind".

    Not sure that’s relevant but it sure sounds good.

  7. Bernard,

    LOL @ the Primate.

    There’s certainly mileage in the theme. When we heard Williams’s statement most of us went ape-shit.

  8. "The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his decision to speak on Sharia law, saying it was his duty to speak on behalf of other religions".

    Figured as much! They all feel under attack from this government over various issues. If this is him reaching out to Islam it would not surprise me. Safety in numbers eh.

  9. I sometimes wonder if the Muslim world has any comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘love’? – that greatest of all emotions that characterises, and is one of the bases of modern western Christianity.

    Whenever they talk of ‘the family’, it is always in the context of duty and respect, nothing wrong with that of course, I am all for it, but shouldn’t it be coupled with other relational aspects, such as love, compassion and understanding, and much else that seems to be absent from their daily life.

    How can a parent, sibling or any other relative kill one of their own for some supposed slight on the family? – and that happens frequently enough to be significant. Where is the love? – is there an Islamic word for it? – I very much doubt it, and if there is it will most likely relate to a love, as of a possession, and not of a person.

    How can parents possibly arrange their children’s marriage without them knowing one another, other than by grace of a photographer. Isn’t marriage one of the most shining examples of one person’s love for another, and by definition an essential ingredient in family life? – and yet do we ever hear of love in the ROP? – if any mention is made they seem to keep it pretty quiet don’t they, or else it is dismissed as something decadent.

    Canterbury may well be trying to achieve some sort of social equilibrium with his little speech, but appeasement and concessions are not going to bridge the vast emotional and spiritual gap that exists between the two religions, that is assuming it is even a possibility.

    If, as he has said, he is speaking for the religious minority – and he says he was speaking for all religions as a minority of the population, – surely a sad enough indictment in itself, of his failed pastoral leadership!, – then isn’t he being very presumptuous in taking that task upon himself.

    His task is surely as leader of the Church of England, and not of some vague form of ecumenical council.

    He may well be ‘well intentioned’, but I think he may well have lost direction along the way, turning left all the time can do that for the best of them…

  10. Ernest: Some good questions, but I am reminded of the Mercahnt of Venice and Shylock’s "If you prick us do we not bleed" speech. Clearly there are some Muslims who are objectively devoid of humanity (the honor killings, or suicide bombings strike me as such). But there are many who are disturbed by this behavior and who cherish and love their families as we would.

    I think that it is more cultural, and by that I mean that parts of the Muslim world are presently behind in terms of civilized behavior, and until they come into the 21st Century (and it is not entered merely by immigrating), they are going to have problems.

  11. Druid Williams has obviously never heard that when in a hole, stop digging! LOL – but this one does entertain me as an establishment liberal gets skewered on his own blatant dhimminess. (Mind you, if he was in a land where Sharia was practised in ALL of its glory, he would probably just get skewered. (Allahu Akhbar)

  12. Couldn’t he just be replaced as Archbishop with another Rowan? Rowan Atkinson comes to mind, although having been born an Anglican he may be disqualified.

  13. Mahons,

    I think your selection of the Shylock speech as an example to illustrate how alike we and muslims are, is quite your best to-date.- tell me, was that humor intentional?…yes, it had to be. – good one!

  14. Ernest do you really feel muslims cannot love. Their weird customs and traditions hardly nullify the fact that muslim families must love one another.

    It’s not like you to make such a general statement.

  15. Mahons,

    "Rowan Atkinson comes to mind"

    I’ve done that one already! Robin Williams too, so go find your own primate jokes :0)

  16. Alas, poor Ernest! Actually, I offered the Shylock reference as an idea of another "alien" group once thought not to have the same capacity for humanity as Christians. I think you raised genuine points of wonder as to how anyone could support an honor killing, and the dubious nature of arranged marriages, but I wouldn’t portray all Muslims thus, and I presume you wouldn’t either.

    In other words, it wasn’t intended to be mocking or hysterical, just continuing the discussion.

  17. Rowan Atkinson

    Robin Williams

    Sheesh! The lengths a chap has to go to these days to protect his intellectual property :0(

  18. I do quite like the "broad church" aspect of Anglicanism. At the same time it’s quite nice to see that we can get riled up about somethings. (thinking about the outcry to this.

    As I said before I think he gas probably said something intended to be warm and fluffy but benn misquoted. If I was going to critisise him I would feel honour bound to read the link that Frank gave me first but a rough scan was enough to put me off.

    I have never quite understood the position that the AoC has in the Anglican Church. He somehow seems to be the leader of the world wide Anglican communion, but he isn’t the head of the CoE as the Queen is.

  19. Mahons,

    "And what does the real Dawkins say about you using his handle?"

    Who’s to say I am not he, down here slumming with the lumpen proletariat?


    Rowan wasn’t misquoted or quoted out of context. He really did say what he was reported as saying. It’s not the first time he’s put his foot in it. It may well be his last as Archbish of Cant.

  20. Mahons,
    I guess I did misinterpret your intent there, apologies! – but you have to admit it did seem a tad ironic, even cynical, to pick an example so diametrically opposite.

    Of course I don’t think all muslims are so unfeeling, but the intent of sharia law does seem to be one of domination rather than of compassionate association.

  21. Ernest -I would agree, which is why I think the eventual trend among Muslims will be to abandon most of it, much as we Christians stopped burning witches (lucky for Ann Coulter).

  22. Dawkins

    You could well be right, I’m too lazy to check it out. Maybe it’s his first step towards conversion ;o)

  23. Typhoo,

    I was more generalising on sharia, not so much on the general mass of muslims.

    Just what sort of perverted version of love allows vaginal circumcision, the murder of a daughter – not a son, just a daughter, for a supposed indiscretion bringing an imagined shame on ‘the family’.

    As I asked before – where is the love – is that anything you recognise? – do you put your religion, above your family?

  24. do you put your religion, above your family?

    No Ernest, I wouldn’t put anything above it. It’s a wierd belief alright.

  25. Ernest,

    This is what happens when chaps allow their morality to be dictated by a roll of ancient parchment found in the desert, rather than think for themselves.

  26. Dawkins,

    The problem is that the severity of the punishment has little to do with morality, it has more to do with the dominance of the Head of the family.

    You see they don’t seem to have the bond of love and affection to create a true – in the western sense, – family. They replace it with barbaric punishments to maintain their control.

    I am sure it makes sense to them, but to suggest that we have much in common with such thinking is totally delusional. – now we are back to the Arch!…

  27. Dawkins has reduced the primate’s name to Archbish of Cant, while Melanie Phillips has gone one further and refers to him the ABofC! Good one Mel.

    If you want to see a real demolition-job of the man and his ‘principles’ then have a read of her post over on the Spectator site:


    It’s a ripper.

  28. …mind you Ernest, the church of Rome extant, Cormac Murphy O’Connor, hardly comes off better.
    His garbled vapourings in support of RW almost leaves him in the same quagmire.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury may have shot himself in the head, but we now have the Archbishop of Westminster hastily re-loading to blow off his own left foot.

    Who have the Christians now, to speak for them?
    They’ve all bottled out.

    Anyone for Atheism?

  29. Bernard,

    As David once remarked; ‘You may destroy my religion, but you will never destroy my faith!’

    That seems to apply to organised religion everywhere.

  30. I love Pat Condell’s take on this, perhaps the best of all.

    I can’t quote him verbatim but it went something like this:

    "People are comparing him [Rowan] to Judas.

    "That’s a bit rough.

    "Well, I suppose Judas did betray Jesus."

    "But hey, the Christian Church has been betraying Jesus every day for the last two thousand years."

  31. I watched him on the BBC America last evening and the narrator of the story acted as if he was some sort of hero. Ye gads.

  32. Peter,

    Yep, that’s the one! There are something in the region of 30 Pat Condell monologues on YouTube, and every one a jewel.

    Although maybe not if you’re a fundie of any persuasion :0)

Comments are closed.